So are Alfa's unreliable or not? (esp. 159s)

[trashbat]

TA14 said:

and the twin sparks

They're 10W40.

[Kitchski]

Yes, very, just like French cars. But you have to own one if you want to be a petrolhead.

[Alfahorn]

I've owned 6 Alfas they had all been reliable until I got a Giulietta.

So far;

New Drivers Seat
New instrument cluster
New Wing Mirror glass on both sides
New wing repeaters on both sides

Currently it's in the dealers to have the clutches (TCT) and driveshaft replaced at 45,000 miles, it's been there 5 weeks. I still love Alfa and I still really like my Giulietta, however it had been my first Alfa I wouldn't be going back any time soon!

A word for my dealer. Chris Variava in Nottingham have been first class from the day I bought the car. I feel valued and well informed. I've been given a 2014 Giulietta as a courtesy car while mines been off the road.

[V8forweekends]

My (then) wife owned a 2.0 twinspark GTV from new in 2000 and kept it for 3 years and about 70k miles. Needed nothing other than routine servicing.

One bit of bother we had and immediately assumed we'd hit "typical Alfa" trouble was an intermittent electrical shutdown - traced to a loose battery terminal and fine once tightened.

[TA14]

trashbat said:

TA14 said:

and the twin sparks

They're 10W40.

The 2.0 is 10/60. I hadn't realised that it was a different grade for the smaller cc: p271, http://www.fiat-lancia.org.rs/Manuals/AlfaRomeo/14...

[RicksAlfas]

trashbat said:

TA14 said:

and the twin sparks

They're 10W40.

I seem to remember there being something in the Twin Spark handbook where 10/40 semi synthetic was the standard stuff, but 10/60 fully synthetic was recommended for arduous use.

[jimmy156]

TA14 said:

trashbat said:

TA14 said:

and the twin sparks

They're 10W40.

The 2.0 is 10/60. I hadn't realised that it was a different grade for the smaller cc: p271, http://www.fiat-lancia.org.rs/Manuals/AlfaRomeo/14...

Nope, the 2.0 is recommended to have 10w40 semi-synth. Or at least thats what i put it, thats what my manual says and thats what the alfa specialist i take my car to told me to use when i enquired about using a heavier oil to combat the oil consumption.

[trashbat]

He's right in so far as the 147 booklet says it, although the 156 one doesn't and it's the first I've heard of it.

Allegedly they went with 10W60 by the time the JTS (2.0 TS revamped for direct injection) came along because the cars were burning too much for their careless owners to manage. The 147 went on for longer, so maybe it's a late edition manual.

[jamieboy]

can't remember said:

Well my 159 JTDM ... it's massively overweight

I haven't posted this for a while, it lists the weight of the '08-onwards 159 compared to its rivals at the time. It was a heavy car, but not really out of step with the rest of them.

Toyota Avensis 2.0 D4D 1450
Audi A4 2.0 Tdi 1460
VW Passat 2.0 Tdi 1460
VW Passat CC 2.0 Tdi 1466
Renault Laguna 2.0 D 1480
Ford Mondeo 2.0 TD 1481
ALFA 159 1.9 JTDm 1490
Volvo S40 TD5 1490
Jaguar X type 2.0 D 1502
BMW 320D SE 1505
Peugeot 407 2.0 D 1505
Saab 9-3 1.9 TiD 1510
Mazda 6 D 1530
Opel Insignia 2.0 D 1540
Honda Accord 2.2 D 1540
Mercedes C200 D 1560
Citroen C5 2.0 D 1608
Ford Mondeo 2.2 TD 1613


For what it's worth, my 159 never missed a beat in the three years I had it. It's a shame the current range is so lacklustre, though.

[donaircooleone]

I can't speak for the 159, however I can say that they are reliable if you are willing to be proactive.

It probably won't leave you stuck anywhere but it may be a bit more high maintenance

[B.J.W]

I seem to recall that the 159 finished top of the pile in a German JD power survey a few years back?

I had a 159 a few years ago. Still one of my favourite cars - the only fault I had was that the display kept telling me that there was a tape deck installed, when it was CD only.

I had mine looked after by an Alfa specialist in Pershore. Their opinion of the car was that very little went wrong when compared to other manufacturers, and that it was a major leap forward over the 156.

If circumstances dictated otherwise, I'd still be very tempted by a late plate 2.4 estate in black. One of the best looking cars of recent times that still cuts it today.

[anonymous-user]

When they were new back in 2006 I had a 159 2.4 jtdm. Absolute POS which kept going into limp home mode, in the end I got my money back and bought a Monaro which I still have. Therefore, buy a Monaro instead

[soad]

entropy said:

159 - electric windows fail, front suspensions fail, eats front tyres; good petrol engines from GM, 2.2 can be expensive to service.

How much is the service?

[RicksAlfas]

Some idea of servicing costs here:
http://www.alfaworkshop.co.uk/alfa_159_brera_servi...

[soad]

RicksAlfas said:

Some idea of servicing costs here:
http://www.alfaworkshop.co.uk/alfa_159_brera_servi...

Cheers.

[can't remember]

jamieboy said:

I haven't posted this for a while, it lists the weight of the '08-onwards 159 compared to its rivals at the time. It was a heavy car, but not really out of step with the rest of them.

Toyota Avensis 2.0 D4D 1450
Audi A4 2.0 Tdi 1460
VW Passat 2.0 Tdi 1460
VW Passat CC 2.0 Tdi 1466
Renault Laguna 2.0 D 1480
Ford Mondeo 2.0 TD 1481
ALFA 159 1.9 JTDm 1490
Volvo S40 TD5 1490
Jaguar X type 2.0 D 1502
BMW 320D SE 1505
Peugeot 407 2.0 D 1505
Saab 9-3 1.9 TiD 1510
Mazda 6 D 1530
Opel Insignia 2.0 D 1540
Honda Accord 2.2 D 1540
Mercedes C200 D 1560
Citroen C5 2.0 D 1608
Ford Mondeo 2.2 TD 1613


For what it's worth, my 159 never missed a beat in the three years I had it. It's a shame the current range is so lacklustre, though.

I accept your general point but all those cars (apart from the Saab) have
something in common, and you haven't mentioned specs and equipment levels. Secondly, how many of those cars were aimed at people who liked cars? Thirdly, other people being fat doesn't make you slim, just less fat.

In my non-professional opinion the reason the front suspension on my Lusso was so weak was that it seemed to be very heavy, and on the right tyres, capable of generating a fair amount of grip. The reason real world fuel economy and performance was not all it could have been was, in my opinion, weight (and gearing). All this combined with the car I had before being a 156 with the glorious 2.5 petrol make me think of it as a bit of a bloater.

I loved the looks and interior of both my Alfas. I loved the engine in my 156. Unfortunately they (Fiat) appear to have given up making cars aimed at me.

[sideways man]

So how about a Mito then. I fancy a 1.3 jtdm to replace my very dependable skoda fabia,as a workhorse. Don't need excitement from it,I have another vehicle for that.

Hope that isn't the kiss of death for the fabia....

[jamieboy]

can't remember said:

I accept your general point

Thanks

The thing about comparing it with the 156 is that the 159 (again, like all of the others) was a good bit bigger than the car it replaced. The 159 was closer in size to the 166 than it was to the 156. All the cars in that class are arguably too heavy, but it only ever seems to be the 159 that is criticised for it.

I always found the Lusso a bit wallowy - the ti I had sometimes felt a bit too stiff, but I felt it was a better compromise.

[trashbat]

Those 159 weight stats are said to be thoroughly dubious - get thee to a weighbridge and find out ;-)

[caiss4]

Just thought I'd throw my two penneth in. Ran a 1999 156 V6 for 5 years and 30k miles until this year. Never missed a beat, never let me down and the only major service cost was timing belt/tensioners/variator and water pump. At 15 years old and 72k miles it never had any suspension parts or brake parts (apart from pads)replaced. It was still running on the original rear box (first silencer replaced at two months before its 15th birthday). Didn't even use oil between services (10k miles).

Now I have a good old Nissan that probably is even cheaper to run but I know which car I'd choose any day of the week.

Bought it for £1000 and sold it for £900. Best car I ever owned.