Alfa Romeo 4C Forums banner
101 - 120 of 129 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
239 Posts
Not the comparison being discussed here, but having driven an '18 EU spider and owning an '18 USDM spider, there's a significant enough difference between the two (from the US car's added weight) that I'm looking for an ECU tune to replicate the euro car's experience. Just in terms of raw straight-line acceleration there's a noticeable difference!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
235 Posts
Not the comparison being discussed here, but having driven an '18 EU spider and owning an '18 USDM spider, there's a significant enough difference between the two (from the US car's added weight) that I'm looking for an ECU tune to replicate the euro car's experience. Just in terms of raw straight-line acceleration there's a noticeable difference!
Yes and there is a significant weight difference thats why.
Its not a deviation in assembly tolerances.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
629 Posts
Indeed, 400lbs is a lot of weight! I'd love to try a Euro 4C and see how it feels compared to my Alfaworks tuned US spec car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
From memory or maybe just wishful thinking, there was a discussion that the US version may have had a clandestine and unpublished "tweak" in HP to make up for the significant weight gain from the EU model.
Perhaps to 260 but did not make it official not to ruffle any feathers?
Anybody have any Dyno figures on late models (300) ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
152 Posts
Um chirping tires depends as much or more on the tires and asphalt condition as it does any rumoured "enhancement" to the car.
FWIW, my 2015 LE could chirp the useless P-zero tires easily into second gear on the race track when tires and pavement were cold. That was in Natural mode, when I was just having fun (we were doing some "exercises" at an HPDE day). I wouldn't be overly surprised that it could be done with some aggressive driving shifting into 3rd, under similar conditions.
I chirp the crap out of my PZeroes all day long without even really getting on it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
235 Posts
From memory or maybe just wishful thinking, there was a discussion that the US version may have had a clandestine and unpublished "tweak" in HP to make up for the significant weight gain from the EU model.
Perhaps to 260 but did not make it official not to ruffle any feathers?
Anybody have any Dyno figures on late models (300) ?
If that's true then they did it with tuning and if so, going to an ECU tune wont have as much of a bang for the buck.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
16,974 Posts
If that's true then they did it with tuning and if so, going to an ECU tune wont have as much of a bang for the buck.
Big "if".
Huge, actually.

But keep in mind that the ECU tunes which were developed here are on (and compared to) the US platform.

Still, there is only speculation and innuendo suggesting that anything was done to NAFTA cars over and above the EMEA models.
Considering cars that sell here have to be CARB and EPA compliant, it is even less likely that Alfa would have souped them up for the purpose.
Had they been willing and able to extract more power than the original tune, and meet those goals, then they likely would have done so for Europe and the rest of the planet as well.

I know, I know. Applying logic to an Italian car company again. Sorry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
235 Posts
Big "if".
Huge, actually.

But keep in mind that the ECU tunes which were developed here are on (and compared to) the US platform.

Still, there is only speculation and innuendo suggesting that anything was done to NAFTA cars over and above the EMEA models.
Considering cars that sell here have to be CARB and EPA compliant, it is even less likely that Alfa would have souped them up for the purpose.
Had they been willing and able to extract more power than the original tune, and meet those goals, then they likely would have done so for Europe and the rest of the planet as well.

I know, I know. Applying logic to an Italian car company again. Sorry.
I just wonder if when you take your car for service at an Alfa dealer and they do a download if that would add any tuning changes that they may done.
Like if they tuned the new cars for more power/faster shifts if when they do a download on an older car if those changes would be incorporated.
 

·
Super Moderator
2015 4C Launch Edition
Joined
·
5,185 Posts
I just wonder if when you take your car for service at an Alfa dealer and they do a download if that would add any tuning changes that they may done.
Like if they tuned the new cars for more power/faster shifts if when they do a download on an older car if those changes would be incorporated.
The flashes that ALFA sometimes applies to the 4C were to tweak things like shifting smoothness, etc. but they couldn't change the peformance parameters from those that the EPA approved and certified the car with. I also think that part of the weight differential is between the Euro original model which was stripped for lightness Vs. the NA version option packages. The North American version did have some extra strength items added or beefed up to meet the regulatory requirment and more air bags, but a major part of the wieght increase is due to the options we insist on such as Air Conditoning, Radio, Cruise control, etc. I would be interested in actually weighing a current European car with options listed....have any of our European owners actually weighed their own cars...might be interesting. Perhaps the European cars are going with specs put out by ALFA which would be for a stripped car and no fluids which is pretty much their standard way of specing cars. Here our cars are weighed as sold and ready to be driven....all options, full gas tank, oil, etc.
The one thing that enters into this puzzle....if the American cars weigh 400# more, why are the 0-62kph, etc. times equivalent to the US times after conversion to 0-60 mph. I would think that a car that is 400 #heavier should be significanlty slower but it doesn' work out that way. I could see a difference if the cars had different drive ratios but they are identical in every way....even as far as the hp and torque specs.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
16,974 Posts
...
The one thing that enters into this puzzle....if the American cars weigh 400# more, why are the 0-62kph, etc. times equivalent to the US times after conversion to 0-60 mph. I would think that a car that is 400 #heavier should be significanlty slower but it doesn' work out that way. I could see a difference if the cars had different drive ratios but they are identical in every way....even as far as the hp and torque specs.
I agree on the flashes front.

I think we solved the above question though.
The North American advertising quotes 4.1 seconds to 60 instead of the rest of the world's 4.5 seconds (to 100km/hr / 62mph) because in North America, Alfa quoted the MotorTrend testing.
They give credit to MT in the brochures (fine print).
Alfa used the 4.5 seconds in early advertising here, until the MT test came out.

And the reason that MotorTrend got 4.1 seconds is in their test procedure. From the MT website Testing, Testing - The Motor Trend Way - Motor Trend :
"
We run from zero to the maximum practical speed increment above the quarter mile. As does the NHRA, we subtract a "1-foot" (about 11.5 inches in reality) rollout from the launch to replicate dragstrip time measurement equipment."

So, time to overcome inertia and get the first (slowest) 5 or 6 mph out of the car, is deducted from the run. They do it consistently, but it is not consistent with what Alfa would have done themselves in Europe. And if they advertised the 6-60 time as a 0-60 time over there, Brussels would have had their ass!

Worthy of note, this is part of the reason that Elon Musk's assertion about the Model S Plaid being a sub 2 second car, is BS. That vehicle is still a spectacular performer, so why try to build it up further using lies and cheats. It was also tested on glue at the launch, whereas the 4C was supposedly done on regular asphalt.
 

·
Super Moderator
2015 4C Launch Edition
Joined
·
5,185 Posts
I agree on the flashes front.

I think we solved the above question though.
The North American advertising quotes 4.1 seconds to 60 instead of the rest of the world's 4.5 seconds (to 100km/hr / 62mph) because in North America, Alfa quoted the MotorTrend testing.
They give credit to MT in the brochures (fine print).
Alfa used the 4.5 seconds in early advertising here, until the MT test came out.

And the reason that MotorTrend got 4.1 seconds is in their test procedure. From the MT website Testing, Testing - The Motor Trend Way - Motor Trend :
"
We run from zero to the maximum practical speed increment above the quarter mile. As does the NHRA, we subtract a "1-foot" (about 11.5 inches in reality) rollout from the launch to replicate dragstrip time measurement equipment."

So, time to overcome inertia and get the first (slowest) 5 or 6 mph out of the car, is deducted from the run. They do it consistently, but it is not consistent with what Alfa would have done themselves in Europe. And if they advertised the 6-60 time as a 0-60 time over there, Brussels would have had their ass!

Worthy of note, this is part of the reason that Elon Musk's assertion about the Model S Plaid being a sub 2 second car, is BS. That vehicle is still a spectacular performer, so why try to build it up further using lies and cheats. It was also tested on glue at the launch, whereas the 4C was supposedly done on regular asphalt.
That roll out method by MT is a recent change....I believe about a year or two ago. When the original 4C runs were done it was from stop and no roll out. As a side note...I did a 0-60 with a 10hz GPS with my car when it was dead stock and on the PZeros as delivered. I was able to replicate the 4.1 second time with a couple of best runs but it ranged from that up to 4.4. The launch was the real difference. Also letting car cool down between runs and picking a day that wasn't hot and humid. I used mid 60 ambient temperature. I am at 200 ft. elevation (also important variable). Heat soak is a major consideration.
I came to the conclusion a 0-60 mph time was not a good test....rolling start runs such as 20-80 mph would be more repeatable and realistic. But to the public...at least here in the US....0-60 and quarter mile times are what they think measure a car's performance.
 

·
Registered
2015 4C Coupe
Joined
·
143 Posts
Well to be fair the majority of US "performance" driving on the road is mashing the accelerator when a light turns green. And if that is all you care about, a 3-second car feels much different than our 4-second car.
Hell, I was filling up the other day and the guy filling up next to me goes "That's a sweet car. What's the top speed on that thing?". Could he have asked for a more irrelevant figure? 😂
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,750 Posts
Well to be fair the majority of US "performance" driving on the road is mashing the accelerator when a light turns green. And if that is all you care about, a 3-second car feels much different than our 4-second car.
Hell, I was filling up the other day and the guy filling up next to me goes "That's a sweet car. What's the top speed on that thing?". Could he have asked for a more irrelevant figure? 😂
Yes....yes he could have, the same one that drives Jay Leno NUTS:
"Hey, how much is that?"
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
16,974 Posts
I agree on the flashes front.

I think we solved the above question though.
The North American advertising quotes 4.1 seconds to 60 instead of the rest of the world's 4.5 seconds (to 100km/hr / 62mph) because in North America, Alfa quoted the MotorTrend testing.
They give credit to MT in the brochures (fine print).
Alfa used the 4.5 seconds in early advertising here, until the MT test came out.

And the reason that MotorTrend got 4.1 seconds is in their test procedure. From the MT website Testing, Testing - The Motor Trend Way - Motor Trend :
"
We run from zero to the maximum practical speed increment above the quarter mile. As does the NHRA, we subtract a "1-foot" (about 11.5 inches in reality) rollout from the launch to replicate dragstrip time measurement equipment."

So, time to overcome inertia and get the first (slowest) 5 or 6 mph out of the car, is deducted from the run. They do it consistently, but it is not consistent with what Alfa would have done themselves in Europe. And if they advertised the 6-60 time as a 0-60 time over there, Brussels would have had their ass!

Worthy of note, this is part of the reason that Elon Musk's assertion about the Model S Plaid being a sub 2 second car, is BS. That vehicle is still a spectacular performer, so why try to build it up further using lies and cheats. It was also tested on glue at the launch, whereas the 4C was supposedly done on regular asphalt.
You might be thinking of Car & Driver, who changed to include the rollout only a couple of years ago.

I might be mistaken, but I was under the impression that MT has done their test reporting this way for a while.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
2,035 Posts
Well to be fair the majority of US "performance" driving on the road is mashing the accelerator when a light turns green. And if that is all you care about, a 3-second car feels much different than our 4-second car.
Hell, I was filling up the other day and the guy filling up next to me goes "That's a sweet car. What's the top speed on that thing?". Could he have asked for a more irrelevant figure? 😂
The top speed question is the most common one I get asked, and to be honest, I don't even know the answer as I write this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
235 Posts
That roll out method by MT is a recent change....I believe about a year or two ago. When the original 4C runs were done it was from stop and no roll out. As a side note...I did a 0-60 with a 10hz GPS with my car when it was dead stock and on the PZeros as delivered. I was able to replicate the 4.1 second time with a couple of best runs but it ranged from that up to 4.4. The launch was the real difference. Also letting car cool down between runs and picking a day that wasn't hot and humid. I used mid 60 ambient temperature. I am at 200 ft. elevation (also important variable). Heat soak is a major consideration.
I came to the conclusion a 0-60 mph time was not a good test....rolling start runs such as 20-80 mph would be more repeatable and realistic. But to the public...at least here in the US....0-60 and quarter mile times are what they think measure a car's performance.
I think a lot of that has to do with its a universal yardstick.
If I told you I ran the south track in 1:40 at autobahn it would mean nothing to 99.99% of the people.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
9,654 Posts
The top speed question is the most common one I get asked, and to be honest, I don't even know the answer as I write this.
I round up and tell ’em 270km/h. It’s an answer sure to irk the 250km/h speed limited German car owners who ask. As for extra standard performance of a later model over an earlier one, wishful thinking. I’ll believe it when I see it. Any little boost in performance would have been boasted about like they did with the Giulia upgrades, even the 5hp upgrades as well as the 40hp ones.
 
101 - 120 of 129 Posts
Top