Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Alfa Romeo Cars / September 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Talk me out of buying a 166

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
daveskirrow@btinternet.com - 17 Sep 2005 05:02 GMT
I'm thinking of buying a used 166, maybe a '99 and almost certainly a
3l V6 auto. The problem is that I am rather scared of the costs
involved after I purchase. There's a baby on the way and I don't have
much cash so the last thing I want is a massive bill when something
goes wrong.

Can anyone give me an idea of prices of common parts such as brake
disks and pads and service parts.

I can handle most jobs myself on older cars but my experience is
limited on anything in the last 10 years with the exception of simple
stuff like a Fiat Punto, so I'm worried I might get in over my head
with all the gadgetary in a 166 and end up with a huge Alfa main dealer
bill that I can't afford.

Is a cam-belt change on one of these involved? And if it is, are they
costly from the dealer?

And is there any other advice anyone can offer?

What I'm getting at is, is a 166 going to cost me a lot more to
maintain than something dull like a Vectra? CShould I wait till I am in
a beter financial position before becoming an Alfa owner? I'd hate my
first experience with an Alfa to be a bitter one.

My heart says Alfa Romeo, my head says Ford Mondeo :(

Cheers,
Dave
ts86 - 17 Sep 2005 09:29 GMT
> I'm thinking of buying a used 166, maybe a '99 and almost certainly a
> 3l V6 auto. The problem is that I am rather scared of the costs
> involved after I purchase. There's a baby on the way and I don't have
> much cash so the last thing I want is a massive bill when something
> goes wrong.

Don't buy it then. Family comes first :)

> Can anyone give me an idea of prices of common parts such as brake
> disks and pads and service parts.

www.shop4parts.co.uk

> I can handle most jobs myself on older cars but my experience is
> limited on anything in the last 10 years with the exception of simple
> stuff like a Fiat Punto, so I'm worried I might get in over my head
> with all the gadgetary in a 166 and end up with a huge Alfa main dealer
> bill that I can't afford.

Wear parts and servicing is easy enough.

> Is a cam-belt change on one of these involved? And if it is, are they
> costly from the dealer?

£900? Random figure that. No idea.

> And is there any other advice anyone can offer?

Consider maybe a different Alfa model?

> What I'm getting at is, is a 166 going to cost me a lot more to
> maintain than something dull like a Vectra? CShould I wait till I am in

YES.

> a beter financial position before becoming an Alfa owner? I'd hate my
> first experience with an Alfa to be a bitter one.
>
> My heart says Alfa Romeo, my head says Ford Mondeo :(

Go with something in between. Fiat?
J-P Westaway-Green - 17 Sep 2005 09:48 GMT
Hi Dave,

If you're after a spacious, comfortable, executive car, then the 166 is  the
one to go for - but avoid the automatic like the plague.

Mine is a 2.5 V6. I would have liked the 3L (running costs are practically
the same and you get the extra power), but trying to source a used one with
a manual transmission - that didn't have stupid miles on and also had a full
dealer service history, was like looking for a chocolate tea pot.

Brakes: I paid £55/Disc and £45/pad www.autoplanet.co.uk (although I'm sure
someone in this forum will tell me I've been ripped off).

I've just had all the belts and tensioners changed on my T plate (52,000),
along with the water pump (just because they were there at the time and it
made sense), the usual oil change and filter, total bill from an independent
was £664.00 (you'll pay over £1000 from a main dealer for that little lot).

Fuel costs: I average about 28MPG in mine - which, given its size and the
weight of the engine isn't to bad.

If the car you go for is 99-2001 - make sure its had the recall to replace
the oil cooler.

Make sure the car isn't fitted with Xeon head lights, as these are prone to
failure on the 166 and cost a fortune to replace.

If cost is a real concern than why not go for a 2L TS. Sure, you won't get
to here that wonderful V6 exhaust note, but with the lightness of the TS
engine it should be adequate for your needs - you won't be kickin' ar*e if
you've got a baby in the back will you?

Go get one and enjoy it - they're fantastic cars and highly underrated -
Alfa really should have done a proper marketing job with this motor. As a
result, there's hardly any on the roads, which makes them kinda cool IMHO.

Hope this helps

J-P

> I'm thinking of buying a used 166, maybe a '99 and almost certainly a
> 3l V6 auto. The problem is that I am rather scared of the costs
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> Cheers,
> Dave
Steve - 17 Sep 2005 10:00 GMT
The 166 will certainly cost alot more to run than say, a Vectra. Insurance,
fuel costs and servicing are all on the high side.

My previous car was a golf VR6, so I was used to high insurance premiums and
low fuel economy. However, the servicing costs for my current car (156,v6)
dwarf those of the golf. My experience is that Alfa servicing costs increase
each year until after the 72k (6,years) biggie, when they go back to the
original year 1 cost and the process starts again. On all other cars I've
owned, servicing costs are more or less the same each year, interspersed
with the occasional milestone service. The same may apply to other Alfas,
but is certainly not true in my experience.

Regarding servicing costs, I usually have to have the brake pads replaced
each year, even though I do a low mileage. According to my dealer, this is
because the pads are now made of a softer compound compared to the
asbestos-based material which was used earlier. Whether or not this is true,
I've no idea other than it usually adds £200 to the service bill. Ever other
year the dealer kindly pops another set of discs on as well.

The service which involved the cambelt change was gobsmackingly expensive. I
was quoted around £750, but once all the extras were toted up - including a
new alarm - the final cost was a fiver short of 2 grand.

If you are at all concerned about the costs involved, especially with a baby
on the horizon, then steer clear. Even if the car requires no repairs, a 3l
car the size of a 166 is not going to be cheap to run. My 156 averages
around 22 mpg - 28 if I'm lucky and there are motorways involved. Insurance
with 5 years no claims is around 1K.

Personally, I would be reluctant to buy a 166. My father-in-law had a 166
and being in one is just like driving around in a sofa - albeit a very comfy
one. The term "barge-like" springs readily to mind. Not that quick either...

p.s. I wouldn't include your real email address in posts. These posts are
spidered and you suddenly won't be short of sources where you can buy Viagra
and other lovely cocktails at amazingly low prices.

> I'm thinking of buying a used 166, maybe a '99 and almost certainly a
> 3l V6 auto. The problem is that I am rather scared of the costs
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> Cheers,
> Dave
SteveH - 17 Sep 2005 10:31 GMT
> I'm thinking of buying a used 166, maybe a '99 and almost certainly a
> 3l V6 auto. The problem is that I am rather scared of the costs
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Can anyone give me an idea of prices of common parts such as brake
> disks and pads and service parts.

As an example, here's the front disc and pad prices:

https://sslrelay.com/buypartsby.co.uk/discs_details.php?recordID=186

> I can handle most jobs myself on older cars but my experience is
> limited on anything in the last 10 years with the exception of simple
> stuff like a Fiat Punto, so I'm worried I might get in over my head
> with all the gadgetary in a 166 and end up with a huge Alfa main dealer
> bill that I can't afford.

A 166 is no more complex than any other luxury car in it's class - look
at how complex a MkIII Mondeo Ghia is, for example.

> Is a cam-belt change on one of these involved? And if it is, are they
> costly from the dealer?

Don't go to a main dealer - cambelts are surrounded by myth and mystery
- however, my local back street mechanic is happy to replace the belts
on anything (the one on my Passat was quite complicated to replace, but
he did it for under £200) - I'd say he'd charge me about £300 for a
service and belt change on a 166.

> And is there any other advice anyone can offer?

Stay away from main dealers - find a competent local mechanic with a
cheap hourly rate, but also find a local Italian car specialist who can
do the more specialist jobs - not that you'll need them very often.

> What I'm getting at is, is a 166 going to cost me a lot more to
> maintain than something dull like a Vectra? CShould I wait till I am in
> a beter financial position before becoming an Alfa owner? I'd hate my
> first experience with an Alfa to be a bitter one.

IME, Alfas are more expensive than mainstream cars to run. The insurance
is a bit more, but not massively so, and servicing costs *can* be
higher, although I know people who've paid silly amounts of money out on
servicing Volkswagens.

> My heart says Alfa Romeo, my head says Ford Mondeo :(

Go with your heart - the 166 is one of the undiscovered bargains on the
used car market. As you're new to Alfas, I'd definitely recommend buying
from a specialist or having the car you're interested in inspected.

As has been said by someone else - also consider the 2lt TSpark. It's a
great engine, if a little low powered for such a big car. However,
they're a lot more economical and the engine is certainly easier to work
on.

On the other hand, are you sure you need something as big as a 166? -
with the 159 on it's way, 156s are currently at bargain basement prices
- we bought a 156 2lt TSpark Lusso recently, on a 99V, with climate
control, for £2800 with a 12 month warranty, from a respected Alfa
specialist.

Signature

Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark Lusso - Passat 1.8 Turbo SE -  COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

PeterMcC - 17 Sep 2005 11:27 GMT
daveskirrow@btinternet.com wrote in
<1126927794.783161.326860@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>

> I'm thinking of buying a used 166, maybe a '99 and almost certainly a
> 3l V6 auto.

I'd avoid the auto and go for the standard gearshift box.

Find a good independent to do the servicing - my experience of Alfa main
dealers ranges from not good to appalling.

If you're looking for a large saloon that will gladden your hear every time
you drive it and make you look forward to a 300 mile drive home after a
day's work at the other end of the country, then the 166 is hard to beat.

My only regret about buying mine was that, by the time my 2nd 164 3.0
retired and there weren't any more decent ones to be had, I had to make do
with the next best thing - the 166.

Signature

PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

Pete - 17 Sep 2005 11:29 GMT
>What I'm getting at is, is a 166 going to cost me a lot more to
>maintain than something dull like a Vectra? CShould I wait till I am in
>a beter financial position before becoming an Alfa owner? I'd hate my
>first experience with an Alfa to be a bitter one.
>
>My heart says Alfa Romeo, my head says Ford Mondeo :(

How can you seriously compare a mundane family saloon with a luxury exec
sport saloon? Vectra and Mundeo are comparable to the Alfa 156. Not the
166. You are starting on a false base-line. Compare the costs against a 5
series or Merc E320 Elegance, These common panzerwagons have costs that
will be similar to the 166.

If you want the style of an Alfa 166 then you will have to go to the
Maserati Quatroporte to buy better. Look how much a Maser would cost and
the Alfa 166 is a bargain.

As has been said - family first. Hope you enjoy whatever you buy.

Pete
Signature

 <iowna156@rustclubalfa.com>      
156 2.0 TS (2001) - Proteo Rosso

SteveH - 17 Sep 2005 11:43 GMT
> >What I'm getting at is, is a 166 going to cost me a lot more to
> >maintain than something dull like a Vectra? CShould I wait till I am in
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> series or Merc E320 Elegance, These common panzerwagons have costs that
> will be similar to the 166.

I'd tend to disagree with your point about the 156 - it's smaller than
the current generation of Mondeo / Vectra / Passat - my Panzerwagen is
closer in size to a 166 than a 156. The 156 is, as was the 155,
somewhere between Focus and Mondeo in size - the same market sector that
was occupied by the BMW 3-series in it's E30 and E36 incarnations.

However, you're right about the 166 - it may be slightly smaller than a
5-series or E-class, but that's the sector it's marketed to.

> If you want the style of an Alfa 166 then you will have to go to the
> Maserati Quatroporte to buy better. Look how much a Maser would cost and
> the Alfa 166 is a bargain.
>
> As has been said - family first. Hope you enjoy whatever you buy.

Personally, I'd also consider the 156, but then I would, because we have
one.
Signature

Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark Lusso - Passat 1.8 Turbo SE -  COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

daveskirrow@btinternet.com - 17 Sep 2005 15:48 GMT
Thanks for all the replies guys. I was originally looking at the 156
then I "discovered" the 166 and fell in love. The reason I compared to
Vectra/Mondeo was because I was reluctantly looking at a boring family
saloon then I got onto the 156 and then the 166. The harsh depreciation
makes it a real option for me. To buy an BMW in a similar
condition/year etc I would be paying a lot more than I would for the
Alfa.. and I'd much rather have the Alfa anyway. The bottom line, is if
I don't get a 156/166 then it's gonna be a dull family saloon.

I'll be honest, there's not many modern cars in this price range that
light my fire but the Alfa is a real exception. I don't mind paying a
little more for it, but I'm just worried of it becoming a cash
blackhole.

Thanks again for your help, you have all been very helpful.
PeterMcC - 17 Sep 2005 19:24 GMT
daveskirrow@btinternet.com wrote in
<1126968488.905226.155080@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>

> Thanks for all the replies guys. I was originally looking at the 156
> then I "discovered" the 166 and fell in love. The reason I compared to
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Thanks again for your help, you have all been very helpful.

Have you never owned an Alfa before? If not, that's another powerful
argument to put on the 166's side. And, quite genuinely, though I don't do
the miles I used to, my current 166 is one of the cheapest cars to maintain
that I can remember. In the last 24,000 miles my only outside-of-servicing
expenditure was on a replacement water pump.

Go on - enjoy  :)

Signature

PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

SteveH - 17 Sep 2005 19:29 GMT
> > Thanks again for your help, you have all been very helpful.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> that I can remember. In the last 24,000 miles my only outside-of-servicing
> expenditure was on a replacement water pump.

Erm, doesn't that mean replacing the cambelts etc, though? - it's hardly
a trivial item, IME.
Signature

Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark Lusso - Passat 1.8 Turbo SE -  COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

daveskirrow@btinternet.com - 17 Sep 2005 20:36 GMT
Nope, never owned an Alfa before. I'm swinging back to the 156 idea,
whats the general consensus on the Selespeed gearbox? I'm thinking I
will be better trying to avoid it so there's less to go wrong but I
must say I'm a sucker for fancy gadgets.
SteveH - 17 Sep 2005 20:55 GMT
> Nope, never owned an Alfa before. I'm swinging back to the 156 idea,
> whats the general consensus on the Selespeed gearbox? I'm thinking I
> will be better trying to avoid it so there's less to go wrong but I
> must say I'm a sucker for fancy gadgets.

Yup, you're right, avoid it.

It's sometimes known as the 'sillyspeed' around these parts.
Signature

Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark Lusso - Passat 1.8 Turbo SE -  COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

Catman - 17 Sep 2005 21:32 GMT
> Nope, never owned an Alfa before. I'm swinging back to the 156 idea,
> whats the general consensus on the Selespeed gearbox? I'm thinking I
> will be better trying to avoid it so there's less to go wrong but I
> must say I'm a sucker for fancy gadgets.

Stick with the manual.  It's nice

OTW I really *like* the 156

It's not got as much sheers guts as the Giulietta. or as much character as
either of my others, but when it comes to sheer car park kudos and long
range crusing, it's a superb car

Signature

Catman 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 1.7 156 TS S2
Triumph Speed Triple: Black with extra black bits
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

George Graves - 17 Sep 2005 23:53 GMT
> I'm thinking of buying a used 166, maybe a '99 and almost certainly a
> 3l V6 auto. The problem is that I am rather scared of the costs
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> Cheers,
> Dave

The Alfa will cost you more in maintenance than the Ford. No two ways
about it. If that's your concern, go with the Ford and buy the 166 when
you can better afford it, I.E. have both. The Mondeo for your head, and
the Alfa for your heart. That's what I did. I have a 2003 VW GTI for my
every day driving and my GTV-6 Alfa for weekends. The Alfa is still
maintenance intensive, but as a hobby car with few miles being
accumulated  (less than 10,000 miles in four years) day to day
reliability is not all that important.
daveskirrow@btinternet.com - 18 Sep 2005 01:41 GMT
I don't think the wife will let me have any more hobby cars, not with a
half built kit car in the garage, and 2 Minis and a Honda CRX in the
back garden....

But, based on what all you helpful Alfa owners have told me and after a
few more hours research on the net, I have decided the manual 156 is
the way to go, it's just the particular model that is the issue now,
year is going to have to be 2001 at the very latest for the price I've
got a max of £3000 to spend, I'm leaning towards the 2l but a nice 1.8
or V6 would be considered. Leather and extras are important.

Am I right in ruling out the 1.6? And am I right in thinking Veloce is
best option pack , then lusso, then standard?
SteveH - 18 Sep 2005 11:02 GMT
> I don't think the wife will let me have any more hobby cars, not with a
> half built kit car in the garage, and 2 Minis and a Honda CRX in the
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> got a max of £3000 to spend, I'm leaning towards the 2l but a nice 1.8
> or V6 would be considered. Leather and extras are important.

The V6 is nice, but it's very nose-heavy and thirsty. Personally, I
wouldn't have one as I prefer the balance of the car with a 4-pot
engine.

Don't get a 1.8, they're vastly inferior. The engine is significantly
different - a lot harsher as it doesn't have balance shafts.

> Am I right in ruling out the 1.6? And am I right in thinking Veloce is
> best option pack , then lusso, then standard?

Definitely not a 1.6... not big enough for the size of car.

The choice between Lusso and Veloce is down to taste - they're both
almost identical in terms of equipment, but the Veloce or Sportpack
versions have harder suspension, bigger wheels, sports seats, fake
carbon fibre trim and a leather steering wheel. Veloce gets more
comfortable seats, wooden steering wheel, fake wood trim, smaller wheels
and softer suspension. My preference is Lusso, Catman likes his Sport
trim.

What you often find is that 1.8s are 'poverty' models with aircon
instead of climate, nasty cloth trim (the Lusso has the same seats, but
with a very plush velour) and steel wheels with plastic trims.
Signature

Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark Lusso - Passat 1.8 Turbo SE -  COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

Hans de Heer - 18 Sep 2005 11:50 GMT
> Am I right in ruling out the 1.6? And am I right in thinking Veloce is
> best option pack , then lusso, then standard?

Consider a Sportwagon. With a baby on its way, you can really use the extra
space in the back. Stuffing a buggy in the back of a 156 sedan is not a nice
thing to do, trust me...
And indeed avoid the 1.6, it's underpowered. I think the 2.0 is the best
trade-off between power and fuel economy.

Signature

Regards, Hans
Alfa Romeo 156 Selespeed - 1999
Alfa Romeo Spider 3.0V6 - 1997

Pete - 18 Sep 2005 16:20 GMT
>Consider a Sportwagon. With a baby on its way, you can really use the extra
>space in the back. Stuffing a buggy in the back of a 156 sedan is not a nice
>thing to do, trust me...
>And indeed avoid the 1.6, it's underpowered. I think the 2.0 is the best
>trade-off between power and fuel economy.

That Sportwagon is a good suggestion. At least take a good look and a drive
in one before parting with cash.

Definitely 2.0 Ltr with as much trim as you can find. The bigger alloys
ride better in my opinion. Though others here will say the lowered Sport
Packs drive better. If it is a trade off between driving pleasure and
family ride comfort then the 2.0 TS with the rigid ride, 15" alloys and
leather is my pick, but that is what I own.

You do realise that the rear seat in the 2.0 does not fold like the smaller
engine versions. Less body roll. If you need "child lugging space" then the
Sportwagon looks just the same from the driving seat :-) Looks pretty darn
smart from the outside too.
Pete
Signature

 <iowna156@rustclubalfa.com>      
156 2.0 TS (2001) - Proteo Rosso

Zathras - 18 Sep 2005 21:21 GMT
>>Consider a Sportwagon. With a baby on its way, you can really use the extra
>>space in the back. Stuffing a buggy in the back of a 156 sedan is not a nice
>>thing to do, trust me...

er..have you lot forgotten that the Sportwagon has LESS boot capacity
than the saloon UNLESS you drop the back seats! I manage 1 kid + all
the kit with a 156 saloon. Any more kids and I'd need a top box. I
took one look at the Sportwagon boot, laughed, then bought the saloon.
I'm sure the Sportwagon was an Italian joke that nobody else got.

Signature

Z
Scotland
Alfa Romeo 156 2.4JTD Veloce Leather
'Oil' be seeing you..
(Email without 'Alfa' in subject are auto-deleted..sorry!)

Hans de Heer - 18 Sep 2005 21:26 GMT
> er..have you lot forgotten that the Sportwagon has LESS boot capacity
> than the saloon UNLESS you drop the back seats! I manage 1 kid + all
> the kit with a 156 saloon. Any more kids and I'd need a top box. I
> took one look at the Sportwagon boot, laughed, then bought the saloon.
> I'm sure the Sportwagon was an Italian joke that nobody else got.

I also manage two kids plus all the kit in a saloon, but I think the extra
height of the Sportwagon boot plus the bigger opening would come in handy.
It's not the lack of space that's frustrating, but the size of the opening I
think. Hell, I even have to slide in a box of groceries sideways and
tilted...

Signature

Regards, Hans
Alfa Romeo 156 Selespeed - 1999
Alfa Romeo Spider 3.0V6 - 1997

SteveH - 18 Sep 2005 21:50 GMT
> > er..have you lot forgotten that the Sportwagon has LESS boot capacity
> > than the saloon UNLESS you drop the back seats! I manage 1 kid + all
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> think. Hell, I even have to slide in a box of groceries sideways and
> tilted...

You want to try loading the boot of a 75....
Signature

Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark Lusso - Passat 1.8 Turbo SE -  COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

Zathras - 19 Sep 2005 08:38 GMT
>> er..have you lot forgotten that the Sportwagon has LESS boot capacity
>> than the saloon UNLESS you drop the back seats! I manage 1 kid + all
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>think. Hell, I even have to slide in a box of groceries sideways and
>tilted...

True..I use bags for that reason. However, it's still a smaller space
in the Sportwagon  and I need all I can get.

Signature

Z
Scotland
Alfa Romeo 156 2.4JTD Veloce Leather
'Oil' be seeing you..
(Email without 'Alfa' in subject are auto-deleted..sorry!)

George Graves - 19 Sep 2005 02:04 GMT
> >>Consider a Sportwagon. With a baby on its way, you can really use the extra
> >>space in the back. Stuffing a buggy in the back of a 156 sedan is not a
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> took one look at the Sportwagon boot, laughed, then bought the saloon.
> I'm sure the Sportwagon was an Italian joke that nobody else got.

Except that it's the prettiest current station wagon on the planet  and
maybe the best looking one this side of an Aston Martin Shooting Brake.
Zathras - 19 Sep 2005 08:36 GMT
<snip>
>Except that it's the prettiest current station wagon on the planet  and
>maybe the best looking one this side of an Aston Martin Shooting Brake.

I agree..but as a load carrier...1/10

Signature

Z
Scotland
Alfa Romeo 156 2.4JTD Veloce Leather
'Oil' be seeing you..
(Email without 'Alfa' in subject are auto-deleted..sorry!)

Pete - 19 Sep 2005 15:04 GMT
><snip>
>>Except that it's the prettiest current station wagon on the planet  and
>>maybe the best looking one this side of an Aston Martin Shooting Brake.
>
>I agree..but as a load carrier...1/10
Which is why I have a 156 saloon + a LWB Transit <ROF>

Pete
Signature

 <iowna156@rustclubalfa.com>      
156 2.0 TS (2001) - Proteo Rosso

Zathras - 19 Sep 2005 18:29 GMT
>><snip>
>>>Except that it's the prettiest current station wagon on the planet  and
>>>maybe the best looking one this side of an Aston Martin Shooting Brake.
>>
>>I agree..but as a load carrier...1/10
>Which is why I have a 156 saloon + a LWB Transit <ROF>

Ha Ha! That covers a few bases!!!  :-) It also has the plus point that
after the Transit, the Alfa will feel like a supercar!

Signature

Z
Scotland
Alfa Romeo 156 2.4JTD Veloce Leather
'Oil' be seeing you..
(Email without 'Alfa' in subject are auto-deleted..sorry!)

Pete - 19 Sep 2005 19:44 GMT
>after the Transit, the Alfa will feel like a supercar!
Yep, but it doesn't have the sub-aqua kit fitted :-)

Pete
Signature

 <iowna156@rustclubalfa.com>      
156 2.0 TS (2001) - Proteo Rosso

George Graves - 19 Sep 2005 22:09 GMT
> <snip>
> >Except that it's the prettiest current station wagon on the planet  and
> >maybe the best looking one this side of an Aston Martin Shooting Brake.
>
> I agree..but as a load carrier...1/10

Could be, I've never been in one, and they aren't sold on this side of
the pond. Seen plenty of them in Europe though, and have admired their
looks. I have an Italian friend named Jocopo (who posts here
occasionally) who has one. He seems to like it.
Zathras - 19 Sep 2005 22:35 GMT
>> <snip>
>> >Except that it's the prettiest current station wagon on the planet  and
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>looks. I have an Italian friend named Jocopo (who posts here
>occasionally) who has one. He seems to like it.

I don't doubt it.

I really fancied one until I saw the inside. It is one of those cars
that I opened the tailgate of (in a showroom) and immediately thought
someone had filled it..it was just the back seat backs though. I don't
understand it..it's built to be some sort of load carrier (otherwise
why bother) and looks like one from the outside but inside there's no
useful load carrying capacity unless you make it a two seater. Even
then, the tailgate lip and size make it rather difficult to load. It's
the best style-over-function I've seen from Alfa.

Signature

Z
Scotland
Alfa Romeo 156 2.4JTD Veloce Leather
'Oil' be seeing you..
(Email without 'Alfa' in subject are auto-deleted..sorry!)

Arjan Renting - 20 Sep 2005 09:48 GMT
>>><snip>
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> then, the tailgate lip and size make it rather difficult to load. It's
> the best style-over-function I've seen from Alfa.

Alfa's have never been designed just for practicality, so what do you
mean...? IMHO the sportwagon was only built to be attractive, for a load
carrier you should buy an other car. And as you initialy fancied one,
they did their job well apparently.

Arjan
Zathras - 20 Sep 2005 12:17 GMT
>>>><snip>
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>Alfa's have never been designed just for practicality, so what do you
>mean...?

But Sportwagons are about fun AND practicality according to Alfa. To
build an Estate-style Sportwagon with LESS luggage capacity than the
saloon it's based on with the seats in place is just hopeless. I used
to Windsurf competitively as a sponsored sailor so I know a lot about
loading a car to the absolute max. It is possible to make good
practical cars and in smaller packages than a 156. Don't get me
started on the 147 load space though.... I bet the 159 will be a lot
more practical than the 156.

>IMHO

Yes but Alfa built it to be MORE practical than the saloon - they
never said it was less practical.

>the sportwagon was only built to be attractive,

That's not how Alfa described it and, presumably, they know. I agree
with you though.

>for a load carrier you should buy an other car.

That's true.

>And as you initialy fancied one, they did their job well apparently.

No..for me it failed completely. As I said, the minute I saw the
interior and realised I could load more into the even better looking
saloon, it was game over.

Signature

Z
Scotland
Alfa Romeo 156 2.4JTD Veloce Leather
'Oil' be seeing you..
(Email without 'Alfa' in subject are auto-deleted..sorry!)

Arjan Renting - 20 Sep 2005 18:22 GMT
>>Alfa's have never been designed just for practicality, so what do you
>>mean...?
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> interior and realised I could load more into the even better looking
> saloon, it was game over.

Well in general I think that the choices (or compromises) that are made
in the design of an Alfa normally are in favour of style and
drivability. Other marks hang more to practicality and/or economy.
That's what I like about Alfa's, you have either to deal with it and
(learn to) like it or you better buy an other car. I agree that within
the plan of the design of an Alfa there is some space for improvement
but somehow they just don't do that, for stylish reason or just to
distinguish themselfs from the ordinary...

La Bellezza Necessaria

Arjan
Halmyre - 20 Sep 2005 19:49 GMT
> But Sportwagons are about fun AND practicality according to Alfa. To
> build an Estate-style Sportwagon with LESS luggage capacity than the
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> started on the 147 load space though.... I bet the 159 will be a lot
> more practical than the 156.

One of the 'improvements' to the 159 is the introduction of 'proper'
rear door handles, apparently because 156 owners complain that
passengers have difficulty getting in! Perhaps Alfa-Romeo should tell
people who complain about such quirks to bugger off and buy a Vectra or
a Mondeo if door handles are such a big issue...

Signature

Halmyre

           f c e k
 i r i s h  c o n n e c t i o n

SteveH - 20 Sep 2005 20:19 GMT
> > But Sportwagons are about fun AND practicality according to Alfa. To
> > build an Estate-style Sportwagon with LESS luggage capacity than the
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> people who complain about such quirks to bugger off and buy a Vectra or
> a Mondeo if door handles are such a big issue...

Or a Honda Civc. Oh, they now have Alfa-esque door handles. As will
every car soon. Which is probably the reason Alfa moved away from them.
Signature

Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark Lusso - Passat 1.8 Turbo SE -  COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

Pete - 21 Sep 2005 15:36 GMT
>156 owners complain that
>passengers have difficulty getting in! Perhaps Alfa-Romeo should tell
>people who complain about such quirks to bugger off and buy a Vectra or
>a Mondeo if door handles are such a big issue...

Too true. Although I suspect it was 156 drivers rather than owners who
complained. After all, who would spend out on a brand new 156 and not
notice the beauty of the non-visible rear door-handles? The sad fact is
that Alfa have to listen to fleet buyers & users to make affordable cars
for the rest of us. Whilst Alfisti may well pay a grand more to not have
nasty door handles, fleet buyers are only interested in making their budget
work. It takes a lot of units sold to bring unit cost down by 1000 quid.

Pete
Signature

 <iowna156@rustclubalfa.com>      
156 2.0 TS (2001) - Proteo Rosso

George Graves - 19 Sep 2005 02:02 GMT
> I don't think the wife will let me have any more hobby cars, not with a
> half built kit car in the garage, and 2 Minis and a Honda CRX in the
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Am I right in ruling out the 1.6? And am I right in thinking Veloce is
> best option pack , then lusso, then standard?

I have driven the 1.6 liter 147 extensively. Even in a car the size of a
Ford Focus, the 1.6 is anemic, I cannot even imagine how lackluster the
performance would be in a car the size and weight of a 166. I did notice
one other thing. At highway speeds, the 1.6 is really busy sounding,
fatiguing, actually. The 2.0 liter is much better, but a car the size of
the 166 wants the 3.0 liter V-6 or at least the 2.4 liter Diesel.
PeterMcC - 19 Sep 2005 08:22 GMT
George Graves wrote in
<gmgraves-CA8C38.18023518092005@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>

> I have driven the 1.6 liter 147 extensively. Even in a car the size
> of a Ford Focus, the 1.6 is anemic, I cannot even imagine how
> lackluster the performance would be in a car the size and weight of a
> 166.

That would be a good point, were it possible to buy a 1.6l 166

Signature

PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

George Graves - 19 Sep 2005 22:11 GMT
> George Graves wrote in
> <gmgraves-CA8C38.18023518092005@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> That would be a good point, were it possible to buy a 1.6l 166

I was going by what someone else wrote. Alfas aren't marketed in the US
so I have no way of knowing which engine is available in which model,
where.
PeterMcC - 20 Sep 2005 19:43 GMT
George Graves wrote in
<gmgraves-690157.14114819092005@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>

>> George Graves wrote in
>> <gmgraves-CA8C38.18023518092005@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> US so I have no way of knowing which engine is available in which
> model, where.

No personal criticism intended, George - and it *would* have been a good
point :)

Signature

PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

George Graves - 20 Sep 2005 22:04 GMT
> George Graves wrote in
> <gmgraves-690157.14114819092005@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> No personal criticism intended, George - and it *would* have been a good
> point :)

OK.
Robert - 20 Sep 2005 11:35 GMT
I have a 2003 2.5L V6, my first alfa and i love it. Its done 28,000 miles

If I cruise at say 80MPG down the motorway I get 31MPG. My computer tells me
that my combined MPG is 27.4MPG (thats over 13,000 miles since I last reset
it)
I changed my front tyres after 20,000 miles. My rear tyres have still got at
least another 20K wear left in them.

My 12,000 and 24,000 mile services both cost about £230.00 from a main
dealer

Its great to drive, very comfortable, lots of toque, effortless even when
the car is fully loaded.

Would i buy another  - YEP :-)

I have had lots of company cars in my time and quickly got bored with each
of them, but I always look forward to driving the Alfa.

Rob

> I'm thinking of buying a used 166, maybe a '99 and almost certainly a
> 3l V6 auto. The problem is that I am rather scared of the costs
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> Cheers,
> Dave
daveskirrow@btinternet.com - 24 Sep 2005 10:57 GMT
Well fellas, thanks for all your help.

I'm now the proud owner of a 1997 2.0 156 Sportspack 2. I was going to
get a slightly newer model with more gadgets and leather but after
hours of searching I managed to pick this one up for £1700. Couple of
scratched and scuffs but very well kept inside and runs very well.

How long she will last I'm not sure but for £1700 a couple of years
will do me :)

Thanks again for your comments, without them I probably would not be a
member of the Alfa club.

Cheers,
Dave
SteveH - 24 Sep 2005 11:11 GMT
> Well fellas, thanks for all your help.
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Thanks again for your comments, without them I probably would not be a
> member of the Alfa club.

Well done that man. That's a fsking bargain.

To all those who think I'm a little harsh with my valuations.....
there's some living proof that I know what I'm doing ;-)
Signature

Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark Lusso - Passat 1.8 Turbo SE -  COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

PeterMcC - 25 Sep 2005 17:15 GMT
daveskirrow@btinternet.com wrote in
<1127555877.100821.142510@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

> Well fellas, thanks for all your help.
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Thanks again for your comments, without them I probably would not be a
> member of the Alfa club.

Enjoy :)

Signature

PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

michaelb - 25 Sep 2005 19:36 GMT
"" wrote:
> Well fellas, thanks for all your help.
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> Cheers,
> Dave

Dave,

Congrats on the purchase. At that price it’s a steal. Enjoy it.

I had an old 164 3.0 once I sold to a friend for GBP 500, he kept it
for a couple of years after that and managed to get it past 200,000
miles with no problems and the only servicing being infrequent oil
changes. He eventually traded it in (against a 166) and persuaded, no
forced, Desira to give him GBP 500 part-ex for it. Now if you can get
that sort of use out of your 156 you will be doing well.

Have fun,

Michael
 
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



©2008 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.