(first posted 7/23/2015) This site has looked at the 75 in various Outtakes but this car really deserves its own CC. I owned one of these in the perfectly-balanced two-liter Twin Spark configuration, and it is by far the best car I have ever driven. I dream of one day owning a 3-liter V6 as a second car (but first I need a first car). So this forms the basis of my opinion of this car. Proceed with caution.
Alfa Romeo has a long tradition of giving its cars historic names. The small hatchback of the eighties was called 33, referring to the unfathomably beautiful Tipo 33 Stradale supercar of the sixties; the current 8C refers to the original 8C’s and so on. The 75 is a bit meta in this regard as it refers to Alfa Romeo’s history itself; Alfa Romeo turned 75 the year the 75 was introduced in 1985 (it was replaced by the 155 in 1992).
If you are a car nut, and I suspect you are, you know the 75 (and you know it was called the Milano stateside, but I prefer “75” because that was the name given to it in Italy where it was born). If you have driven one, you also know that the reports of its superb handling have not been exaggerated. It is hard to explain to today’s kids that once upon a time Alfa Romeo meant Italian thoroughbred, a marque mentioned naturally alongside Ferrari, Maserati and Lancia. This is the last of the “real” Alfa Romeos because in 1985 Alfa Romeo was taken over by Fiat, and from then on Alfa Romeos were no longer great cars poorly assembled, but merely above average cars poorly assembled. The 75 was Alfa Romeo’s swansong as an independent manufacturer and for that alone it is special.
While even its admirers will admit the 75 is not the ultimate looker, it does shine under its skin. The 75 has an almost perfect weight distribution in all configurations – the V6’s are a bit more nose-heavy.
To achieve this, Alfa Romeo used a rear-mounted transaxle with the clutch mounted all the way back as well. This means that the driveshaft rotates at the speed of the engine – needless to say, this requires careful balancing and I remember the quote for a new clutch on my 75 being high enough that I never had it replaced although it really needed it.
The rear disc brakes site inboard at the differential (limited slip differential on the 2-liter Twin Spark and the 3-liter V6) rather than at the wheels in an effort to reduce unsprung weight. Both front and rear suspension were rather unusual setups – the rear was an Alfa Romeo classic, the deDion tube, and the front had a torsion bar setup. The two-liter Twin Spark had variable valve timing, a technology Alfa Romeo – not Honda – was the first to put into mass production.
The interior of these cars is an acquired taste. If you grew up in the eighties, the 75 will look just about right to you with all the sharp angles and straight lines. If you grew up earlier or later, it will bring back memories of geometry classes. I grew up in the eighties and like it, but I had to help several passengers find the inside door handle. It is not where you expect it to be and does not look like you expect it to look. It took me several weeks of ownership before I discovered there is a glove box beneath the open storage compartment. The buttons for the front windows sit near the rear view mirror in the roof. If you have electric windows in the back, those buttons sit behind the handbrake, which by the way looks like the throttle lever on a boat or an airplane.
In front of the shifter at the very bottom of the dashboard sits the radio. If you have a CD player in the head unit, the car has to be in second, fourth or reverse for you to be able to pull a CD from the it. It came with an advanced (for the time) diagnostics system with a display mounted in the middle of the dashboard above a concealed ashtray. This means that at any given time you have between one and six LED’s lighting up the top of the dashboard, after all such a system does not fix anything, it just informs you when something is wrong, and in a 75 something always is. I find these quirks charming, but if you are used to the perfect ergonomics and logical dashboard layout of a Saab or a BMW of the eighties, these cars would probably have been quite hard to get used to.
But at the end of the day it is my impression that those who deride these cars and mock their poor electronics, generally shoddy build quality and propensity to rust are those who have not driven them. All these points of criticism are all too valid, but you forget all your woes once it is running – it may not be often, but when it is, it is pure magic.
The all-red Turbo Evoluzione at a family gathering.
While an initial success, these cars never flooded the streets due to the well-earned reputation of Italian cars being unreliable as well as a relatively high purchase price and even higher repair costs. 375,000 were sold, with the 2-liter Twin Spark being the top seller and the limited edition homologation 1.8 Turbo Evoluzione being the rarest of them all with just 500 made. Several versions were available; 1.6, 1.8 and 2.0 versions produced with both carburetors and fuel injection. There is the 1.8 Turbo and the 1.8 Turbo Evoluzione. A 2.5 and a 3.0 V6 as well as a 2.0 and 2.4 diesel.
Power ranges from 95 horsepower in the 2-liter diesel to around a hundred more in the 3-liter V6 and particularly the turbo versions obviously offering potential for much more. They were all four-door saloons. There was once a station wagon prototype, but it never made it into production. The GTV6 served as the related two-door, as did the much more expensive SZ (and RZ convertible) which used the entire driveline from the 3-liter V6 75.
When you look at what is under the often-rusted sheet metal of these babies, what you see is a pure sports car and therein lies the appeal of these cars for me. It is not Giulia Super in the looks department, but a Giulia Super does not drive like this.
The 75 is one of the cheaper ways to get a thoroughbred classic car in your collection. This year the first ones turn 30 and that qualifies them for classic car status in some countries. Now I just need that first car so I can start planning for buying my second car. Until then, at least I have someone with whom I can share my passion, as this picture of my daughter illustrates.
(most images except the last one are from Wikipedia)
Interesting and informative post, I always liked Alfas and thier distinctive styling.
I could never shake the perception, however, that whenever I saw one of these, the car had had an accident and been rear ended.
That angle is just too much for my taste.
That certainly is no reason not to love them, just wish they had given it a different styling treatment, one befitting a setting sun model from a great marque.
Can’t find the Reply button on the original post…..
Anyway, always a mistake to put a bunch of changes of line right at a door shutline. Honda did not catch on to this lesson as seen with the current Odyssey.
One of the best critiques of the styling I heard was that it looked like it had been broken in half and put back together crooked. Still a generally good looker though, just that kink takes some getting used to.
You have to be a diehard “gearhead” to appreciate these cars, because those looks…..
Well, that, and the fact that these cars were fantastic handlers.
But the styling….the dashboard looks like a pile of parts originally meant for other cars that were squeezed into a smaller area. The body of the car looks like it feel into a car crusher but was “rescued” after a few attempts to turn it into a cube.
I’m guessing the same folks were responsible for turning the Sud into the 33.
Didn’t Zagato take these same mechanicals and produce an even stranger coupe?
Yes. The SZ – and the RZ which was the convertible version. I mentioned them in passing. It is called “il mostro” in Italian, which means “the monster” from what I’ve been told.
Agree, Howard
The Milano is too fugly to be thought of as an exotic car, too frumpy, looks like an economy car.
While the 164 has the look of a luxury performance sedan. The 164 went after the 5 series BMW… While the frumpy Milano couldn’t even compete with the 3 series.
I guess I’m not the ONLY one who can’t get past the awful styling.
Give me this black QV 164S, any day. 🙂
Jamie Kitman has a 164 as a daily driver.
HI That may be, but the least valuable Alfa today is the 164, sorry about that, I like it as well. I own my self today 5 Alfa’s
1: Spider 1983 Veloce with Factory A/C and the only one with power door locks. http://www.vieuniqcollection.com/?p=39
2: A wonderful Milano1987 black on black only owner with a lot of upgrades.
http://www.vieuniqcollection.com/?p=43
also own a 164 Quad, a 4C and a Giulia Quadrifoglio Quad.
You’re statement, as the Milano being the last true Alfa is bogus.
The 164 series, the S and QV, we’re the last true Alfas, they also had more power and a higher top speed. The Alfa 164 was also the last Alfa sold in the States, before Alfa left in 1994/95.
Also, ever hear of the legendary 1988 164 Procar V10? The car had a 600hp F1 engine, capable of 215mph. No Milano ever made history like that.
The 164 was designed and developed around 1982, then produced around 1987… Making it the last TRUE designed and manufactured car by Alfa Romeo, not penny pincher Fiat.
By the time the 164 was put on the market, Fiat was now in control of Lancia and Alfa Romeo.
Never liked the Milano’s style, and a lot of people tell me this… but, it looks like a Mk II Jetta that got rear-ended too hard.
Also, Alfa Romeo was sold to Fiat Group in 1986, not 1985.
The 164 series was designed solely by Alfa, researched, tested and developed already, by the time Fiat took over.
When Fiat, finally got organized the 164 had TWO delayed arrivals, leaving eager customers disappointed. One delay in 1988, the other in 1989… Finally, it came to the US around later 1990.
Look, an assessment of the last “real” anything will always be subjective. I do not claim to be neutral in my text above. To me and many other så var developed on a platform shared with a Saab is not a real Alfa Romeo. A big fwd var (there was also an expensive awdawd version) is not a true AR. But that’s a matter of opinion.
Funny, by the way, that you claim a car produced from ’87 can be independently produced when the company was purchased by Fiat the year before. (You’re right about it being ’86 not ’85)
My point is that the 75 was the last AR independently developed and produced by AR.
I know about the V10 164. I don’t see how that has anything to do with anything. It was merely a 164 body shell on a Formula car.
Mads, you did not read the history of the 164, then. What does sharing only a platform with the FWD Saab 9000, have to do with anything? So did the Fiat Croma and Lancia Thema(which had a Ferrari engine, BTW).
The 164 had it’s OWN 3.0 Alfa Cloverleaf engine, and components, and shared NO body components with the other three.
The 164 was the LAST true Alfa designed AND made by an independent AR… Not Fiat.
Fiat only brought it to market, like Buick did to Opel in the US in the 70’s.
Obviously, the Milano was never taken seriously, to be revered by supposed Alfisti.
I did own an 88 Milano, dark blue, with Momo rims… Great car, but the ignition problems and suspension ended our 2 year relationship.
Sorry, if I came across as a 75 hater… I don’t hate this car, but hearing it was the last TRUE Alfa, just felt wrong.
Also, had an 82 GTV6, set up for auto cross… But I guess, I’m not an Alfisti, eh?
I don’t know how you qualify for the alfisti label. I really like the 75, but I have no problem with people disagreeing. Different strokes.
Are you saying you qualify more?
An Alfisti is an Alfa Romeo enthusiast. Whether classic or current.
I qualify because I’ve owned 3, auto crossed 1 and love the marque.
Do you own one? Know the lingo, before you talk the talk.
Slow down guys. Mads wrote an opinion piece. Sarcasmo voiced his. Rammstein is right; this argument has existed since before the demise of the 158 grand prix racer. Save the pissing contest for another site, please.
Agreed, Don
Thanks, for pulling my chain, when I get a lil aggravated.
Wouldn’t be the first time you did it. Lol 😉
Sorry for the misunderstanding, Sarcasmo. I meant “I don’t know how you qualify” as in “I don’t know how someone qualifiies” – I should have been more clear.
Obviously you qualify more, if it comes to that. You have owned more Alfa Romeos. That must be the main criteria.
No need to apologize, Mads… I should be the one, apologizing.
I went on a tirade to knock an article you wrote about a car you enjoy, and believe in.
Who am I, to throw immature remarks and shoot down everything about that car? I came across as a jerk, who tried to steal your spotlight.
My Alfa 164, is FAR from the ultimate car… The suspension squeaks, brake lights just went to lunch, one flex pipe just went out(only 5 months old), and the intake hose has a hole, and full power is intermittent.
With all it’s quirks, I still love it… It’s my daily driver. So, I’m sorta at it’s mercy.
I used to own an 88 Alfa 75, fun to drive, but not a car for someone on a limited budget or no Alfa knowledge… Me at the time, I had it.
I preferred the RWD of my old Milano to the FWD of my 164. I loved the tail happiness and getting the Alfa 75 sideways. I sold it, before the suspension got worse.
Yes, I have owned a few Alfas, but I’m still no expert, not by any means, my friend. 🙂
Good luck, with your acquisition of your first Alfa 75, make sure it passes all the checks, and find a steady Alfa mechanic, unless you wrench your own cars. Nothing beats a FS manual, when it comes to DIY repairs.
We have something in common, we both love Alfa Romeos… That qualifies us both as Alfistis, in my book.
BTW, I think you’ve taught your daughter well… She knows performance when she sees it. 😉
I wanted to edit the 87, and put 86… But the editor timed out. 🙁
Die-hard Alfisti claims that the 75 is the last “true Alfa” not only because it came out before the Fiat takeover, but also because it was the last mass-produced RWD Alfa, and the last (again, mass-produced) Alfa based on the great Alfetta architecture: transaxle, Dedion, inboard brakes, etc… Now that they are old enough, Alfas once ignored are being considered even by this kind of enthusiasts: it all started with the Alfasud, then it was the time for the 164 and high-end 155s, modern GTAs…
Nice one Mads. Never neen a fan of that plastic stripe which was interestingly omitted from the wagon prototype – much nicer but to be honest I prefer the Giulietta saloon shape that led to this. I’ve probably mentioned this before, but I once worked for a guy who collected Austin-Healeys and Jaguars. His DD? A 75. He loved its dynamics.
Thanks.
Yes, it has a lot of fans – rarely for it’s looks.
Nice to see your daughter has her father’s taste in cars. Is she trying to find the missing A-pillar?
I was gonna comment on that but couldn’t fint it in in a meaningful way. The A-pillar, the dashboard and one of the rear wheels are just some of the parts missing due to her abuse. I must admit my 75 was treated in a more or less similar way
It is always been ‘ the last real Alfa ‘ song by Alfisti.
Never understand why.
For some at the time it was when ‘Milano’ disappeared from the emblem because of the Napoli Afa Sud factory.
The US never got the 156 and 159 models.
Which are great cars, but again, by Alfisti standards’ FWD is NOT done on an Alfa Saloon car.
So these are also NO real ALfa’s.
Then there is the TDI or JTD issue.
The modern, fast, unbelievebly powerful torqy fuel economical Diesel engine …….is an Alfa invention, no not VW, or Audi or Bosch, ‘t was Alfa who went to see Bosch because in Italy nobody could make the specialized parts that could withstand the high pressures of fuel injection these Diesels need.
But, for Alfisti the word Diesel is also not done.
Actually Alfisti are the most boring and small minded people there are. Sorry.
I looooooove my 159 – 16 valve DIESEL a JTDM.
It has loads of torqe, is fast, economical and quiet.
Quiet as a cathedral, cruising at 100MPH you can whisper only some wind noise.
And it has FWD, but fast cornering makes your brain drained from blood for a few secs like a jet fighter pilot.
Alfa are FIAT, true, a 159 is not my old ’75 Giulia Nuova or the Alfetta 1.8 or the old GT I had no, tru.
But it has enough personality in its Giugiaro shape, in its interior where the three litte gauges mounted on the central console directly link you to its pedirgree of ye’ol sports saloons that make it an Alfa.
The guy that drove it last week for over 600 miles from Holland to Austria literally did not understand that a 7 year old daily driver with 130000 miles on the clock could run so strong and good.
But maybe that is what is really wrong with Alfa Romeo :
– they do not rust anymore
– they do not fall apart anymore
– they do not have self destructing electronics anymore
– they do not wear anymore
And that my firends, is something real Alfisti probably longs for, but not me !
My 159 is fantastic, better then it pre-decessor a lovely B5 Passat TDI
I’d say, ask the man who drives one !!!
Well said.
Alfa has produced so MANY cars that are more worthy of the Alfa marque than the dismal Milano.
Nice, car, looks great, too.
LOL,…..
I can relate, Rammstein. 🙂
When I saw my 164S on the back of a Euro Autohaus dealer, I knew I had to have it. It sat there with an 82 VW Rabbit cabriolet.
I thought it was a Peugeot, since it looked like the 405, which was also designed by Pininfarina… Who designed the sexy Ferrari Daytona, 308, and Testarossa.
I love the AMG W126 Mercedes, and this 164S with it’s Euro styling kit, got me excited. Once, I took it for a test drive, and heard that Italian symphony by Ansa, from the exhaust only an Italian exotic could produce, it was sold. 🙂
I trounced an S4 twin turbo Audi and a Camaro SS on the highway with it… Funny, because my Alfa has 215,000 miles.
So much, for the unreliable Italians. 🙂
Wasn’t the 164 sold at “selected” Chrysler dealers in the early 1990’s ?
Probably, at first, but it couldn’t have been that long, since Chrysler withdrew from the deal early in the game.
Agreed on the diesels. There’s not a living soul on the planet who can teach the Fiat Group anything about building diesel engines. Regardless displacement, so that includes their big truck diesels (FPT Cursor engines).
By the way, the first car with a direct injected turbo diesel was also a Fiat Group product, the Fiat Croma.
I was hoping it was evident from my introductory paragraph that this was going to be a fan’s perspective. I really do not care who built a car when as long as I like it. I think the 75 is special from a historical perspective. I do not think that makes it a better car.
It’s the same thing with all brands. Which Volvo was the last real one? Which Mercedes? To me it’s a fun discussion topic but not one I’m invested in. I put “real” in citation marks to indicate I’m aware it’s controversial.
Fwiw I have driven a couple of TS 156’s, and they’re some of the best handling saloon cars I have driven – easily the best fwd cars.
I really like the 156, 159 and GT, so I’m not against later AR’s in any way.
Nothing personal from my side my friend, it is just the way Alfisti’s always react.
My first Alfa Romeo encounter was my old-as-Job from the bible uncle Jacob, who had a 1750 saloon in the heated garage.
A mouse-grey 1750 saloon with black vinyl upholstery
As a kid I’d sneak into the garage to sit in it and admire the dash with four dials in the centre console. FOUR dials !
It made such an impression on me that I actually bought the159 for its interior!
And as a kid my Giulia 1300 saloon (those 1300 are real nice engines, I never understand why people have to replace them by something bigger )
also made a lasting impression, so bad it is still in my top 3 of cars I ever owned.
Thing is time moves on, in ye’ Giulia Saloon you’d proudly show your 1300 twin-cam engine with its twin double Solex, Dell’Orto or Weber carburettors, In my 159 Diesel there is a piece of plastic covering the engine, they say it is underneeth somewhere.
What I am trying to say is times change, people change, your needs change and Alfa’s change !
Nice to hear a personal take on the 159 btw. I’m still a bit wary of Italian cars as daily drivers. Good to hear, you don’t htink there’s any reason to be.
I remember the Grande Punto having issues with the rear doors getting stuck because they didn’t fit properly. You couldn’t open them form the inside if I recall correctly. That caused e to believe the Italians hadn’t got that far. Good to hear otherwise.
The rear door latches on early GPs would wear very quickly, or even break – the shell is def strong enough. But yeah, Italian charm?
Amen. The discussion of “real” Alfas, or any “real” brand cars for that matter, is almost by definition a void one. An Alfasud is just as much a real Alfa as the Giulietta, 75, I’d hold. Same for the (stunningly beautiful) 159, times change.
That’s not to say that some enthusiasts prefer certain models, and that’s very evident in Mads’ review – the love for the 75 just drips off the screen.
I would want to make one exception to the “real” Alfa rule, even though it had an Alfasud engine:
Isn’t that the Alfa jointly made with Nissan?
I think it was really a Nissan Pulsar 4 door sedan… I’m guessing a 1983?
Yeah, it had the Alfasud engine and transmission and was built in Italy. A Japanese car with the reliability of an Italian car. Imagine if they had done it the other way around; an Italian car as reliable as a Japanese car.
Italian reliability, plus early 80’s Japanese car rust issues… Must’ve made for a real lemon.
After 30+ plus years, what ever few that survived, must be rust flakes by now.
The award winning legendary Alfa QV 3.0 Cloverleaf engine, in the 164S…
And this is stock, too
One of the reasons, WHY, I love opening the hood of my 164S. 🙂
* Please, close the hood of the Milano, in the top pic… I’ve seen better engines in some Kias.
I was doing the Italian Autostrada, summertime and only read about Alfa’s new 164 coming on the market, designed by no other then Pininfarina.
I was driving in my practical rubber-bumper ’75 MGB, top down, dusk was falling when I was overtaken by something I’d never seen before.
Here this ultra modern flying saucer shaped saloon passed me, it had a red taillight beam over the width of the rear, I did not believe what I was seeing, it looked like out of space.
In fact it was my first encounter with the 164, I could not believe my eyes…………..
I’ve never driven one of these cars or known anyone who owned one, actually I’m not sure if I’ve ever even seen on in the flesh, but the always remind me looks wise of 3rd generation Jettas, which (despite having owned one) I’ve never cared for.
With the right setup, the Alfa 75 is not that bad… Actually, pretty sexy
How brave of Alfa to offer rear transaxle and inboard disc brakes on their mainstream offering. Seems strange as it would ramp up exponentially costs of ownership on a car without the performance potential for it to make much of a difference in how the car drove.
I am always excited when I see one. Italy has done so many fantastic looking cars that when I see the odd angles on the 75/Milano, I give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they know more than me. It is also nice when someone does something completely different.
In the USA we only had the 2.5 and 3.0 V6. Around the same time BMW introduced their 2.5 inline 6 to the 3 series and it really made the car come alive as the car was now to heavy for the 1.8. On the Alfa, while a beautiful and great sounding engine, the actual performance and top speed were low. On 2.5s, the Alfa was 2 seconds slower to 60 and 15 mile an hour slower in top speed than the also not aerodynamic 325i.
A not independent Alfa might not be so bad as there might be a budget to do what the engineers desire. Their upcoming Gulia will hopefully demonstrate this theory. Mads thanks for the writeup, and continue to enjoy your unique 75.
Oh wow, I remember seeing these back then! This was the car that looked like an elephant sat on it and bent the frame with that goofy up-tilt in the rear end.
Looks like a poor imitation of a VW-something or something else.
Sorry I haven’t been on here much lately – too busy, but I’m sure no one misses me!
Well, some of us do. You need to class up the place occasionally…
In October 1978, Alfa Romeo, Fiat, Lancia and Saab jointly agreed to each develop an executive saloon based on their shared Type Four platform (“Tipo 4” in Italian), to eventually compete against the likes of the Ford Granada and Opel Rekord (Vauxhall Carlton) as well as more premium saloons by BMW and Mercedes-Benz in the form of the 5-Series and E-Class, respectively.
Project 164 started life as Project 154 and was completed in 1981, then still under Alfa Romeo. Then in 1982, the first 1:1 scale model of the 164 was produced now based on the shared platform mentioned above.[4] This new model was designed by Enrico Fumia of Pininfarina,[5] with a wedge shape that afforded it a leading drag coefficient of Cd=0.30. The design would later influence the rest of the Alfa Romeo range (starting in 1990 with the major redesign of the 33 and culminating with the 155, and also see Pininfarina adapt it for the 1987 Peugeot 405 and the 1989 Peugeot 605 sedans).
Below is a chronology of the key milestones in the development of this new vehicle:
Initial testing of the 164’s dynamic elements (engine and drivetrain) began in 1984, where mules based on the then contemporary Giulietta were used. Initial handling characteristics were honed on the factory’s “Balocco” test track in Arese.
In 1985, the first pre-production 164’s were put through their paces on the road. Heavily disguised, with many false panels and even a false nose design (borrowing heavily from the then equally undeveloped 155), sporting 4 round headlamps, these vehicle mules served to test the 164 for the gruelling 1 million kilometre static and road testing demanded of the design.
In 1986 and 1987, the first 150 164’s were given their pre-production testing. In terms of engineering demands, these exceeded every Alfa before, and by quite a substantial margin.
In Morocco, desert testing saw 5 grey 164 Twinsparks and V6’s undergo the equivalent of the Paris-Dakar rally. Road conditions varied from good tarmac to off-road conditions, and accelerometers confirmed the superiority of the 164 in terms of passenger comfort. This data was cross-confirmed in the engineering laboratory with a sophisticated dummy in the driver’s seat, with accelerometers both in its seat, and in its ears to mimic that of the semi-circular canals of the ear.
The Twinspark and the V6 underwent handling trials at Arese. The Twinspark displayed very mature driving manners at the limit, with minimal skid. The V6 displayed a 25% increase in at-the-limit skid, a natural consequence of its greater nose weight.
ABS testing confirmed that the Twinspark has superior braking to the V6. Brake linings of the 164’s were run at maximum braking until they literally glowed with heat, and displayed no deviation in form. The 164 was the first Alfa to feature slotted double-walled disc brakes. At no point were the discs drilled to release excess heat, the original design being demonstrated to be excellent.
Sound production was tested in an anechoic chamber, the car being subjected to stress and road noise testing, with instruments and with live subjects at the wheel, on a specially designed rig.
Electromagnetic stability of the complex electronic system was also tested, in an anechoic chamber equipped with EM emitters (radar).
The 164 engines were run to destruction, the Twinspark proving to be the most robust, and with the longest possible engine life.[citation needed] The V6 displayed only 10% shorter overall engine life.
Ultimately unvelied at the 1987 Frankfurt Motor Show, the 164 was the last model to be developed while the Alfa Romeo was still a fully independent company, and was formally launched a few months after the takeover by Fiat.
** Alfa 164 development Wikepedia article… Showing it WAS the last true Alfa made by an independent Alfa Romeo. 😉
Interesting read. 9 years from start of program to actual cars to sell. That proves independence because a volume maker just would not have let it take so long, British Leyland excluded. I wonder if they did not have the money for body dies or to convert plant to front drive. This long development time often hurts independents as even their new models end up behind the times. Amazing the 164 came out as well as it did.
I didn’t want to come off as a jerk to Mads,… my apologies, again.
Just that, truth is the 164 was the last independent Alfa, under Alfa Romeo to be made… Whether FWD, RWD or AWD, it is the last Alfa developed product, when Alfa Romeo called the shots.
It was nice, in 1991, when you could actually go into an Alfa dealer in the US… and be able to choose from a Milano, 164 or Spider. 🙂
I think the attempt to sell 164 through Chrysler dealers was the mistake. Chrysler was not going to push them or be there to service and yet did undercut real Alfa dealers. I didn’t know the Milano lasted in USA till 91. I wonder if a hot hatch Alfa based on the Fiat Tipo could have given the dealers volume. Since no Fiat in USA and given the high price VW was getting for the GTI, it might have worked enough to keep dealers going.
I think Alfa 164 sales actually went, in the US, from 1990-94… Don’t quote me on that. 😉
You make a good point, John… Alfa should have made a hot hatchback competitor to the GTI, since the only others back in 1991, were the CRX, Civic Si, and Escort GT.
In Europe, after they left the US, Alfa made some awesome hot hatches, that would give the GTI a run for it’s money.
Yeah, crazy that the Milano went from the mid 80’s-91 in the US market.
I miss those days when you could buy a Peugeot, Alfa or Renault in the US.
I agree. Off beat cars from far off places built to different sensibilities are such decoration for the streets. There is less and less of this as the world becomes a smaller place and things homogenize.
The final variation of Alfa’s hot hatches killed them on the Aussie Market.No matter how hard you upgraded and did up the 33 It was a generation behind it’s Mazda/Ford/Toyota/Mitsubishi and even Nissan Rivals.The arrival in Australia of the Astina SP amongst them all in late 1989 was the nail in the coffin for Europe versus Japan.
You have come off as a bit of a jerk, once again. 🙂
What you’re choosing to overlook is that the joint development of the Tipo 4 project means that the 164 was not developed fully or completely by AR; that’s the key issue here. The basic body development and the whole architecture of the car was designed by committee, to satisfy the needs of the other partners too.
Here’s the big question: if AR was had the funds to develop a new executive class car by themselves in 1980, do you think they would have gone FWD? In my opinion, NO.
The 164 was intrinsically a compromise, because the other partners insisted on a FWD sedan. I seriously doubt AR was itching to build a FWD sedan in 1980.
That’s not to say that AR didn’t do a good job of adapting the Tipo4 body and architecture into a fine car, but the whole point of this article is that AR DID NOT develop the 164 “on their own”; they adapted a FWD sedan designed primarily for the needs of Fiat. There’s a distinct difference.
In terms of being the last car developed wholly by AR, the 75 is it, FWIW.
Now go take your meds 🙂
Paul, you wiseguy. 😛
Yes, the Tipo 4 Platform was developed with input from others, to be an “international sport sedan”.
As far as the FWD, as the chosen drivetrain… Yeah, never understood why Alfa Romeo and Lancia went in that direction, Saab yes, Fiat could go either way.
My point is the 164 was penned and thought by an independent Alfa Romeo(at first), not by Fiat, originally. Okay, it was developed with input by 3 other manufacturers.
It was in the works in 1978, and tested by Alfa Romeo and meant to make profits for Alfa Romeo, not for the Fiat Corporation…yet. That changed in the 1986 Fiat takeover.
Then, because of financial woes, in 1985… The 164, was on Alfa’s back burner and came to market when Fiat took over.
The 164 was meant to be the “mainstream” Alfa… Which they felt the Milano and Spider couldn’t do. Bigger dimensions and FWD meant more interior room.
The jerk seems to come out, yes, because my automotive passion is there, sometimes a lil TOO much.
I wish I could take my meds, Paul… but I can’t afford Obamacare. 😀
* If any of my previous comments came across as too snide… Please edit them. 😉
Dude, it wasn’t “developed with input from the others (Saab, Fiat, Lancia). Re-read the history of the Tipo 4: It was initiated, conceived and largely developed by Lancia, Saab and Fiat, before AR got involved. AR wanted to build a new RWD executive sedan, but couldn’t afford it, so they joined in on the Tipo4 well after the other three….
Alfa took the Tipo4 and adapted it to their needs, but they had no input into the basic initial design and development of it.
You’ve got your history backwards, and making an ass of yourself based on that ass-backwards time line.
I recommend you read this before you say anything more about the Tipo4 and the 164: http://ateupwithmotor.com/model-histories/alfa-romeo-164-type-four-cars/
At least, I was right, that it was the LAST model Alfa Romeo developed before being acquired by Fiat.
You owe me a beer, Niedermeyer.
The Lancia being FWD shouldn’t have been a surprise. They’d stopped making RWD sedans in 1963 and hadn’t introduced a new RWD family of models since 1953. The Stratos and Montecarlo were RWD, but the Stratos was a homologation special and the Montecarlo was conceived as a FIAT(X1/8,X1/20 and Abarth SE 030). The conventional layout and FIAT engines of the Thema were also predictable after the difficulties of the Gamma. Besides, Lancia had been using FIAT mechanicals since the introduction of the Beta in 1972. The 1979 Delta’s relationship with the Ritmo pointed to the Thema being a badge-engineered FIAT. Interestingly, the Delta was sold as a the Saab 600 from 1980-1982.
No worries, buddy.
Several weeks ago on this site, there was a QOTD about which car posters were on your bedroom wall as a kid. Well, for me, I had a poster of a Milano in my bedroom as a teenager (actually, it was a brochure cut-out, but close enough).
I loved these cars, and the fact that everything was just a little bit odd — the Milano, along with the GTV-6 started a longtime fascination with Alfas for me.
I remember Alfas of this era being notoriously unreliable, but their owners still loved them. Seemingly incongruous, but people were more than willing to put up with these cars’ faults in order to have a completely unique, and great-to-drive car.
These are unashamedly an enthusiast’s car, and therefore it is not going to be everyone’s choice.
Yes, the looks are a bit challenging, which is inevitable as the car is closely related to he 1972 Alfetta and various others in between.
But it was a RWD, balanced sport saloon with wonderful engines and great character, and should be celebrated.
I have a very nice 75 3.0V6 in the files a CC – well, CC follow up now.
Thanks Mads!
that is the reason why the 75 looks so ungainly: the whole greenhouse is shared with the 1977 Giulietta. Developing a new car from scratch would have been to expensive, so Alfa Romeo just took an available body shell and tweaked it to make it look like it belonged in the 1980s: that and hiding some welding was the point of that ugly plastic strip on the side. On a side note, these cars were used in great numbers by italian police forces, and were the mainstay of every 90s italian cop show.
Well put. I look forward to hear what you have to say.
Sarcasmo,
In a number of previous posts you had mentioned the V-6 motor in your 164. Is it the same Busso V-6 that many Alfisti have come to know and love for many years?
Yes, it is PJ.
This engine came in 12V and 24V. People freak, when I tell them those chrome intake runners are factory. 😉
My cousin has a very short wheelbase ragtop Alfa with the V6 engine it is apparently a rocketship, his daily work car is another Alfa a diesel with the engine chipped to 180hp it also goes like a bullet but on very little fuel.
Thank you for a lot of backstory on a car that was quite rare where I live in the American Midwest. I’d all but forgotten these, but that kick-up rear quarter was instantly recognizable.
Funny thing is, the rear quarter doesn’t look as funny as it did a quarter century ago. The high rear end is the norm now, Alfa’s way of incorporating it remains unorthodox, but the overall profile of the car remains fairly modern.
I was never a fan of ’80s dashes with the squared off techno look. This car reminds me why.
Another version of the Milano has long been quite popular where I live, both before and long after the Alfa version………Excellent with coffee, I may have to go get some.
In 1987 I rear-ended a Milano with my 1979 Honda Accord hatchback at a very slow speed. I would have to estimate 3-7 miles per hour. As I was on the brakes and swerving to avoid the accident, my passenger side headlight and sheet metal hit the driver’s side corner of the Alfa’s rear bumper. My car had a broken headlight and a 1 inch dent in the sheet metal. The Alfa’s doors would not open and the trunk was crumpled in and it had $5,000 worth of damage, which in 1987 was quite a lot of money! I had always liked Milano’s, but it seemed to me they were made of something akin to tissue paper.
Interesting comment about the Milano’s build quality, Matt.
I’ve been around European vehicles for many years. Even as a kid, when looking at various Alfas like, say, Spiders or Milanos, they had nowhere near the impeccable build quality of a Volvo, Mercedes, or even Saab.
Nice article about a much-maligned car. Yeah, there have been prettier Alfas, the interior design is a nightmare (that parking brake handle…), electrics are a bit unruly, and in 1985 the 75 was already a out of date car in some features (the result of using the Alfetta´s platform, thirteen years old). But everybody I know who owned one remember it as a characterful car, more practical than it seems, very fun to drive and reliable. Yes, in the end, it was reliable…
A friend of mine has recently “adopted” an unwanted 2.0 Twin Spark and, as a good Alfa, the more he drives it, the more he likes it.
I don´t want to fuel the debate about “the last true Alfa”, but I see the 75 as the last classic Alfa. And while I like the 75, I love the 164, and sooner or later I´ll own one.
P.S. if you think the 75 was fugly, you´d have to see the 90. Launched almost along the 75, same platform, same engines (except the 75´s smaller ones), but even uglier. What was Alfa thinking of?
Ha, I think the 90 is really good looking (ugly dash though).
And thanks for the response.
90´s rear end was rather clumsy, tha dash almost as bad as 75´s. But it had an integrated briefcase…
Thanks for this excellent walk through the Alfa 75. Was there ever another car so thoroughly undone by an awkwardly placed bodyside molding? It is such a shame that a car with this kind of driving pedigree could be designed in such a way as to fend off the kind of well-heeled buyers necessary for the company’s survival. And to have such a styling hack-job come from the Italians, who made some of the most beautiful cars ever – Mama Mia!
I remember seeing these when they came out. All I could think was that it looked like somebody bent it.
Thanks for the kind words.
My opinion of the 75 is no doubt influenced by the fact that I was six years old in 1985. Those all-red tail lights that came along later with the top third going all the way across the back looked brilliant to me. It had a built-in rear spoiler in the trunk lid. It had a three-spoke steering wheel. These were all qualities I valued very much as a kid. It’s far from the most beautiful Italian cars, but I really do not think it is as bad as many of you think – even thirty years down the line.
I’d say the Alfa 90 is not that bad in comparison to the 75.
These may look better in the metal, but the 90 looks to me like a bad Paninfarina proposal to Wartburg. The wheels kind of stand out, kind of like aluminum dog dishes.
Styling was very dull and plain, IMO. If you are going to do an ugly car, at least do it “characterful”.
Bertone had better days…
The 90 isn’t that bad, it reminds me of a lot of European compact sedans from the early 80’s.
It looks like a Renault 18i.
its forebear
Some friends of the family bought one new, to park alongside their Lincoln Continental and replace an Olds 98 of all things. This was not totally out of line since they had a Fiat 128 in the early 70s but still a bit of surprise. That they sold the Alfa after 3 years or so was not.
FWIW Milanos are considered excellent Index of Effluency candidates in Lemons racing because the car is basically reliable once you get rid of all the flaky electrical items but the Alfa rep makes everybody think it will die horribly.
I had a colleague with a Milano, and his wife had a Cimarron. I always thought that was an interesting pairing. Not to fuel any fires, but I think that one’s perception of a proper Alfa, like with so may brands with certain iconic models, depends on one’s age. To me, an Alfa was a high performance but affordable 4 cylinder car. Giulietta to Giulia to 1750 to 2000. No straight six 2600 or 3 liter V6, V8 Montreal, etc let alone a platform shared with a Saab or today’s mega-HP twin-turbo V6. Totally arbitrary, of course, and a perspective of my situation and age. By the way, I have owned two Alfas, a 2 liter Spyder and an Alfetta Berlina. The latter was the precursor to the Milano/75, and other than a great ride/handling balance and also a pretty nice, for the time, engine tune with both low-end torque and tractability, and a smooth revvy top-end, it was a pretty crappy car. But I can totally understand how someone can love them for their personality, and certainly the 75 has that by the bucket load.
Excellent write-up Mads I learned a lot about Alfa and the Milano. I have never driven one of these but always admired them. I’ll never forget those power window switches in the headliner. As for the styling I think that is one of the best parts. The black plastic side molding with its kick-up was a bit annoying back in the day but now I find it really charming. I’m a nut for all things 80s and feel the Milano captured everything that was great about the decade.
The 164 is a shared SAAB/Lancia platform and front wheel drive with a transverse engine making timing belt changes a cost headache. With the busso V6 and better rear suspension than the Saab 9000, it is not quite the transaxle Alfa’s that get the interest. The 75 as the last true Alfa is not a hard claim to back up given the engineering, even though the 164 is a great car relative to its competitors.
A very cool car that is often overlooked.
Thank you!
I am on my second Milano, about to give it some long-postponed maintenance and an interior redo. It was a Platinum, until the malfunctioning ABS set the rear brakes on fire, and we gave it the plain old hydraulics. It’s about to get its seats stripped of that crackly leather and replaced with the wool tweed used on some “lesser” models, but much nicer to sit on. If I could find and/or afford a TwinSpark engine I’d love to have one, but the V6 is nice enough.
As for the looks, well, it reminds me of an Armani suit: Just enough faintly “wrong” with it to make it daring and dashing. The 164, OTOH, reminds me of a Hugo Boss business suit, smelling faintly of cigar …
When these came out, they looked to me like a Mk2 Jetta that had come through a wormhole from an alternate universe. Now I look again…that’s still what comes to mind.