If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
156 restyle: Last chance to buy a new future classic?
Saw a copy of "Practical Classic Car" or some such in WHSmugs yesterday
& they were listing cars made in the last five years most likely to become classics in x years time. 156 was top of the list, with a prediction that it would be the earlier pre-facelift cars with original nose, interesting metallics and wood steering wheels which would be most sought after. As owner of a 2000 in Nuvola this underlined why I have kept this car for four years and have decided (for the first time in thirty years of car buying) that I shall keep a car until it is at least five years old. Which brings me to Giugiario's nose job. Most of the coverage has been favourable, probably because the full depth 147-u-like grill is, in isolation an object of drama: indeed it is easily the best thing (aesthetically) about a 147. But, while the restyle still leaves the 156 a lovely car, I can't help but feel that the innate "rightness" and intense beauty of the da Silva original has been compromised. This even applies to the mild tweaking of the rear: the light units now turn down instead of up. In so doing they subtly (&, OK, very slightly) alter the previous relationship to the curves in the rest of the body. This is change for change's sake. But the nose??? This is I fear a significant dilution of the car's beauty. One of the most extraordinary characteristics of my 156 has been its ability to elicit praise from non-car people, especially women, who find the car (and of course the colour) beautiful. Massively entertaining to see the 4 year old 156 get far more attention from the girls than the nearly new £25K+ Audi TT bought by a male colleague for the express purpose of attracting the girls... I have shown two of these women photographs of the facelift. "Not as good" was the shared response. I have to say - after looking at the result in the metal at Brooklands 2 weeks back- that I agree. And I'm unsure about the whole "corporate nose" thing anyway - on the 166 I think it is aesthetic vandalism to stick on the 147 grill. The 166 is a large car with a subtle and mature appeal. The original grill suited it well - the drama of the 147 nose (which is great on the small Alfa & pretty damn good on the GT) is ill at ease on such a car. Every car needs a nose suiting its proportions, style and intended audience. "Corporate nosing" f***ks this up. With the 156, I'm not knocking Giugiario - as corporate nose restyles go, its really very good. But with a car this beautiful, not as good as leaving well alone. So my proposition on the 156 is: the most beautiful production saloon of recent years is no longer in production. It has been replaced by a significantly less beautiful car and history will bear this out... |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
>Saw a copy of "Practical Classic Car" or some such in WHSmugs yesterday
>& they were listing cars made in the last five years most likely to >become classics in x years time. > >156 was top of the list, with a prediction that it would be the earlier >pre-facelift cars with original nose, interesting metallics and wood >steering wheels which would be most sought after. As owner of a 2000 in >Nuvola this underlined why I have kept this car for four years and have >decided (for the first time in thirty years of car buying) that I shall >keep a car until it is at least five years old. > >Which brings me to Giugiario's nose job. Most of the coverage has been >favourable, probably because the full depth 147-u-like grill is, in >isolation an object of drama: indeed it is easily the best thing >(aesthetically) about a 147. But, while the restyle still leaves the 156 >a lovely car, I can't help but feel that the innate "rightness" and >intense beauty of the da Silva original has been compromised. > >This even applies to the mild tweaking of the rear: the light units now >turn down instead of up. In so doing they subtly (&, OK, very slightly) >alter the previous relationship to the curves in the rest of the body. >This is change for change's sake. But the nose??? This is I fear a >significant dilution of the car's beauty. > >One of the most extraordinary characteristics of my 156 has been its >ability to elicit praise from non-car people, especially women, who find >the car (and of course the colour) beautiful. Massively entertaining to >see the 4 year old 156 get far more attention from the girls than the >nearly new £25K+ Audi TT bought by a male colleague for the express >purpose of attracting the girls... I have shown two of these women >photographs of the facelift. "Not as good" was the shared response. I >have to say - after looking at the result in the metal at Brooklands 2 >weeks back- that I agree. And I'm unsure about the whole "corporate >nose" thing anyway - on the 166 I think it is aesthetic vandalism to >stick on the 147 grill. The 166 is a large car with a subtle and mature >appeal. The original grill suited it well - the drama of the 147 nose >(which is great on the small Alfa & pretty damn good on the GT) is ill >at ease on such a car. > >Every car needs a nose suiting its proportions, style and intended >audience. "Corporate nosing" f***ks this up. With the 156, I'm not >knocking Giugiario - as corporate nose restyles go, its really very >good. But with a car this beautiful, not as good as leaving well alone. > >So my proposition on the 156 is: the most beautiful production saloon of >recent years is no longer in production. It has been replaced by a >significantly less beautiful car and history will bear this out... > > I think the article is right. I reckon the 156 with original nose is one of the prettiest cars on the road. I've been driving mine for 2 years and I still love to just stand at stare at it. The other area that Alfa should stop messing with is the wheels. The early alloys were gorgeous, but I was looking at the latest ones in the Alfa dealer on the new 156's and they have really lost the plot. If you are reading this Alfa, please put the original nose back on, sort out the niggles in the dashboard and suspension and put the 2.5 V6 back on sale. Thanks :-) Phil 156 1998 2.5 V6 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On 16-5-2004 8:10, Barry Bingham wrote:
> So my proposition on the 156 is: the most beautiful production saloon of > recent years is no longer in production. It has been replaced by a > significantly less beautiful car and history will bear this out... So, it is now that your car starts to become a classic one ;-) For not designer people (of which I am one) it is sometimes hard to understand were designers come up with. But bear in mind that new designs have to face a period that is ahead of us. Taste and so fashion do change in time. Designers do pick this "spirit of the times" up better then I for example. When Alfa came up with the 75 I was shocked by it ugly design after that damn beautiful Giulietta. Only after a couple of months I liked it and I still consider it as a beautiful car. Maybe that is the strength of a good design that people are still attached to the old model for a long period. When I first saw the new nose of the 156 I was very disappointed, it was too heavy and too much of a contrast from the smooth lines of the rest of the car. But now I do like it. I would rather buy the now model then the old model, that is if I could ;-) Let the old 156 become a classic one. Taste is variable. Times move on. Arjan |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 16 May 2004 10:36:11 +0200, Arjan Renting >, wrote:
>When I first saw the new nose of the 156 I was >very disappointed, it was too heavy and too much of a contrast from the >smooth lines of the rest of the car. But now I do like it. I would >rather buy the now model then the old model, that is if I could ;-) I was frankly appalled when I first saw what had been done to the front of the 156. When I drove one, out of necessity because of service/repairs, recently I was astonished by the destruction of the interior too. Even if AR offered to buy back my 156 at the full purchase price, I would not buy a new 156 with the money. It is vile. I would go shopping for a good condition secondhand 156. As it is, there is NO WAY that I will be parted from my 156 for as long as it is economic to maintain it in reliable condition. The 147 nose should have stayed where it belongs, on the 147. Yes, I appreciate that times change and so do tastes. That does not mean that either times or tastes always change for the better. Something many marketing depts., learn to the cost of the sales. Not relevant in the case of the 156, I am sure. After all, AR fleet sales are what make the books balance. They don't need people like me to buy their cars. Which is why they are not fussed if their after-sales lets me down. Cynical? Yes. Pete ======remove the rust to reply====== > 156 2.0 TS (2001) - Proteo Rosso (his) 147 2.0 TS (2002) - Gem Green (her's) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 16 May 2004 07:10:37 +0100, Barry Bingham
> wrote: >Saw a copy of "Practical Classic Car" or some such in WHSmugs yesterday >& they were listing cars made in the last five years most likely to >become classics in x years time. > >156 was top of the list, with a prediction that it would be the earlier >pre-facelift cars with original nose <Snip> I couldn't agree more. Giugiario had to do *something* to justify the investment but they've just messed it up. Trouble is, I've NEVER thought it possible to (genuinely) improve the looks of the old 156. With the resources available to Alfa/Fiat/Giugiaro, I think I've been proved right. It's bizarre..after 3 years of owning the thing, I still take time to admire the looks of my car - it's THE Da Silva masterpiece and I bet he'll never manage another cracker like it..... -- Z Scotland Alfa Romeo 156 2.4JTD Veloce Leather 'Oil' be seeing you.. (Email without 'Alfa' in subject are auto-deleted..sorry!) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 16 May 2004 21:20:38 +0100, Zathras
>, wrote: >It's bizarre..after 3 years of owning the thing, I still take time to >admire the looks of my car - it's THE Da Silva masterpiece and I bet I enjoy looking at mine every single day, with just as much joy as I did when I first saw the 156. Maybe more so now than then, as I now actually believe that I own it. For the first few months I could really believe that I OWNed such a beautiful piece of automotive art. >he'll never manage another cracker like it..... Oh I don't know. The SZ was pretty good. <G> Pete ======remove the rust to reply====== > 156 2.0 TS (2001) - Proteo Rosso (his) 147 2.0 TS (2002) - Gem Green (her's) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Pete" wrote:
> >It's bizarre..after 3 years of owning the thing, I still take time to > >admire the looks of my car - it's THE Da Silva masterpiece and I bet > > I enjoy looking at mine every single day, with just as much joy > as I did when I first saw the 156. Maybe more so now than then, as > I now actually believe that I own it. For the first few months I could > really believe that I OWNed such a beautiful piece of automotive art. With the last of the original 2.5 156 V6s and a GTV on the drive I feel pretty good at the start of each day. Sad but true... |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Did you know that big work on project had Zbigniew Maurer from Poland (model '97)? ----------------------------------------------------------------- -= ARO =- AR156 - 1.8TS - Rosso Proteo ----------------------------------------------------------------- U¿ytkownik "Tony Rickard" > napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci ... > "Pete" wrote: > > > >It's bizarre..after 3 years of owning the thing, I still take time to > > >admire the looks of my car - it's THE Da Silva masterpiece and I bet > > > > I enjoy looking at mine every single day, with just as much joy > > as I did when I first saw the 156. Maybe more so now than then, as > > I now actually believe that I own it. For the first few months I could > > really believe that I OWNed such a beautiful piece of automotive art. > > With the last of the original 2.5 156 V6s and a GTV on the drive I feel > pretty good at the start of each day. Sad but true... > > |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Couldn't agree more. I rushed to buy one of these classic models
before the facelift came out for these exact reasons even though I wanted the new 20v JTD. I first saw the 156 in 1998 and thought it was unbelievably beautiful and ended up buying one in 1999 (my first ALFA). Now SIX years later I still think it looks amazing. Not sure if anyone has noticed but on the new 156 the front wings have been squared off from the lights to the A pillar. I think this captures why the facelift fails. The 156 has allways been a car of stunning Curves, the facelift has just put a few angles at the front and back and totally forgot about the middle and how it all flows. As for the 166, I think it has lost all its finesse. Looks overweight now. I had one of these for a year and it never ceased to amaze me how gracefull it looked, be it stationary or moving (very quickly in Germany, :-) ). On Sun, 16 May 2004 07:10:37 +0100, Barry Bingham > wrote: >Saw a copy of "Practical Classic Car" or some such in WHSmugs yesterday >& they were listing cars made in the last five years most likely to >become classics in x years time. > >156 was top of the list, with a prediction that it would be the earlier >pre-facelift cars with original nose, interesting metallics and wood >steering wheels which would be most sought after. As owner of a 2000 in >Nuvola this underlined why I have kept this car for four years and have >decided (for the first time in thirty years of car buying) that I shall >keep a car until it is at least five years old. > >Which brings me to Giugiario's nose job. Most of the coverage has been >favourable, probably because the full depth 147-u-like grill is, in >isolation an object of drama: indeed it is easily the best thing >(aesthetically) about a 147. But, while the restyle still leaves the 156 >a lovely car, I can't help but feel that the innate "rightness" and >intense beauty of the da Silva original has been compromised. > >This even applies to the mild tweaking of the rear: the light units now >turn down instead of up. In so doing they subtly (&, OK, very slightly) >alter the previous relationship to the curves in the rest of the body. >This is change for change's sake. But the nose??? This is I fear a >significant dilution of the car's beauty. > >One of the most extraordinary characteristics of my 156 has been its >ability to elicit praise from non-car people, especially women, who find >the car (and of course the colour) beautiful. Massively entertaining to >see the 4 year old 156 get far more attention from the girls than the >nearly new £25K+ Audi TT bought by a male colleague for the express >purpose of attracting the girls... I have shown two of these women >photographs of the facelift. "Not as good" was the shared response. I >have to say - after looking at the result in the metal at Brooklands 2 >weeks back- that I agree. And I'm unsure about the whole "corporate >nose" thing anyway - on the 166 I think it is aesthetic vandalism to >stick on the 147 grill. The 166 is a large car with a subtle and mature >appeal. The original grill suited it well - the drama of the 147 nose >(which is great on the small Alfa & pretty damn good on the GT) is ill >at ease on such a car. > >Every car needs a nose suiting its proportions, style and intended >audience. "Corporate nosing" f***ks this up. With the 156, I'm not >knocking Giugiario - as corporate nose restyles go, its really very >good. But with a car this beautiful, not as good as leaving well alone. > >So my proposition on the 156 is: the most beautiful production saloon of >recent years is no longer in production. It has been replaced by a >significantly less beautiful car and history will bear this out... |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"AlexUK" > wrote in message
... > > As for the 166, I think it has lost all its finesse. Looks overweight > now. I had one of these for a year and it never ceased to amaze me how > gracefull it looked, be it stationary or moving (very quickly in > Germany, :-) ). I have to agree on the 156, and I have a "classic" 155bhp 1999 example myself. However I disagree about the 166. I think the new nose looks superb, and have never liked the original. It always looked a bit sad with those small droopy headlights. The rest of the car has always looked fantastic, and now it looks as good as it should have from day one. Mark |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|