Motor Trend "long-term" Giulia Update

Status
Not open for further replies.
Things are run a little differently on a machine from a manufacturer focused on peak performance. The bi-annual brake fluid flush is to make sure that the boiling point is always on the higher end of the spectrum. There's a lot of Euro paranoia about brake system corrosion as well.

You'll find other things that are not so much about preventing failures, but maintaining performance.

So far so good on my GT (also FCA). Making me eye Alfa for my next batch of new cars.
 
Originally Posted by RamFan
Originally Posted by oil_film_movies


littlehulkster said:
It's probably going to be in the shop all the time anyway.


You're missing the point entirely. Alfa has notoriously been lacking in the reliability department. The Giulia and Stelvio have been proving otherwise. Yes, they haven't been in the market long, but with the exception of a few bad apples, ownership among drivers has been a great experience with these two vehicles.


Aren't these the same cars that were breaking down on press drives?

CR still has them rated as low as you can be in their ratings, and I'm not inclined to believe that Alfa can make a reliable car, or even one that's not hideously unreliable, until I see it.

Fans of cars will convince themselves of a lot of things, the numbers tell a different story.

Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
I'd wager the plugs are copper, which performs a little better but doesn't last nearly as long. For a regular car, no one wants to change plugs all the time, but I suppose for a performance car like the Giulia, Fiat figures people won't mind.

It's probably going to be in the shop all the time anyway.

I had 1999 Lancia Lybra 2.4 JTD, and in 425k km never seen anything except regular maintenance.
Had 1996 Alfa Romeo 146 1.6 Boxer, and in some 250k km same thing, just regular maintenance.


The Ship of Theseus had "regular maintenence", too.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
I guess it needs a little heat on the Oil Level Sensor to get an accurate reading, no dipstick here after all. No dry sump either.


Actually, the N12 Prince motor in my Mini has a dipstick. The oil level sensor only serves to illuminate a warning light when the sump is a quart low.
 
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
Originally Posted by RamFan
Originally Posted by oil_film_movies


It's probably going to be in the shop all the time anyway.


You're missing the point entirely. Alfa has notoriously been lacking in the reliability department. The Giulia and Stelvio have been proving otherwise. Yes, they haven't been in the market long, but with the exception of a few bad apples, ownership among drivers has been a great experience with these two vehicles.


Aren't these the same cars that were breaking down on press drives?

CR still has them rated as low as you can be in their ratings, and I'm not inclined to believe that Alfa can make a reliable car, or even one that's not hideously unreliable, until I see it.

Fans of cars will convince themselves of a lot of things, the numbers tell a different story.

[The Ship of Theseus had "regular maintenence", too.



I'd say many if not most folks who choose Alfa's or other niche brands go into their purchases with their eyes open, knowing that they will not, cannot, be as reliable as some mass produced Toyota or Honda appliance (nothing wrong w/ either choice). No 'convincing'. Going by my circles, most do their research and are making their choices with the resultant information. For me it is Range Rover....CR reliability ratings and all, but I choose to drive them and accept the ownership experiences good and bad (actually haven't been bad at all).

Of course, there will be some who buy cute little or fashionable cars on impulse, thereby allowing a few enthusiasts to find nice low mileage examples at dealers after they are traded in.....
 
Last edited:
My thing is that this "experience" is entirely nebulous and largely whatever you convince yourself it is.

For example,there's really nothing a Land Rover can objectively offer that a Land Cruiser can't, except the "experience" of constantly having to fix your broken down Leyland.
 
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
My thing is that this "experience" is entirely nebulous and largely whatever you convince yourself it is.

For example,there's really nothing a Land Rover can objectively offer that a Land Cruiser can't, except the "experience" of constantly having to fix your broken down Leyland.



Old Rovers or new? Since Leyland ceased existence ~20 years ago I'll assume old....I get to experience dissimilar metal corrosion (AL body) vs. plain old rust....
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by wings&wheels

I'd say many if not most folks who choose Alfa's or other niche brands go into their purchases with their eyes open, knowing that they will not, cannot, be as reliable as some mass produced Toyota or Honda appliance (nothing wrong w/ either choice). No 'convincing'. Going by my circles, most do their research and are making their choices with the resultant information. For me it is Range Rover....CR reliability ratings and all, but I choose to drive them and accept the ownership experiences good and bad (actually haven't been bad at all).

Of course, there will be some who buy cute little or fashionable cars on impulse, thereby allowing a few enthusiasts to find nice low mileage examples at dealers after they are traded in.....


That's my philosophy as well; it's a balancing test- the enjoyment I derive from the cars I own vastly outweighs any additional operating expenses I might incur. As for Alfa, I have friends who have had bad as well as excellent experiences with Giulias and Stelvios- but having never actually owned one I'm not about to make some ignorant snide comment about the marque.
And I suspect those that do so are primarily motivated by a bitter "sour grapes" attitude.
 
Originally Posted by wings&wheels
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
My thing is that this "experience" is entirely nebulous and largely whatever you convince yourself it is.

For example,there's really nothing a Land Rover can objectively offer that a Land Cruiser can't, except the "experience" of constantly having to fix your broken down Leyland.



Old Rovers or new? Since Leyland ceased existence ~20 years ago I'll assume old....I get to experience dissimilar metal corrosion (AL body) vs. plain old rust....




The newer ones are even worse, at least the old ones were simple, so you could fix them on the side of the road when they broke. The new models, larded up with every techno gizmo in existence, are likely going to require frequent towing to the dealership.

There's a reason why these companies have gone broke so many times, you know. When Lada can build a better Land Rover than Land Rover can, you're really in trouble.

Originally Posted by MCompact
Originally Posted by wings&wheels

I'd say many if not most folks who choose Alfa's or other niche brands go into their purchases with their eyes open, knowing that they will not, cannot, be as reliable as some mass produced Toyota or Honda appliance (nothing wrong w/ either choice). No 'convincing'. Going by my circles, most do their research and are making their choices with the resultant information. For me it is Range Rover....CR reliability ratings and all, but I choose to drive them and accept the ownership experiences good and bad (actually haven't been bad at all).

Of course, there will be some who buy cute little or fashionable cars on impulse, thereby allowing a few enthusiasts to find nice low mileage examples at dealers after they are traded in.....


That's my philosophy as well; it's a balancing test- the enjoyment I derive from the cars I own vastly outweighs any additional operating expenses I might incur. As for Alfa, I have friends who have had bad as well as excellent experiences with Giulias and Stelvios- but having never actually owned one I'm not about to make some ignorant snide comment about the marque.
And I suspect those that do so are primarily motivated by a bitter "sour grapes" attitude.


That's fine, it's your money after all. If you're willing to deal with a junk car because it amuses you, that's on you. It's just that the junk part is objective, while the amusement is entirely subjective.
 
Last edited:
"My thing is that this "experience" is entirely nebulous and largely whatever you convince yourself it is."

I will change a couple of words to put this back to you.


My thing is that "your opinion" is entirely nebulous and largely whatever you convince yourself it is.



There.
 
Originally Posted by littlehulkster

That's fine, it's your money after all. If you're willing to deal with a junk car because it amuses you, that's on you. It's just that the junk part is objective, while the amusement is entirely subjective.


You nailed it- I'm amused by "junk" cars.
Thanks for illustrating my point.
Once again I'm reminded of a comment BITOG member Win made a while back:

"Asking for information, on a forum full of low rent penalty box drivers, about ... any medium cost European car for that matter, will be less useful than slamming your hand in a car door."
 
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
Originally Posted by wings&wheels
littlehulkster said:
Old Rovers or new? Since Leyland ceased existence ~20 years ago I'll assume old....I get to experience dissimilar metal corrosion (AL body) vs. plain old rust....




The newer ones are even worse, at least the old ones were simple, so you could fix them on the side of the road when they broke. The new models, larded up with every techno gizmo in existence, are likely going to require frequent towing to the dealership.

There's a reason why these companies have gone broke so many times, you know. When Lada can build a better Land Rover than Land Rover can, you're really in trouble.

.



Actually, up through the last ~250K miles in three new Rovers since 2011, the last time I had to have a DD towed was my ML320 in 2003. That vehicle was truly junk and, due to it and MB USA's response, I have never bought another MB nor do I plan to.

The new LR line, since ~2010 or so, is miles ahead of what they were in the period from the mid 90's until then. Have they been perfect? No, but no worse then the Jeeps or GM SUV I had before them....better then the Jeeps actually. Much as I liked them though, I would not go near one until they got better....knowing what I was buying and making an informed choice.

Just curious as to which ones you have experience with and what problems?

And in disclosure...I'm also amused by "junk" cars (just look at my sig)….
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by wings&wheels

And in disclosure...I'm also amused by "junk" cars (just look at my sig)….


Haven't you heard? We should all be driving soul-slaughtering anodyne appliances. And I suppose I should pass the word to my assistant prosecutor; he has an E46 330iC and a 718 Cayman S.
 
Originally Posted by MCompact
Originally Posted by wings&wheels

And in disclosure...I'm also amused by "junk" cars (just look at my sig)….


Haven't you heard? We should all be driving soul-slaughtering anodyne appliances. And I suppose I should pass the word to my assistant prosecutor; he has an E46 330iC and a 718 Cayman S.


Ahh yes, the good old intangibles argument, the go to for German car fanboys who realize that they have no argument in tangibles.

It's ok, you can admit you paid more for a badge you think will impress people.

Originally Posted by wings&wheels
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
Originally Posted by wings&wheels
littlehulkster said:
Old Rovers or new? Since Leyland ceased existence ~20 years ago I'll assume old....I get to experience dissimilar metal corrosion (AL body) vs. plain old rust....




The newer ones are even worse, at least the old ones were simple, so you could fix them on the side of the road when they broke. The new models, larded up with every techno gizmo in existence, are likely going to require frequent towing to the dealership.

There's a reason why these companies have gone broke so many times, you know. When Lada can build a better Land Rover than Land Rover can, you're really in trouble.

.



Actually, up through the last ~250K miles in three new Rovers since 2011, the last time I had to have a DD towed was my ML320 in 2003. That vehicle was truly junk and, due to it and MB USA's response, I have never bought another MB nor do I plan to.

The new LR line, since ~2010 or so, is miles ahead of what they were in the period from the mid 90's until then. Have they been perfect? No, but no worse then the Jeeps or GM SUV I had before them....better then the Jeeps actually. Much as I liked them though, I would not go near one until they got better....knowing what I was buying and making an informed choice.

Just curious as to which ones you have experience with and what problems?

And in disclosure...I'm also amused by "junk" cars (just look at my sig)….


Being better than Chrysler is not a high bar to jump, especially after the Italian takeover.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by littlehulkster

Ahh yes, the good old intangibles argument, the go to for German car fanboys who realize that they have no argument in tangibles.

It's ok, you can admit you paid more for a badge you think will impress people.


Do you mean "intangibles" like running the 1/4 mile in under 13 seconds yet averaging 26 mpg?
Or perhaps you are referring to the ability to serve as my HPDE instructor car while still being comfortable enough to use as a daily driver?
Maybe it's the "intangible" of being named an Automobile Magazine All Star as well as winning a spot on Car and Driver's 10 Best List?

Keep telling yourself it's all about the badge if it helps you sleep at night; meanwhile I'll be enjoying all those "intangibles."
 
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
MCompact said:
wings&wheels said:
Being better than Chrysler is not a high bar to jump, especially after the Italian takeover.



Actually, they were Daimler and Cerebus era Grand Cherokees, but same point.

What were your Rover problems? Curious about any majors...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by MCompact
Originally Posted by littlehulkster

Ahh yes, the good old intangibles argument, the go to for German car fanboys who realize that they have no argument in tangibles.

It's ok, you can admit you paid more for a badge you think will impress people.


Do you mean "intangibles" like running the 1/4 mile in under 13 seconds yet averaging 26 mpg?
Or perhaps you are referring to the ability to serve as my HPDE instructor car while still being comfortable enough to use as a daily driver?
Maybe it's the "intangible" of being named an Automobile Magazine All Star as well as winning a spot on Car and Driver's 10 Best List?

Keep telling yourself it's all about the badge if it helps you sleep at night; meanwhile I'll be enjoying all those "intangibles."



There are lots of cars that can do all that, though.

Many of them, in fact, can do it while costing less both to buy and own and being considerably more reliable than a BMW.
 
Originally Posted by littlehulkster

There are lots of cars that can do all that, though.

Many of them, in fact, can do it while costing less both to buy and own and being considerably more reliable than a BMW.


crackmeup2.gif


Actually, Before I bought my CPO M235i I also considered a Camaro SS 1LE, a Challenger SRT8, a 2013 Boss 302, a 2016 Mustang GT Premium w/Performance Package, a Lotus Elise, a 370Z NISMO, a Cayman S, and a WRX STI, so I didn't confine myself to the Bavarian market segment.
If I was buying a new car today it would almost certainly be either a GT350 or an M2 Competition with three pedals; If I wanted another automatic I'd likely go with a fully optioned M240i with sunroof delete.
Leasing? Maybe a Giulia TI, even though it isn't as quick as I'd prefer.
 
Originally Posted by wings&wheels

What were your Rover problems? Curious about any majors...


I'm guessing that the closest he's come to driving an Alfa, a BMW, or a Land Rover is by "read testing" them.
 
Originally Posted by PimTac
Do you really need to go there?


Someone made fun of boring yet reliable appliance vehicles. So apparently yes, we have to go after the Germans.

Kind of hard to be unreliable when most of the "reliable" rated vehicles are pretty understressed and not meant to invoke any sort of excitement at all. Unless your idea of "excitement" is using 1/3 throttle for 5 seconds.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Skippy722

Someone made fun of boring yet reliable appliance vehicles. So apparently yes, we have to go after the Germans.


It actually started here, when BITOG's latest read tester referred to entertaining European cars as junk. Be that as it may, at least he's now displayed his true colors...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top