8th Nov 2007, 10:43

Civc Type R is a much better drivers car than the only go in a straight line Alfa. Any car enthusiast would take a Civic Type R or a Focus RS over the Alfa. You lose money on alfas because they're rubbish and nobody wants them; there is no other reason why they would lose so much money.

8th Nov 2007, 12:04

Why would you choose a bread bin over an Alfa 147 GTA lol.

9th Nov 2007, 10:39

Why would you pay aboit £25000 for a car that would be worth £8000 a year later LOL. And why would you buy a car that can only go in a straight line LOL.

Alfa 147 GTA 0-60 6.3.

Civic Type R 0-60 6.4.

The difference is the Civic uses all its power and can go round corners properly. When you're in one it feel like you're in a racing car.

Happy spinning in your worthless alfas.

9th Nov 2007, 11:16

The Alfa is a very classy car, plus it has a lot more power and twice the torque of a Type R. It may only just beat it to 60, but how is it going to put all that torque down in a front drive car? Once past 1st gear it would trounce the Type R, who cares about corners when you're on a dual carriage way or motorway.

9th Nov 2007, 16:12

Tell me why did the Civic Type R out sell the Alfa by about 50-1. Tell me another car that can do 0-60 in 6.4 while getting 38mpg, being group 17 on insurance or lower, being able to use all of its power properly, being able to accelerate properly out of a bend and be 100% reliable. I know one thing, it isn't an Alfa 147 GTA and I'm glad I've stayed clear of it.

Let's be honest, it doesn't matter how nice its interior is, it's worthless after a couple of years, it can only go in straight lines, it goes through a set of front tires every 2 weeks, and Alfa Romeo have one of the worst reputations in the country for reliability. Those things make it a bad car, and that's why they stopped making it mid production; it was a complete flop and that's a fact.

P.S the Astra VXR is faster than the Alfa 147 GTA, so it can't even claim to be the fastest hatch on the road.

9th Nov 2007, 16:22

Whats matters most is that its faster and more powerful than a type R. And better looking. Oh and by the way, the proper time for a type R is 6.6 seconds, where did you get 6.4 from?

9th Nov 2007, 16:29

Any barry can drive fast in a straight line, try driving fast around bends, that's where the fun is.

By a way, for a 2 litre engined car, the Type R is far superior to the Alfa. Alfas depreciate like mad after just 1 year, but the Civics hold their value and are a much better buy; that's why you hardly see any Alfa 147 GTAs on the road, people know it's not worth the price and headache.

9th Nov 2007, 16:33

The alfa uses a 3.2 engine compared to the 2.0 of the civic. You would expect it to be a lot quicker. But only being 0.1 seconds quicker than the type r to 60 is bad. Honda seem to make cars with smaller engines just as quick. That's what I call engineering.

9th Nov 2007, 16:44

Where did you get 6.4 for a CTR LOL, in your dreams. More like 6.7, and the GTA does 60 in 6.0 seconds according to Jeremy Clarkson, and also the GTA beats the RS and 225 as well. The Alfa has much more style and charm to it. At least it can pull the skin off a rice pudding, which is more than I can say for a CTR; it has about as much torque as a 1.6 TDCi 90 BHP Focus. Also, at least you don't have to rev the nuts off the Alfa to get it going.

OK the CTR is better round corners, but what else is it better at than the Alfa? The Alfa has more torque, faster top speed, faster 0-60. There are going to be more comments I am sure, but at the end of the day they both have pros and cons. If you want style, speed then go for Alfa. If you want handling and price, go for the CTR.

9th Nov 2007, 17:00

I couldn't give a stuff about handling, you wouldn't push it that far round a bend on the queens highway anyway, where as you can push it long and hard on a nice open A road or duel carriageway, then its by by type R. It hasn't got the grip for awesome 0-60, but once its locked you won't catch it in a type R.

10th Nov 2007, 11:16

I got 6.4 for the Type R from Parkers and the Honda website. It was given a 0-62 time of 6.6, so 0-60 6.4 check the Honda website for proof if that's what you want. The ones with air-con do 0-60 in 6.6 as they are slightly heavier.

You haven't answered my question yet. Just please tell me why the Type R out sold the Alfa by about 50-1.

I used to own a Type R, and when you're in one it feel like a racing car with the bucket seats; the noise it makes, the dials, the feel of the v-tec kicking in, the dashboard mounted gear stick and the way it goes round corners with no body roll; it's a brilliant car and that's why it's one of the best hot hatches ever. It revitalised the hot hatch market when it came out and I don't think it has been bettered yet as an overall package.

When the 147 came out it didn't do anything, it was a a complete flop and that's why they stopped making it almost straight away. It just didn't sell because its rubbish, can only go in a straight line, is worthless after a year and it's an Alfa, which have the worst reputation in the country for reliability, whereas Honda is one of, if not the most reliable car in the country.

I don't even think the 147 is a good looking car. I think the Type R looks better.

On a final note, I replaced my Type R with a 292bhp Astra VXR, which is faster than the 147 in standard form, and would kill it from 50-90. It puts its power down better (but not perfectly) and it's much better looking.

12th Nov 2007, 07:12

Forget all about 0-60s, depreciation, reliability etc.

What matters is how a car makes you feel to drive it & sit in it. And for that the Alfa wins hands down. The sound of the V6 is almost as pulsating as a Ferrari V8. It just feels very special to be in.

12th Nov 2007, 13:55

All this is way over exaggerated, besides I would just be happy to have one because of all their grunt and that they are faster than a type R.

12th Nov 2007, 15:30

I'm new to this thread and have read it and find it amusing. I can't believe that someone's trying to say that the 147 is better than the Type R. The only thing that the 147 has in its defence is that it has a nice interior (that isn't my opinion). The idea of a hot hatch is to be fast, sporty, good handling and just an overall sporty feel to it. The Type R does this, the Focus RS/ST does this, the Megane 225 does this even though it is very ugly, and the Astra VXR does this as well. The 147 doesn't it really is a bit of a waste of space and it just isn't a good ownership prospect. It isn't even the fastest any more in the midrange; an Astra VXR would nail it.

If you want a car with a nice interior and more than 250 bhp, buy a merc or BMW. Rear wheel drive, smooth ride, and an interior far superior to the Alfa, especially in the merc, and yes I do know, as my dad's just got a merc C350 272bhp (0-60 6.4 and a top speed of 155). It cost £24000 and will hold value more than the Alfa could ever dream of. That is the kind of car to buy for a nice interior and spec for that kind of money.

If you want affordable reliable performance driving with speed, handling and looks, buy a Type R or a VXR or an ST; there is no place for the unreliable depreciating front tire eating Alfa. 999 out of 1000 people would agree with me that the 147 is a very very bad car for a variety of reasons.