Talk:Alfa Romeo Giulia (2015)

Weight standard?
Where's the source that says the weight is according to DIN? The launch press release (http://www.alfaromeopress.co.uk/press/article/5460) makes no mention of the standard used, which implies that unless FIAT Chrysler is in breach of the law, the figure is according to the EC vehicle weights directive (1230/2012/EEC).

I will remove the "(DIN)" disclaimer on the weight figure until someone posts a supporting reference to show that this is indeed the basis of calculation.

92.51.196.226 (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)KrisW

The quotes weights are all wrong, all reviews show these weighing 3600-3900 lbs. No chance a large sedan like this weighs the 3000-3300lbs the article says. 64.140.119.73 (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Weight is, in general, not particularly useful in this case, as it depends upon acceleration of mass, and therefore ought to be avoided. Look at this combine's weight figures, Claas must have somehow managed to convert the earth into a perfect sphere with even gravity distribution, or they were just ignoring the laws of physics. I reckon the latter seems more likely. Okay, seriously: Vehicle mass depends upon a huge variety of factors, such as trim levels. Therefore, a certain standard has to be used in order to get a useful figure. Putting a car on a large scale and saying "the scale reads 1,500 kg, so this car's mass is 1,500 kg" doesn't work. North American market vehicles are usually much better equipped than their European counterparts, but better trim often comes at the cost of more mass. Then we also have to keep in mind the standard that we are using. Do we count fuel mass, spare tyre mass, and driver mass? Do we use the best trim level, or the base model for determining the mass? Which engine option do we use? There is no right or wrong here, we simply have to maintain comparability. "Reviews" don't do that. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Production Setbacks?
The Giulia was originally meant to arrive in 2013, then was pushed back because MArchionne was unsatisfied by the design of the car.

Allegedly, it would have been a relatively tall, at 1.45 mt, quite long - at 4.92 mt - and quite narrow - 1,80 mt - car, as a result of an ill-fated combination of an italian sourced C class platform (the stretched CUSW) with american components and design clues.

Of this, nothing appears in the article... At least the setback is commonly known, so it should be noted somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.50.151.57 (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Article title
Should the page be moved to Alfa Romeo Giulia (952), in keeping with WP:AUTOCONV and the practice used with other Alfa Romeo homonyms (e.g. Alfa Romeo Giulietta (940))? It would also be a less questionable title, since this car can be seen as a 2015, 2016 or 2017 model considering alternatively its introduction date, market launch or the first model year.—Cloverleaf II (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 08:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Since a month has passed since my proposal and we're at least two editors supporting it, I'll boldly move the article. —Cloverleaf II (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Why doesn't this title read Tipo/Type 952? It seems odd to just quote a number. Or is it standard Alfa practice? CtrlXctrlV (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Its model designation to differiate it from other older Giulias, look eg here  http://www.international-auto.com/alfa-romeo-miscellaneous/alfa-romeo-model-identification.cfm  -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 03:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I know that :) I was just saying, simply a number in brackets makes no sense. It should read "Tipo 952" or "Type 952" - or why doesn't it? The site you quote says "Series", which wouldn't be ideal, but supports my point that just a number is neither intuitive nor strictly correct? CtrlXctrlV (talk) 08:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Engine
Even they say its 2.9 L it might still be closer to 3.0, but we have to wait official figures -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 03:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Engine 2
Hi everyone. Please see the Ferrari F154 Engine talk page about the validity of the information presented in this article about the V6 used in the Quadrifoglio version. Jaredclce (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Let the engine size be 2.9 L as the official video says that size, well get more accurate size later, the V angle is 90 degree, so its not derived from Maserati engine either -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 19:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone know if it will be sold in the usa as the next Dodge Dart
I hear it might be sold in the USA as the next generation Dodge Dart but I am not sure if it's true or not 65.175.243.206 (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this a joke? The Dart is based on the smaller front-wheel drive Giulietta... at most, the future Chrysler 200 will share some architecture of the Giulia only because the Giulietta will (typically, suspension, firewall, doors, engines but not in the same exotic materials if applicable), but it doesn't mean it will just be a rebodied Giulia. Give google a try - read this for example  and this  :) CtrlXctrlV (talk) 06:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The Fiat Tipo has been tapped as the new Dodge Neon to replace the Dart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuffMyRadius (talk • contribs) 20:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Reverts to article and merit for 2 engine tables
Due to incessant reverts/edits compromising the article, others' comments and views would be appreciated at WikiProjects Automobile, in the hope this will refrain Typ932 from further edit warring in the meantime. Thankyou. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Fixed it for you. --77.22.144.77 (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Engine crankshaft/ignition timing
Anyone knows the crankshaft configuration? Or seen a diagram?

A 90º V6 derived from a V8 is problematic: if it was a 120º (like some Ferrari F1 engines: Ferrari 156 F1, Ferrari 126C) the ignition timing would be uniform (one explosion for each 120º). But a 90º V6 needs either split journals (later versions of the PRV engine had that), or individual crankpins (unlikely to be used, since the cylinder spacing would no longer be equal to the v8), otherwise it will have uneven ignition timing. Rps (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

https://www.alfaromeousa.com/content/dam/alfausa/pdf/giulia/2017_AR_Giulia_SP.PDF : "Crankshaft: super finished forged nitride steel with single conrod pin" I suppose it means that two conrods are paired on the same crankjournal and thus the firing intervals are 90°-150°. Dovatf (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Gearboxes
Noticed that there is two different gearboxes mentioned to Q version, other says is Getrag and other says is ZF S6-53: http://aftersales.fiat.com/eLumData/IT/83/620_GIULIA/83_620_GIULIA_604.38.898_IT_02_05.16_SA_QV/83_620_GIULIA_604.38.898_IT_02_05.16_SA_QV.pdf https://www.alfaromeousa.com/content/dam/alfausa/pdf/techsheet/usa/giulia/2017_AR_Giulia_FA.pdf this needs some more facts which one is it, or can US version have different box than Europe? Maybe thay Q user manual is more reliable than that US pdf-- >Typ932 T&middot;C 10:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Return of RWD
I suggest to change "The Giulia is also the first high volume production Alfa Romeo in over two decades to use a longitudinal engined rear-wheel drive platform, since the 75 was discontinued in 1992" to: "The Giulia is also the first saloon by Alfa Romeo in over two decades to use a longitudinal engined rear-wheel drive platform, since the 75 was discontinued in 1992" The Spider type 4 was namely produced until 1993 and was also a mass production vehicle (or is something different meant with high volume production vehicle?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.239.64.157 (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

2.0 Turbo Q4 in Europe vs USA
This is really intresting when comparing these:


 * 2.0 L I4 GME MultiAir Turbo AT8 Q4[26] 	1,995 cc (121.7 cu in)[47] 	280 PS (276 hp; 206 kW)[26] at 5250 rpm 	400 N·m (300 lb·ft) at 2,250-4,500 rpm[44] 	250 km/h (155 mph)[44] 	4.9 s 	5.9 L/100 km (48 mpg-imp; 40 mpg-US) 	148 	Europe
 * 2.0 L I4 GME MultiAir Turbo AT8 Q4[26] 	1,995 cc (121.7 cu in)[47] 	280 hp (284 PS; 209 kW)[26] at 5250 rpm 	306 lb·ft (410 N·m) at 2,250-4,500 rpm[44] 	149 mph (240 km/h)[44] 	5.1 s 	5.9 L/100 km (48 mpg-imp; 40 mpg-US) 	148 	North America

something really odd here...cant understand how US version with 4hp more is slower, or then there is some errors on US website specifications? -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 06:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Typ932! IMO engine is identical but they want to say it has 280 HP in USA due to marketing reasons and most possible that engine in either case has even much more power. If you looked at Quadrifoglio data then in USA it says 505 HP while for us in Europe is 503 HP or 510 PS. So I suggest to you that to make separate tables for US and EU engine list. 280 HP engine in US is both as RWD and AWD (Q4). Regarding 0-100 km/h time in EU gasoline Veloce it's interesting that at Paris Auto Show it was table with 5.2 seconds. Go figure. I almost forgot it. Top Gear tested US 280 HP in both RWD and AWD form. That article mentioned US Veloce with electrical turbo so it's good for future citations. http://www.topgear.com/car-reviews/alfa-romeo/20-tb-4dr-auto/first-drive I must say that some German car lovers are in disbelief for that particular engines and they think I (or maybe you) all made up.  --FGA cheerleader (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes maybe better do separate list for us/eu, ddint figure it before that Q version has also some difference in horsepower figues. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 19:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit wars
Please stop edit wars on this article on photos. It doesn't seem mature neither it is in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Grow up and stop the favourism on photos. U1Quattro (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Infobox


Typ932 has been trying to replace the infobox for the Alfa Romeo Giulia. I disagreed with the proposed image for several reasons.


 * Although there a lack of reflection, reason why it like that because the fact it is taken at such a awkward angle the light does reflect around it. Although the current one does has reflection it is a lot more sharper and at a nice 3/4 as well as showing the grille properly.


 * It is blurry on one side, especially around the wheel


 * The background is full of distraction such as people, cars, sign posts etc


 * Weird light shining on the rooftop where the current one doesn't has that

Looking back the two they both have the same amount of reflection then any other car with that colour and I find this ironic since in the past Typ932 has been trying to replace the infobox with a much more reflective black coloured Giulia and claiming that it better then the red one.

(For everyone's sanity, including mine, please refrain bring up any personal remarks about anyone in this discussion and I won't do the same)

Thoughts? --Vauxford (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Scudetto has to be visible on an Alfa. A pic between those 2 would be best. Right now the frontal one is better.YBSOne (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * A side view is a poor choice for an infobox, and I see no particularly compelling reason to use it. Toasted Meter (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That Vauxdord picture is awful, I can find several pictures from wikimedia which are better, it has horrible reflections from car itself and from windows back of it, its messy picture with another car next to it. Car color is wrong, Alfa has not that red of any cars, not edited as it should be. My choice is way better despite angle not just 100%., You can see grille from other pictures. My opinion quality is more important than some angle. Vauxford pic Alfa doesnt look like Alfa, looks very weird because those errors in it, especially reflections in rear end of car, looks very weird  -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 05:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

even these are better ones


 * I disagree, the background is busy on both of them, the only significant deficiency (as compared to the side shot) is the reflection of the sign on the hood, and I think being able to see the front of the car is more important than somewhat distracting reflections. I don't think it's close to perfect but as a infobox photo it's the best we have. Toasted Meter (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)




 * Typ932 You are correct about those dark reflections on the back side window on the current pic, it changes the shape slightly, but it is still a bit better than the rest of the candidates, it could be improved. YBSOne (talk) 09:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer Vauxford's image although it's not perfect. But currently theres no better image on wikimedia.--Alexander-93 (talk) 09:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If that penultimate black Giulia would be silver it would be almost perfect YBSOne (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I find the current image the most informative & least distracting of them all. The two darker cars have funky reflections that bother me, & the other two are at angles that seem to conceal more. The white one would be my second choice; it doesn't seem to show the hoodlines as well. (I'd sooner the current car wasn't red, but that's only because I still wonder who the Porsche Indians are. ;p )  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  10:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * For being such a new car, I should hope it the factory colour when clearly is. The fact I'm trying to say, there was several problem with the one you trying to replace with. It quite blurry on one side for starters while the current image is at a good angle and it sharp, the reflection is not the best I admit though. --Vauxford (talk) 12:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Whats wrong with black color? how would it be better as silver? even that is better picture than Vauxfords. And yes it factory color but the color in picture isnt right red, so either you camera or your edit makes it wrong color.- -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 17:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * (Silver is the most shape-revealing, that's why designers use silver foil to cover the clay model with it to study reflections.) YBSOne (talk) 09:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The Vauxford red car picture is seriously flawed in terms of the distracting nature of the reflections over the front, the slightly unconventional interpretation of red that his equipment has ended up providing, and the messy background.  Also (though others may think this works out just fine) in my opinion he stands too close which leads to the shape of the car becoming distorted.   The red car image proposed by Typ932 is technically more or less competent and the reflections at least go with the shape of the car rather than cutting across it.  The car stands out from the background rather than tending to merge into it at the back.   I think, again, that's a question of how you choose to adjust your zoom lens.   BUT it's not a particularly appealing angle and the images (including the Vauxford one) for which the photographer has moved just a little bit more from the side view to the front view are more informative, I think.


 * None of the other pictures is a particular show stopper either, in my opinion.  I have photographed a few of these cars myself over the past couple of years, but didn't seriously consider landing any of the results on wikipedia.   Those glaring reflection issues....   I wonder if Alfa Romeo put more gloss in the paint / shiny stuff than other manufacturers?


 * Anyhow, although the Vauxford image features many of the characteristic Vauxford problems, if you look for inspiration to see which image has been selected in other language versions of the article you will find that in many cases the same flawed Vauxford image has ended up there too, in approximately fifteen different languages.  It's what he does, of course.   Replacing it here is likely to lead to the kind of highly toxic edit warring that Vauxford loves to inflict on wikipedia, and I'm not sure it's worth enduring six weeks of that in order to "vote" for any of the alternatives currently available on commons.   The solution, then, is for someone somewhere to get lucky with the position of the sun and produce a decent picture of the car.  And ... please?


 * Regards Charles01 (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Of course Charles, I'll just wait for hours upon hours just so the sun get into the right place. I mentioned this before and I mention this again, your philosophy when it comes photograph stuff like cars is completely irrational and impractical. Half of the stuff you talk is about me rather then the pictures themselves, you can't seem to help slipping how I photograph stuffs or mention past peers or saying it a "vanity project" over and over again. I'm not going into detail and I know it fruitless to say, I'm kindly asking you please stop with this personal grudge towards me. --Vauxford (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It would be nice that you didn't replace the infobox before a consensus has been reached, and it safe to say people are favouring the one already on there and the one you did put wasn't in the discussion. --Vauxford (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I need no concensus to edit in Wikipedia, anyone can edit Wikipedia freely. If there is problem you can discuss it here. Im not to start voting system before all my edits in Wikipedia. Image used in infox is clearly better one, anyone who knows something about phographing or pictures can see it. Also there is conflict of interest because you are promoting your own images here in Wikipedia even they are not better in all cases -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 06:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * This reaching consensus thingy from my POV is to stop edit wars. If people had the same mentality as you described it, then it will just be anarchy, we need stuff like this if we want to solve any edit dispute. I'm not promoting my own image in a way you are implying it, if that the case, then everyone who ever put their own photos on Wikipedia is some "personal vanity project". I use images taken by me because I believed their the better choice, sometimes I'm wrong, but replacing any odd photos while ignoring the talk page discussion and taking matters into your own hands is disruptive editing. Another thing, the photo you trying to ram in is far worst then any other, it blurry, it distracting, it taken by a awkward angle, the edit seem to be a act of desperation all because people preferring the current standing image and it just so happen it was taken by me. --Vauxford (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Well I have hobbied photographing over 40 years, so I know something about photographing and pictures in generally, and there is several better pictures in Wikimedia than that. There isnt any other dispute than you want use own images at any price in these articles, even they are clearly worse one. You cant take all articles at your own hands -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 06:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Doesn't matter how long you been doing this hobby, that image been like that for a while and I forgot it was even there, if you actually look at the current discussion before all this went haywire you could see people prefer the current one over the others. --Vauxford (talk) 07:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Well it doesnt matter even the picture has stayed here 10 years or one day, its still bad. People isnt 2 people. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 07:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The current stance you are showing could be easily taken as being disruptive, please consider what you are doing and think. --Vauxford (talk) 07:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, its you should consider what you are doing in here Wikipedia, you cant put your own images to all articles at any cost. Think what others say about your pictures quality, before adding to them all articles . You cant revert all images to your owns, its against Wikipedia rules -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 07:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Well that's makes 85% of all Wikipedian liable for sanction if they can't put their own images in article. I'm cutting this opinion-filled discussion short, the fact aside that people prefer the other one no matter what and nobody else has pointed out any bogus colour they saw on the picture other then you. --Vauxford (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * they can put, but not if the picture is very bad like in this article, there is no reason to put your own pictures at any cost, you can see clearly its wrong color if you compare it to other pictures, its not the same color you eyes see. You have edited it wrongly and havent edited its colors in raw editor, And thats not the biggest issues, those reflections are very big issue, the cars back end looks like other car. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 08:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The only person who has problem with the "colour" is you, everyone else all thinks (I assumed) the colour is factory spec. Unless the car is bright pink this argument is completely trivial and unnecessary and I'm not going continue this. --Vauxford (talk) 08:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Because they dont maybe know the right color? It just look wrong Alfa red, its ofc ourse factory red, but its poorly edited in editor, clolors are not corrected right way, they should be corrected as you see them, cameras dont produce right colors necessarily-. as said those reflections are the main issue. Color can be edited to right--- >Typ932 T&middot;C 08:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Well it definitely Competizione Red. Please read what other users had to say, they all agree that the reflection is concerning but out of the lot, including the one which you didn't include in the discussion, they prefer the current one. 4 people prefer it, possibly 5. --Vauxford (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is Competizione Rosso https://cdn.dealeraccelerate.com/sfsc/1/842/31498/1920x1440/2017-alfa-romeo-giulia-quadrifoglio, you picture isnt near of it. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 08:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * https://www.alfaromeo.co.uk/content/dam/alfaromeo/uk/en/form/gab/download/Alfa-Romeo-Giulia-Quadrifoglio-Brochure.pdf This the UK brochure from February 2017, which is also when the car in picture is registered, it correctly shows (at page 23) that it Competizione Red, it definitely not Alfa Red that for sure. --Vauxford (talk) 08:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yep, but those are rendered not actual photos, and forgot the color, it can be edited. But those reflections in back end cant be fixed anyway. The car just look wrong at back end -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 09:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I give up at this point, you simply won't budge no matter what, the fact is, it the correct colour and if it slightly different the what you seen, maybe there some slight effect of the lighting at the time I took the picture. Currently, you just seem to refuse to corporate and spurting out nonsense about stuff that isn't there. --Vauxford (talk) 09:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * You know what, forget about the colour, please read what people have to say about the selection of pictures! --Vauxford (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that there are any decent photos on Commons, but Vauxford's is one of the better ones. If this doesn't come to an end soon, I'd might go find a good Giulia myself and take a photo of it. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 23:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes we need better photo, as said this looks bad in the rear end, and there is better ones in wikimedia also -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 07:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I actually managed to find a decent car in the first district's streets, but I could not get a perfect shot; the sunlight and the metallic paint didn't match that well. I'll upload the pics in a bit. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 11:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Here we go; these pics are not perfect, but maybe an alternative, due to their greater focal length? Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 12:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree.  I want to look at it more closely (in a good way, I think) but at first blush it is very usefully better than the one we are featuring currently and I prefer it to the other ones that have come up for discussion till now.  Unless anyone savagely disagrees (and even if one person does) I think this is the one we should be using.   Like Toasted Meter, I prefer the "115 mm" one.   Nicer angle for the car, though it does "overlook" he slope.   But they're both good.
 * I have an annoying technical question.  Is it possible to reduce the file size without losing quality?   (The internet provision here in England ain't too slick.)   But if the answer is "no" then please keep the quality.
 * Success Charles01 (talk) 06:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Image size is not a big deal, images on Wikipedia are loaded in the size that they are displayed so without clicking on the image all that is downloaded is a 280 px version, so the size will not slow down page loads. I think that if readers with poor internet want to see more detail a few second wait is not unacceptable. Toasted Meter (talk) 07:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your replies. Now, I'd like to get to the "technical aspect": I really like taking car photos with greater focal lengths (70, 90, 115, and 135 mm look good to me), which is why I use a 70–300 mm lens, if possible. Mine is a bit older and requires an aperture of f/8 (rather f/11) to get an overall sharp image; if set to f/5.6 or even f/4.5, the outer areas will become a bit blurry, but that's acceptable for a car pic, so I'm mostly using that; otherwise I wouldn't be able to get enough light through the lens anyways. Getting good results at low light levels is tricky: Shooting indoors is sort of impossible, and in the evening, I need something up my sleeve. In this case I have used a high ISO speed of 1,000, which made the image become very noisy to begin with, and I still cranked up the exposure to +1.5 to get a decent result. So I had to use a lot of anti-noise in Lightroom, but I cannot use too much of that, because otherwise the image becomes blurry and washed-out. Decreasing the shutter speed is sort of an option, because my lens has a decently working image stabiliser, but I rather use this function to get more sharpness with the same shutter speed I'd use without an image stabiliser rather than reducing the shutter speed at the cost of getting a more blurred pic. But anyways, if you consider my photo an improvement, go ahead and place it in the infobox. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 08:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Post Scriptum: Reducing the file size without losing too much quality is not possible, but Commons automatically generates thumbnails with much less file size. Some of them even load properly with my 32 kbit/s mobile internet connection. In Hungary, we've literally got landlines (copper cables and wooden masts), but the internet speed is surprisingly good (20 Mbit/s down, 5 Mbit/s up). Is it really that slow in England? Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 08:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What you (both) tell me about reducing file size is something I realise I used to know for myself.  Thank you and I'll try and retain it for next time.
 * I think I also use a camera/lens combination with an image stabiliser incorporated somewhere.  Whether it is decently working or not is another question.   That's something you really test with your long lenses!   I also, if I'm taking time and space to set myself up more thoroughly, use a tripod - well, only one pillar so I guess it's a monopod.   I like technology I (think I) can understand.


 * I came to this before breakfast, so my mind wasn't fully in gear, but I think I'd thought to wait 24 hours to see if Typ932 or anyone else wants to come up with an opinion.  He was the one who kicked this discussion off.   He may say he is sad you didn't find a red one, but the world would be duller if ALL Alfa Romeo pix were of red cars.   Anyhow, I don't think there's any rule about waiting for Typ932 or anyone else to come up with an opinion, so if you don't agree with waiting I'm more than happy for Toasted Meter or anyone else to put the better picture in the infobox.   (Probably better if Johannes Maximilian doesn't link his own picture:  that's generally something we try to avoid, as I guess you probably know already....)  Regards Charles01 (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with you about holding off for a bit. Toasted Meter (talk) 10:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * IS lenses usually come with a flip switch to change stabilser modes so you can use them on a tripod without making the stabilser blurr the image.    I wouldn't mind waiting for both Vauxford and Typ932. Putting your own pics if there is a pic already is considered very impolite in all Wikipedias I guess. If possible, I avoid doing that.    I own a tripod, but unfortunately, I left it in Hungary; if I can make it to the vintage car show in Gyöngyös this weekend, I will make good use of it. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 10:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * New lenses works ok with IS on and tripod, its only some older lenses which needs IS off. https://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/lenses/image_stabilisation.do?page=4 -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 11:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The white one 115 looks good, I prefer its better than current picture, I dont think that you need tripod, if you have IS lens or short exposure time, and car photos like these dont need long exposure time. Anyway some sort of wide lens would be maybe better for there photos. I see you have EF70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, thats quite good one, had that earlier also. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 10:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw you have ISO 1,000 which is quite big, and makes some noise to picture, it can be fixed slightly on raw editor. I see also you have Sigma 17-70 mm, F2,8-4,0 this would be maybe better for car photos if the target is close.... -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 11:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Typ932. I have actually taken a pic with the 17–70 mm lens, but it looks super blurry and mushy if I zoom in. So it's much worse than the 115 mm. Getting closer to the car makes the FOV look unnatural and off, resulting in a picture that looks unrealistic. As I've said, if you (all) like my picture, go ahead and use it. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 12:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Which is why I'm reluctant to use it because of those problems, the image itself is quite fuzzy compare to the current one and there a lot of noise and patches of blur where details should be shown. --Vauxford (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * If you actually take the trouble to read what he wrote, I think even you may manage to spot that he describes as fuzzy another picture which he hasn't uploaded!  I don't find the pictures he has uploaded distractingly fuzzy, but there might be someone (apart from Vauxford) who does.   Why is every discussion involving the Vauxford Vanity Project such fantastically soul destroying hard work?  Anyway, I suggest we should wait a little bit to see what other people think.   Your own contributions to this discussion higher up the page are unnecessarily abusive.   There really does seem still to be something going badly wrong here.   Your own behaviour elsewhere and the advice you have received in respect of it from various well intentioned "admins" over the last few weeks (which even now you "robustly" ignore) really doesn't leave you with any obvious credibility when it comes to "marking your own homework" as here.   Please leave others, whose pictures are not included in the discussion, to make their recommendations unmolested by your toxic and delusional contributions.   But maybe I'm just being unduly sensitive?      Regards Charles01 (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I reckon that noise isn't nice, but it's not a big deal either. I've tried keeping as many details as possible. In this case, I think that Charles has said everything that has to be said about your pictures, Vauxford, and I agree with what he says about your pics' problems, but let me explain it using my words: You are literally too close to the cars you take photos of. A human eye has a focal length of approximately 70 mm (maybe more or less, this is just what I believe it is). This means that using a focal length of more than 70 mm makes things look more realistic on a photo. The less focal length you use, the less realistic your pic will be (that is not 100 % true, but let that be true just for this expalanation.) The red Alfa you have taken a pic of is an optical illusion: its bonnet appears way bigger than it actually is. That is because you stood too close when you took the pic and compensated it with a small focal length. I recommend you step back and take photos from further away, this will result in much more realistic looking results. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

If you can post the raw image somwhere I can try to edit it and see if we get manage to get it any better. I think its quite ok now anyway. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 17:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

So do we need vote for this pic change? give your opinion below white or red one:

White -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 17:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * White one. Toasted Meter (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, white Charles01 (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * White Giulia.Alexander-93 (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * White might need to be cropped a little. If that the case, the red could replace the overly reflective black one. --Vauxford (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Looks like a decision.  I was going to make the switch this morning but someone else got in first.   Thank you.   Charles01 (talk) 07:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Current main infobox picture has to be changed as it looks too much like a wagon. Since Alfa didn't make the Sportwagon and fans really wanted it, current picture is too controversial. I know there are two cars pictured but it looks wrong at first glance.YBSOne (talk) 23:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

EV Giulia
Latest news from Alfa Romeo CEO Jean-Phillipe Imparato is that an EV version of the Giulia based on the STLA Large platform is planned for 2024. Too early to say if it will have a new type number, so I've kept the news in the talk section. 

Deepred6502 (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)