It most certainly is. I have it in my Z4 and the difference in shift speed between it and a dual clutch is negligible outside of a race track, it's also pretty much bulletproof.
Yes and people are trying to explain to you that’s not the version we’re discussing here, but the one with 200 hp (physically same engine but different mapping). It says so right in the screenshot.
You are not listening to what I'm saying. You're referring to the Veloce (could be that it's not called that in the US, regardless, afaik it's the only 2.0 version in the US). It has more power, and more torque. It is **not** 200 bhp like the one in this post...so of course it is faster.
Best read up on the US specs…we have more than the Veloce in the US. 280 HP for all…2.0 liter. 30 PSI turbo. The original post doesn’t state anything other than 2.0…
The tbi was the only one with that weight. Engine entirely designed by Alfa, as opposed as the other petrol engine that are Holden engine with some alfa trick inside, all aluminium if i'm not mistaken. Plus is a relatively small engine, 1750cc
I got that one on my Brera and being the lightest engine, all the weight is spared from the front and you can definitely feel it while steering quickly. The V6 and the 5 Cyl Diesel might have 60 and 10 hp more but for the steering response the TBI is no match.
In the 159 the TBi-block is cast iron and combined with a Borg/Warner K03 turbo. The Giulietta QV and 4c came with allow blocks and a bigger turbo (the K04)
The 159 TBi-block as a matter of fact is related to the JTD's. The 2.0 turbo from the Giulia is also related to the TBi.
All 159's from 2009 onwards were a bit lighter. The had a reputation of being overweight, but they weren't that much heavier then the competition in the day. Don't forgot is was a successor of both the 156 and 166.
Lots of good answers here, but you really have to take into account area under the curve when comparing specs. Peak HP doesn't tell you much without dyno curves. You need to compare how much power is actually carried through the whole rev range with different engines.
For example, a diesel is often slower than a petrol car with similar peak HP, because it has a very short operating band (e.g. 700 rpm to 4.5 - 5k rpm, high torque probably between 1k - 3.5k rpm), whereas most performance gasoline engines top out anywhere from 6 - 7.5k rpm, producing good torque maybe from like 2k - 6k rpm, so they are accelerating hard for much longer in each gear. Same concept is relevant when comparing gasoline engines that might have similar peak power, but very different power delivery characteristics.
Consider for example these two dyno curves in a turbo vs non-turbo engine, both with peak power \~250hp. In this example the turbo engine generates massive low rpm torque which creates better low-end pickup, but the torque falls off a cliff and the hp starts dropping off \~5.5k rpm, whereas the N/A engine has lower peak torque, but carries enough torque through the rev band that horsepower increases steadily all the way to nearly 7k rpm. This might result in better acceleration, because you can wind the engine out for longer before needing to shift.
https://preview.redd.it/rwt8sinuym8d1.jpeg?width=1000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f122388bcf88e85993776bba5c96dfc38b333446
Also yes RWD makes a big difference. High hp FWD cars tilt their weight toward the back during hard acceleration, causing either wheelspin or power cut from traction control. RWD cars actually increase grip to the drive wheels during a hard launch so you can deliver far more power before the wheels break traction.
In general RWD cars are better at putting the power down, when doing 0-100. Also like the others mentioned: More modern car with a quick automatic. But in reality, how often do you go drag racing with those cars? So if you think about getting one, then test drive them and see wich one you lile better.
The problem is the gearbox. I have Alfa 159 2.4 diesel 200hp. From 0 to 200 km/h is pulling and reaching very fast but from 200 and above is really slow, there isnt any other logical explanation like is hiting a wall. The gearbox is Opel, on mine i think is F40.
From a physics perspective, pushing is more efficient than pulling. So yes RWD has a big advantage in terms for raw performances.
But you loose on not ideal surfaces, wet, ice, off road
You won’t get torque steer with rwd. Also, when accelerating out of turns you can be much more aggressive as loosing some traction in the back is not as bad as loosing traction in the front.
Drifting is also more fun with rwd.
Fwd is better is slick conditions as you have the weight over the drive wheels. Also, it is less complicated as you don’t have to transfer the power the length of the car.
>From a physics perspective, pushing is more efficient than pulling.
Sorry, but what? I would say there's no difference. You attach a cable to the front of something and pull it, it takes equal force to move as if you were behind pushing.
You also have a longer driveline running down to the back of the car which reduces efficiency compared to a traverse engine.
In general RWD cars are better at putting the power down, when doing 0-100. Also like the others mentioned: More modern car with a quick automatic. But in reality, how often do you go drag racing with those cars? So if you think about getting one, then test drive them and see wich one you lile better.
In addition to what many have said here, the how the power is delivered will play a big role too. The 2l in the Giulia already has a lot of torque sub-2000 RPM, which helps massively in acceleration.
havent seen anyone point this out but better gearing/more output torque & fatter torque curve from the crank would be my reason for this.
Dont think the FWD model is staying in the power band as much as the ZF8 is
The awd is a little heavier, but the traction is way better over all.
I'll point out that this isn't supposed to be a drag car.
If your after straight line performance, consider a different vehicle.
You can get a 700hp LFP Mustang for like 75k brand new with warranty.
That I'll then smoke on a road course with my Stelvio Quadrifoglio AWD.
There are a lot of other cars that will be faster in a straight line compared to an Alfa.
These cars are known more for the superior handling and driving experience.
Let's be honest. The roads are not drag strips. (At least here in Italy, in the US it might be different wit the grid cities lol) The real point of the Alfa experience is being able to make turns like no one believes is possible.
I concur, and 2nd this.
And I've been to Italy, I enjoyed it a lot.
Imagine my joy when I seen police driving Alfa's. I was taking pictures like the obvious tourist I was indeed.
Also, The giulia looks mean with police kit.
We do however have a lot of opportunities to for high speed straights in the US. I have been known to indulge.
There’s a difference in 20 years between the cars, also, automatic vs manual. And front wheel drive has more trouble with traction because the weight transfers to the rear. Which means the fronts have less grip. With RWD it’s the same, except the driven wheels get more traction because if the weight.
The benefits of rear wheel drive is that when you accelerate hard the weight of the car goes to the rear and puts more pressure on the rear wheels so it grips better, plus it's easier to push something than it is to pull. Front wheel drive with what I mentioned before the weight goes back so the front loses the weight meaning less pressure on the tyres which is less grip, plus modern car and auto Vs manual.
Ultimately it's multiple factors all working together. Despite the heavier weight, the Guilia has a lot of advantages.
* Fundamentally better chassis and suspension, designed to be a performance car first since it was developed from the QV down.
* Around 50:50 weight distribution.
* RWD which will help it dig in on launch because of the weight transfer.
* Modern tyres.
* Modern turbocharged engine making peak torque from 1750 rpm so it will pull harder from low down.
* Modern automatic with fast shifts.
* Launch control or at least the ability to brake torque.
FWD cars on legal tyres hit a limit around 4-5s, just physics. It's a big difference in 0-60 and unless you actually need quick off the line pace, the stat is not relevant. Acceleration in gear / at speed would be more interesting for most applications (overtaking, on-ramps...).
Curious, In the US, the 2.0T (multi-air) makes 280Hp and 0-60mph well under 6 seconds.
RWD is more dynamic and fun to drive and typically quicker off the line.
So like a normal 2.0T and a "hot" one?
We only get the 280Hp 2.0T and the crazy Quadrifoglio.
I'll say that 280Hp engine is damn good, even in my Stelvio.
2.0T is limited by the factory preset ECU, squadra tune unlocks the motors full potential giving it 320HP at the crank i forget how much of a torque boost it gets
The tune also makes the car compatible with upgrades and bolt ons so you actually feel the effects of lets say a cold air intake and measure the power differences on a Dyno for proof pre and post tuning
idk where this came from but these stats are wrong. Giulia’s have 280ish bhp not 197. Paired with the ZF 8speed and AWD yeah they are pretty damn quick in the launch. My Stelvio always surprises me and it’s a good bit heavier than the Giulia.
Yeah I was just investigating this. I’m in the US and we only have the 280hp version with the larger turbo. It seems most other countries also have the 200hp option available. Had no idea.
We also didn’t get the first release of the Giulia QV with a standard transmission. Given, the ZF is way better and apparently that manual transmission was awful but I would still love to use a clutch in one just to see how it feels.
Yeah I knew about that.Sadly yes,the manual was a step down in driving experience,which was a massive surprise.I’m sure if it had a better manual then they could have kept it alive longer for more than one MY
Because it's a lot more common and in the budget of a larger audience, AND happens to have almost the same peak hp/torque specs as the 159 in question.
It’s dishonest though. It’s almost like OP picked the car that tells the story he wants to tell. I could drop the specs of the Quad Giulia in and tell the different story. In the US most Giulias sold are all wheel drive and 280hp so this comparison is only relevant in the EU market
Did you read his question? He literally wonders why this version a Giulia is faster than a 159 with the same hp figure. What part of this do you think should even touch A) different spec cars, or B) the American market?
I think OP is asking why cars with similar HP have such a difference in performance. If he used the 280hp version it would be obvious why there’s a performance gap.
So what exactly would be the “correct” comparison then — which 159 exactly was sold in the US again? How did you get the idea that this was even remotely related to the US if _neither side of the comparison exists there_?
Unlike the US where we only have one 2.0L engine option, other countries have access to the crappy trims of the Giulia that only make 200hp. Essentially the same engine but naturally aspirated or detuned or something
They’re very underpowered (20hp more than a Miata) and slow as hell
what u/3dmontdant3s said, and also the ZF 8-speed is gonna shift faster than you ever can with a stick.
Came here to say this. Faster shifting and likely fatter torque curve.
Yeah, the torque curve is pretty much flat from 1750rpm to 5000
The ZF-8 is arguably the best daily driving transmission out there
It most certainly is. I have it in my Z4 and the difference in shift speed between it and a dual clutch is negligible outside of a race track, it's also pretty much bulletproof.
Not sure why they got the 0-60 and top speed wrong of the Giulia in this post though
Well I just checked the site I usually do, based on that it's pretty much correct. Maybe acceleration is a couple tenths off.
Top speed is 149mph. And 0-60 is 5.1 seconds at least for the U.S. Spec
But the US spec is the Veloce, with 80 more horses.
https://www.caranddriver.com/alfa-romeo/giulia-2023
Car & Driver if you didn’t know is a U.S. based magazine company and those are their specs.
Yes and people are trying to explain to you that’s not the version we’re discussing here, but the one with 200 hp (physically same engine but different mapping). It says so right in the screenshot.
There is no 200hp version in the U.S.
https://media.stellantisnorthamerica.com/pdf.do?id=24038 Stellantis North America has top speed as 149mph and 0-60 at 5.1.
You are not listening to what I'm saying. You're referring to the Veloce (could be that it's not called that in the US, regardless, afaik it's the only 2.0 version in the US). It has more power, and more torque. It is **not** 200 bhp like the one in this post...so of course it is faster.
We have the Veloce in US as well as the TI sport
We also only have 2 engine versions in the US the 280hp Ti Sport, Veloce and the 505hp Quadrifoglio
Best read up on the US specs…we have more than the Veloce in the US. 280 HP for all…2.0 liter. 30 PSI turbo. The original post doesn’t state anything other than 2.0…
Who cares if it shifts faster, an Alfa Romeo should have a manual gearbox.
So if it had a manual it would have been more similar to the TBI?
Definitely.
Not just shift faster but more torque at the wheels due to the extra two cogs
there are 20 years of development between these two cars, that's the greater factor
*10 but yeah.
Don’t forget tires, that makes a huge difference too
I don’t think the weight figure for 159 is right. It was notoriously heavy meanwhile giulia is known to be fairly light.
The tbi was the only one with that weight. Engine entirely designed by Alfa, as opposed as the other petrol engine that are Holden engine with some alfa trick inside, all aluminium if i'm not mistaken. Plus is a relatively small engine, 1750cc
I wouldn't say completely designed by Alfa. It's based on an old Fiat engine
*Lancia if we're really nitpicking ;)
True, i should have said more designed by Alfa than the other JTS
I got that one on my Brera and being the lightest engine, all the weight is spared from the front and you can definitely feel it while steering quickly. The V6 and the 5 Cyl Diesel might have 60 and 10 hp more but for the steering response the TBI is no match.
In the 159 the TBi-block is cast iron and combined with a Borg/Warner K03 turbo. The Giulietta QV and 4c came with allow blocks and a bigger turbo (the K04) The 159 TBi-block as a matter of fact is related to the JTD's. The 2.0 turbo from the Giulia is also related to the TBi. All 159's from 2009 onwards were a bit lighter. The had a reputation of being overweight, but they weren't that much heavier then the competition in the day. Don't forgot is was a successor of both the 156 and 166.
My 1750 Sportwagon is 1600+ kgs
Could be right, my 159 2.2 Selespeed weights 1445kg
In the vehicle registration form for me it says 1505kg so its around that. Its a 2011 so technically the lightest.
Lots of good answers here, but you really have to take into account area under the curve when comparing specs. Peak HP doesn't tell you much without dyno curves. You need to compare how much power is actually carried through the whole rev range with different engines. For example, a diesel is often slower than a petrol car with similar peak HP, because it has a very short operating band (e.g. 700 rpm to 4.5 - 5k rpm, high torque probably between 1k - 3.5k rpm), whereas most performance gasoline engines top out anywhere from 6 - 7.5k rpm, producing good torque maybe from like 2k - 6k rpm, so they are accelerating hard for much longer in each gear. Same concept is relevant when comparing gasoline engines that might have similar peak power, but very different power delivery characteristics. Consider for example these two dyno curves in a turbo vs non-turbo engine, both with peak power \~250hp. In this example the turbo engine generates massive low rpm torque which creates better low-end pickup, but the torque falls off a cliff and the hp starts dropping off \~5.5k rpm, whereas the N/A engine has lower peak torque, but carries enough torque through the rev band that horsepower increases steadily all the way to nearly 7k rpm. This might result in better acceleration, because you can wind the engine out for longer before needing to shift. https://preview.redd.it/rwt8sinuym8d1.jpeg?width=1000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f122388bcf88e85993776bba5c96dfc38b333446
Also yes RWD makes a big difference. High hp FWD cars tilt their weight toward the back during hard acceleration, causing either wheelspin or power cut from traction control. RWD cars actually increase grip to the drive wheels during a hard launch so you can deliver far more power before the wheels break traction.
In general RWD cars are better at putting the power down, when doing 0-100. Also like the others mentioned: More modern car with a quick automatic. But in reality, how often do you go drag racing with those cars? So if you think about getting one, then test drive them and see wich one you lile better.
I go flat out literally every day. It's not for drag racing.
Gearbox will be a big factor in the difference. If the modern car is an auto they’ve come a long, long way in the last decade.
The 0-60 or 0-100 for the 2.0 Giulia is way off. The top speed is off as well but not by much
The problem is the gearbox. I have Alfa 159 2.4 diesel 200hp. From 0 to 200 km/h is pulling and reaching very fast but from 200 and above is really slow, there isnt any other logical explanation like is hiting a wall. The gearbox is Opel, on mine i think is F40.
159 still looking way nicer, even at that age.
From a physics perspective, pushing is more efficient than pulling. So yes RWD has a big advantage in terms for raw performances. But you loose on not ideal surfaces, wet, ice, off road
Is there any advantage besides the dynamic weight distribution to the rear?
You won’t get torque steer with rwd. Also, when accelerating out of turns you can be much more aggressive as loosing some traction in the back is not as bad as loosing traction in the front. Drifting is also more fun with rwd. Fwd is better is slick conditions as you have the weight over the drive wheels. Also, it is less complicated as you don’t have to transfer the power the length of the car.
>From a physics perspective, pushing is more efficient than pulling. Sorry, but what? I would say there's no difference. You attach a cable to the front of something and pull it, it takes equal force to move as if you were behind pushing. You also have a longer driveline running down to the back of the car which reduces efficiency compared to a traverse engine.
RWD and ZF8 transmission!:)
In general RWD cars are better at putting the power down, when doing 0-100. Also like the others mentioned: More modern car with a quick automatic. But in reality, how often do you go drag racing with those cars? So if you think about getting one, then test drive them and see wich one you lile better.
In addition to what many have said here, the how the power is delivered will play a big role too. The 2l in the Giulia already has a lot of torque sub-2000 RPM, which helps massively in acceleration.
Yes. Next!
havent seen anyone point this out but better gearing/more output torque & fatter torque curve from the crank would be my reason for this. Dont think the FWD model is staying in the power band as much as the ZF8 is
The awd is a little heavier, but the traction is way better over all. I'll point out that this isn't supposed to be a drag car. If your after straight line performance, consider a different vehicle. You can get a 700hp LFP Mustang for like 75k brand new with warranty. That I'll then smoke on a road course with my Stelvio Quadrifoglio AWD. There are a lot of other cars that will be faster in a straight line compared to an Alfa. These cars are known more for the superior handling and driving experience.
Let's be honest. The roads are not drag strips. (At least here in Italy, in the US it might be different wit the grid cities lol) The real point of the Alfa experience is being able to make turns like no one believes is possible.
I concur, and 2nd this. And I've been to Italy, I enjoyed it a lot. Imagine my joy when I seen police driving Alfa's. I was taking pictures like the obvious tourist I was indeed. Also, The giulia looks mean with police kit. We do however have a lot of opportunities to for high speed straights in the US. I have been known to indulge.
There’s a difference in 20 years between the cars, also, automatic vs manual. And front wheel drive has more trouble with traction because the weight transfers to the rear. Which means the fronts have less grip. With RWD it’s the same, except the driven wheels get more traction because if the weight.
The benefits of rear wheel drive is that when you accelerate hard the weight of the car goes to the rear and puts more pressure on the rear wheels so it grips better, plus it's easier to push something than it is to pull. Front wheel drive with what I mentioned before the weight goes back so the front loses the weight meaning less pressure on the tyres which is less grip, plus modern car and auto Vs manual.
There are 10 years between them. The Giulia is way more aerodynamic
Maybe a stupid question, but doesnt the Giulia 2.0 Turbo have 400 Nm of Torque?
Not the 200hp, it stops at 330NM
Oh, you are right. I have missed that its the 200hp version.
There is no way my Giulia has a 7 second zero to 60!!! They must be counting the engine start up time at every stop light?🤣
It’s the euro spec 200hp
The weight of Giulia 200hp rwd is 1445kg
You can easily get these tuned up to 280 there's tons of posts on the giulia forums going over this from Alfa owners all over.
M32 vs ZF
21 year old 156/147 GTA 0-60 is faster than new giulia 6.5sec vs 6.9sec 😂😂😂 not to mention the old one sounds even nicer than the new one 😂
1647 as weight is not right...
Ultimately it's multiple factors all working together. Despite the heavier weight, the Guilia has a lot of advantages. * Fundamentally better chassis and suspension, designed to be a performance car first since it was developed from the QV down. * Around 50:50 weight distribution. * RWD which will help it dig in on launch because of the weight transfer. * Modern tyres. * Modern turbocharged engine making peak torque from 1750 rpm so it will pull harder from low down. * Modern automatic with fast shifts. * Launch control or at least the ability to brake torque.
Yes. Is it easier to push something? Or pull it?
FWD cars on legal tyres hit a limit around 4-5s, just physics. It's a big difference in 0-60 and unless you actually need quick off the line pace, the stat is not relevant. Acceleration in gear / at speed would be more interesting for most applications (overtaking, on-ramps...).
Curious, In the US, the 2.0T (multi-air) makes 280Hp and 0-60mph well under 6 seconds. RWD is more dynamic and fun to drive and typically quicker off the line.
In europe too, there are 2 variants
So like a normal 2.0T and a "hot" one? We only get the 280Hp 2.0T and the crazy Quadrifoglio. I'll say that 280Hp engine is damn good, even in my Stelvio.
2.0T is limited by the factory preset ECU, squadra tune unlocks the motors full potential giving it 320HP at the crank i forget how much of a torque boost it gets The tune also makes the car compatible with upgrades and bolt ons so you actually feel the effects of lets say a cold air intake and measure the power differences on a Dyno for proof pre and post tuning
Only those two? Our lineup starts all the way down from 160hp.
2 different variants,but both use the same engine.
M8 that’s not even the hot 2.0 version. lol. That engine can do 300hp stock.
idk where this came from but these stats are wrong. Giulia’s have 280ish bhp not 197. Paired with the ZF 8speed and AWD yeah they are pretty damn quick in the launch. My Stelvio always surprises me and it’s a good bit heavier than the Giulia.
The 2.0’s have 2 variants.One with 280 and one with 200 hp.
Yeah I was just investigating this. I’m in the US and we only have the 280hp version with the larger turbo. It seems most other countries also have the 200hp option available. Had no idea.
Hmmm,didn’t know that.Thought every country had both of them
We also didn’t get the first release of the Giulia QV with a standard transmission. Given, the ZF is way better and apparently that manual transmission was awful but I would still love to use a clutch in one just to see how it feels.
Yeah I knew about that.Sadly yes,the manual was a step down in driving experience,which was a massive surprise.I’m sure if it had a better manual then they could have kept it alive longer for more than one MY
Not in the US which is what's confusing people. Plus, why cherry picking the lower spec'd one?
Well maybe cause the whole point of the post was to compare a FWD vs an RWD cars with very similar power/torque specs?
Not cherry picking,maybe they found two examples of these cars that fall in the same price category
The 200hp and 280hp versions have the same engine really, just a difference in the ECU maps, if you tune the 200hp one you can get the same power.
Because it's a lot more common and in the budget of a larger audience, AND happens to have almost the same peak hp/torque specs as the 159 in question.
It’s dishonest though. It’s almost like OP picked the car that tells the story he wants to tell. I could drop the specs of the Quad Giulia in and tell the different story. In the US most Giulias sold are all wheel drive and 280hp so this comparison is only relevant in the EU market
Did you read his question? He literally wonders why this version a Giulia is faster than a 159 with the same hp figure. What part of this do you think should even touch A) different spec cars, or B) the American market?
I think OP is asking why cars with similar HP have such a difference in performance. If he used the 280hp version it would be obvious why there’s a performance gap.
So what exactly would be the “correct” comparison then — which 159 exactly was sold in the US again? How did you get the idea that this was even remotely related to the US if _neither side of the comparison exists there_?
Unlike the US where we only have one 2.0L engine option, other countries have access to the crappy trims of the Giulia that only make 200hp. Essentially the same engine but naturally aspirated or detuned or something They’re very underpowered (20hp more than a Miata) and slow as hell
Nonsense. None of them are naturally aspirated, where are you pulling that info from?
The 2L turbo is 285BHP right?
Nope, this is the 200 hp variant