". ." (xllx)
02/25/2014 at 15:21 • Filed to: could it have succeeded, alfa romeo
2
12|
". ." (xllx)
02/25/2014 at 15:21 • Filed to: could it have succeeded, alfa romeo | 2
| 12 |
Discussions about cars that never came to North America are very common on Jalopnik and Oppositelock. In this new Oppo series (if it manages to take off) we'll discuss whether automakers made the right choice by not bringing certain models to the US.
While this post is titled 'Could it have succeeded in America' I'd like you to look at it in the broader sense. Success doesn't necessarily have to mean that the car would have earned piles of money. A car that was a moderate seller at best, but helped its company expand into a new market segment in which it later managed to blossom could also be seen as productive and beneficial. Same goes for a model that despite not selling well made it possible for a company to not completely disappear from the US market and preserve its dealer and service network, so that upon reintroduction it doesn't have to rebuild completely from scratch.
That's why I'd like you to discuss the cars in question more in the sense of whether it would have been beneficial to the company overall to bring that certain models to America.
Alfa Romeo 166
The Alfa Romeo 166 was a 1998 successor to Alfa's outgoing exacutive segment offering, the 164. It competed in a class dominated by the BMW 5 series, the Mercedes-Benz E-Class, and the Audi A6, by trying to beat the Germans with its unique and luxurious style.
The interior, which many consider to be the nicest in its class, wa savailable in a multitude of colours and made of relatively good materials. All cars came with automatic climate control and a colour display in the dashboard, which depending on the specified options could also be connected to a CD changer, a phone, and a GPS module. While the interior could not rival the Germans in terms of quality and featured a few peculiar design choices (no cupholders, boot release button hidden in the glovebox) it came loaded with kit even in the cheapest versions and dripped with style. It even offered options rarely covered by its competition like wooden steering wheels and shifter knobs.
Engine options ranged from a 2 litre 16 valve Twinspark four-pot making between 155 and 150 hp, a 2 litre turbo V6 (205 hp), a 2.5 24v V6 (190hp), a 3 litre 24v V6 (226-220hp) to a 3.2l 24v V6 producing 240 hp. Two very modern 5 cylinder common-rail diesels were available, making 150 and 185 hp from 2.4l. All engines powered the front wheels through either 5 or 6 speed manual gearboxes, a 4-speed automatic (in early cars), or a 5-speed Speedtronic automatic.
A four wheel drive V8 version (pictured above) was also considered (and produced in a very limited prototype run), but in the end scrapped as unfeasible.
In 2003 the 166 was facelifted. The update got rid of the car's more controversial styling cues (like the unpopular 'pig eyes') and brought its looks closer to Alfa's other contemporary offerings. The interior was also slightly improved, with new options added to the list of equipment.
As is often the case with Alfas the suspension was both the car's strong point and a major issue. Both reviewers and owners praised the handling characteristics of the 166 which are universally considered better than ones of contemporary front wheel drive Audis. Comfort was also more than adequate. Unfortunately, due to a very complicated multilink system all around the 166 would usually need a through rear suspension rebuild every 60-70 thousand miles, while the front probably wouldn't be far behind in terms of wear either. Driving on bad quality roads also had a huge impact on the life of suspension components.
Alfa Romeo went out of production in 2008 without a model to replace it. It's widely considered to be the most reliable and well made Alfa of its time.
While the 166 was never officially available in the United States, a very small number of them were privately imported, rebranded as Autodelta 166, and illegally sold at extremely high prices. While officially all of those cars were either crushed or sent away from the country, they sometimes still appear for sale in various places around the US. Still, they're constantly at risk of being confiscated and destroyed by the customs.
So, should Alfa Romeo have brought the 166 to North America or not?
Roberto G.
> . .
02/25/2014 at 15:32 |
|
Thanks for the nice post. I'd like to add that we Italians like to drink our coffe at the bar, and we do not love to drive with a cup in one hand. I have a Chevy since 4 years and I didn't use the retractable cupholders not even once. Now and to please our foreign customers, we're are adding cupholders to our present cars, but still the Italians don't use them. The most you can find in our cupholders is a little bottle of water and this only during Summer. No take-away Starbucks coffe for us.
|
. .
> Roberto G.
02/25/2014 at 15:33 |
|
I get you there. I have my coffee either at home or in a cafe. My CLK doesn't have any cupholders either and it doesn't bother me one bit.
BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires
> . .
02/25/2014 at 15:54 |
|
I don't think it would have been a volume seller, but I definitely think they would have sold cars. Most likely in similar proportions as were sold in Europe.
Brian, The Life of
> . .
02/25/2014 at 15:58 |
|
"Hello Operator? Please connect me to Whitehall 21205."
|
Brian, The Life of
> Roberto G.
02/25/2014 at 15:59 |
|
To be fair, Bobo, you guys have a lot more free time than we do ;)
505Turbeaux
> . .
02/25/2014 at 16:00 |
|
I think the only way to pull it off would have been to being the 156 over. the 166 was too soft design wise for it's contemporaries. The 156 design and decent (subjective) build quality would have been a modest success in the sedan and wagon format. they certainly sold a few 164's, but I think the US was done with Alfa at that price point by then
|
. .
> BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires
02/25/2014 at 16:02 |
|
It did alright in Italy and southern Europe in general. It wasn't a big seller anywhere else though. In the UK it failed on its arse because diesels were only available in LHD markets.
They're very cheap to buy used. You get a hell of a lot of car for your money.
Goshen, formerly Darkcode
> . .
02/25/2014 at 16:05 |
|
It'd match in size and drivetrain many US sedans such as the Chrysler 300M, Buick LeSabre, and Mercury Sable.
Maybe it'd sell, but then again Alfa left in 1995 after having sold like 4 cars that year so I'm not too inclined.
|
. .
> 505Turbeaux
02/25/2014 at 16:09 |
|
The 156 was far less reliable than the 166 though. And I think that the American fondness for big, wafty saloons would have given the 166 an edge there.
|
505Turbeaux
> . .
02/25/2014 at 16:10 |
|
yeah, Jag sold a whole lot of wafty british cars during these years. You have a point.
|
BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires
> . .
02/25/2014 at 16:11 |
|
Maybe it would have done alright then. You're right though, I see very few of them in the UK and we tend to buy quite a few Alfas here.
Any reasonably old, big car can be had for sod all money. Something that I am very grateful for when I look for XJ40s :)
Also, I'm looking at either one of these or a GTV in a scrapyard to pull a 3.0l from. Would go very nicely in my 156.
|
. .
> BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires
02/25/2014 at 16:13 |
|
What's weird is taht in my country big saloons usually hold their value much, much better than in the UK, yet the 166 is still very cheap.