Alfa Romeo Stelvio Forum banner
141 - 160 of 176 Posts

·
Registered
2022 Stelvio Ti Alfa white with Chocolate interior, premium package.
Joined
·
288 Posts
The Stelvio was such a massive let-down in person that I really had to re-think how I approached things. I expected thoroughly to be "wow'ed" by it. I was not. So, I went to drive an Acura RDX.
Interested in your thoughts driving the RDX.. my mother in law wants my new stelvio (LOL) and so I’m back to carshopping again!
 

·
Registered
2022 RDX A-spec Advance
Joined
·
1,245 Posts
Interested in your thoughts driving the RDX.. my mother in law wants my new stelvio (LOL) and so I’m back to carshopping again!
Its pretty easily summed up. No truly blazing 4 cylinder suv exists, save maybe the new amg 400+hp stuff, so paper numbers are what they are. To make it simple, the RDX drove like the stelvio looks on paper, and the stelvio drove like the rdx looks on paper. The RDX was planted, shifted rapidly, no real lag, rotated hard through the corners with the help of true torque vectoring. It was solid and engaging. The Stelvio was just dull and boring. Lots of lag in the transmission, engine, all of it except steering, which was ok but nothing special. The RDX just delivers a fun experience while the Stelvio did no, for me. Neither are "fast", so Im buying with my heart, not my spreadsheet or timer. YMMV, just what I opined. Also you get more with the rdx, imo, for the dollar. Adjustable and adaptive suspension, torque vectoring diff, ventilated seats, HUD, way nicer interior, etc. The Stelvio offers rwd, but can't torque vector or split the F/R torque as much as the RDX can, but does have 50/50 weight distribution. They're just different cars. The Stelvio more like a corvette and the RDX more like a GTR. More wizardry in the RDX, more old school in the Stelvio, complete with lag and quirkiness. When I was done driving the RDX, I was grinning and went to talk numbers. When I was done driving the Stelvio, I just wanted the sales rep to stop talking so I could get out of it and leave.
 

·
Registered
'18 TI Lusso AWD
Joined
·
792 Posts
ON topic, now I'm concerned about the coolant breather valve, so maybe I'll follow that old CA guys advice and remove it later, of course, I'm also slightly worried about my oil cooler self destructing all by itself, maybe at 65 or 75k miles, So maybe I'll swap that out for the one from my old MGB, it's never let me down (don't know about previous owners), and if it can last 54 years, well I think I could trust it, of course it might seep a bit, but hey, one doesn't get rock solid reliability without some compromise. Moreover, I'm prepared to ramp up my concern about my new battery over the next five years.

Interested in your thoughts driving the RDX.. my mother in law wants my new stelvio (LOL) and so I’m back to carshopping again!
Off topic, Posts seeking information about other cars are welcome, but probably deserve their own thread, so future readers can see that valuable information and it's not hidden deep in this reliability concern thread. I know I wouldn't look here, I would probably look or ask in the
Alfa Romeo Stelvio Versus the Competition
section, if fact as a visitor, I would probably first go there if I was comparing info, but I'm not trying to yank anyone's chain.
Nor do I give in to narcissists that lay claim to what's mine.

see we can appreciate irony
 

·
Registered
2022 RDX A-spec Advance
Joined
·
1,245 Posts
Doesn’t the base Stelvio (US only maybe?) rate at 280HP and 306ft-lb torque?
It does. Both are tugboat engines, but the cx5 is more efficient because its a long stroke. Also, the stelvio I drove held up to higher speeds better courtesy the zf8, which makes up for the low rpm engine by keeping it in its sweet spot.
 

·
Registered
2022 Veloce Ocra GT with Active Assist Plus
Joined
·
581 Posts
It does. Both are tugboat engines, but the cx5 is more efficient because its a long stroke. Also, the stelvio I drove held up to higher speeds better courtesy the zf8, which makes up for the low rpm engine by keeping it in its sweet spot.
How is the CX-5 2.5 turbo “more efficient” than the Stelvio 2.0?

It’s a couple hundred lbs. lighter than the Stelvio yet manages to be both slower and have lower EPA hwy MPG.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,847 Posts
Wtf??

Who said that piece of piece of misinformation?

(Wait... I can guess)

Got a neighbor with a CX5 2.5 normally aspirated, and maybe 10 customers some with the NA, some with the turbo. The normally aspirated 2.5 gets the same gas mileage my car does. The turbo get worse. Use any power on the highway...alot worse. Like 20 mpg highway.... Do a search on forums and everyone says you have to stay bow 70mph to expect above 20 mpg.

Wtf? 70mph? Only time I do 70 is on my way to 75-80.

Now... Let's talk about how Mazda recently dropped a TSB for the 2.5 turbo that tells owners to drive around with zip lock bag and 2 quarts of oil in the car because the oil consumption is so bad and is causing a rash of low oil lights and internal damage.

I am glad my car "isn't as reliable as Mazda".. if it were it would be a step down.

I have already seen two 2.5T with low oil pressure alarms, both required major work under warranty. Mazda has no fix yet for the oil burning issue that causes this, hence the instruction to carry oil in the car at all times...

And yes... If you put the wrong weight oil in the engine it will eff that engine up. The only difference is people on Mazda forums don't act like someone putting in the wrong weight in the engine and having a problem is the fault of the car.azda owners have been trained to use the correct weight at all times or blame themselves for a problem. Cause.. ya know... Everybody knows Mazda makes a great car right? Can't be Mazda. Which is true... Of them and Alfa when it comes to engine problems from the wrong oil.

For instance, there was a known issue when the 2.5T first came out where dealers would use the wrong wieght oil and wrong oil filter because the turbo engine fit the normally aspirated oil filter and techs wouldn't notice it was a turbo, being used to the regular one. They would see 2.5, not notice the T and go grab the parts they always grab.

So.. they would put on the wrong filter on then pour in 0w20 instead of 5w30.... Those cars all had problems after. Even when the tech put the right filter on, but the wrong oil wieght.

The Mazda 2.5T is doubtless less temperamental then our engine, it also revs slower, and gets worse gas mileage. You take some you give some.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
746 Posts
"Who said that piece of stupidity?"

Someone whose vast experience in a Stelvio was a single 20-25 min muted test drive on city streets, one freeway on-ramp and no curves at speed. He told us as much last spring when he was so close to pulling that trigger.
 

·
Registered
2022 RDX A-spec Advance
Joined
·
1,245 Posts
How is the CX-5 2.5 turbo “more efficient” than the Stelvio 2.0?

It’s a couple hundred lbs. lighter than the Stelvio yet manages to be both slower and have lower EPA hwy MPG.
I am referring to the engine. Not the Stelvio. Not the CX5/mazda3/etc. The engine ONLY. I should not have written "CX5", as the CX5 is not a long-stroke...the ENGINE in it is, which is what I was referencing, as the poster had stated 2.0 used in the Stelvio. Things like thermal efficiency and BSFC are what I am referring to, not which VEHICLE gets better mpg or is quicker. The longer stroke ratio of the 2.5T makes it such. This is also what limits its rpm and horsepower potential. The Stelvio 2.0 likewise uses a longer stroke ratio, but not as radical as the 2.5T from mazda. Also, the Mazda is a higher compression engine, and uses cooled air through the EGR system to prevent having to dump excess fuel to prevent pre-ignition, although I believe the MA design does the same in the 2.0 found in the Stelvio. Actually dig into the GUTS of the thing.



Contrasted with my RDX's 2.0, which had a "square" engine (okay, within 0.01" of it). LOVED to rev...not very efficient. Lots of mpg complaints from the RDX crowd. I managed 24.2 compared t o the 27 my CX5 gave me, fwiw. The engine came out of a Civic Type R, so there ya go. It's just about mechanical realities of the engines, not comparing cars.
 

·
Registered
2022 RDX A-spec Advance
Joined
·
1,245 Posts
Wtf??

Who said that piece of piece of misinformation?

(Wait... I can guess)

Got a neighbor with a CX5 2.5 normally aspirated, and maybe 10 customers some with the NA, some with the turbo. The normally aspirated 2.5 gets the same gas mileage my car does. The turbo get worse. Use any power on the highway...alot worse. Like 20 mpg highway.... Do a search on forums and everyone says you have to stay bow 70mph to expect above 20 mpg.

Wtf? 70mph? Only time I do 70 is on my way to 75-80.

Now... Let's talk about how Mazda recently dropped a TSB for the 2.5 turbo that tells owners to drive around with zip lock bag and 2 quarts of oil in the car because the oil consumption is so bad and is causing a rash of low oil lights and internal damage.

I am glad my car "isn't as reliable as Mazda".. if it were it would be a step down.

I have already seen two 2.5T with low oil pressure alarms, both required major work under warranty. Mazda has no fix yet for the oil burning issue that causes this, hence the instruction to carry oil in the car at all times...

And yes... If you put the wrong weight oil in the engine it will eff that engine up. The only difference is people on Mazda forums don't act like someone putting in the wrong weight in the engine and having a problem is the fault of the car.azda owners have been trained to use the correct weight at all times or blame themselves for a problem. Cause.. ya know... Everybody knows Mazda makes a great car right? Can't be Mazda. Which is true... Of them and Alfa when it comes to engine problems from the wrong oil.

For instance, there was a known issue when the 2.5T first came out where dealers would use the wrong wieght oil and wrong oil filter because the turbo engine fit the normally aspirated oil filter and techs wouldn't notice it was a turbo, being used to the regular one. They would see 2.5, not notice the T and go grab the parts they always grab.

So.. they would put on the wrong filter on then pour in 0w20 instead of 5w30.... Those cars all had problems after. Even when the tech put the right filter on, but the wrong oil wieght.

The Mazda 2.5T is doubtless less temperamental then our engine, it also revs slower, and gets worse gas mileage. You take some you give some.
Mazda acknowledges and fixes. On the last road trip I recall taking my CX5 turbo on, it averaged around 28mpg. My lifetime average was 27.0mpg, over 80K miles. My 2015 CX5 non-turbo got 2-4mpg less across the board.

Font Handwriting Material property Wood Paper




Also of note, I had a 2019. It had zero visible oil consumption. I did 5K mile changes, using Mobil 1 Synthetic (EP).
 

·
Registered
2022 Veloce Ocra GT with Active Assist Plus
Joined
·
581 Posts
I am referring to the engine. Not the Stelvio. Not the CX5/mazda3/etc. The engine ONLY. I should not have written "CX5", as the CX5 is not a long-stroke...the ENGINE in it is, which is what I was referencing, as the poster had stated 2.0 used in the Stelvio. Things like thermal efficiency and BSFC are what I am referring to, not which VEHICLE gets better mpg or is quicker. The longer stroke ratio of the 2.5T makes it such. This is also what limits its rpm and horsepower potential. The Stelvio 2.0 likewise uses a longer stroke ratio, but not as radical as the 2.5T from mazda. Also, the Mazda is a higher compression engine, and uses cooled air through the EGR system to prevent having to dump excess fuel to prevent pre-ignition, although I believe the MA design does the same in the 2.0 found in the Stelvio. Actually dig into the GUTS of the thing.



Contrasted with my RDX's 2.0, which had a "square" engine (okay, within 0.01" of it). LOVED to rev...not very efficient. Lots of mpg complaints from the RDX crowd. I managed 24.2 compared t o the 27 my CX5 gave me, fwiw. The engine came out of a Civic Type R, so there ya go. It's just about mechanical realities of the engines, not comparing cars.
Yes, I knew you were referring to the CX-5’s engine. And yet, your statement that “the CX-5 is more efficient because it’s a long stroke” is still a bit nonsensical.

BSFC represents just one factor when we get into the engineering / mathematical weeds that govern a vehicle’s fuel efficiency- like final drive ratio, transmission gearing, mechanical friction, torque curve, vehicle mass, rolling resistance, drag co-efficient, etc. etc.

If you did have some really good comparative data between the two engine’s BSFC or thermal efficiency, it would be an interesting read for the forum.

Otherwise, don’t think you can just assume the Mazda 2.5 turbo has better BSFC or thermal efficiency than the Stelvio 2.0. I thought the whole idea behind MultiAir was to maximize those things in every application.

The fact is, the Stelvio 2.0 provides a superior combination of fuel economy and acceleration at a heavier curb weight than the CX-5 with the 2.5 turbo.

Better engineering, apparently.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,847 Posts
Seriously. Just hit ignore, your arguing with someone who doesn't understand beyond marketing jargon and basic blather.

BSFC, or Brake Specific Fuel Consumption, Defined as:

As a practical matter, BSFC is a measure of how efficiently a given amount of fuel is being converted into a specific amount of horsepower. More broadly stated, it could also be considered a measure of combustion efficiency, and that's key to our discussion, but first we need to include some thoughts about a related subject

Arguing a larger engine that make less power AND gets worse gas mileage has better BSFC then a smaller engine with more power and better mileage ..... Sure and the earth is flat too. Totally, you win. Go away now.

PS, I burned my tapioca writing this and have to make a new batch now. You can argue with this stupidity, that's it for me. Gotta separate egg white again... Seriously... Some bs.
 

·
Registered
2022 RDX A-spec Advance
Joined
·
1,245 Posts
Yes, I knew you were referring to the CX-5’s engine. And yet, your statement that “the CX-5 is more efficient because it’s a long stroke” is still a bit nonsensical.

BSFC represents just one factor when we get into the engineering / mathematical weeds that govern a vehicle’s fuel efficiency- like final drive ratio, transmission gearing, mechanical friction, torque curve, vehicle mass, rolling resistance, drag co-efficient, etc. etc.

If you did have some really good comparative data between the two engine’s BSFC or thermal efficiency, it would be an interesting read for the forum.

Otherwise, don’t think you can just assume the Mazda 2.5 turbo has better BSFC or thermal efficiency than the Stelvio 2.0. I thought the whole idea behind MultiAir was to maximize those things in every application.

The fact is, the Stelvio 2.0 provides a superior combination of fuel economy and acceleration at a heavier curb weight than the CX-5 with the 2.5 turbo.

Better engineering, apparently.
BSFC of Skyactiv 2.5L Turbo:
Rectangle Slope Line Font Parallel



As you can see, the SA 2.5T has MASSIVE "islands" of efficiency. Wonder how that 2.0 MA engine engine stacks up? I'd like to see it. I'm sure you have that chart somewhere.

As to the Stelvio...yeah, gearing, 8-speed ZF8, etc. it sure does have another $15K or so in the powertrain, and it shows. I am speaking solely about the ENGINE. This is why I averaged 27mpg over 80K miles of ownership. Mazda has huge areas of efficiency for real world use benefit. The 2.0 may have an ultimately more efficient little load and rpm hot-spot, but it's not going to have what that 2.5T from Mazda does, above. You cannot look at a dynamic event (engine/driving/rpm/etc.) as a static value. That said, yes, the ZF8 and other aspects make the package as a whole quicker from Alfa than Mazda's. I did not find the Stelvio 2.0's BSFC map, but here is Toyota's for their new 2.5L engine, which is widely regarded as the most efficient of its kind, having a thermal efficiency of around 40%. The mazda doesn't compare half bad to this, even being a turbo vehicle and older tech from a smaller company.

Slope Rectangle Plot Line Font
 

Attachments

·
Registered
2022 Veloce Ocra GT with Active Assist Plus
Joined
·
581 Posts
BSFC of Skyactiv 2.5L Turbo:
View attachment 28479


As you can see, the SA 2.5T has MASSIVE "islands" of efficiency. Wonder how that 2.0 MA engine engine stacks up? I'd like to see it. I'm sure you have that chart somewhere.

As to the Stelvio...yeah, gearing, 8-speed ZF8, etc. it sure does have another $15K or so in the powertrain, and it shows. I am speaking solely about the ENGINE. This is why I averaged 27mpg over 80K miles of ownership. Mazda has huge areas of efficiency for real world use benefit. The 2.0 may have an ultimately more efficient little load and rpm hot-spot, but it's not going to have what that 2.5T from Mazda does, above. You cannot look at a dynamic event (engine/driving/rpm/etc.) as a static value. That said, yes, the ZF8 and other aspects make the package as a whole quicker from Alfa than Mazda's. I did not find the Stelvio 2.0's BSFC map, but here is Toyota's for their new 2.5L engine, which is widely regarded as the most efficient of its kind, having a thermal efficiency of around 40%. The mazda doesn't compare half bad to this, even being a turbo vehicle and older tech from a smaller company.

View attachment 28480
Again, you made a claim about superior “efficiency” of the Mazda 2.5 turbo vs. the Stelvio 2.0 with absolutely no comparative data set.

I don’t have any clue which engine is more efficient as measured by BSFC, neither do you.

What I do know is the Alfa is heavier yet still accelerates significantly better in independent testing while having identical EPA city and combined MPGs and 1 more Hwy MPG.

The Stelvio 2.0 makes 40% more HP per liter and 20% more torque per liter. It’s also capable of running fine on anything from 87-93 octane as per the owner’s manual.

That seems like some pretty good “efficiency” that actual owners in the real world would value.
 

·
Registered
2022 RDX A-spec Advance
Joined
·
1,245 Posts
Again, you made a claim about superior “efficiency” of the Mazda 2.5 turbo vs. the Stelvio 2.0 with absolutely no comparative data set.

I don’t have any clue which engine is more efficient as measured by BSFC, neither do you.

What I do know is the Alfa is heavier yet still accelerates significantly better in independent testing while having identical EPA city and combined MPGs and 1 more Hwy MPG.

The Stelvio 2.0 makes 40% more HP per liter and 20% more torque per liter. It’s also capable of running fine on anything from 87-93 octane as per the owner’s manual.

That seems like some pretty good “efficiency” that actual owners in the real world would value.
I do know the Mazda has a longer stroke than the Alfa, and a higher compression ratio. I also know that part of the Alfa's mpg advantage comes from having 2 more cogs to shuffle, so it's not really sensible to compare the engines based on the vehicles they are placed in. I will continue to look for the 2.0's BSFC map.
 

·
Registered
2022 Veloce Ocra GT with Active Assist Plus
Joined
·
581 Posts
I do know the Mazda has a longer stroke than the Alfa, and a higher compression ratio. I also know that part of the Alfa's mpg advantage comes from having 2 more cogs to shuffle, so it's not really sensible to compare the engines based on the vehicles they are placed in. I will continue to look for the 2.0's BSFC map.
Well, good luck on your search. Maybe it will shine a light on why the Mazda 2.5 Turbo makes such low power per liter relative to the MultiAir 2.0?
 

·
Registered
2022 RDX A-spec Advance
Joined
·
1,245 Posts
Well, good luck on your search. Maybe it will shine a light on why the Mazda 2.5 Turbo makes such low power per liter relative to the MultiAir 2.0?
It is a longer stroke engine, and was tuned to be more efficient for daily driving. Tuned 2.5T are laying down some decent numbers even on the oem turbo though. That said, its a long stroke engine. Torque at low rpm and lower boost is its game. When you have a 2.5L engine pushing 17psi, and a 2.0L engine pushing into the 20s, you can't just say "oh, bigger displacement and less power, must be lower BSFC!"...well...its pushing 5+psi less, too...

Volumetric efficiency, the stelvio 2.0 is better.
Rectangle Slope Plot Font Parallel
 
141 - 160 of 176 Posts
Top