Alfa 159 as a daily commuter?

[Alfahorn]

kambites said:

Indeed. As you'd expect, the top of the list is full of Japanese companies, but there's some surprises further down.

It's not a 100% accurate representation of real running costs because there will be statistical differences in average mileages, types of driving, standards of maintenance, etc. (although some of the figures in question are listed if you dig) but it's about as good a starting point as there is.

The Alfa faired quite well compared to some of the opposition considered by many to be superior. I do agree though, the japs have got it licked.

[Pooh]

I have always bought the car I like and never worried about reliability reputations, I have done pretty well out of it and only ever had one properly unreliable car and that was a TVR. I have never been left standing at the side of the road waiting for a breakdown truck with any of my Alfas or Fiats.
Any car can be unreliable, my 30k mile Honda Civic had more rattles than Mothercare, a fuel gauge with a mind of its own and a clutch that was on the way out, the Alfa Giulietta that replaced it is better in almost every way.
I would not have any worries about buying a 159 on reliability grounds but even the diesels are not fantastically economical and that was the main reason that I went for a Giulietta instead.

[Alfahorn]

Pooh said:

I have always bought the car I like and never worried about reliability reputations, I have done pretty well out of it and only ever had one properly unreliable car and that was a TVR. I have never been left standing at the side of the road waiting for a breakdown truck with any of my Alfas or Fiats.
Any car can be unreliable, my 30k mile Honda Civic had more rattles than Mothercare, a fuel gauge with a mind of its own and a clutch that was on the way out, the Alfa Giulietta that replaced it is better in almost every way.
I would not have any worries about buying a 159 on reliability grounds but even the diesels are not fantastically economical and that was the main reason that I went for a Giulietta instead.

I've done more miles pa in my Giulietta than my other Alfas. My February 2012 car has covered 40,000 miles. I had the 42k service yesterday and the dealer reported nothing other than the front tyres will shortly need replacing, they've done 18,000 miles and that's good for an Alfa certainly with 18" wheels.

[Chapmanesque]

kambites said:

Unfortunately for the 159 (they don't break it down by engine) it doesn't look too pretty...

Hmm... Interesting. Am I reading these indices right? Higher number is worse, right?

A random selection of cars on my current shortlist, plus a few wild cards, in order:
58 Renault Laguna
65 Ford Mondeo
95 Skoda Octavia
141 Jaguar X-type
147 Citroen C5
151 Volvo V70
155 Saab 9-5
157 Volkswagen Passat
185 Alfa 159
198 BMW 3 series
212 Audi A4

So the much vaunted Passat is pretty mediocre too, with the Audi and BMW worse than the Alfa and everything blown into the weeds completely by Renault?

So much for the unreliability of French cars, then?

Interestingly, if you look at the 'time off the road' figure, the Alfa beats the Passat (1.92 vs. 2.16 hours average). And the average cost of repair on the Passat is much higher too (£290 vs. £332 average repair cost), so how exactly does that work with the index calculation - a greater number of niggling but cheaply and quickly fixed repairs on the Alfa, versus few but more serious and costly repairs for the Passat, I guess?

The Audi and BMW have much higher 'time off road' figures, as well, so it's not just their parts cost that is putting them behind the Alfa?

For its class, I'd say that the Alfa comes out of that pretty well, actually. I mean, how many 'experts' do you hear telling you to steer well clear of BMW's and Audis, 'cos the Germans just can't match the reliability of those French and Italian cars?

[Baron Greenback]

My 1.9 tdi wagon I commute every day bit of B Road then motorway prime London traffic and av 44mpg and on 110k on the clock! No problem so far get the belt change earlier than Alfa say! Eats front tires a bit check tracking. Great looking car that's why I bought it so far no real gremlins so far.

[daemon]

Alfahorn said:

daemon said:

I saw fit to bring it up because its relevant that the engine in Alfas is effectively the same engine that is in various vauxhalls, fiats, and SAABs. This engine is known to be troublesome, both by the motor trade, and by those who physically have to work on them.

You keep droning on about that i said it was a Vauxhall engine and not that it was a shared rights engine used across many platforms but designed by FIAT then ALL my views on the car in question should be dismissed.

Who fking made the thing in the first place is largely irrelevant to the O/P, however the view that it isnt terribly reliable IS relevant to the O/P, because they are looking reliability and economy, neither of which the 1.9 JTD / CDTI is particularly good at. And the car that that particular engine is in, is not very good at retaining value with high miles.

You've gone from saying its relevant to its irrelevant in the space of the same post, you haven't got a fking clue mate.

Who made the fking thing in the first place is irrelevant to the O/P

The fact that it is unreliable and hard on fuel is relevant to the O/P.

Why cant you grasp that?

[daemon]

Alfahorn said:

kambites said:

Your best bet if you want to know about reliability is probably to look at the statistical databases published by companies like Warranty Direct. Even a mechanic's experiences are rarely going to be wide enough to give a meaningful statistical sample.

Unfortunately for the 159 (they don't break it down by engine) it doesn't look too pretty:

http://www.reliabilityindex.com/reliability/search...

It makes interesting reading when you compare it with BMW, Audi & VW.

It comes off worse than a 3 series, considerably worse than a Golf, and a lot worse than the O/Ps other choice, a Ford Focus.

Remember i said they werent reliable?

And what about fuel consumption?

Honest John is saying the 1.9JTD 16v averages 40mpg.

Oh look. Remember i said they were hard on fuel?

Edited by daemon on Sunday 23 February 16:52

[Alfahorn]

daemon said:

Who made the fking thing in the first place is irrelevant to the O/P

The fact that it is unreliable and hard on fuel is relevant to the O/P.

Why cant you grasp that?

I've owned them, so my views are irrelevant are they? My real world experience doesn't matter, is that because I'm an Alfa owner and therefore my views are biased?

[daemon]

Alfahorn said:

kambites said:

Indeed. As you'd expect, the top of the list is full of Japanese companies, but there's some surprises further down.

It's not a 100% accurate representation of real running costs because there will be statistical differences in average mileages, types of driving, standards of maintenance, etc. (although some of the figures in question are listed if you dig) but it's about as good a starting point as there is.

The Alfa faired quite well compared to some of the opposition considered by many to be superior. I do agree though, the japs have got it licked.

A rating at the lower end of "poor" is hardly anything to write home about.

[poing]

So in summary to the OP just buy the Mazda 6 you mentioned. If it does fall apart you can blame the internet.

[Alfahorn]

Chapmanesque said:

Hmm... Interesting. Am I reading these indices right? Higher number is worse, right?

A random selection of cars on my current shortlist, plus a few wild cards, in order:
58 Renault Laguna
65 Ford Mondeo
95 Skoda Octavia
141 Jaguar X-type
147 Citroen C5
151 Volvo V70
155 Saab 9-5
157 Volkswagen Passat
185 Alfa 159
198 BMW 3 series
212 Audi A4

So the much vaunted Passat is pretty mediocre too, with the Audi and BMW worse than the Alfa and everything blown into the weeds completely by Renault?

So much for the unreliability of French cars, then?

Interestingly, if you look at the 'time off the road' figure, the Alfa beats the Passat (1.92 vs. 2.16 hours average). And the average cost of repair on the Passat is much higher too (£290 vs. £332 average repair cost), so how exactly does that work with the index calculation - a greater number of niggling but cheaply and quickly fixed repairs on the Alfa, versus few but more serious and costly repairs for the Passat, I guess?

The Audi and BMW have much higher 'time off road' figures, as well, so it's not just their parts cost that is putting them behind the Alfa?

For its class, I'd say that the Alfa comes out of that pretty well, actually. I mean, how many 'experts' do you hear telling you to steer well clear of BMW's and Audis, 'cos the Germans just can't match the reliability of those French and Italian cars?

That's how I read it but I could be wrong.

[Alfahorn]

poing said:

So in summary to the OP just buy the Mazda 6 you mentioned. If it does fall apart you can blame the internet.

[daemon]

Alfahorn said:

daemon said:

Who made the fking thing in the first place is irrelevant to the O/P

The fact that it is unreliable and hard on fuel is relevant to the O/P.

Why cant you grasp that?

I've owned them, so my views are irrelevant are they? My real world experience doesn't matter, is that because I'm an Alfa owner and therefore my views are biased?

You have tried to make out EVERYTHING i've said on this thread to be "wrong" just because i said it was "the vauxhall engine" instead of "the one shared with vauxhall".

I have not tried to discount your views as irrelevant, however you have of mine.

Your very first sentence on the thread was "OP, please ignore this poster his comments are unhelpful and inaccurate. "

[Chapmanesque]

daemon said:

It comes off worse than a 3 series...

No it doesn't?! The BMW 3 series is worse on reliability index, time of road and much worse on average repair cost (£465 vs £290 for the Alfa).

The Golf spends more time off the road, too, but it's a monumental £8 cheaper per repair, on average. Whoopee fking doo!! Think of all the exotic holidays and fast women you'll be able to blow your money on with the savings you'll make on the Golf's maintenance!!

[Alfahorn]

daemon said:

You have tried to make out EVERYTHING i've said on this thread to be "wrong" just because i said it was "the vauxhall engine" instead of "the one shared with vauxhall".

I have not tried to discount your views as irrelevant, however you have of mine.

Your very first sentence on the thread was "OP, please ignore this poster his comments are unhelpful and inaccurate. "

I haven't said everything you've posted is incorrect, check again!

[daemon]

Chapmanesque said:

daemon said:

It comes off worse than a 3 series...

No it doesn't?! The BMW 3 series is worse on reliability index, time of road and much worse on average repair cost (£465 vs £290 for the Alfa).

The screen defaults to the open top model - you need to change the drop down to Compact Executive (05-)

Chapmanesque said:

The Golf spends more time off the road, too, but it's a monumental £8 cheaper per repair, on average. Whoopee fking doo!! Think of all the exotic holidays and fast women you'll be able to blow your money on with the savings you'll make on the Golf's maintenance!!

Its got a much higher reliability index rating.

[daemon]

Alfahorn said:

daemon said:

You have tried to make out EVERYTHING i've said on this thread to be "wrong" just because i said it was "the vauxhall engine" instead of "the one shared with vauxhall".

I have not tried to discount your views as irrelevant, however you have of mine.

Your very first sentence on the thread was "OP, please ignore this poster his comments are unhelpful and inaccurate. "

I haven't said everything you've posted is incorrect, check again!

Jesus fk - its there in black and white - the first five words "OP, please ignore this poster"

followed by "his COMMENTS" are unhelpful and inaccurate" - not "his COMMENT relating to who made the fking engine is inaccurate"

Edited by daemon on Sunday 23 February 17:08

[73mark]

Alfahorn said:

Pooh said:

73mark said:

Alfa great to drive


A nightmare to own

Alfahorn is so far up his own a** it's laughable

I have had seven Alfas and none of them have been a nightmare, how many have you had?

Yeah, but have you worked in the motor trade for years and are you a mechanic who fixes Peugeots because those are the opinions that really count. You're just biased because you're an Alfa fanboy.

I was joking I think alfahorn got it but you've missed it pooh
See you when you get a funny bone

[Alfahorn]

daemon said:

Jesus fk - its there in black and white - the first five words "OP, please ignore this poster"

followed by "his COMMENTS" are unhelpful and inaccurate - not "his COMMENT relating to who made the fking engine is inaccurate"

At that the time I could only possibly respond to the comments you've made to that point, that's purely on page one. You've made some valid points since; yes Alfas depreciate, yes higher mileage cars are more undesirable and yes there are more economical cars out there. However, I reiterate your comments that the Alfa diesel is unreliable is tosh.

[Chapmanesque]

daemon said:

The screen defaults to the open top model - you need to change the drop down to Compact Executive (05-)

...

Its got a much higher reliability index rating.

But I'm struggling to grasp what this index rating means. If a car spends more time off the road being repaired (both BMW and Golf) and costs more to fix (BMW, substantially), which are the only two factors I'm really interested in when it comes to reliability, why should I consider it better just because it's got a better index number?

Genuine question: I'm really not getting the relevance of the index number.

I have to say that I'd be happy to pay £8 more for repairs on the Alfa, just for the privilege of driving something that's much better looking and a much nicer interior than the Golf.