Which derv 159?
Discussion
So, I'm considering getting back to the fold with a diesel 159 sportwagon in the near future.
Having had a 156 2.4 JTDM is the past which I loved except for the constant replacement of front suspension parts.
So I have a choice of engines, 1.9, 2.0 and 2.4. Which would be best to go for in regards to fuel economy, refinement and reliability? Is is best to go for a last of the line 2.0?
Having had a 156 2.4 JTDM is the past which I loved except for the constant replacement of front suspension parts.
So I have a choice of engines, 1.9, 2.0 and 2.4. Which would be best to go for in regards to fuel economy, refinement and reliability? Is is best to go for a last of the line 2.0?
We have a 2.4. Refinement is very good - on the motorway you've have no idea what is powering the car. Mid 40s mpg on a run. It is the perfect tool for Calais -> south of France.
1.9s have less chuff and a weaker gearbox I think. It is a big old car, I'd go for the 5 pot and drive it gently if worried about economy.
1.9s have less chuff and a weaker gearbox I think. It is a big old car, I'd go for the 5 pot and drive it gently if worried about economy.
I think there was one particular version of the 2.4 20v with some issues, you might want to double check that, from what i can find the 210hp version (post 07) is MUCH better then the 200hp version, something to do with the turbo apparently.
Id get the 2.4, or failing those, one of the newer 2.0s, the 1.9 8v probably feels underpowered, a remap might fix that partially, but its better to start out with decent power.
Id get the 2.4, or failing those, one of the newer 2.0s, the 1.9 8v probably feels underpowered, a remap might fix that partially, but its better to start out with decent power.
The 1.9 is a decent lump, although its a bit characterless. Its reliable if looked after and can give some decent power. The only negatives on this lump is that they can ingest their own swirl flaps, which is a problem if they're the metal type. Also, the EGR valves can clog up with oily soot - easy enough to bypass them and map them out of the ECU - Terraclean treatment tends to work wonders on them.
I have a 1.9 JTD Alfa GT running about 160bhp from a "blended" remap - it returns about 46-48mpg on an 75 mile a day commute, involving stop-start traffic. Its on 214,000 miles with no signs that its going to stop anytime soon
My son has a 1.9 diesel 159 Sportwagon - on about 170bhp from a remap, it gives him an average of over 50mpg from his gentle DC & A road commute.
Gearboxes are a known weak point on the 1.9, but usually only if remapped - they are fine on cars with stock power / torque
The 2.4 is great - lovely offbeat 5-pot noise and decent power as stock, which can be mapped to some fairly spectacular levels. Economy is OK at best and nowhere near as good as German rivals. I've seen good ones on a run get into the mid to high 40s mpg. I've seen poor ones around town in the high 20s and low 30s mpg
The issue for either the 1.9 or the 2.4 lumps in a 159 is that its not a light car - 1600kg+ IIRC. The diesel lumps are therefore best suited to longer runs where its not having to drag the car's weight up to speed too often.
Recommendation - if you want a grunty, punchy, almost entertaining diesel that gives OK fuel consumption, get the 2.4. If economy is a primary concern, get the 1.9. For either engine, get it mapped, as the benefits are huge.
I have a 1.9 JTD Alfa GT running about 160bhp from a "blended" remap - it returns about 46-48mpg on an 75 mile a day commute, involving stop-start traffic. Its on 214,000 miles with no signs that its going to stop anytime soon
My son has a 1.9 diesel 159 Sportwagon - on about 170bhp from a remap, it gives him an average of over 50mpg from his gentle DC & A road commute.
Gearboxes are a known weak point on the 1.9, but usually only if remapped - they are fine on cars with stock power / torque
The 2.4 is great - lovely offbeat 5-pot noise and decent power as stock, which can be mapped to some fairly spectacular levels. Economy is OK at best and nowhere near as good as German rivals. I've seen good ones on a run get into the mid to high 40s mpg. I've seen poor ones around town in the high 20s and low 30s mpg
The issue for either the 1.9 or the 2.4 lumps in a 159 is that its not a light car - 1600kg+ IIRC. The diesel lumps are therefore best suited to longer runs where its not having to drag the car's weight up to speed too often.
Recommendation - if you want a grunty, punchy, almost entertaining diesel that gives OK fuel consumption, get the 2.4. If economy is a primary concern, get the 1.9. For either engine, get it mapped, as the benefits are huge.
Nigel_O said:
The issue for either the 1.9 or the 2.4 lumps in a 159 is that its not a light car - 1600kg+ IIRC. The diesel lumps are therefore best suited to longer runs where its not having to drag the car's weight up to speed too often.
Its worth nothing though that the later models (i think the my08 revision and later) and a good bit lighter. Still not a light car, but not the heavyweight the 159 got stick for initially eitherThis thread is ideal for me ...as i am also considering which 159 to go for !
Currently on my second 156 ( 1.8TS and now on my second...a 156 JTDM 150 remapped to about 190BHP)
PS That's not me in the pic by the way.... ! A stop at Reims in May en route to the Historic F1 in Monaco this year.
I would be looking at the 2.4 159 but I understand that there may be issues with corrosion affecting the front sub frame ?
As has been said, I think the 2.0 and 2.4 have a stronger gearbox so can withstand remapping...although with 200/210 BHP as standard I am not sure they would need it ! ( although the 159 is quite a bit heavier than the 156 )
I use my Alfa for a decent commute ( around 70 miles /day on motorway/A roads in Co Durham ) so the issue mentioned ( re pick up from lower speeds) would not really be something that would concern me !
So my beautiful 2005 Blu Chiaia Luna ( ie moonbeam blue metallic !)....remapped, complete stainless steel exhaust system, lovely Italian option only steering wheel !), Alfa will have to go to make way for a decent low mileage blue/black (with leather of course) 2.4 210 BHP 159 !
Cheap plug as I shall probably put it on the PH Classifieds soon !
Currently on my second 156 ( 1.8TS and now on my second...a 156 JTDM 150 remapped to about 190BHP)
PS That's not me in the pic by the way.... ! A stop at Reims in May en route to the Historic F1 in Monaco this year.
I would be looking at the 2.4 159 but I understand that there may be issues with corrosion affecting the front sub frame ?
As has been said, I think the 2.0 and 2.4 have a stronger gearbox so can withstand remapping...although with 200/210 BHP as standard I am not sure they would need it ! ( although the 159 is quite a bit heavier than the 156 )
I use my Alfa for a decent commute ( around 70 miles /day on motorway/A roads in Co Durham ) so the issue mentioned ( re pick up from lower speeds) would not really be something that would concern me !
So my beautiful 2005 Blu Chiaia Luna ( ie moonbeam blue metallic !)....remapped, complete stainless steel exhaust system, lovely Italian option only steering wheel !), Alfa will have to go to make way for a decent low mileage blue/black (with leather of course) 2.4 210 BHP 159 !
Cheap plug as I shall probably put it on the PH Classifieds soon !
2.4 diesel is the one I'd get personally (and did 
). It has decent power and reasonable economy. The 5-pot sounds rather good when pushed considering it's a clatterbox diesel.
Had the 1.9 in a GT which I also loved. Engine is economical but the noise was bloody awful
As above remapping and EGR delete are things many folk do, I personally have done nothing like that and am still very much pleased with the car mainly. On my GT I cleaned the EGR about 4/5 times per year. Had the 159 over a year now and I have not done it once.
Subrames can be an issue, mine is rusty and more than I'd prefer but it passes MOT's. I painted as best as I could. Advisory for corroded rear lower arms IIRC last MOT. I don't think Alfa expected to sell enough in the UK to warrant any decent protection underneath?
). It has decent power and reasonable economy. The 5-pot sounds rather good when pushed considering it's a clatterbox diesel.Had the 1.9 in a GT which I also loved. Engine is economical but the noise was bloody awful
As above remapping and EGR delete are things many folk do, I personally have done nothing like that and am still very much pleased with the car mainly. On my GT I cleaned the EGR about 4/5 times per year. Had the 159 over a year now and I have not done it once.
Subrames can be an issue, mine is rusty and more than I'd prefer but it passes MOT's. I painted as best as I could. Advisory for corroded rear lower arms IIRC last MOT. I don't think Alfa expected to sell enough in the UK to warrant any decent protection underneath?
Gassing Station | Alfa Romeo, Fiat & Lancia | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff