ca tot s-a discutat si se discuta pe ideea greutatii la 159...am gasit pe un alt site o comparatie intre modele apartinand aceleiasi clase si rezultatul e surprinzator oarecum...la an de fabricatie 2007, motor 2 litri +, iata cum se prezinta candidatele:

Audi A4 == 1815kg
BMW 3er == 1600kg
Mercedes C-Klasse == 1680kg
Volvo V50 == 1536kg
Alfa Romeo 159 == 1660kg

daca volvo este clar mai usor decat celelalte iar A4 pare a fi cel mai greu, intre bmw, merc si alfa nu par a exista diferente majore...e adevarat, la brera/spider greutatea atarna in detrimentul alfei, insa nu pare a fi o problema la 159, sau cel putin asta arata cifrele...

Salutare la totii!
Mi permit se ma prezint: Ma cheama Nicola, am 30 de ani si sunt italian de mama romanca. Ma scuz pentru gramatica mea care nu este perfecta dar limba voastra am invatato asa cand vin in vacanta vorbind cu prieteni si lumea de pe acolo.....

Salutare la totii!

First of all, we need to recognise that Premium was designed from the start as an E-segment platform, with capability for front-drive (Saab 9-5 replacement), rear-drive (for the Cadillac CTS, a large Buick, a replacement for the Opel Omega, and in the mid-term, the replacement for the 166), and all-wheel drive. This, at least, was the big plan at the turn of the decade, shortly after the GM/Fiat share swap.

Note that this does not include what became the 159, which was originally going to be on Epsilon. Yup, like the Croma. Epsilon is modular, like Premium, in the sense that wheelbase and track are easily adjustable, although it isn't as flexible because it can only accommodate FWD and AWD.

Then the GM beancounters got involved and one-by-one cancelled all the projected GM cars on Premium on account of the fact that the company was, y'know, losing billions. Or something. From memory, the Buick connection was the first to go; then Opel, Cadillac, and finally Saab, who did most of the development.

This left Alfa with a problem. They had a world-class platform with rear-drive capability developed largely at GM's expense, but it was all going to be wasted if they didn't make use of it. So with the crisis and the 166 replacement looking spectacularly distant, they took the decision in 2002 to switch platforms for the 159, from Epsilon to a shortened Premium. The decision was probably made easier by the fact that "159 is rebodied Vectra" headlines loomed large if they didn't.

This decision was nevertheless influenced by what had gone before. The early development process, for instance, is part of the reason why the wheelbase is identical between the Croma and the 159 - it was to ensure there was as much carryover as possible of development which was already signed off (e.g. the Q4 drivetrain). And the need to carry over as much as possible is why the 159 is front-drive even though the platform can accommodate RWD.

Meanwhile, at around the same time, the original Italdesign Brera concept was presented (at Geneva in 2002). Independently, the original plans for the GTV and Spider replacements were envisioned as being Premium-based, but using rear-wheel drive. With the crisis and ensuing changes of plan, Fiat decided (correctly in my view) that this was an indulgence they could not afford, and brought the replacements into line with the 159 in mechanical terms. With the rapturous reception which the concept Brera received, the decision was also taken to adopt that look for the GTV replacement, which necessarily also dictated the look of the Spider - and the 159 was likewise restyled to present familial coherence (and save a bit of money on front-end pressings).

The platform switchover and restyle were thus the most influential factors behind the 159's delay; it also explains why the 159 is a little overweight and why the Brera and Spider are a lot overweight. The undercarriage of all three cars is designed for E-segment saloons. This doesn't matter so much for the 159 because the size differential is only one class; the Brera and Spider are another matter because essentially we're talking about Golf-sized cars with suspension and underpinnings that are designed for the equivalent of a 5-Series. All the Premium-based Alfas are built like tanks underneath. Unofficially officially, this was because Alfa wanted to put to bed once and for all the myth that their cars are fragile; personally I believe the real reason is that they needed the cars on the market as soon as possible and there simply wasn't the time or the money to re-engineer them to lose weight before the launch. Alfa has always known that the cars are heavy; it just hasn't been in a position to do anything about it until now. It was regarded as more important to get the cars on the market - they were already horrendously late - and work out the problems later. I think history has vindicated this decision. At the time the 159 launched, Fiat was months away from collapse. In circumstances like that you don't pussy-foot around with diets that are going to deliver single-digit sales increases if you're lucky. You get new product out there ASAP and worry about fixing up the ragged edges later.

But what relevance does all this have for the future? The bottom line is that Fiat has access to one of the most advanced upper-medium segment platforms in the world and it doesn't intend to waste its capability. And this is why Alfa's return to rear-drive is an open secret. Assuming that there is no deal with M-B, the next 159 will use Premium, but with longitudinally-mounted engines and rear-wheel drive (plus optional Q4). The 169 will use the same layout plus, very probably, a transaxle - FPT has technologies under development to this effect. Given that Premium can also very easily be expanded to fit F-segment, these fundamentals are also what will replace M139 (Maserati's current, hugely expensive, transaxle platform which sits underneath the Quattroporte and GranTurismo). Premium isn't cheap to build in absolute terms, but it's cheaper than M139, as well as easier to tool up for.