I assume the opinions here will be "yes you should buy one", but I'm wanting some info on what a 159 is like to own, having never owned an Alfa before.
Whatever I buy will definitely be manual, and I'm led to believe that the 1750 TBi spec is the best version to have in terms of power vs reliability vs fuel use etc, is this a safe assumption to work with?
I do plan to test drive one, although there are no TBi models for sale near me at the moment. In the meantime - what are the opinions about their handling? Big heavy car + FWD, makes me skeptical, but I'm prepared to be surprised!
What is the availability of performance upgrades for the 1750 engine? I wouldn't want anything too crazy but the figures aren't exactly mind-blowing so it'd be nice if some upgrades were possible.
How easy and cheap/expensive are spare parts to obtain in Australia? The main online sources I've used in the past, like FCP and eEuroParts don't sell Alfa parts, but I'm assuming there are other good options around?
And finally, what is reliability like? Most things I've read suggest the 1750 engine is pretty solid, but I'd be interested to know about common electrical, suspension, drivetrain and interior/cosmetic problems. Is it likely to turn into an endless money-pit?
Any advice will be appreciated - as I said I don't really have any experience with Alfas but I've always found them to be very appealing cars!
Why an Alfa, why a 159?
How would you use it? How long would you keep it?
Well yes, you should buy one [emoji23]
I don't think you'll really find a better answer than simply going out and testing one - any car other than a Korean/Jap washing machine is a money pit, but you consider an Alfa because the Korean / Jap offerings are as interesting as sitting in a hole making engine noises with your mouth [emoji23]
They are probably the most fun version of the Toyota Camry ever made. They're not bland, but they're not bonkers either. You're very hard pressed to find a great deal of negative reliability with the 159s because they're GM platforms. I mean, they're still cobbled together by Italians so there are some oddities such as the ability to eat tires and bushings at an alarming rate and the occasional sensor snafu bit nothing too horrendous. The early 1750 would need new turbos sometimes, that's not uncommon on modern turbo engines though, oil feeding seems to be an issue we never had with the Japs of the 90s. As for performance it's a 1500kg car, just buy a Giulietta QV if you want speed - the engine puts out a bit more and you can probably squeeze more power out with less risk to transmission. They do grip beautifully though, just that weight doesn't lend to a feeling of race car. That said they're a very nice place to be for a jaunt through the countryside. Something obvious but important is that they're like a reverse TARDIS - big on the outside, not so big on the inside. You could hide a 105 in the blind spot and if you have shared car parking like an apartment get used to doing 5 point turns [emoji23]
Sent from my T04 using Tapatalk
Agree with everything said so far.
IMO, They are like a very nice, smaller more luxurious and exclusive Holden commdore. And I don't mean that in a negative way.
Very comfortable cars with plenty of tech all wrapped up in one of the best looking sedans ever made. I haven't had any issues with mine in the 6 month ownership so far, other than the small little electrical gremlin every now and then. It likes to say a rear brake light is blown sometimes and had a coolant related check engine light on once, turned out to be a glitch with nothing actually wrong.
Driving wise, they have heavier steering compared to a commodore (VE) which makes the car feel more engaging through the Twisties. The torque steer is very minimal/ non existent and the FWD system is more than capable.
Up in the hills, you can definitely feel it is a big heavy car but the chassis I find to be very stiff (a huge upgrade over my 164) and has excellent road holding characteristics.
Interior wise, as mentioned, is a tad on the smaller size, despite the exterior size. Front room is more than adequate but the rear headroom and legroom suffers a bit.
Overall, I was very happy with my purchase (I got a 2.4 diesel) and my only recommendation is to go and see/ drive one. I am sure you will have a big smile on your face!
Cheers, Andrew.
Quote from: Citroënbender on December 04, 2018, 08:48:47 AM
Why an Alfa, why a 159?
How would you use it? How long would you keep it?
To be honest the main reason is because I like them! I can't think of many cars in a similar price bracket that have interiors as good as the 159's, and they stand out from the usual Japanese and Korean cars that seem to dominate the roads, which I like.
I'd be using it as a daily driver, and would probably keep it for quite a few years.
I'm planning to test drive one later this week; it is a diesel which isn't necessarily my preferred option but it'll definitely give me an idea.
Thanks for the other comments. I'm not too bothered by the interior size to be honest, as long as the drivers seat and driving position are comfortable!
I'm not at all expecting Japanese-level reliability, but some Euro cars are better than others. Sounds like the 159 doesn't have any inherent faults, as long as the electrical gremlins aren't too serious I guess.
My main other consideration is a Volvo C30; I also have some experience with Volvos so I know what to look for etc. They have their own unique styling as well, but the interior isn't as interesting as the 159, IMO. However, they can easily be tuned for 200kw and made to handle quite well so it's a tough choice.
(I have considered the Giulietta QV but I don't like the interior or exterior styling anywhere near as much as the 159.)
Anyway, I do appreciate the advice - I'll definitely be driving a couple but it's also good to hear from owners.
Fair call - if at all possible try out the TI spec, some of the nicest driving seats to ever grace a saloon.
Everyone who has one loves the diesel, just the usual EGR/DPF maintenance and they're solid.
Also, can confirm the 2.2 has sub par fuel economy for the capacity but the 6 speed ratios are well sorted. If you get diesel remember to thrash it or highway run it in lower gear every so often to keep it from gunking up. If you Google some UK 2.4jtdm build threads you'll find some pushing silly numbers out of the clack clack block [emoji106]
Sent from my T04 using Tapatalk
Re performance, SuperPro are on a massive range expansion at present and may offer chassis enhancements that suit the 159. Wouldn't hurt to ask them directly, I find they are prompt and thorough communicators.
Quote from: Pseudonym on December 04, 2018, 09:46:56 PM
the 6 speed ratios are well sorted. [emoji106]
Are the gearboxes different between 2.2/1.75/diesel?
For sure! You'd need to compare the new car spec sheets or eper data to see what exactly was common.
Are you opposed to Selespeed? Pseud loves his.
Yeah only because it does what I tell it to at the moment [emoji23]
Yes the ratios differ across the engines, I believe in manual the 2.2 and the 1.9jtd share the M32 and the 1750 and 2.4 are other Fiat boxes respectively. M32 while smooth has a habit of doing bearings when abused, which from the forums being fitted to a diesel equates to [emoji23] It's well suited to the driving but like the 2.2 GM block has a hit and miss reliability record. If I didn't require automatics as all rounders I'd have picked the 1750 manual.
I was warned off the 3.2 by just about everyone. Drinks like a fish and makes the Nissan V6 look like a Fisher Price play set to work on, which at this age it requires somewhat often.
Sent from my T04 using Tapatalk
I'd be surprised if the 3.2 was really that bad in a situation where it has been well-treated (intelligent maintenance, not simply dealer stamps) and was used for longer mileage commutes at modest-to-higher speeds. "She'll be right" attitudes damaged an awful lot of Alloytec motors because of the ability of prior GM engines to suffer ignorance more stoically.
It's more the way the engine has been fitted in the bay that turns moderate maintenance jobs into "easier to remove most of the engine" jobs. Probably an immaculate low mileage example is going to have few issues, but if you drive it things will need attending to eventually.
What constantly annoys me about the 159 is looking at the firewall you can see the semblance of a transmission tunnel - I'm glad they like their Q4 in Europe but why oh why couldn't they have had the FWD optional rather the the AWD [emoji22]
Sent from my T04 using Tapatalk
I have had a late 2010 3.2 awd Ti for almost a year and it has been reliable once issues were corrected that were neglected /undetected/ignored by previous dealer. Important to get servicing done by those who know the product well .Had it remapped with "Autodelta" maps which increases torque especially mid-range. As mentioned on most forums must have good service history preferably by "specialists" and not dealers ( imho and experience). A good low mileage late model Ti one is the way to go as they are "reasonably affordable". Depending on personal colour preference, it is still one of the most attractive models produced by Alfa and still an enjoyment to drive
The 3.2 is "still a lot of car" for the money when compared to what's on offer.
Righto. I'm going to play devils advocate.
For the same price range as a 1750, why not go full-fat and buy a 156 GTA?
It'll give you a proper 3.2L Busso V6 (not the GM-derived block in the 159) and power to burn, and a bang-on interior. As a 156 fan, I'm biased, but I also much prefer the styling of the 156 (especially pre-facelift, which includes the GTA) over the 159.
Should you buy a 159?"................YES!
Traded in my 3.2 AWD Ti about 6 months and still regret it!
As others have said, a full service history is critical.
The V6 is a great motor in a middle weight car. The chassis is as stiff as iron and responds well to poly bushes and Koni dampers. However, careful wheel alignment and camber / caster adjustment is critical for good tire wear.
Fit a decent set of tires to it like the latest spec Michelin's run at 40psi and fuel economy is fine. Mine was a daily drive for over three years and never missed a beat.
I've had two since 2010, the first a 2010 2.4 diesel sports wagon and the second a 2008 2.4 sports wagon.
Did 175,000 km in the first one before getting written off twice, first with hail damage then with a front end crash, no injuries.
The new, old one, is a 2008 Ti with 125,000km, also the 2.4 and a much better drive.
Absolutely a great drive and I like the look and flexibility of the wagon and think it looks nicer than the sedan.
Good servicing is paramount and history preferred although not always carried out to requirements.
Get a good Alfa Romeo mechanic to look over the car beforehand.
Love it every time I get in to drive it.
Agree with everything said so far.
Again I'm gonna +1 for the diesel 2.4's. Mine has just ticked over 315,000kms, yes you read that right, 315,000kms!!!
A good service history is essential and these cars will last forever. I've had people compliment my 159 and when I tell them how many kms it has, they laugh and tell me I am having a joke. The interior has help up exceptionally well and drives/looks like a car with only 50,000kms on it, no word of a lie.
Alfa built these cars very well, just get one that has been properly looked after and maintained.
I love the diesel, great fuel economy and they sound great when revved out. Only downside is they sound like a tractor at idle and are heavier than the 1750's and 2.2's, but its a small price to pay in my opinion.
Cheers, Andrew.
Quote from: poohbah on December 05, 2018, 12:28:00 PM
Righto. I'm going to play devils advocate.
[emoji23] There's always one isn't there...
For what it's worth I was initially seduced by the 159, and subsequently bought a JTS 156 when I couldn't find the right example... and like a year later bought a 159 as well [emoji23]
Not that I was at all unhappy with the 156, it was just a case of good timing and the 159s devilish good looks.
For the weekend or the track day the 156 is my pick, for highway cruising or sitting in traffic the 159. That's the short version, there's so much to love about both cars a comparison could take pages.
Sent from my T04 using Tapatalk
So I took a 2.4 diesel 159 for a brief test drive today.
I was impressed by the interior, in terms of aesthetics but build quality too - the materials seemed to be of good quality.
Aside from a couple of little things, I found the instruments and controls be easy to use.
It passed the 'door close test', with a solid, satisfying thud which you don't get from plenty of more expensive cars.
I was also impressed with the feel of the car; as others have suggested, the steering had an excellent feel, and the car felt solid and planted.
However, I was thoroughly unimpressed with the drivetrain. The diesel engine was utterly gutless until the turbo kicked in, not to mention very noisy and 'agricultural', and there was horrible turbo lag too.
The gearbox was also horrible - it was notchy, not very engaging to use, and imprecise. (I also found 1-3-5 and 2-4-6 to be too close together, but I'd probably get used to that.)
So driving the car has made me want to test drive a 1750 TBi in the hope that the drivetrain is nicer, as the rest of the car was good!
Maybe, just maybe, try another 2.4 in case you had an outlier.
Then test drive a 156 gta for back to back comparison... ;)
Or even a vanilla 2.5 v6 manual. Bewdeeeful.
Not really as much of a fan of the styling of the 156 though, both interior and exterior.
That being said, I'm happy to test drive one if I have the opportunity.
Happy to drive another 2.4 as well if I have the chance, but this one was pretty immaculate and had low mileage so I don't think there was anything wrong with it.
I'm generalising, but it's not unknown for driveline NVH in front drive packages to be aggravated by misalignment of motor mounts; one can be overstressed while another more or less just sits there. And some mounts are filled with damping oil, once the mount ruptures there is negligible drop in drivetrain alignment yet harshness is greatly amplified.
Almost guarantee there is nothing wrong with that car you drove. My 2.4 also has considerable turbo lag. I suppose it is just something I have gotten used to. Definitely a different car to drive in comparison to a 3 litre naturally aspirated V6.
Gearbox wise, mine is also notchy and in my opinion, feels awesome. Love the solid clunk I feel when it slips into gear. Very satisfying to me, but my father who has driven my car says he is not a fan of the gearbox either. It's just all down to personal preference at the end of the day I reckon.
Regarding turbo lag and response, I've heard a remap does wonders and some pretty impressive power and torque numbers can be obtained. But that's of course if you want to go down this path.
Andrew.
Full disclosure:
I own possibly the worst 159 (wagon) ever... For the full story see AROCA Qld Per Sempre Alfa magazine editorials for the previous few years (available on the website if you are that bored)....
I'm not gentle on cars but I don't neglect them.
This car has just been #$#& annoying - but I try to tell myself it could happen with any car... What I have told myself (not just based on this car) is that trying to maintain anything post 2000 much beyond its warranty period is not what it was designed for and not worth doing...
Body rigidity and build is amazing.
Leather isn't rubbish.
Good cruiser.
That body is really heavy... So not the quickest thing around even with the V6.
I tried really hard to like the 2.4 diesel - but I couldn't. I did drive a number of 2.4 diesels and 3.2 petrols before I bought this one. More from a handling than an engine performance perspective. I'd probably like the Q4 diesel you can get in other markets but here it's petrol or nothing if you want AWD... People tell me I'm wrong, but its my seat and my pants, and the AWD simply feels better (as in, feels much less like a god awful lead tipped fwd arrow). Yes, ultimately it is still lead tipped, but a decent amount of torque to the rear helps (it would be great if the thing was remotely responsive).
Now that 3.2 - it was built at the same plant as a Commodore engine... It has Marelli electronics and different heads and... but basically, other than sounding better (possibly the main feature of the head design?) it's a low revving lean burn fly by wire low emissions boring thing compared to the Busso V6. It has the same timing chain issues as that engine in a Commodore (or other GM applications in other markets). If the PO has neglected it for long enough and the new owner gives it a bit of a thrashing then... the timing chain will do bad things... The new crate engine is good though (touch wood!). Honestly don't find the thing too greedy on fuel as a cruiser but would suffer if you do a lot of stop-start-stop-more stop commuting (that's what bicycles are for). Feed it good oil, often (it doesn't use it, I just mean don't give that timing chain an excuse to fail). Fuel grade sensitive. ECU seems to aim for excessively lean and wants fresh 95 or ideally 98 to be happy.
So that's one engine I don't like (now) and bought and one engine I might also not like if I'd owned it for a while and didn't buy because I didn't like the handling... Maybe I'm just hard to please...
I do like the Q4. I don't like the "no service info, no serviceable parts inside" view that Alfa have of the Q4 transfer case. Did get someone to track down bearings and rebuild it when it started getting noisy - seems good now, but far more hassle than I'd like...
Manual gearbox seems solid if truck-like in shifting. But be careful what you ask for. I had a Subi with a much slicker 6 speed - but then it ate gearboxes (stock engine) so... Slow and solid for the durability... And really making it sing isn't rewarding with a low revving flat torque engine so who needs to shift often/fast anyway... Same goes for diesel. Maybe auto would be the way to go (certainly easier to find).
Nothings perfect... The 159 is MUCH more solid than a 156 though. If you want a Busso quadcam V6 and a solid, well made car - go the 166 (cheap!). Nothing against the 156 if you just want something that feels more chuckable etc - but don't think one is as well built as the 159 (I can tell you 156 horror stories too).
The charm has worn off due to a succession of small and large issues - the small ones are disappointing from a km traveled perspective but not so bad on age. Although it's hard to be happy when you pay to have the engine dropped to do each of:
Replace aircon compressor
Replace clutch and transfer case bearings
Replace starter motor
Replace alternator (twice, but the second time was under warranty)
All within 18 months or so... That sort of labour cost, never mind the parts, will cover a LOT of depreciation on a new(er) car.
These things (modern cars) aren't designed to be worked on and the parts aren't designed to live forever (ok, its 2006, but its only done 125000km and it hasn't (at least for half of that, can't speak to prev ownership) been used on a lot of short trips so this stuff *shouldn't* fail.
Of course, this is arguably engineering perfection having everything fail almost at once (and out of warranty). Compares favorably to slightly older Jaguars where the same thing would fail over and over again, while other parts were rock solid forever :)
Great honest review mate. Only one more comment from me, don't forget as second hand buyers we also get the benefit of Alfa depreciation on purchase , no matter what make or model, vis a vis the extra labour/maintenance costs. My 156 cost $3500 to buy, with 100K after 16 years when I bought it. Yeah it costs more annually than a new car, but I didn't spend +$30K upfront. In a car that cost $65K when new ( a thousand years ago) and still looks contemporary and has more style than most things on the road.
Thanks Darryl, good write-up. I know it's easy to forget about the inconveniences of a car that you like!
In regards to the gear shift, maybe this one was badly worn, as it was much worse than just notchy. I don't mind a nice solid shift feel, but this one just felt horrible, as it was also imprecise.
I also don't think the turbo lag is something I could get used to, as I've have driven turbo cars that don't have much lag and the difference is significant.
In any case, there's no way I'm buying a 2.4d.
The other thing I forgot to ask about 159's and specifically the 1750 TBi, is what are they like to work on for the DIY'er? I usually do my own servicing (oils, filters etc) as well as whatever else I can, so I'd be interested to know how user-friendly they are in this regard. (It does look like a fairly crowded engine bay.)
Quote from: HL-240 on December 08, 2018, 09:36:01 PM
The other thing I forgot to ask about 159's and specifically the 1750 TBi, is what are they like to work on for the DIY'er? I usually do my own servicing (oils, filters etc) as well as whatever else I can, so I'd be interested to know how user-friendly they are in this regard. (It does look like a fairly crowded engine bay.)
No personal experience re 1750tbi maintenance. I'd expect oil changes to be simple enough. Certainly compared to transverse Busso V6 everyone likes so much (oil filter location is "challenging"). Fwiw the 159 V6 is fine in that regard.
The 159 V6 does have the usual access to rear bank challenge (plugs/coilpacks and injectors), once again 1750 has to be far easier.
Think I agree with the "get a 166" suggestion, actually. :) Alfa's answer to the Pug 607 and equally unloved (read, depreciated to sub-Corolla values).
1750tbi servicing is easy enough.
Everything on mine has been done at home incl. cam belt, pump etc. (Giulietta QV)
The 2.4Derv is a fantastic engine. That said, if you are not used to a diesel you won't get it at all. You can't compare the experience to a turbo petrol, completely different power delivery. The diesel doesn't rev so much, instead it's like surfing a huge surge of torque, it's addictive (and very quick) once you understand the sweet spot
Quote from: Craig_m67 on December 08, 2018, 10:59:42 PM
1750tbi servicing is easy enough.
Really? How did you go with that oil change, get much oil all over the place? ;)
;D ;D ;D
For those who are unfamiliar, the oil filter location is a cartridge type that is located at the back of the engine directly over the RH driveshaft with quite restrictive room. And unless you are familiar with the tricks involved in getting it off cleanly, one usually ends up with oil all over the driveshaft and running off the sub frame.
Not impossible to do cleanly, but first time you try it, lay down lots of plastic sheeting, other wise you will be mopping it all up. ;)
Quote from: bazzbazz on December 09, 2018, 01:13:31 AM
[
Not impossible to do cleanly, but first time you try it, lay down lots of plastic sheeting, other wise you will be mopping it all up. ;)
Ok. So puts it about on par with the transverse Busso? Interesting. At least the GM V6 is easy re oilchange...
Too many options...
How are retained values presently tracking for the different drivelines and bodies? That might also be a determining factor...
Quote from: bazzbazz on December 09, 2018, 01:13:31 AM
Quote from: Craig_m67 on December 08, 2018, 10:59:42 PM
1750tbi servicing is easy enough.
Really? How did you go with that oil change, get much oil all over the place? ;)
;D ;D ;D
Ha!! I know a bloke ;D
He's due Christmas beers, and an oil change actually...
Thanks for the tips about oil changes etc.
Quote from: Craig_m67 on December 08, 2018, 10:59:42 PM
That said, if you are not used to a diesel you won't get it at all. You can't compare the experience to a turbo petrol, completely different power delivery.
I have driven other turbo diesels before, eg Golf TDI, but the Alfa has worse turbo lag and a less consistent torque curve. I think the Alfa is a bit more fun for mucking around in, but I don't think I'd like it in terms of general driveability.
Also, comparing it to a turbo petrol is exactly what I want to do, as a turbo petrol is the direct competition/alternative.
I'm not sure about the Alfa either. I wasn't impressed at all when I've driven one over a weekend a few months ago. It felt very stiff to me.
My red 3.2 AWD Ti will be up for sale in January.
MY son has a 2.4jtd manual and it is very good on fuel and a comfortable drive. Yes, sounds like a gravel truck at idle cold, but it gets better when warm. We test drove a 2.2jts with chip and aftermarket exhaust, and I liked it better, lighter handling, but son preferred the jtd power! No experience with 1750tbi, but plenty with Maser twin turbo (try changing any engine accessories in the car...not). Turbos are great, and similarly for modern common rail diesels, but having owned and worked on both I am now leaning toward the simplicity of non-turbo petrol, especially as these cars get older with less support. You need to be able to maintain things yourself or it will cost a fortune to pay someone to do it. Working on the Alfetta is an absolute pleasure in comparison to them all.
To HL240, I may be too late to the discussion. However, definitely do buy a 159. Just be careful about the one you choose. Buy "your grandfather's car". Ive owned my fabulous 2008, 2.2 JTS Ti 6speed for about 3 years and 31,000km. It was a one owner with just 21,000km. So, low km, impeccable service history are critical. Depreciation on the marque is hideous, which works in the favour of the second owner. My car was very cheap considering the first owner had done 3,000km/year and paid $60,000+ for it. He'd dropped $40,000+ for very little use. In mho I bought a very fresh European unit with killer good looks and a lovely drive. Tyre wear rate is high, averaging just 21,000km and $1300+ per set. Fuel consumption too is high at about 10l/100 on 95 ron. Interior fit and finish on 159 is not M-B or BMW but value for money is outstanding. Lastly, a friendly AR EXPERIENCED technician is critical to a hassle free future with your choice. My view on the ownership costs is that on the right car it far outweighs the capital cost/depreciation of more mainstream Euro cars and the Alfa offers much more fun and interest than run of the mill Jap/Kor units.
I also have a 2004 932 series MY04 Spider JTS 2l 5spd. It too was a one owner, with 95,000km, ie just less than 7,000km/year. This car needed clutch, belts, roof motor, radio aerial, tyres etc, etc. But because of the aforementioned hideous retained value, it was cheap enough for my very AR EXPERIENCED tech mate, to bring up to terrific serviceable condition. This fun, fun convertible could be yours, ilo a 159 if you want, for <$9,000 :). See great value for money.
So, in conclusion BUY a damned Alfa, you only live once, choose wisely, and at the end of the day how much can it really cost you? Those people who last year bought a new BMW, M-B or ANYTHING else out of Europe (including a Giulia) have already probably ripped up $20,30,40,000! Jim.