There are a few concept cars I realized that share many similarities with their production form, like the new RDX for example, and very likely the Arkana from Renault.
I'd say, get the Alfa if its what you actually want. If its a car you love the design and styling of, and would like to own, who cares if it isn't as reliable as the competition. If the alternative is looking at whatever car you buy, and thinking "wish i'd got the Alfa" its not really a good alternative. The reality is that many people have bought and daily used them over the years, and survived to tell the tale, so they clearly aren't that bad. If you do have a day where it doesn't start, there's always a bus or taxi I guess. Can't speak to your location, but in the UK there is a few of them out there, autotrader lists 43 Alfa 147's for sale atm, ranging from 40k-150k miles. If people have been able to get 150k miles out of them, the reliability either isn't that bad, or the owners really liked the car. Otherwise they would have been scrapped by now, either way not a bad thing. As far as cars go, they frankly aren't that practical. But if its what interests you, there isn't much competition really. Since if you were buying a car purely for its practicality, you'd get a Hyundai I10, which is about as reliable, frugal, and cheap to own as it gets.
This genuinely surprised me, as I didn't expect Holden would do such a concept: https://www.netcarshow.com/holden/2018-time_attack_concept/
I don't know if I want the Lexus, the Alfa, the Focus or keeping the 2007 1.4 diesel Corolla (shoddy aftermarket rustproofing after surface underside rust). Or maybe an E46 318i/E86 118i? Or an Audi A4 1.9 TDI? Or even a diesel Mini? Or maybe something else?
Depends what you want really. For example, if comfort and build quality is what you are looking for, the Lexus is looking like a far better bet than a Focus. I'm not sure I would recommend getting a diesel in this day and age. Prices have dropped quite a bit recently making them attractive, but who knows what sort of regulations may be introduced in the following years, especially for older diesel vehicles.
Depending on what your insurance situation is like, the BMW 1 series might be a good option. They are a fairly nice place to be inside. Solid drivers cars. Not too old, but old enough that they are reasonably cheap. They get genuinely good fuel economy, and there is plenty of them around. Insurance can be a bit expensive on them though, since rwd. Servicing won't be too cheap, but no worse than any other car from a more premium brand.
Anyone mind explaining what made the 426 Hemi so great for its time? It seems like an interesting engine, but I don't know much about it. Also, I think it might make for an interesting discussion.
E86s? I don’t know much about them, but I would do some research before buying it.... --- Post updated --- Apparently the ABS can break on the 1 series.... oh well. Do your reliability research and you’ll be fine.
I don't know bmw model names particularly well outside of the basics. These... In either 2 or 4 doors. With whatever engine meets their personal economy/performance requirements. They tend to be considered entry level enthusiasts cars, and they are very common and available. There's 181 below £5k on autotrader. They get good economy for power figures too. For just over £3000 you can get the following sorts of figures. Which is fairly impressive for a petrol engine.
I saw a first gen Mazda for the first time in my life. There is not much of them out here. (I live near and around more mid-upperclass suburbs and towns, so nobody really owns that kind of car, and if they did it would be in a tuners garage) Just thought that was interesting.
I was just thinking about the interaction of politics and car culture. as I often do, and well, you know that catalytic converter felony I like to rant about? That, right there, is why all car people, regardless of where they live, should aim for an inwardly-weak central government using any legitimate means available. See, our Supreme Court here in the US was never supposed to be able to legislate or reinterpret from the bench. Originally, in fact, they had a very narrow mission: review laws brought before them to determine if they were in keeping with the principles of the US Constitution as written and meant. Over the years, however, that changed. It changed until one day, they decided that since air pollution was technically a part of interstate commerce, the legislative branch had a right to regulate it and to blazes with the tenth amendment. Oh, and by "regulate air pollution" they meant "create an unelected, unaccountable regulatory agency within the executive branch and (I guess) preemptively rubber-stamp all its future "laws" so you don't have to be accountable for all the unpopular decisions you think need to be made". As a result, we got the same thing that always happens when a central government gets too strong: heavy-handed regulations made by people who know nothing about the subject matter they are trying to regulate. Now, in this case, you might be tempted to say that the ends justified the means in that case, since 1970s USA did have an air quality problem - then, as now, concentrated in urban areas (which is one more reason I hate cities - we all suffer from poorly-thought-out pollution regulations because a bunch of people somewhere decided to play a scaled-up version of stuff the phone booth). But that right there is a very dangerous line of thinking, because power doesn't just get used for good once and then go away. It hangs around, and if it changes hands there's no telling what might be done with it. So what if the Clean Air Act had been recognized and declared unconstitutional? Well... the states would have had to figure it out for themselves, at that point. California (where the biggest problems were) was already given special permission to make their own rules (because they needed it); if there had been no federal legislation involved, they probably would have made their own rules anyway, and a bunch of other states would have followed them, just as ended up happening. The end result would have been about the same... but rules regarding post-purchase modifications would be much more sensible, since they would have been made much closer to the individual problem and not-problem areas where modification was actually occurring. It's the same in every country. Idiocy almost always comes from either the capital or the largest urban centers, unless they've sold out to some kind of "international government" (phrase which makes me want to puke) in which case it's just as likely to come from there instead. Maximum decentralization of decision-making authority is the only way forward, especially if you are a part of a "controversial" niche hobby like cars.
Yes, all of us should do this specifically, because there are no other problems in the world that car people should care about.
This would solve a lot of other problems as well. So many problems start with ivory-tower intellectuals who think they know enough to tell the rest of us how to live, or just think the whole world is a city. They wouldn't last a week on the frontlines, of course, but that's not their problem since they'll never have to be on the frontlines (and they've made sure of that). I could give you examples from my own home state if you'd like.
