[GoingTooFast]

Originally Posted by ozinaldo

Thanks, I don't doubt the base 4C's capabilities at all; in fact I have a thread in 1M section where I "promote" it as the most probable and deserving future replacement for my 1M, over many other cars including M2 or new Cayman. I am dying to read first reviews of this car.

ozinaldo,

Since you are a fan of the Alfa 4C and you obviously know spanish can you please tell the forum what Marc Gené is saying about the dynamic characteristics of the Alfa Romeo 4C in the above vid? After all, a professional driver's opinion - Marc Gené is a motor racing driver who won the 2009 24 Hours of Le Mans with Peugeot's Le Mans team and presently drives for Audi Sport Team Joest in the FIA World Endurance Championship - is in principle more impartial than the one from a professional reviewer.

[ozinaldo]

Originally Posted by GoingTooFast

ozinaldo,

Since you are a fan of the Alfa 4C and you obviously know spanish can you please tell the forum what Marc Gené is saying about the dynamic characteristics of the Alfa Romeo 4C in the above vid? After all, a professional driver's opinion - Marc Gené is a motor racing driver who won the 2009 24 Hours of Le Mans with Peugeot's Le Mans team and presently drives for Audi Sport Team Joest in the FIA World Endurance Championship - is in principle more impartial than the one from a professional reviewer.

Hi, first a clarification: I am not a native Spanish speaker, I just live in Santiago, an ex-pat and my Spanish skills are far from perfect.

Having said that, I think I understood everything he was talking in this last video interview. Sorry, I won't give a full translation of it but in fact that is also not needed since he talks on other subjects after the first minute or two, not on 4C. About the 4C his comments focuses on the low weight (you are gonna like it!) that as race car drivers they appreciate a lot a low weight as a key component for a great handling car. He asseses the 4C as a race car for the road; he tells that not only you can sense very low weight but also small size, shortness, wideness and low riding nature of the car is very apparent together with a good weight distribution. In fact, it looks like there is nothing he can tell negative about the car, he even talks very highly of the design, he calls the design as typical Italian and beautiful.

That's basically about it. Though anyone with better Spanish skills and more time to decode every single word may pop in and tell such a worthless job I just did!

Hope this helps.

By the way, I am a fan of the idea of 4C and very curious to hear that if it will drive as good as I hope it will, but you have to note that I am also a huge fan of the 1M, relatively heavy it may be and has its flaws but really nothing important enough to distract you from wanting to drive all the time and feel good about it; it is just a special car and always hits a bigger punch than its weight, advertised power, borrowed parts or price suggests. I am grateful for passionate people in the M Division that they gave use such a fun package and a one-off modern classic, a la old school M cars, and all this despite half-hearted bean counters' discouragement.

In the end, I would like to hear from respectable reviewers that 4C will not be just efficient and performant but also great fun, as it should. If it beats the 1M in that department or gets even, then it probably is my next car.

[GoingTooFast]

Originally Posted by ozinaldo

Having said that, I think I understood everything he was talking in this last video interview. Sorry, I won't give a full translation of it but in fact that is also not needed since he talks on other subjects after the first minute or two, not on 4C. About the 4C his comments focuses on the low weight (you are gonna like it!) that as race car drivers they appreciate a lot a low weight as a key component for a great handling car. He asseses the 4C as a race car for the road; he tells that not only you can sense very low weight but also small size, shortness, wideness and low riding nature of the car is very apparent together with a good weight distribution. In fact, it looks like there is nothing he can tell negative about the car, he even talks very highly of the design, he calls the design as typical Italian and beautiful.

Your translation is just fine. Thank you very much for making it clear to the forum. I guess I have a race car driver spirit then... not so sure about the skills, though!

Originally Posted by ozinaldo

In the end, I would like to hear from respectable reviewers that 4C will not be just efficient and performant but also great fun, as it should. If it beats the 1M in that department or gets even, then it probably is my next car.

4C and 1M are two acronyms with totally different meanings.

The question is whether you bought the 1M because it was the lightest M car available or because of it's performance, or yet a combination of the two.

Because, you see, in the FUN department you can find other propositions that are either lighter on their feet, such as the Toyobaru, or that carry bigger performance numbers, such as the Mercedes C63 AMG, but both of which can definitely be true drift 'monsters' in their own way.

If it's a combination of the two then there's the ultra lightweight and even faster Alfa 4C... except that this time there's NO drift 'king' if that is your whole idea of FUN.

So, you have to know what you want... a ''race car for the road'' OR a 'drift monster' for the track.

[GoingTooFast]

Another reason why I think BMW's future M2 shouldn't enter the engine's higher specific output contest with Mercedes and their AMG baby-twins it's because much probably a third player, Honda, will win that contest hands down with a 1.6-liter turbocharged 300hp Type-R - as the highest four-cylinder engine's specific output for a production car title has always been a hallmark of Honda and their expertise:

Also, I can't expect positive things from BMW for the future M2, aesthetically speaking, if their whole idea of design evolution is this M4 ( I really miss Bangle now):

[ozinaldo]

I am not too hopeful about the next M2 either for a variety of reasons but let's wait and see that one. Agree that I am not overly excited with this last concept of the M4 too. After seeing the M Performance parts catalogue for the regular 4 coupe this M4 concept is too predictable but important is how it will drive vs. regular models of course.

Honda Type R may hit hard if Honda decides not to go shy with the specs of that car. And then there is the real rival of the 4C; Renault's revival of Alpine brand as a joint project with Caterham. In fact, I don't even know why that car is not under your radar since it seems to have same qualities of the 4C but still a bit far away. Here is a good video about it, there are others in you tube:

[wilco]

Originally Posted by GoingTooFast

Using the above formula we can set the Alfa Romeo 4C as the benchmark:

• Alfa Romeo 4C -> 4.5 x 6.8 + (2.0 x 1020/100) =51.0

If someone find another car with such low value I would be more than happy to know about it.


Just for comparison let's see the values for the 981 Cayman S PDK and the present three best diesel offerings from BMW:

• Cayman S PDK -> 4.7 x 8.0 + (2.0 x 1425/100) = 66.1
  (w/ Sport Chrono)
  
• BMW 335d xDrive -> 4.8 x 5.4 + (2.0 x 1705/100) = 60.02
  (Automatic)
  
• BMW 330d -> 5.6 x 4.9 + (2.0 x 1615/100) = 59.74
  (Automatic)
  
• BMW 125d -> 6.3 x 4.7 + (2.0 x 1485/100) = 59.31
  (Automatic)

As you can see the Cayman S PDK is not very fuel-efficient, is in the red-zone, and the best diesel option from BMW at the moment is the 125d, with 218 hp from a bi-turbo 2.0-liter engine and 1485 kg (EU) weight (pictures below), but still far from the benchmark - the Alfa 4C! That's the reason why I say we need a 2.0-liter tri-turbo diesel engined M2(d)...

I can beat that with ease.

3.9 x 2.0 + (2.0 x1235/100) = 32.5

Even the old Lotus Elise gets close at 52.6. Its hardly a game changer the Alfa.

[Red Bread]

Oh no, Mr Tweedy, you can now expect six pages of retort, videos, unrelated cars and a few mentions of Kobayashi.

[GoingTooFast]

Originally Posted by ozinaldo

After seeing the M Performance parts catalogue for the regular 4 coupe this M4 concept is too predictable but important is how it will drive vs. regular models of course.

I don't agree that the car looks are not important... in fact, that's the main reason why Mercedes is selling so well right now. Clearly, Mercedes is a step ahead in this regard also.

Starting with the new 1-series headlights and now with this M4, I think BMW is clearly in the wrong path from a design perspective.

Originally Posted by ozinaldo

Honda Type R may hit hard if Honda decides not to go shy with the specs of that car. And then there is the real rival of the 4C; Renault's revival of Alpine brand as a joint project with Caterham. In fact, I don't even know why that car is not under your radar since it seems to have same qualities of the 4C but still a bit far away.

The WTCC Honda Civic race car is said to be providing inspiration for the Type-R which is aimed to beat the record for a FWD car currently held by the 265bhp Renault Mégane RS Trophy driven by company driver Laurent Hurgon, who lapped the Nordschleife in 8 minutes and 7.97 seconds.

As for the Alpine, the project is on hold waiting to see if the Alfa Romeo 4C really succeeds.

Then there's the Alfa 4C looks...

[GoingTooFast]

Originally Posted by wilco

I can beat that with ease.

3.9 x 2.0 + (2.0 x1235/100) = 32.5

Even the old Lotus Elise gets close at 52.6. Its hardly a game changer the Alfa.

If you are referring to Caterham yes, sure, obviously... but, as it is the case with Lotus, you have a serious deficit of practicality for a car intended to be a DD.

So, I'm sorry but you have to try again... you see, when the weight is already so low the difference in going from 52.6 to 51.0 is HUGE!!!

Just out of curiosity, can you tell us what car is that you are referring to with an announced average fuel consumption of only 2.0 l/100km?

[ozinaldo]

Originally Posted by GoingTooFast

How did this miracle happen, since the M4 has 80hp more from basically the same engine than the 1M and the same weight?!

Where does this much improved fuel-efficiency rate come from?!

Hummm... is there any electric motor hidden somewhere?!

For a starter, 1M does not have 340 ps neither 500 nm. Average stock 1M dyno numbers (and there are plenty) are around 360 ps and 550 nm and I am talking safe and conservative here. So, advertised M4 numbers are around 60 hp more with similar torque of the 1M's N54T. Of course, M4 may be underrated too like most turbo BMW engines but for some reason I have a sensation that it might not be as underrated as the 1M and the difference (essentially in hp) is basically what you can easily get from a simple stage 1 tune (with greater torque numbers also as a bonus).

It is really interesting that not only the air curtain and side crease design repeats here but also engine capacity, exact weight etc. are the same of 1M, on a new chassis and body (which I would not call as breathtaking, even in this concept form). We always knew that 1M was merely a "project", a real life experiment to test the waters for the next M cars, especially for this next M3 but seeing all these really happening now just makes me believe that this coming M3/M4 is more of a successor of the 1M then the E92 M3. I know this interpretation may make a lot of people disappointed, angry etc. but in fact who knows the 1M and previous M cars knows that if this M3 is essentially a "newer and better 1M", I have zero doubt that it will also be the best M3 ever, so other than stratosphere rpm freaks that can't get pleasure from anything less than 8000 rpm, no one needs to get worried! Got to wait and see how it is going to perform and more importantly how it will "feel".

And I stopped believing BMW's (or any other manufacturer's) efficiency and consumption figures long time ago. They mean the least among all published data.

[Moegviralles]

Why are there endless non Alfa 4C posts on here?

Surely stick to the topic of the thread..

So much non Alfa stuff being posted that I hardly even bother to read this anymore..

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by Moegviralles

Why are there endless non Alfa 4C posts on here?

Surely stick to the topic of the thread..

So much non Alfa stuff being posted that I hardly even bother to read this anymore..

Because it is gtf's little sandbox and basically the only one in it.
Maybe 97.44% of all posts are his?
Not counting the talking to himself posts.

****crickets ****

[GoingTooFast]

Originally Posted by Moegviralles

Why are there endless non Alfa 4C posts on here?

Surely stick to the topic of the thread..

So much non Alfa stuff being posted that I hardly even bother to read this anymore..

Perreby,

Because presently every other car must be judged against the Alfa Romeo 4C... is that good!!!

[GoingTooFast]

Perreby,

This is for you to use as your device's wallpaper...

[Moegviralles]

Originally Posted by GoingTooFast

Perreby,

This is for you to use as your device's wallpaper...

Faaaak me this is hot

Press day is end of September at Ballocco so we will get a raft of initial impressions and reviews then.

[GoingTooFast]

So easy to get in the Alfa 4C...

[GoingTooFast]

Oh boy... this is really a bad fuel-efficiency rate (remember, the benchmark is 51.0). However, if we look at the 1M fuel-efficiency rate there's a BIG improvement!!!

• BMW M4 -> 4.4 x 9.5 + (2.0 x 1570/100) = 73.2

EU weight = 1495 + 75 = 1570 kg


it weighs the same, is significantly faster and has marginally lower fuel consumption.

• BMW 1M -> 4.9x 9.6 + (2.0 x 1570/100) = 78.44

[GoingTooFast]

How did this miracle happen, since the M4 has 80hp more from basically the same engine than the 1M and the same weight?!

Where does this much improved fuel-efficiency rate come from?!

Hummm... is there any electric motor hidden somewhere?!

[GoingTooFast]

Originally Posted by ozinaldo

And I stopped believing BMW's (or any other manufacturer's) efficiency and consumption figures long time ago. They mean the least among all published data.

That holds true for any car brand. That's the beauty of the 'magical' formula... because it factors in the performance (0-62 mph acceleration time) and the car weight (EU weight), both of which are true measures of what you can expect in terms of real world average fuel consumption.

You can't, under any circumstance, take dyno numbers as absolute values. Dyno numbers are only useful, provided you can assure the exact same test conditions between different runs, to assess RELATIVE changes in the performance of the SAME engine (modded, or whatever) in the SAME car.

I stopped believing in dyno numbers long time ago...

That being said, there's definitely something wrong with those M4 specs... the 'magical' formula doesn't lie! Maybe BMW M is really preparing something new... electric power anyone?!

[gonzo]

Did you just quote yourself...

[NoMore335]

Looks like an Elise & Porsche got put together. I'll take an Elise or Exige instead.

[gonzo]

^
Now you will get three days worth of massive cut-paste rants as to why that is the worst thought on earth.