DRIVEN: Alfa Romeo's Stelvio SUV's First Outing Proves It Is Better Than You Think

Title: "Stevio" -> "Stelvio"

Yeah, I noticed ;-)
-Steve

Once past the bullshit of the engine by Ferrari. This is what it is a mongrel of a chassis cut and pasted from 3 previous chassis.

All platforms are derivative of older platforms - even the so called clean sheet ones. Not only are things learned from older platforms put into new ones - but manufacturers regularly re-cycle suspension components from existing cars to make others. I would expect that ideas and parts from a lot more than three platforms produced this one - as I would expect ALL platforms to have ideas from that many or more. The idea that everything must be NEW - NEVER before ignores the fact that the wheels still must be round - that disc brakes are likely off the shelf components - that things like rear ends have hardly changed over the last 10 years - that Ball joints have been around for ages - etc. Porsche used a similar platform for decades and decades and is not accosted like this. THE "NEW" original mustang was originally based on a compact car platform - and later on a Thunderbird platform. I will bet there are brake calipers on a new Ferrari that were available 10 years ago. Even some Recaro seats have not changed much.

What matters is how the the vehicles are put together and how the end result actually drives and competes with other vehicles in its segment. I am sure that the "NEW" TVR will use LOTS of off the shelf components too. (I doubt they will make their own engines or transmissions - among other things) - they simply cannot have enough money to RE-invent the wheel.

Oh Tommy Tom Tom...Where to start?

It's already been announced that TVR will use the Coyote 5.0 V8 from Ford along with the Mustang's manual transmission (automatic is to follow), the rear differential, and wiring harness. That's public knowledge, so you really ought to try not to be so ill-informed.

All platforms are NOT derivatives of older platforms. The first Golf was a totally new platform.

The Mustang NEVER used a Thunderbird platform. The closest they ever came was with the Thunderbird using the DEW98 platform--all new by the way--from the Lincoln LS and Jaguar S Type while the Mustang used a heavily modified version--the DEW lite--to the point that very little was shared.

Oh dear Matt - If you actually read my post - I said that TVR was not making their own Engines or transmissions. And Sorry - but the Volkswagon GOLF was not the first car to have a Macpherson Strut front suspension - by decades too. Simca used them long before that - and of course - Macpherson himslef was a Chevy Engineer who designed them for a prototype that never got produced. And they had ball joints in the suspensions of horse drawn carriages centuries ago.

Sorry - but ALL platforms ARE INDEED derivatives of older platforms. The independent double wishbone front suspension - used in LOTS of cars today is an example of something that has been around since the 1930's. The solid rear axles of many trucks and suvs have been around almost since the beginning. THey take a little from here - and little from there - almost all already existing - and make a "completely new" platform - but it is only new in the idea that they never produced that one before - but the components in the chassis were originally designed DECADES ago.

AND if you claim that just because they never produced a platform exactly like the one they used in the golf for it being new - then the Stelvio/Giulia Platform meets that bill too.

When YOU find a platform that has absolutely NO components that have NEVER been designed similarly and produced before (Square wheels?) - that will be totally new - otherwise - there are parts in every car today - that were originally designed pre WWII.

TomM you are so stupid it HURTS.

You wondered whether TVR was going to buy engines, therefore you were uninformed.

Just because the first Golf had headlights or any other part that appeared on other cars does not nullify my statement that it was a clean-sheet design for VW.

As for the magazines raving over the Giulia, THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE PAID TO DO!! They said the XE was the 3 Series destroyer. They said the ATS was the 3 Series destroyer. And so on.

You really need to stay on your meds.

Yes but isn't it about how these components are engineered to work well together. If a vehicle has good ride and handling dynamics that put it on par with the top of the class what difference does it make if it came from an older platform. Darringer you seem so caught up in that old Mercedes platform being used by FCA that you discount all the positive reviews of the Guilia and Stelvio. If the ride/handling result for these Alfa's was crap than you can yup its a cobbled up Mongrel. Otherwise bring on the Mongrels! Motortrend just did a drive video comparison of the performance versions Cadillac ATS, Mercedes, BMW M3 with the updated sport package and the Giulia Quadrafoglio. Guess which vehicle they picked as the best to drive.

Good looking overall. Not sure what to think of its vag-inaia shaped grille:) But as with any Fiat outside of Ferrari, I'd be afraid of the wheels falling off shortly after purchase.

I can't wait to see an Alfa Romeo with it's grille impaled by a telephone pole.

OK Matt-The Giulia has been compared now in Road and Track, Car and Driver and Motor Trend. So on your opinion there is no journalistic truth to any car, truck or suv that is ever reviewed. The only reason that one vehicle is rated over another vehicle is that that particular manufacturer paid the magazine off to rate one vehicle above another vehicle. So in this case Car and Driver and Motor Trend were paid off by FCA to rate the Giulia above the rest while Mercedes paid off Road and Track to rate the C63 first. Further the only reason that for so many years the BMW 3 series was the Gold standard among near luxury sport sedans was that BMW paid every publication off all over the world. Porsches are only rated above other cars because VAG pays for it. All I can say is that your opinion is fascinating Bullshit. According to your logic engineering has no meaning unless a brand new platform has been developed. Anytime anything old or modified has been used it becomes compromised and therefore must be inferior. With that logic all modern rear engine Porsches are crap as well as any brand that uses Macpherson strut suspension versus Double Wishbone.

Do you EVER see a negative review? Nope. Auto magazines have to kiss the asses--or worse--of the manufacturers. Every time a new model comes out in a segment, we have hyperbole and then a few months later there is a comparison test and sometimes the hyperbole doesn't hold up.

The Giulia in dealers is a $72K base vehicle, so it had damn well better do something for that coin. The base Giulias will be a better indication of this model.

The Alfa 4C has gotten plenty of negative reviews. The 718 Boxster/ Cayman has received complaint after complaint about it's turbo flat four engine. When the Fiat Spider Abarth came out more than one journalist did not like it's looks. The Ford Focus RS has received negative press for it's abominable ride when it's not on a track. The Chevy Camaro has received more than it's fair share of complaints for how difficult it is to see out of. In truth I would categorize these as a negative aspects of generally positive reviews. But some negatives can out weigh a lot of the positives. Further there are inconstancies. For example all the high performance car makes that make supercars are never really picked on for dual clutch transmissions except Porsche. Ferrari, Lamborghini, Maserati, Aston martin are never criticized. Yet when talking about the GT3 or RS we read the complaint"why no manual transmission?"