[GoingTooFast]

EVO's review of the Alfa 4C facts:

1. Their conclusions were taken without them testing the car on a track
2. They claim they are very rigorous when it comes to evaluate car dynamics
3. Their opinion about the car handling on the track is completely second-hand

Question: How rigorous and honest can a car review like this be without a track test or a familiar backroad?!

The 4C launch is centred upon Alfa Romeo’s Balocco test facility. Unfortunately the demands of shooting a cover story mean we have no time to drive on the test track, but a passenger ride the previous night was a vivid demonstration of the 4C’s outright cornering, braking and acceleration.

However, this is evo, where the thrill of driving is our central tenet. We appreciate styling, understand the value of technology and acknowledge outright performance, but to us it’s feel and how a car makes us feel that’s key.

The frustrating thing is it doesn’t feel like it would take much to add some spice to the handling and a pinch of feel to the steering.

[GoingTooFast]

In fact, you don't need a track to test and feel the interior's plastics quality... they don't need to be pushed to the limit, do they?!

Open the door and you’re confronted by a chunky sill that reveals the fat carbon weave of the composite tub. It’s an easier car to climb into than an Exige (or an Elise with the roof fitted), but you still need to be relatively limber to twist and lower yourself in. The interior strikes a fine balance between style and simplicity; there’s a lot of plastic, but careful texturing ensures it isn’t offensive and the honesty of it suits the stripped-back nature of the car. It’s more plush than a Lotus, with greater concessions made to trimming the interior and creating a more welcoming, less hardcore cockpit environment. The seats look good and offer decent lateral support, but they are slightly too upright for my liking, something I’ll be reminded of the morning after this test by a twinge in my lower back.

[M3_WC]

Just read Evo's full review. They basically tore the 4C apart. Love the part about no steering feel and poor handling characteristics.

Sorry GTF, but your little car is not living up your hype.

You made me hate this car.

[IEDEI]

Originally Posted by M3_WC

Just read Evo's full review. They basically tore the 4C apart. Love the part about no steering feel and poor handling characteristics.

Sorry GTF, but your little car is not living up your hype.

You made me hate this car.

uhh...this one? the one where they gave it 4.5 out of 5?

http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evoc...and_specs.html

[M3_WC]

Originally Posted by IEDEI

uhh...this one? the one where they gave it 4.5 out of 5?

http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evoc...and_specs.html

Nope.

New full review in current magazine from Oct 9. Link to it from 4C forum. http://4c-forums.com/18-alfa-romeo-4...ne-review.html

[GoingTooFast]

Originally Posted by M3_WC

Just read Evo's full review. They basically tore the 4C apart. Love the part about no steering feel and poor handling characteristics.

Just three quick facts:

1. You are wrong
2. They liked the interior plastics quality
3. Either you trust them about the the interior plastics quality or you trust them about the Alfa 4C's handling characteristics, even though they didn't take it to the limit on a test track and are merely basing their opinion in this particular point on a track ride as a passanger.

Originally Posted by M3_WC

The fact that the interior is rudimentary can be overlooked. It is the FACT the plastics are complete sh*t.

What's it gonna be?!



PS: I already provide the link to EVO's review in my post.

[GoingTooFast]

As for the EVO'S conclusions in both reviews:

The 4C is more racecar-like than a Cayman in its focus on grip, stability and neutrality. Frustratingly that doesn’t quite translate into on-road dynamics that are as engaging or entertaining as they could be given a little more connection and freedom of expression.

Beautiful looks, well balanced. Could be more extrovert to drive

The way the test driver threw the car into corners provided evidence of its balance and lack of mid-corner, throttle-off malice, but never once did he get the 4C out of shape. Oversteer is far from the be all and end all – especially in a lightweight, mid-engined sports car – but it’s highly unusual for an Italian chassis engineer not to slide a car around given both the opportunity to do so and a captive journalist to impress.

Fortunately, we can see it and see it on the track rather than just read about what a ride on the passenger seat with some unknown test driver at the wheel feels like and then trust it... one image is still worth a thousand words, it's a fact:

[GoingTooFast]

English subtitles... 0-100 km/h and 0-200 km/h measured times:

[GoingTooFast]

[GoingTooFast]

The Clarkson review: Alfa Romeo 4C

My coffee machine is a complete and utter pain in the backside. It’s a wall-mounted Gaggia and I cannot recall a single occasion when, after pushing the button, I have taken delivery of a cup of actual coffee.

It always wants water, and after you’ve filled up its bowl, it says: “Empty trays.” So you empty them, and then it says they aren’t emptied properly. So you empty them again and then again, and then you scrub them until they shine like a furnace worker’s face. And then you put them back and it says: “Trays missing.” So you put them in again more firmly, several times, until it says: “Empty trays.”

Eventually, of course, you resort to extreme brute force, whereupon it becomes Italian and changes tack. “Add beans,” it says. So you open another tin of £900 Illy coffee beans and, being careful not to upset the trays in any way, you pour them into — as I write, I can hear it doing things in the kitchen, but I don’t know what — the bean drawer. And then it says: “Clean unit.” So you have to go against every male instinct and find the instruction book, which tells you to hold clamp A while squeezing nozzle B for about a couple of hours, and then when you put it all back together it says it wants decalcifying.

Usually I don’t get my morning coffee until it’s time for afternoon tea. But, of course, it’s worth persevering, because when the moment finally arrives the result tastes a whole lot nicer than the instant alternative.

It’s the same story with your choice of pet. A dog requires almost constant attention. It raids your bin, gets the bones it’s nicked stuck in its throat, bites the postman, eats the milk lady, poos on the carpet, wants a walk when it’s raining, barks in the night for no reason and gets ill on Christmas Day, when the vet is too drunk to come over. But despite all this it’s so much more satisfying than a feed-and-forget cat.

Which naturally brings me on to Alfa Romeo, an experience that’s subtly different. I had one once, a GTV6, and it was like a coffee machine — that had been designed by a dog. At night it would let all the air escape from its tyres, its clutch would weld itself to the flywheel and once it dropped its gear linkage onto the prop shaft, causing an extremely loud noise to happen, followed by the rear wheels locking up. It was a constant nightmare.

But here’s the thing: even when it was a sunny day, and it wasn’t being premenstrual, it was a pretty horrible car to drive. The steering was too heavy, the driving position was tailored for an ape, second gear was impossible to find and it handled as though it was running on heroin.

It’s not alone, either. At present, the Giulietta is ho-hum and the MiTo is ghastly. And if we plunge into the pages of recent history, we find the 8C, which wasn’t quite as good as it looked, and the SZ, which was the other way round. But only because it looked as if it had been designed by a madman. The 33, the 75, the 156, the 159 and the 164? There’s not a great car there. Just many puddles of oil on your garage floor.

And yet Alfa Romeo is still my favourite car maker. I still believe you can’t really call yourself a petrolhead until you’ve owned one. So why is this?

It’s no good going back to the Sixties and saying: “It’s because of the GTA.” Yes, it was fabulous, but it was one car in a torrent of rubbish. Judging Alfa on this one achievement would be the same as ignoring all of Mussolini’s crimes simply because he once bought his mother some flowers.

I’ve had a good, long think and reckon that in all its history Alfa has made only four or five really good cars. Memorable cars. And that in the past 30 years it hasn’t made one.

Yet the love remains and I think it’s because we all sort of know what Alfa could and should be making. We have in our minds a mini Ferrari. A supercar on a shoestring. Pretty as hell, lithe as a greyhound, cheap as chips and built for fun. We have in our minds the car you see here this morning. The 4C. Sadly, pictures do not do this little car justice. In the flesh it is utterly gorgeous. Spoilt, some say, by the headlamps. Yes, maybe, in the way Cindy Crawford is spoilt by her mole — that is, not spoilt at all.

But it’s not the looks that impress most with the 4C. It’s how it’s made. Before this, if you wanted a car with an all-carbon-fibre tub, you had a choice: you bought a machine such as a McLaren MP4-12C or you bought a Formula One racer. It’s expensive to make a car this way, but that’s what Alfa has done.

The benefit is lightness, and that’s a theme it has continued throughout. So, if you’re after luxury and soundproofing and lots of standard equipment, forget it. There’s no satellite navigation. You don’t even get power steering.

The result is a car that tips the scales, fat with fluids, at well under a ton. Which means it doesn’t need a big engine. Instead, mounted in the middle of the car, is a 1742cc turbo unit that itself is made to be so light it has to be bolted in place to stop it floating away.

Disappointed that it only has the four-cylinder engine from a motorised pencil sharpener? Well, don’t be. Because, thanks to the lightness, you can get to 62mph in 4.5 seconds and onwards past 160mph. Way past, I found. Oh, and 40mpg-plus is on the cards as well.

I shall make no bones about it. I loved this car. It’s like being at the controls of a housefly. You can brake later than you think possible into corners, knowing that there’s barely any weight to transfer. And it has so much grip. Then there’s the noise. Or rather noises. It makes thousands. All loud. All mad.

Yes, the interior trim is shocking, but if you want that lightness, it’s the price you pay. And you do want it. Because lightness is coming. It has to. It makes both the polar bear and the petrolhead happy. And in the Alfa it made me very happy indeed. I drove the car round Lake Como on a sunny evening and there was almost a tear in my eye. I kept thinking that life didn’t really get any better.

Now the boring stuff. I fitted easily. The boot is big. The dash readout is clever and clear so you don’t need spectacles to see how fast you’re going. And you can choose how you want your car to feel. Really. Just put it in Dynamic mode. And leave it there.

There are only a couple of drawbacks. The gearbox is a bit dim-witted and the steering isn’t quite as sharp as I had been expecting. Also, it’s wider than a Mercedes SLS AMG, which means it’s wider than Utah. And it costs around £45,000. That, for a carbon fibre-tubbed mini-supercar, is not bad at all. But it does put it in the same price bracket as a Porsche Cayman.

Of course, the Cayman is more in tune with where we are now. It feels sturdy, and well made and luxurious. But that sort of thing will have to stop. We will have to go down Alfa’s route, which means, in fact, the 4C feels like the future.

It also feels like the Alfa that the company made only in your dreams. It feels wonderful. I’m sure, naturally, that it will be like my coffee machine to own. But, unlike with any other Alfa in living memory, the rewards will make all the effort worth it.

Verdict:
Alfa, it’s good to have you back

[GoingTooFast]

If you wanted to go down to that same pub and have some sort of "mine's better than yours" conversation then you'd probably just opt for the Porsche, on the basis that it already has the PowerPoint presentation to prove, logically, the Cayman's superiority in absolutely everything.

I'm sorry... but did I miss something here?!

Facts:

Alfa didn't use an expensive carbon fiber tube on the 4C just to be different or to strictly reach for our hearts. They did it for the very same reason that led a genius like Colin Chapman to found a company called Lotus, whose motto was 'Simplify then add lightness'!

What this means is real world performance and driving fun that no base Cayman can possibly match and that is able to vulgarize even a much more expensive and powerful Cayman S... and I'm not even talking about looks here!

Of course lap times are important... for this is a true measure of a car's performance. Then, another entirely different matter is: how was it achieved?

Puddles of oil on your garage floor. And yet Alfa Romeo is still my favourite car maker.

And yet 'I own and drive a Mercedes Black Series'... it's a well known fact. Otherwise, who in his perfect mind would buy a 54k US$ car that leaks oil?!

Reading all this 'romantic' stuff, to say the least, just reminds me how the brits have let the germans and someone else take over their whole relevant and historical car industry... and press.

[GoingTooFast]

2014 Alfa Romeo 4C vs 2014 Porsche Cayman

With a rigid, carbon-fiber tub in the best Ferrari tradition, the Alfa Romeo 4C's
trump card is a waiflike curb weight of roughly 2500 pounds. But there is much more to Alfa's new mid-engine entry, like neck-snapping Brembo brakes, ultrasticky Pirelli PZero rubber, and unassisted and unfiltered steering. Power is courtesy of a 237-hp, 1742-cc turbocharged four-cylinder engine that tattoos your eardrums with lust and desire. The banzai Italian, limited to 3500 units a year, can even outsprint the much more expensive Porsche 911 Carrera to 62 mph.

Has the oft-cited technology transfer from Ferrari and Maserati to Alfa Romeo yielded a winner at last? Is the 4C the brand's promised comeback car, the much-needed halo model capable of putting Alfa Romeo back on the map, both in the United States and in the brand's existing markets? Or is it little more than Italy's belated answer to the Lotus Elise, a minimalist tool that excels only during memorable early-morning blasts? To find out, we paired the rowdy red rascal with the much more formal Porsche Cayman. The outcome of the two-day trial could not have been more eye-opening.

While the Porsche is a comfortable and convenient sports car for grown-ups, the Alfa is both fascinating and flawed. It addresses the hooligan inside, constantly pushing its own limits and those of the driver. The 4C fuses a lightweight physique and heavyweight performance to create a very special sports car experience.

As a marque, Alfa Romeo is currently on a drip feed. The Fiat-owned brand fields a two-model lineup in its home market: the slow-selling MiTo subcompact, which missed the hearts of most Alfisti by a substantial margin, and the Giulietta, which turned out to be a stylish but otherwise inferior Volkswagen Golf competitor. The 8C Competizione, released six years ago, was an overpriced and short-lived glimmer of hope, but it did plant the seed for the 4C, which was conceived as a more affordable but in many ways even more extreme brand-shaper. The uncompromising mid-engine two-seater is skin-over-bones light and focuses primarily on performance and handling. Exciting to drive and yet surprisingly efficient, it scores a ten out of ten for head-turning style, and yet it won't deplete your bank account like all those big-name supercars that are essentially built to the same format. Did Alfa achieve the squaring of the circle, or is the 4C a pretty phony that will fall apart in the real world?

We started day one on the Alfa Romeo test track in Balocco -- in the Porsche, which is supersweet, superstable, and super-balanced. Even with all the chips switched off, the Cayman is a master of creaminess. The steering is smooth and progressive, the light-footed handling is easily modulated, the drivetrain performs in a flow, the brakes do their job with communicative enthusiasm. There are no rough edges, no abrupt transitions, no nasty surprises. You could (but shouldn't) accept an incoming phone call while sliding through the esses, type in a destination while maxing out the boxer six on the long straight, contemplate the dinner menu on the approach to pit lane. Does that make it boring, predictable, two-dimensional, and too perfect for its own good?

The person stepping out of the 4C surely will tell a different story. He or she might be a bit shaken, breathing heavily, fingers trembling, drops of sweat popping up on the forehead. But on the track the Alfa driver will have smiled a bit more broadly than the person at the wheel of the Porsche and perhaps have a deeper, more intense glow about them. Could it be that the Italians are onto something truly exceptional? Can the 4C beat the Cayman at its own game?

In terms of sex appeal, the new supermodel assembled by Maserati in Modena clearly eclipses the challenger from Zuffenhausen. The 4C is exceptionally pretty from all angles. Its proportions are emphatically seductive, as every detail catches the eye and holds it for a second before letting it move on. Even the odd, wart-shaped headlights grow on you. The side air intakes are brash and bold, and the rear end with the round taillights and the see-through engine cover looks like a junior Ferrari 458 Italia.

In terms of practicality, however, the 4C is not one iota more advanced than Alfa Romeo's legendary 33 Stradale that was built between 1967 and 1969. Rear-three-quarter visibility is nonexistent, the cockpit is a droning symphony composed of hard black plastic, and the tiny trunk aft of the engine will fry your luggage like a microwave oven on high. The steering wheel has a squared-off bottom, and the garish all-digital instrumentation looks as silly as that in a Lam-borghini Aventador. The center console houses four push-buttons labeled 1, R, A/M, and N, which are hard to reach and even harder to see. The dual-clutch automatic transmission's transition from reverse to forward takes long enough to double your heart rate, and it is accompanied by an infuriating chime. Headroom and shoulder clearance are not an issue, but climbing into and out of the car should be practiced in private before you embarrass yourself in public. Once installed, one sits tall with stretched arms and legs akimbo in that typical Italian driving position, which works much better for jockeys than for centers or forwards.

If the 4C is a high-tech bivouac on wheels, then the Cayman is a fully furnished luxury condo. It can be optioned with touchscreen navigation, eighteen-way adaptive sport seats, and a Burmester sound system. The Alfa has none of this, but then it is some 450 pounds lighter in American spec. Its carbon-fiber tub weighs only 143 pounds, and the heavily revised version of the 1742-cc engine from the Giulietta has shed 49 pounds. Even the controversial headlamp units save nine pounds each over a less offensive design. To cut more calories, there are only two airbags (U.S. cars will add side and knee airbags), only two speakers, and only two ways to adjust the basic yet comfortable seats. The compact dimensions also help. At 157 inches, the Alfa is fifteen inches shorter than the Porsche. The wheelbase, however, is only 3.7 inches less than the Porsche, which is slightly narrower and 4.3 inches taller. EPA ratings are not yet available for the 4C, but in the European test cycle it is less thirsty than the Cayman, suggesting that it will beat the PDK-equipped Cayman's 22/32 mpg EPA figures. But the Alfa's tiny 10.6-gallon fuel tank creates a frustratingly short cruising range, unlike the Porsche with its 16.9-gallon tank.

Price isn't going to be the deciding factor here, as the Alfa's U.S. starting figure of "approximately $54,000" (according to an Alfa spokesman) is right on top of the Boxster's current base tab of $53,550. What has a real effect is the sprint from 0 to 62 mph, where the 4C's much more energetic 4.5 seconds not only clearly eclipses the Cayman's 5.4 seconds but actually matches that of a stick-shift 400-hp 911 Carrera S. On paper, the six-cylinder car narrowly edges its four-cylinder rival in terms of top speed (164 mph versus 160 mph), but on the A26 autostrada both coupes reached an identical indicated 166 mph. The 4C is not only quicker off the mark, it also dominates the torque sweepstakes. While the Cayman's normally aspirated 2.7-liter flat six develops 213 lb-ft between 4500 and 6500 rpm, the 4C's turbocharged four-cylinder spreads a notably brawnier 258 lb-ft from 2200 to 4250 rpm.

So how does the Cayman manage to keep up? For a start, its engine will rev to 7600 rpm rather than being redlined at 6500 rpm, and its transmission has seven instead of six gears for longer legs and a more progressive acceleration curve. It is, of course, the weight advantage that makes the Alfa shine against the stopwatch and in traffic, where the doctor orders fewer downshifts. In the Porsche, you find yourself driving in hyperactive Sport Plus mode most of the time in order to keep up with the red rebel.

It's a great car, this Ferrari-inspired two-seater, but sooner or later there comes a time when you frown at its idiosyncratic character. Whereas the Porsche is so homogenous it almost morphs with itself, the Alfa releases you with rosy cheeks, sore palms, and the subconscious on fire. The tallest hurdle between mistrust and friendship is the manual steering. Above 10 mph, the effort required is spot-on most of the time, but at parking speeds the direction-finder threatens to freeze in your arms. The quick and responsive rack controls a pair of relatively narrow front tires. Our test car was fitted with the optional racing package, which includes 205/40YR-18 Pirelli PZeros on one end and fatter 235/35YR-19 tires on the other. The 4C's chassis setup also features an unorthodox suspension layout: control arms in front and MacPherson struts in the rear, as well as a pronounced 40/60-percent rear weight bias.

On cold tires, tweaking the cornering balance with the right foot is dead easy. But start pushing, and the slim front footwear heats up quickly, increasing understeer. The DNA mode selector (dynamic, natural, all-weather) calls up different stability control and drivetrain attitudes, including a new race mode that cancels ESP assistance altogether. Even with all electronic aids deactivated, the 4C remains an interactive tool that never leaves you in any doubt about what is going to happen next. Having said that, the Alfa is not as intuitive and confidence-inspiring at the limit as the Porsche. Steering inputs tend to unsettle the front wheels to a greater extent than expected, both on uneven turf and at high speed. Tramlining is an issue on back roads and on the autostrada, where the Alfa's occasionally snappy front end is best left alone so that it can sort itself out like a vintage Porsche 911. Even though more compliance would undoubtedly yield more control, the R&D team under CEO Harald Wester consciously went down the hard-core road for ultimate grip. On the track, the ride is flat and the composure is faultless, but in the land of deep potholes and yawning manhole covers, the 4C puts up more of a fight than the rock-solid yet nicely compliant Cayman.

Both test cars were fitted with nonadjustable dampers, but the Porsche was shod with wider tires sized 235/35YR-20 in the front and 265/35YR-20 in the back. Despite the Cayman's 38-hp advantage, the 4C was almost always the quicker car, and it was also more fun to drive, at least while the driver's physical stamina lasted. Contrary to the fuss-free Cayman, the shirt-sleeved Alfa is always ready to put up a fight. Its angry, electronically controlled Q2 differential cuts sawteeth into any perfectly constant radius, its nineteen-inch rear tires tap dance to an ever so slightly different rhythm than the eighteen-inch front wheels, and its ventilated disc brakes take every opportunity to test your neck muscles. Accompanying this zero-compliance tour de force is a soundtrack so addicting that it might be subject to an entertainment tax. On top of all this there is the incidental music played by the soloists in the 4C orchestra: the rackety-clackety-wham of the busy dual-clutch automatic gearbox, the fine whine of the restless turbocharger, the high-pitched duet of direct injection and wastegate whoosh.

And yet.

By late afternoon, the line for the keys to the 4C is down to the youngest member of our team. By now, the geriatrics need a break from the heat, the vibrations, and the excitement. Enter the Cayman. Its chairs are designed for human beings, not monkeys; its air-conditioning doesn't freeze the face while frying the toes; and its supple suspension has not been signed off by a direct descendant of the Marquis de Sade. And yet. The base Cayman is not sufficiently special, its hereditary cocktail contains too many Volkswagen genes and not enough from the GT3. Its flat six makes all the right noises while lacking the thrust of its meaner siblings. The entry-level 2.7-liter coupe is too expensive for what it is, and it certainly is not worth the premium over the Boxster, which is two cars in one. And yet. The 4C is so much more of a statement, so exhilarating to drive, so crude and pure and exotic. Only about 1000 units a year will come to the United States, and the waiting list is said to be six months. To whet your appetite, there are six paint colors to choose from, four types of upholstery, the aforementioned racing package, and a tasteful luxury package.

The Alfa can pull 1.1 g's on the skidpad and 1.25 g's under braking. That's knocking on Ferrari territory, just like the gleaming, naked, carbon-fiber weave that shapes the tall sills and the tapered footwells. Conceptually, this is a street-legal racing car, sold at a discount price. Weight-saving technologies this sophisticated typically carry a much higher sticker than $54,000. The 4C may well emerge as one of a select few desirable and affordable new cars with a near-zero midterm depreciation forecast. Having said that, the Cayman is, of course, the more complete all-around car and the safer bet for those who travel long distances and many miles. But as soon as parking space and funds permit the purchase of a second car, an Alfa Romeo 4C should be on every gearhead's want list. A mere four days after relinquishing the keys, I was already feeling strong withdrawal symptoms and longing for an encore.

[GoingTooFast]

[GoingTooFast]

Driven by Horst von Saurma from german automobile magazine sport auto :

The set time is exactly the same as the Porsche Cayman S, one second faster than the BMW M3 E92 and almost four seconds faster than a Renaultsport Mégane 265 Trophy.


in Autocar

[GoingTooFast]

Complete onboard lap:

[GoingTooFast]

[GoingTooFast]

There's some discussion going on about the fact that Horst von Saurma doesn't up-shift to 6th gear on the long straight and stays at 5th reaching a top speed of only 248 km/h (around 7min 20"), when the Alfa 4C's claimed top speed is 258 km/h.

Well the fact is Horst von Saurma is up-shifting systematically at 6500 rpm for every gear and the rev counter never goes past the 6000 rpm WOT (claimed peak power) on the long straight at 5th gear due to the uphill section. Even though 6th gear would fall into the Alfa 4C engine's claimed maximum torque range, which reaches a maximum of 4000 rpm, one can not forget that 6th gear is tall enough for the torque at the wheels - where it really counts - to go down and to cause a loss of speed in that section!

[GoingTooFast]

Another fact:

If Horst von Saurma sometimes up-shifts earlier than 6500 rpm is only to favor traction on the winding sections... on the straights he always up-shifts close to 6500 rpm. Just remember that to set a lap record several laps have to be accomplished, so NO WAY Horst von Saurma has forgotten to up-shift to 6th gear!

[GoingTooFast]

The set time is exactly the same as the Porsche Cayman S, one second faster than the BMW M3 E92 and almost four seconds faster than a Renaultsport Mégane 265 Trophy.

in Autocar

Autocar has the facts wrong. Actually, the Alfa 4C was 1 sec faster than the 981 Cayman S and matched the 981 Boxster S' time both with 20-inch wheels (2,660 Euro), PASM damper system (1,428 euros), PDK Double Clutch Transmission (€ 2,826), Ceramic brakes (7,319 EUR), PTV limited slip differential (1.309 €), Sport Chrono Plus Package (2,023 Euro)... and both driven by Horst von Saurma:

http://www.sportauto.de/supertest/po...01.html?show=4

http://www.sportauto.de/supertest/po...03.html?show=4

Of course that while both Porsche's had Pirelli Pzero tires, the Alfa 4C had Pirelli Pzero Trofeo's. That's one important advantage for the Alfa 4C. Also, all the Alfa's front panel joints have been taped up for better aerodynamics.


PS: I had to look at each tested car pictures in the above links and read about the extra equipment they were carrying to really know what sort of competition the Alfa 4C was up against from both Porsche's.

[GoingTooFast]

The above comparison is surprisingly fair... the same circuit, the same driver, the same tire brand - stickier tires on one side, much wider ones on the other -, double-clutch automatic transmissions only, similar top speeds - 251 km/h for the Cayman S and 248 km/h for both the Boxster S and the Alfa 4C. Moreover, the top speed is reached in 6th gear for both Porsche's (PDK is a 7-speed automatic transmission) the 7th gear is just an overdrive meant to meet some low emissions and fuel consumption criteria and is geared so tall that the Cayman/Boxster could theoretically reach a top speed of 439 km/h:

Leider offenbart dieser beim Porsche Cayman S den einzigen Nachteil, der sich dem ungemein seidig drehenden 3,4-Liter-Sauger anlasten ließe, nämlich seine nur durchschnittliche Leistungsbereitschaft im unteren Drehzahlbereich - sicher auch eine Folge einer sehr langen Übersetzung. Die Höchstgeschwindigkeit - 4 km/h schneller als der Porsche Boxster: 281 km/h - erreicht der nun deutlich stämmiger wirkende Zweisitzer im sechsten Gang.

In der siebten und letzten Gangstufe würde es der Porsche Cayman S bei Höchstdrehzahl auf irrwitzige 439 km/h bringen, aber dazu reicht sein PS-Potenzial natürlich bei Weitem nicht aus. Das Beispiel zeigt plakativ auf, welche Prioritäten bei der Wahl der Übersetzungen letztendlich Vorrang hatten. So darf das Vorhaben, durch die Reduzierung des Drehzahlniveaus die Effizienz in Sachen Verbrauch und Emission zu verbessern, als gelungen angesehen werden. Der Spritkonsum liegt bei zurückhaltender Fahrweise stets im moderaten Bereich unterhalb der Zehn-Liter-Marke.

[GoingTooFast]

It seems Buggati has used the same 'front panel joints taped up' technique as the Alfa Romeo...

[johanness]

Originally Posted by GoingTooFast

Thank you all for your patience mainly the moderators because probably you were under some pressure from some users to shut me up... as you see, you did the right thing because I'll shut myself up. Nothing worth sharing now...

What happened to this? Follow through with this - PLEASE. It's sickening that you write this 4 pages ago, and then NOT follow through?? Do yourself a favor and STFU already!