Lemon Juice and Paper Cuts: The 2020 Alpine A110S

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

Every automotive journalist has a mental list of new models they’d like to see migrate to their home country. For many residing in North America, the Alpine A110 is at the top of the page. We didn’t get the resurrected A110, which is a faithful throwback to the original model that ended production in 1977, and this has left a subset of our staff feeling a little raw.

Alpine has since unveiled a spicier build of the car, throwing some additional salt on our collective butthurt — though we’ll happily acknowledge that probably wasn’t the automaker’s intent. It seems content building a two-seat sports car France can be proud of.

Whereas the current A110 uses a 1.8-liter turbocharged four-cylinder that produces 247 hp and 236 lb-ft of torque, the new A110S steps things up to 288 hp. While the manufacturer leaves foot-pounds untouched, it did say that peak tug will be available higher in the car’s rev range at 2,000-6,400 rpm. At face value, the improvement doesn’t sound as though it would result in much of an increase in overall performance. But the mid-engined Alpine only weighs in at 2,456 pounds — slightly more than the substantially less powerful Mazda MX-5, which is still loads of fun.

The model will remain rear-wheel drive and persist with the seven-speed dual-clutch transmission used by the standard A110. However, it will receive a retuned suspension with new dampers, 50-percent stiffer coils and 100-percent stiffer anti-roll bars (which are hollow to save weight). It’s also been lowered 0.2-inches vs its standard sibling.

Tires and wheels are also new, with the Renault subsidiary offering darkened 18-inch GT rounds wrapped in Michelin Pilot Sport 4 rubber. Also fitted as standard is the 320mm bi-material discs and Brembo brake calipers and that are optionally available on other versions of the A110.

Beyond that, Alpine said it took some lessons from the A110 GT4 race car to tweak stability control — especially for track mode. But the manufacturer will still allow customers to deactivate ESC entirely.

After throwing all of these improvements onto a pile, the company claimed the A110S will blast to 62 mph from a standstill in 4.4 seconds and provide much-improved handling characteristics over the standard variant without ruining the car’s ability to serve as a daily driver.

Prices start at €66,500, or about $74,500 in the market we would have most liked to see it in.

[Images: Société des Automobiles Alpine SAS]

Matt Posky
Matt Posky

A staunch consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulation. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied with the corporate world and resentful of having to wear suits everyday, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, that man has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed on the auto industry by national radio broadcasts, driven more rental cars than anyone ever should, participated in amateur rallying events, and received the requisite minimum training as sanctioned by the SCCA. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and managed to get a pizza delivery job before he was legally eligible. He later found himself driving box trucks through Manhattan, guaranteeing future sympathy for actual truckers. He continues to conduct research pertaining to the automotive sector as an independent contractor and has since moved back to his native Michigan, closer to where the cars are born. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer — stating that front and all-wheel drive vehicles cater best to his driving style.

More by Matt Posky

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 20 comments
  • Cimarron typeR Cimarron typeR on Jun 17, 2019

    I'm not sure how this thread ended up going sideways but I agree with krhodes this car is pure sex, especially in French blue. I, too , could get over my manual transmission requirement for a sporting vehicle . In regards to the EV performance vehicle,not for me. Only boring cars for boring commutes.

  • NeilM NeilM on Jun 17, 2019

    I'm old enough to remember and have lusted over the original A110, back when I lived in France in my late teens. It was a killer rally car back then. Now I lust over this one. To the comment of the nose looking like a Toyota something, no, it's styled after the nose of the original, see: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Renault_Alpine_A_110_%28Sp%29.JPG

  • Slavuta Autonomous cars can be used by terrorists.
  • W Conrad I'm not afraid of them, but they aren't needed for everyone or everywhere. Long haul and highway driving sure, but in the city, nope.
  • Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
  • B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
  • Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
Next