 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Alfa Romeo Cars / August 2004My GT test drive thoughts
Hi everyone, Took a GT 2.0 JTS out for a test drive on Saturday, thought I'd share my opinions with the group (for what they are worth!), I would welcome other people's opinions, as I am very seriously thinking of buying. My comparisons are to my current steed - 147 1.6 lusso. Overall, I was impressed, it looks better in the metal than the pictures, somehow much meaner (not that it doesn't look good in the photos!). There is something slightly uncomfortable' about the rear-on view I think. From the 3 or 4 they had, I would say light colours suit it better than dark. The standard 16" wheels look too small, 17"s look good. I saw one with the gunmetal grey spoked 17" GTA wheels, which I didn't think looked as good as the silver spoked wheels. The interior is pretty much regular 147, so I was slightly disappointed that it didn't feel that different to my current car. They have changed the lower centre console area, around the gear stick, it looks a bit plasticy and has lost some of simplicity of the 147 arrangement. Although the dash moulding is the same, it is a different, softer less grainy material, which I think feels a bit cheaper quality (although I'm sure the intention was the opposite). The whole ambience was much better inside another one I sat in with the momo hide, which looks very good. It was all a bit creaky and the lid on the gearbox/ashtray thing wouldn't close. Boot was a useful size, rear headroom is not great (but better than 3 series coupe). The door trims are 147, but have frameless windows, so they have used an ugly black rubber plug to fill the gap where the pillar would be to save on a new door lining, which is a shame. Overall I think the interior quality was a bit down on my 147? The JTS engine still felt very tight (only 1100miles), that will loosen up. Lifting the bonnet it looked more like a VW TDi than an alfa! Too much black plastic, and not as good looking as my T.Spark unit. The handling was much more positive, overall it felt much more sporty, and the body was more rigid. I wonder whether they have added more weight to the power steering, or it may just be the wider tyres, it felt meatier and suited the car. The ride was firmer, but still very good, even running on the 17" low profiles. The JTS unit didn't sound quite as sweet as the T Spark, but mine didn't really start to sing until 10k miles plus! I think the JTS will be a real goer with some more miles on it. Going from a 147, you can just jump in and drive it like you've had it for years. So there you go! I did like the car, it looks very special, but maybe I was slightly disappointed how similar it is overall to the 147. Putting aside the exterior it is maybe down a bit on quality (pillar plugs, dash material) and passion/detailing (engine note, engine appearance). I think you would see more of the differences (ie performance, handling) in time, when you use it everyday. I now need to decide whether it is worth nearly three times my current car's value? Thanks for reading my ramblings! Thoughts? Opinions? Cheers all, PhilipS >Hi everyone, > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > >Cheers all, PhilipS An interesting read Philip. It left me wondering if you have ever tested a 156 2 ltr. As the chassis and engine of that car are closer to the GT than the 147 1.6 and it would be interesting to hear your opinion of that too. I appreciate that you are not interested in buying a 156, and don't want a stepping stone to the GT. It would just be interesting to hear your feeling about the chassis/engine with the different body <G> Pete  Signature<iowna156@rustclubalfa.com> 156 2.0 TS (2001) - Proteo Rosso (his) 147 2.0 TS (2002) - Gem Green (her's) >>Hi everyone, >> [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] >>Cheers all, PhilipS > An interesting read Philip. Indeed. I wonder if it would be useful to start compiling people's reports in the website. SignatureCatman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3 Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply) Alfa 116 Giulietta 3.0l (Really) Sprint 1.7 Triumph Speed Triple: Black with extra black bits www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk >> An interesting read Philip. > >Indeed. I wonder if it would be useful to start compiling people's reports >in the website. A sort of "Readers Drives" <G> I would have thought that it would be a handy feature. A would a frequent problems archive. Whether anyone would bother to read them, or just try and top post all over them is another matter :-) Pete Signature<iowna156@rustclubalfa.com> 156 2.0 TS (2001) - Proteo Rosso (his) 147 2.0 TS (2002) - Gem Green (her's) >>> An interesting read Philip. >> >>Indeed. I wonder if it would be useful to start compiling people's >>reports in the website. > A sort of "Readers Drives" <G> lol > I would have thought that it would be a handy feature. > A would a frequent problems archive. > Whether anyone would bother to read them, or just try and top > post all over them is another matter :-) Well, there is that :) SignatureCatman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3 Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply) Alfa 116 Giulietta 3.0l (Really) Sprint 1.7 Triumph Speed Triple: Black with extra black bits www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk >Indeed. I wonder if it would be useful to start compiling people's reports >in the website. Only those people who don't Top Post <LOL> Pete Signature<iowna156@rustclubalfa.com> 156 2.0 TS (2001) - Proteo Rosso (his) 147 2.0 TS (2002) - Gem Green (her's) > An interesting read Philip. It left me wondering if you have ever tested a > 156 2 ltr. As the chassis and engine of that car are closer to the GT than [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Pete Interesting question. I haven't driven a 156 2 litre, and would also be interested to hear from anyone who has tried both, I would maybe expect the GT to feel more like the 147 than the 156 because The 147 is a c. 4 year old design evolution of the 156; road tests I read around the time of the 147 launch indicated that in their opinion the 147 offered a handling/ride improvement over the 156, (primarily I guess as a more up-to-date reworking). Reading alfa's literature they openly describe the GT as a 156 based coupe. Owning a 147, the GT feels very much like a 147 (partly in terms of on-the road feel), but also shapes, curves, controls, driving position, I would guess that in reality it is more directly 147 based than 156 based, but for market placement they have decided not to describe it as such?? In any event they are all evolutionary. Anyone out there jumped a generation and tested 156 vs GT? > Hi everyone, > > Took a GT 2.0 JTS out for a test drive on Saturday, thought I'd share > my opinions with the group (for what they are worth!), I would welcome > other people's opinions, as I am very seriously thinking of buying. > My comparisons are to my current steed - 147 1.6 lusso. I seriously thought about a 147GTA, a 156 2.5V6, a GT 2.0JTS and a GT 1.9JTD as successor of my tuned 156SW1.8 Drove all of them as well as a GT 3.2V6 (just for the kick) I found the interior nice, specifically with the black new cloth, yet very 147. But I prefer the 147 interior over the 156 Interior wise, I fell for the "normal" natural leather (option); the fine leather (another option) is too smooth for me. The Bose sound system is perfect; matches the engine sound!! Although all my Alfa's have been Alfa red until now, the Alfa red isn't my colour for the GT; makes it look "cheap". My preference is the darker colours; I hate silver!! Ordered mine in Rosso Siena (new colour for the GT for delivery after this summer; a kind of dark red metallic. Performance wise, the GT 2.0JTS was similar to the 156 2.5V6; the 2.0 was a very nice surprise. The JT had a lot of torque at avery rpm, but I missed the quick rev'ing; the speed was o.k. though. The 147GTA was a kick, more a go kart than a luxury GT The GT 3.2V6 was a ball, but out of my league financially. In general I found the drive in the GT's much better (firm, yet comfortable and sharply steering) than the 156 2.5V6 (and my 156SW) I did notice quite a difference which I suppose was caused by tyre brand and size. The JTD was on standard 16" Firestones, the JTS on 18" Michelin Pilot Sport and the others on 17" Pirelli Off all, the 18" Michelin were silent, more comfortable than the 17" Pirelli''s. The 16" Firestone's? Brrrr I eventually went for the 18" and hope the Michelin's will be on their as well (bargained Michelins at a very small extra when Alfa doesn't supply them standard. I did notice quite a difference in quality; the JTS was a recenter built car (May, 3500km on the clock) that looked much better than the February built JTD/3.2V6 (both approx 15.000km on the clock) Problem: Have to wait until Christmas!! SignatureCiao from Holland AlfistaGJ (Gert-Jan) Alfa red 156 SW 1.8 Madeno tuned (2000) Golden Montreal 1428700 (1973/4) An alfa 156 2.0JTS that I drove was less powerfull then the old 155bhp 2.0T.S. in the alfa 156.... So it can't be AS fast as an alfa V6.... Totaly different driving experience. Owned both the 2.0T.S. and 2.5 V6, roadhandling better on the 2.0T.S., but driving pleasure and real power goes to the 2.5 V6... except for fuel consumption. Anyway found my alfa 147 for roadhandling better then both alfa 156 2.0 and 2.5 But i hope the 2.0JTS is a lot better in the alfa GT... because otherwise buy a 1.9JTD instead ! if you want performance only the 3.2 V6 will comply, but then again if you want REAL power then buy something else, something with a petrol TURBO engine in it ;) I myself was thinking of buying an alfa GT, but after driving the 3.2 V6... I was convinced not the sell my beloved fiat coupe for it... Greetz, Djbase Alfa 147 1.9 JTD Squadra-tuned - 140Bhp Fiat Coupe 20V Turbo - 253bhp@6250rpm, 407nm@3150rpm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alfistagj" <alfistagjOnReplyPleaseRemoveThis@chello.nl> Newsgroups: alt.autos.alfa-romeo Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 8:34 PM Subject: Re: My GT test drive thoughts > > Hi everyone, > > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > Alfa red 156 SW 1.8 Madeno tuned (2000) > Golden Montreal 1428700 (1973/4) > > Hi everyone, > > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > Alfa red 156 SW 1.8 Madeno tuned (2000) > Golden Montreal 1428700 (1973/4) > An alfa 156 2.0JTS that I drove was less powerfull then the old 155bhp > 2.0T.S. in the alfa 156.... Alfa has recently admitted that the spread in power in the first generation JTS engines was much to great. Mainly downward. Many, many engines didn't even reach 150HP in stead of the advertised 170! The new generation (since the 156 nose job) is rated at 165HP and all engines meet that without any problem! SignatureCiao from Holland AlfistaGJ (Gert-Jan) Alfa red 156 SW 1.8 Madeno tuned (2000) Golden Montreal 1428700 (1973/4) Here they were rated 160bhp... also for the new ones, except in the gt is 165bhp i think Let's hope so... Greetz, Djbase > > An alfa 156 2.0JTS that I drove was less powerfull then the old 155bhp > > 2.0T.S. in the alfa 156.... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Alfa red 156 SW 1.8 Madeno tuned (2000) > Golden Montreal 1428700 (1973/4) Mine is a UK 2002 JTS (pre-nose job) and it was advertised / sold at 165BHP. I have never had that checked though. > Here they were rated 160bhp... also for the new ones, except in the gt is > 165bhp i think [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Alfa red 156 SW 1.8 Madeno tuned (2000) > > Golden Montreal 1428700 (1973/4) Phil, Intersting to hear your thoughts on the GT. I too test drove the GT recently - in fact I test drove both the 2.0 JTS and the 1.9 JTD. Like you I thought the 2.0 JTS was kinda tight and didn't really feel like much of a performance upgrade from my 156 1.8TS Lusso. I think the outside looks fantastic (definitely much better in the metal than in pictures) and was also impressed with the fit and finish of the interior (although you must remember I'm comparing it to a 4 year old 156 here!) The biggest surprise I got was when I test drove the 1.9 JTD. The performance was staggering! Loads of grunt, fantastic mid range acceleration, nice relaxed 6th gear motorway cruising - I was hooked and have ordered one as a result! Only problem now is the protracted delivery times due to the Italian holidays - ah well good things come to those who wait and all that... Grahame. > Hi everyone, > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > Cheers all, PhilipS > The biggest surprise I got was when I test drove the 1.9 JTD. The > performance was staggering! Loads of grunt, fantastic mid range > acceleration, nice relaxed 6th gear motorway cruising - I was hooked and > have ordered one as a result! Maybe i need to put my outdated oil burner preconceptions to one side and try one out! ;) > > The biggest surprise I got was when I test drove the 1.9 JTD. The > > performance was staggering! Loads of grunt, fantastic mid range [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Maybe i need to put my outdated oil burner preconceptions to one side > and try one out! ;) Yeah - please do, I'd like to hear your thoughts. When I went for a test drive I went to try the 2.0 JTS. I got back to the garage thinking "OK but not great" when the salesman said "do you want to try the JTD?" I hadn't even considered it having "oil burner preconceptions" myself. But I thought what the hell, I'm here anyway - might as well give it a try. As you can tell from my previous comments, I was blown away (no turbo pun intended). Grahame. <Snip> >The biggest surprise I got was when I test drove the 1.9 JTD. The >performance was staggering! Loads of grunt, fantastic mid range >acceleration, nice relaxed 6th gear motorway cruising - I was hooked and >have ordered one as a result! I'm surprised that YOU'RE surprised. I've been bleating on for years about how good the Alfa diesels are in comparison to their current 4 cylinder petrol engines. Because they don't rev very high but deliver massive torque (in my case more than even the GTA) they give a completely effortless but stunning performance in normal driving. Even better, I only have to fill her up once a month... I, also, prefer the sound of my 5 cylinder diesel to that of the 4 cylinder petrol engines too..but that's because when I boot it, I can still hear something interesting!!! Most Alfas are too quiet these days. For me, the JTS has too much 'rubber belt whine'.. SignatureZ Scotland Alfa Romeo 156 2.4JTD Veloce Leather 'Oil' be seeing you.. (Email without 'Alfa' in subject are auto-deleted..sorry!) Jup zarthas... you are right... JTD engines are very good ! Torque is what you need ! a 4cyl petrol without turbo isn't worht much these days... jtd's are very fun to drive ;) the torque where you need it Greetz, Djbase > <Snip> > >The biggest surprise I got was when I test drove the 1.9 JTD. The [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > 'Oil' be seeing you.. > (Email without 'Alfa' in subject are auto-deleted..sorry!) > Jup zarthas... you are right... JTD engines are very good ! > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > 'Oil' be seeing you.. > > (Email without 'Alfa' in subject are auto-deleted..sorry!) You're preaching to the converted now my friends :) I am now an official diesel evangelist and will bleat on extolling the virtues of the new generation of oil burners to anyone who'll listen. When do you think people will catch on that the 0-62 times aren't the "be all and end all" of performance measurement? I'd be much more interested to see manufacturers / car mags quoting 30-50 / 50-70 in gear acceleration times as I think these give a much better indication of real-world performance and drivability. - Grahame. <Snip> >You're preaching to the converted now my friends :) I am now an official >diesel evangelist and will bleat on extolling the virtues of the new >generation of oil burners to anyone who'll listen. ..old petrol-heads who still think diesels are slow, smoky and noisy won't. This is, of course, *excellent* when insurance companies still maintain the old ideas as *policy*. >When do you think people >will catch on that the 0-62 times aren't the "be all and end all" of >performance measurement? Never.. In any case, diesels are getting well up the lists of superb 0..60 times now anyway. >I'd be much more interested to see manufacturers / >car mags quoting 30-50 / 50-70 in gear acceleration times as I think these >give a much better indication of real-world performance and drivability. - They do..but what normal person would buy a petrol car if they did? After all, I'm pretty ordinary but, I instantly *jumped* at diesel when I discovered this killer combination: 1/ I could significantly improve on the performance of my petrol car. (Top speed and through the gears acceleration.) 2/ I could get better miles per gallon. I've always found that with a comparable petrol car, while they may improve on 1/, they can never do 1/ and 2/ at the same time with the kind of driving I do. SignatureZ Scotland Alfa Romeo 156 2.4JTD Veloce Leather 'Oil' be seeing you.. (Email without 'Alfa' in subject are auto-deleted..sorry!) The engine was probably extremely tight at 1100 miles - I was encouraged to keep it under 3000 revs until to run it in until about 1200 miles! I have a the 2.0 JTS (in my 156) with 19,000 miles on the clock and the engine is still loosening up now. I have really started to feel a difference in the last few weeks, following a 1500 mile trip through the UK and France. > Hi everyone, > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > Cheers all, PhilipS > The engine was probably extremely tight at 1100 miles - I was encouraged to > keep it under 3000 revs until to run it in until about 1200 miles! When an incidental problem is in the car from new, it will occur within those first miles indepent of the way you drive it.. Engine and gearboxes are built so precisely nowadays (perfect tolerances etc), that driving in isn't needed any more from a technical point of view. Being careful the first 1200miles/2500km is advisable. Best reason: You have to get to know the car!! > I have a the 2.0 JTS (in my 156) with 19,000 miles on the clock and the > engine is still loosening up now. I have really started to feel a difference > in the last few weeks, following a 1500 mile trip through the UK and France. Driving in in the past was nothing else than letting all the engine gearbox parts get a nice fit. In fact a kind of "wear". As the old way of machining all parts weren't as smooth and precise as now, so the running in more or less was a in situ polishing of all engine/gear box components. For this reason the engines used to have special "running in oil" as well as a "running in oil filter" that needed to be exchanged for normal oil & filter already at approx. 5000km's (3000miles) In those old filters you could have found a hughe amount of polish debree as well i.e. casting sand that was not properly removed from the oil canal in the block after casting. What you will now notice is that the modern engines are 1) made to very tight tolerances and 2) machined very smootly and 3) made from superior material. Wear is very low, so "running in" will occur, but very very slowly. Where you would definately feel the engine getting "stronger" in the past quite quickly from new (in fact, in percentage of the total engine power it could be as much as 15%!!), it will no be over a much longer period and much less in % So, when you have a nice long and firm drive and after that you drive your normal route, it is quite reasonable that you =can feel (little) more power. Nevertheless, I guess what you have felt is the influence of the weather which is immediate. Ambient temperature, air pressure and humidity are of great influence of the power output. Taking into account that the average air pressure is 1013mb a normal high pressure zone will reach 1040mb (+2.7%) and a normal low pressure zone 980mb (-3.2%) Looking at it this way, a high pressure zone is something like a natural turbo!! So, only based on "normal" weather variations approx 6% power difference can occur. And the higher the temperature, the lower the amount of oxygen in the air; oxygen eq power!! Humidity is also a factor as humidity can to a certain amount bind oxygen. SignatureCiao from Holland AlfistaGJ (Gert-Jan) Alfa red 156 SW 1.8 Madeno tuned (2000) Golden Montreal 1428700 (1973/4) Well I am no mechanic, but I can say is that in the last 1000 - 2000 miles, the car has started performing better than the first 16,000 miles. I was actually rather dissapointed to be honest! There is a definite smoothness developing now, along with a noticable increase in mid-range pick-up! You say running-in is a thing of the past, but may still occur with modern engines, only slowly - would you say that around 16,000 miles (about 25-26k kilometers) is about right? I don't think the amount of difference I have noticed lately can be attributed to climactic changes, air pressure, new shoes or anything other than the engine easing-in. I have no way of measuring, but there must be a good 10-25% improvement lately. I should add that this improvement didn't happen suddenly, it has been a gradual improvement, so I don't think anything has gone wrong (or gone right!). Anyone any comments on this? > > The engine was probably extremely tight at 1100 miles - I was encouraged > to [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > oxygen eq power!! > Humidity is also a factor as humidity can to a certain amount bind oxygen. > Well I am no mechanic, but I can say is that in the last 1000 - 2000 miles, > the car has started performing better than the first 16,000 miles. I was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > engines, only slowly - would you say that around 16,000 miles (about 25-26k > kilometers) is about right? Since I drive Alfa's, I found them bringing more and more power by the mile It really starts being noticable at 30-40000km so indeed the 16000miles could be a starting point of your performance boost. > I don't think the amount of difference I have noticed lately can be > attributed to climactic changes, air pressure, new shoes or anything other > than the engine easing-in. I have no way of measuring, but there must be a > good 10-25% improvement lately. 10% could well be; that is really noticable already 25% is out of the question!! > I should add that this improvement didn't happen suddenly, it has been a > gradual improvement, so I don't think anything has gone wrong (or gone > right!). > > Anyone any comments on this? Question: Did you have a regular service done lately? Reason why I ask: "They say" (I have never got it confirmed) that at the first service (20000km) the electronic setting is changed to a "after driving in" mode. It can also be that it happens automatically at a certain mileage. But like I said, never got it confirmed. Question: Did you change the petrol brand lately? Reason why I ask: In Germany I hear all kinds of miracle stories about Shell's new "super fuel". Many of them seem true and are supported by traceable facts. 10-15 kmh higher top speed etc. will calculate to 10-15% higher power! SignatureCiao from Holland AlfistaGJ (Gert-Jan) Alfa red 156 SW 1.8 Madeno tuned (2000) Golden Montreal 1428700 (1973/4) I have not had a service for a while - due in December, but I have experimented with different petrol. I tried a tank of the Esso Premium (97 octane I think) and it made even more difference, but even with supermarket petrol, the improvement is noticable - long may it continue! > > Well I am no mechanic, but I can say is that in the last 1000 - 2000 > miles, [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > Many of them seem true and are supported by traceable facts. > 10-15 kmh higher top speed etc. will calculate to 10-15% higher power! > The engine was probably extremely tight at 1100 miles - I was encouraged to > keep it under 3000 revs until to run it in until about 1200 miles! > > I have a the 2.0 JTS (in my 156) with 19,000 miles on the clock and the > engine is still loosening up now. I have really started to feel a difference > in the last few weeks, following a 1500 mile trip through the UK and France. I've done 31,000 in my 147 (1.6TS) and the engine is improving all the time, especially in the last 10k miles. It is interesting that this is the timesclae in which the oil consumption has also increased, not hugely, but still more than it used to be. Philip |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.