The CC Cohort is a gift that keeps giving. Staxman has recently posted these shots of an Alfa Romeo Giulia 1300Ti which he saw in Seattle on Milan registration plates, to which I immediately sang out “Nice Alfa!” to an otherwise empty room. You do that sometimes and if you drive an Alfa, you get used to hearing it.
The 1300Ti was a version of the Giulia Berlina (saloon) Tipo 105 series, first seen in 1962 as the Giulia Ti, with a 1570cc twin cam four cylinder engine producing some 92bhp, which was an impressive output for the time. The body was completely new, and was designed internally by Alfa. There are some contemporary features, even Edsel like shapes, in the deck lids, window shapes and grille shapes, and maybe you could suggest that the Corvair is in there somewhere. Equally, you can also identify some contemporary European styles there also, with a roof line not dissimilar to that of the Ford Cortina and an upright stance and screens not unlike the BMW Neue Klasse or the larger Mercedes-Benz W110 for example. A characterful shape that has aged better than you might expect?
If you consider it tricky to identify a definitive influence on the shape of the Giulia, here’s something to consider. This is the Alfa Romeo Tipo 103, built as a prototype in early 1960 and linked by some to proposals for Alfa Romeo to build the Renault 8 for the Italian market.
Alfa and Renault had a partnership building and distributing the Dauphine in Italy, which later included the Renault 4 and was expected to include the Renault 8.
The Renault 8, as launched in 1962, the same year as the Giulia, was a rear engined four door saloon, based around the previous Renault Dauphine platform. The Alfa Tipo 103 was planned to have a four cylinder front engine of 896cc driving the front wheels and clothed in a body that looks like a down sized Giulia, and with a strong resemblance to the proportions and volumes of the Renault 8. Did the Alfa proposal come from one of the Italian styling houses, and was it then adapted by Pierre Charbonneaux for Renault? Tatra87 discusses this further (and better) here, in his biographic piece on Philippe Charbonneaux.
The 1959/1960 Tipo 103 has many of the styling features that are visible in the Giulia, such as front and rear screen shapes, the dip in the bonnet, the recess in the rear deck lid and the upright stance of the glasshouse. Who originated these features is not clear – most accounts record that the Tipo 105 project was internally accomplished by Alfa Romeo without outside design assistance.
What is undeniable is the aerodynamic efficiency of the Giulia – the drag coefficient was surpassed in 1962 by only the Citroën DS and Porsche 356, although the upright stance would add to the cross-sectional area of course. Details like the generous radii around the windscreen, running the upward sloping bonnet, and on the screen itself, around the front corner of the car, the high sharp rear end of the roof and the almost flat rear deck all add together to generate a Cd of just 0.34, a figure that twenty years later was trumpeted as a major achievement by Audi.
In addition to the aerodynamic efficiency, the car also had big windows to aid the spacious interior. Early cars were fitted with a column gearchange and a split bench front seat, giving capability to accommodate six people, albeit rubbing shoulders.
The Ti was soon followed by the Super Ti, which added more power from twin Weber carburettors and a weight reduction programme with plexiglass rear windows, the heater was deleted along with some of the comfort features, but discs brakes came in. These cars are now highly sought after. Visually, they can be spotted by single headlamps and grilles where the inner lamps would have been.
More mainstream was the 1964 Giulia 1300, visually distinguished by single headlamps and no dummy light grilles. This had the 1290cc twin cam engine, giving 78 bhp at 6000 rpm. Suspension, as it was on all Giulias was unequal length control arms with shocks, coil springs and anti-roll bar at the front; a live axle with trailing arms, shocks and coil springs at the rear.
Steering was by recirculating ball and there were four wheel disc brakes. There was a four speed gearbox, which was only fitted to the Giulia 1300, with a floor shift.
Next came the 1965 Giulia Super – you can see this as a more everyday take on the more highly strung Super Ti, if you wish. Think Ford Cortina GT and Ford Cortina Lotus, if you like.The engine was tuned more for torque, there was a new dashboard with the twin round dials in individual binnacles and minor trim equipment and mechanical changes. This car became the default Giulia for many buyers and was the most numerous version.
Also in 1965 came the Giulia 1300Ti. This was fitted with the engine from the Giulia GT1300 Junior coupe, a five speed gearbox and a plusher interior than the regular 1300. Our feature car, seen by Staxman in Seattle and wearing Milan (where else?) number plates is a 1300Ti, and based on the presence or absence of certain changes (centre handbrake, Giulia Super dash) I’m putting it as a 1969 car. If you want to correct me because it’s your car, please do!
The Giulia was officially replaced in 1974 by the Giulia Nuova Super 1300 and 1600. The main differences were the black plastic grille and a boot lid without the distinctive central recess. In 1976, Alfa added the Giulia Nuova Super Diesel, with a 1.8 litre Perkins diesel engine (is this the only British engine ever fitted to an Alfa?) with all of 54bhp and 86 mph. Still, the 1970s were a tough time and few knew that better than Alfa Romeo.
Production of the Giulia finally ceased in 1978; production numbers seem harder to verify than you might expect but around 960,000, probably including the later 1750 and 2000 Berlinas, seems credible.
Alfa Romeo, being Alfa Romeo, made the Giulia the keystone of a large and slightly bewildering family of cars, three variations of which are well known and deserve an overview here.
First, as mentioned above, the Giulia was stretched in 1968 to create the 1750 and 2000 Berlina – a much more graceful word than saloon isn’t it? Bertone was tasked with the redesign, and effectively reskinned the Giulia to remove many of the character lines and personality from the car. Some may say that it made less of an acquired taste; it was certainly less memorable, with a lower body almost totally devoid of the creases that had made the Giulia so recognisable. The car though was clearly built on the same base. Think Triumph 2000 Mk1 to Triumph 2000 Mk2 – sleeker, maybe more modern but definitely less distinctive. The car also gained 2.5 inches in wheelbase and 9 inches in length, all clearly at the rear.
Power came from the same twin overhead cam engine, though in 1779cc 118bhp and, from 1971, 1962cc 132 bhp forms. Twin headlights were fitted, with the inner unit being slightly smaller on the 1750 version.
As a measure of where the Alfa driver fitted in the spectrum, of 90,000 Berlina 2000s produced, just 2.5% had automatic transmission. The 1750 Berlina was superseded by the Alfetta in 1972, the 2000 Berlina by the Alfetta 2000 in 1977.
The transition from Giulia family to Alfetta family was one of Alfa’s many confused moments. The larger 2000 Berlina was superseded by the Alfetta in two stages, and then the smaller, older Giulia was nominally superseded by the 1977 Giulietta – a shorter Alfetta on the same wheelbase as the donor car and with the same engines. It’s still one of my favourite Alfa saloons though, even if my Dad didn’t buy one in 1979.
Perhaps my favourite Alfa Romeo Coupe is the Giulia Sprint GT and its derivatives, under a quite bewildering and seemingly inconsistent series of nomenclature – Sprint GT, GT Veloce, GTV, 1750 and 2000GTV, GT 1300 Junior, GT 1600 Junior, GTC, the list goes on.
What does not vary, except in minor detail, is the Giugiaro styling, accomplished whilst he was working at Bertone.
The earliest and perhaps the purest is the 1963 Giulia Sprint GT, with the 1570cc twin cam engine. Fitted with twin Weber carburettors, it gave around 105bhp and in the shortened light weight body could reach 112mph. The wheelbase was trimmed by 6 inches, and the rear accommodation pretty marginal for larger passengers, but, frankly, do you care about that? I don’t. It’s why I buy lottery tickets.
This car continued until 1977; it grew into the 1750 and 2000 GTV versions with twin headlamps by which time the styling was arguably dating, albeit gracefully. Arguably, Alfa have never been able to truly replace it. We hope that one day they will.
The other famous and greatly remembered derivative was the Alfa Romeo Spider, also known as the Duetto (unofficially) and the Graduate, in North America. This car was based on a further cut down wheelbase, just 89 inches, and styling by Pininfarina, which in the early versions with the sweeping tail, bore certain Jaguar E-Type cues.
The Spider (the most commonly used name used for it) came originally in 1966, with the sweeping tail (known as the boat tail or dove tail); the more familiar square tail came in 1970. The first series had the 1570cc engine, tuned for 108bhp. In 1968, the engine was opened up to 1779cc, for the Spider 1750, with 118 bhp and close to 120 mph. Comparisons to the MGB in the British press started to look a bit forced, even, frankly, embarrassing, except for the price – closer to a Jaguar E-Type. Blame import tariffs and production volumes – there were 124,000 cars in 27 years compared with 500,000 MGBs in 20 years.
This example is actually one of the rarer versions – the 1300 Junior. Visually, the biggest difference is the lack of fairings over the head lights, though they were some other minor differences. Mechanically, little was changed other than the engine.
From 1970, the more familiar square Kamm tail was introduced, a style that endured until 1994 when the Spider was finally allowed to retire. The final series of cars were not helped by the bulky black spoilers added to the tail or the body kit like bumpers. Classic styling will remain classic if it’s left alone.
However, this remains one of the most charismatic cars produced in Europe during the 1960s and 1970s (its heyday, in reality), and is the reason I will continue to buy lottery tickets. A good car is surprisingly good value for money; here in the UK you can spend £12-15000 and get a well prepared and maintained MGB or an Alfa Spider? No, it’s not a contest is it?
The Giulia was also the basis, albeit it at a slight distance, for the Alfa Romeo Montreal, with its F1 based V8 engine. Not many 1960s family cars could claim a lineage to match that.
And, not many 1960s family cars can claim a lasting influence and admiration that has kept the manufacturer, and enthusiasts, on edge for over 40 years trying to produce a follow up with the same appeal and capability. We trust that one day Alfa will get there, subjectively and, crucially, objectively.
Excellent article. One teeny-weeny important tidbit here…
2000 Berlina wasn’t the first Alfa Romeo with automatic gearbox. Alfa Romeo had fitted 249-251 (most accepted figures) 1750 Berlina saloons with three-speed ZF automatic gearboxes in late 1970 as 1971 model. They were distributed as “test vehicles” to gauge the customer’s perspectives and the performance. The lack of model year stamped into the production plate reflects that. As far as I know, 1750A Berlina wasn’t even listed in the official catalogue.
My father bought a secondhand 1750A Berlina in 1972 because he wanted a four-door saloon for a growing family. The Germans didn’t want a small car with automatic gearbox so its price was deeply discounted after sitting in the forecourt for seven months.
Which ZF? I’m guessing the 3HP22.
My comment about 1750A Berlina was marked as spam. Please retrieve it and post it.
Why does the spam filter keep marking lot of comments as spam? It’s time to have a good look at the spam filter and figure out the fix. It is really frustrating. Thanks!
Since this is largely a labor of love, and not a paid content/for profit venture, perhaps the better question to ask is, “What is needed to fix the commenting problems, and how can we help?”
If there’s a known fix to this with an estimated cost, I’m sure that many of us would be happy to contribute, sort of like the fundraising campaigns that my local PBS and NPR stations run about twice per year.
It has more to do with the time involved to figure it out. We have two volunteers (both contributors) that spend time to keep the system running. The spam issue requires a very deep dive into the innards that will consume more time than either of them currently has. You are correct, they have other more important priorities as well in their main lives. They do know about it and plan to get to it, time allowing. It’s not just a matter of clicking the “Fix the spam issue” button. I’ve tried to find it, it must be hidden deep in a submenu. 😀
We’ve hired several WordPress self-described “experts” to figure out some of the issues in the past. Every single one was a complete waste of time and money. Unlike a lot of the “big” sites we aren’t a huge company and we don’t have a dedicated paid IT staff. And even they experience issues.
So for the time being we do our best to retrieve comments as needed and keep the thing going. Sometimes it’s a little frustrating. The fact that some people have more issues than others (and some NEVER have issues) leads me to think that it’s not completely one-sided. It also makes it extremely difficult to troubleshoot and test any “fixes”.
Some people have multiple accounts open here, sometimes with different emails, some of which are not active anymore and then post comments using an old username and a new email, it probably confuses the system when it then sees your IP address is the same as before, perhaps it thinks the commenter has been hacked or something.
All things considered I would much rather have to find 1 out of 100 comments in the spam filter than have 1 out of every 100 comments actually be a multi-thousand word spam email with content involving religion, politics. heritage, and multiple other offensive material or several dozen short ones exhorting you to purchase a new set of Nikes. We get all that, you generally don’t ever see it, the filter usually grabs it.
Wow! You’ve covered such a broad range here, that you managed to include two cars I’ve owned, even though neither was a Giulia: my Spider and my Alfetta Berlina. But I think my Alfa love, which has since faded a bit after my forays into ownership, was sparked by the Giulia Berlina. What a shape! It may be a box, but even as a youngster, and later well into adulthood, the stance of a nicely set up Giulia just looked great. A stance totally missing from the 1750/2000 Berlina refresh. By the way, was this the only mainstream car built with five-on-the-tree?
I guess it depends on your definition of mainstream: Renault 16, Toyota Hilux, as well as some 80s JDM vans and the first gen Fiat Ducato all had a five-on-the-tree.
The Fiat 125S has 5 speeds and came out in 1968 and was a bit cheaper than the Alfas. The Austin Maxi and Nomad were other cheap cars of the time with 5 speeds.
Some Citroën DS models had a 5-speed column change sometime after 1969 or 1970. Maybe some Lancia saloons had that too in the 60s.
Yes that is correct Tats. But they were more expensive and less mainstream.
It is good that the Cohort affords the occasional opportunity for our resident Alfa Editor to stretch his legs. Thank you for this walk from the 1959 Edsel through Dustin Hoffman and beyond.
This is the first I can ever recall having seen the original boat (or pinched) tail version of the Spider. The latter kamm-tail version never looked quite right to me, as though it was an afterthought to the rest of the design. Now I understand that it actually was.
Ha! Plus one – reversed. The original always looked unfinished to me.
The cuttlebone original is an extremely pretty, delicate tail considered alone. But it does not meet the rest harmoniously, and gives a banana-esqe effect to the whole. Raised a bit, and cut short, it moves the car into a purposeful bullet profile, (and out of the vegetable dept). I should add I’ve seen both in reality.
There is ofcourse no question the later rubbered-up Kamm-tailed ones looked as if they had had makeup applied by a small child, and are ruined.
There’s a fascinating compromise in the last of the breed, with body-integrated and coloured bumpers – with the effect looking altogether cleaner – and the Kamm tail with Alfa 164-type taillights. That sounds like a Frankenalfa, but isn’t.
Gotta agree with Justy here, although the first Spider I ever drove was a boat tail, the one I owned was Kammback and I prefer it. Though I’d take a boat tail over the final versions that had more cladding than an Aztek.
Thanks for the Italian treats to go with my coffee this morning. Alfa has produced so many cars loved by enthusiasts over the years.The GTV and Spider are my favorites but the early sedans just look so “right.” I would guess that the ownership of an early Alfa would be similar to that of an old Jaguar. Worse that you would have hoped for, but better than the nightmare that the general public would imagine! If I’m lucky maybe I’ll get a chance to find out for myself. Whenever I spot a modern Alfa in traffic I enjoy seeing the iconic badge on he deck of the car.
The 60s Alfa’s were well made and durable mechanically and the 105 series is easy to work on. As far as I remember a 13 mm wrench was the most used tool. Rust is their biggest enemy…
That twin cam is also one of the best looking (and sounding) motors ever made, too!
The last version was officially not called Giulia but Nuova Super, of course the street called it Giulia Nuova Super: but look at the picture your posted of the Blu Olandese
(Dutch Blue) car, you’ll see the word Giulia is missing on the boot lid.
Mine was Prugno, Purple, I mean PURPLE as in PURPLE an awfull color until a secretary at the Alfa dealer who had sold this car new in Holland told me I had the only original purple 1300 Nuova Super in da’land.
I deeply, deeply loved that car, imagine bought it for 500 Dutch Guilders (it had a dent in the RH rear door and the brakes were shot) but fixing it and doing 100 Mph with 4 guys in it on the way for a winter sport holiday.
Together with my Innocenti 1300 Cooper, the 1300 Nuova Super had the most beautiful dashboard ever. They are both in my top 3 of best cars I ever had.
Here’s the Nuova Super’s dashboard :
A Prugno ( plumb ) color Berlina 2000 was the first and last new car my father ever bought. I think he wanted a GTV but that was the best compromise be could come to with his young family of 4. He loved that car , but it didn’t really return the affection. 2 years in Nova Scotia then another 5 in Scotland meant that road salt powered rust just ate it alive! Then the head gasket blew and it was retired to a garage in frustration replaced by 2 other Alfas and then a string of fast Fords. It sat for 9 years, we tried to revive it , but the subframe was more rust than steel. The day it was towed away for scrap was a hard day for my dad. I have this quixotic dream of getting a 1970s Giulia one day and kind of redeeming that car in my memory. Please talk me out of it! Thanks for a really informative and enjoyable article.
Nice journey, Roger.
I’ve never been much taken by any of the sedans, and if they began life from a source connected to the Renault R8, it’d explain a bit. I actually like the R8, as it carries the angularity right through and with a bit of verve, but for many, it’s an ugly toolbox.
I never realized the Guilia and Berlinas were the same central car: I certainly agree the latter removed a lot of what there was of character. In any of them, I reckon that if I mentally remove the badging and the implied handling and motor glorious, I see only a fairly anodyne ’60’s shape that could easily be a wheezy Japanese dullard.
But then, I’ve never thrilled to the duetto/spyder, and forgive my sins, the GTV just isn’t quite right either (with the GTC exception, that’s beautiful), so I’m best ignored really.
An observation on the R8 lineage. I never knew the connection, if any, between the Giulia and the Renault, but I also think the R8 is a very successful design: good proportions, nice detailing, and again, at least in Gordini or racecar form, a nice “stance”. But just like the elongated and smoothed-over 1750/2000 Berlina, the R8’s similarly evolved successor, the R10, comes off worse to me.
I love the Guilia sedans but love the 1750/2000 Berlinas even more. I get that they have have less character but they have a simple almost timeless elegance to them, and look sleeker whilst still having that audacious boxy charm.
My Dad bought a grey R10 new in 1968…my Mother never cared for the styling..she commented that it was so symmetric front to back that she thought she might mistakenly open the rear door to get in to try to drive it..I think Paul had an article saying all of these had rooflines that were inspired by the Corvair.
My Mother hardly drove the car as it was a standard (she still is hesitant to drive standard even though the car she learned to drive in was semi-automatic).. My Dad traded it in on his next car earlier in the year I started driving, so I never got to drive the R10. I’m sure the engine was nowhere near as nice as the one in the Alfa (and of course it was in the rear).
I did get to test drive a GTV2000, but otherwise missed out on the Alfa before they stopped importing them to the US sometime around 1993.
Great piece Rog!
And thanks for the mention of my old Charbonneaux post, one of my earliest on CC.
The R8 / Alfa 105 connection is quite a conundrum. Charbonneaux was asked to work on the R8 by a distraught Renault, who had received an Italian prototype body that was ugly as sin.
Whether that was the Alfa 103 is up for debate – sure, they look somewhat similar, but then so does the Simca 1000 and certain Fiat prototypes of the same era. The issues are the completely different architecture (rear engine vs front) and the detailing.
For instance, the A-pillars of the 103 and 105 are very similar, but the R8’s is quite different. None of the greenhouse, door cuttings or wheelarch designs match, either.
If Charbonneaux is to be believed, he did a 4-week rush job on a poor design. If he managed to change it this much, that seems like more than a month’s work. Still, the resemblance seems pretty uncanny. And the two State-owned automakers weren’t total strangers…
I had a ‘67 Datsun RL411 1600. Slip one of those in here and it would pass as a family member!