yes, it seems by the replies that the Turbo maybe slightly better on MPG and also performance obviously.. not that 30 odd Mpg is bad at all for either (Turbo and Atmo) by a longshot.
Was previously looking over some old motoring magazines from the 70,s, very good to read and I didn't realise that sports cars back then were doing pretty poor consumption.... on average I would say about 14mpg (round town) to 22mpg on a run, that is taking an average somewhat... (maybe generally even less than this for sports cars around (3-4 litres).
Some of the 70's-80's Ferrari's didn't seem to have that good results, I mean obviously more exclusive maybe than an Alpine but not really that impressive performance/ economy. Surely, both factors could be relevant when deciding if the car is of a good design? I mean, probably owners, however rich, would rather have a car that has good economy and performance rather than a complete 'gas guzzler'?
As for American cars over 4 litres... they maybe did only 10mpg odd.. De Tomaso etc... probably no faster (or slower)than an Alpine... yet I think you may have only got about 8mpg sometimes! Wonder if it went around corners as well?
As for Jensen Interceptor 7.2.... maybe also as low as 8mpg? Dig deep in your pockets at the petrol stations I should imagine...
Yes, the Alpine has quite alot of good points really....
I think again performance/ economy is a very relevant factor and should speak volumes for the past and future?
In fact by these magazines it is probably no worse(consumption) than an MGB of the 70's, what were they about 1798cc?
Well maybe 'silly' comaparisons because the cars are of different times somewhat but have always found comparing cars of different times (performance/ economy/ engine size) interesting.....
post some more Alpine consumption figures if inclined...