Discussion
Lovely looking cars especially from the rear 3/4. Dark colours with light interiors look best to my eyes and those 17" alloys are lovely. The autos really sapped the power and were prone to gearbox ecu water ingress so manual is definitely best. I've had quite a few over the years and would love another at some point. Here's a few pics I've found of my old ones;
This is the first one I owned back in 2002 I think, 3.0 manual, a friend of mine had an alloy wheel importing business and gave me these 18s, the ride was ruined and I managed to buckle all 4 in 3 months!
Loved this one in Minerva Green with Cream Leather with Wood wheel;
This was a 2001 model year car which came with several improvements under the skin, it was less wallowy than the earlier cars. This was like a 4dr Ferrari, in Alfa Rosso with Crema Leather and I fitted a Ragazzon stainless back box so it sounded good too.
The last one I had came with the Zender bodykit which split opinion, unfortunately it was the Auto so it felt sluggish and only did 22mpg as opposed to up to 30mpg from the manuals
This is the first one I owned back in 2002 I think, 3.0 manual, a friend of mine had an alloy wheel importing business and gave me these 18s, the ride was ruined and I managed to buckle all 4 in 3 months!
Loved this one in Minerva Green with Cream Leather with Wood wheel;
This was a 2001 model year car which came with several improvements under the skin, it was less wallowy than the earlier cars. This was like a 4dr Ferrari, in Alfa Rosso with Crema Leather and I fitted a Ragazzon stainless back box so it sounded good too.
The last one I had came with the Zender bodykit which split opinion, unfortunately it was the Auto so it felt sluggish and only did 22mpg as opposed to up to 30mpg from the manuals
carinaman said:
Do they drive similarly?
Back in the day the 164 was getting compared to hot hatches in terms of chuckability, like an enlarged hot hatch. I think someone advertised a 164 24V in the last 3 years or so describing it as a 'hot hatch'.
I assume the 'hot hatch' comments were said about the QV as opposed to the 164 Super. My 164 Super was certainly agile for its size, but it didn't feel like a hot hatch to me. I have never driven a 164 QV, so maybe someone else can comment on the differences between that and the regular Super?Back in the day the 164 was getting compared to hot hatches in terms of chuckability, like an enlarged hot hatch. I think someone advertised a 164 24V in the last 3 years or so describing it as a 'hot hatch'.
carinaman said:
If think if the 166 was a fun to drive as a 164 then we'd know about it and they'd be more revered and sought after and worth more?
The regular non QV 164s were worth nothing until a few years ago. I bought my 164 when it was about 13 years old for £1k on ebay. I think only now that numbers have dwindled to very few that the enthusiasts are pushing prices up now. The prices for 166s seem to be all over the place, with many very cheap, but the late 3.2s can command a very high price.
The car is running as 'sweet as a nut'. The velour seats are coming into their own and are supremely comfortable. It is a lovely thing to use as a daily driver with great levels of comfort and refinement, but with a sporty edge. I absolutely love this car!
A few pictures following a wash and clean inside.
A few pictures following a wash and clean inside.
I was part owner of a free 164 Twinspark that came my way in 2004. A pal and I fixed the few small faults, MOT'd it and used it as a track slag. It was on non standard 7x15 wheels but otherwise it was just a tired 164.
Out on the track it was a right laugh, pointy and agile, not really quick but once it was up to speed you could just keep the throttle pinned and carry the speed through the corners. I remember following a Clio Williams for three laps of Castle Combe watching him pull away on the straights then catching up under braking and laughing as he wobbled around the corners on three wheels.
Yeah, 164s are a big hot hatch all right.
OP, your 166 is beautiful.
Out on the track it was a right laugh, pointy and agile, not really quick but once it was up to speed you could just keep the throttle pinned and carry the speed through the corners. I remember following a Clio Williams for three laps of Castle Combe watching him pull away on the straights then catching up under braking and laughing as he wobbled around the corners on three wheels.
Yeah, 164s are a big hot hatch all right.
OP, your 166 is beautiful.
Mound Dawg said:
Yeah, 164s are a big hot hatch all right.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/triggerscarstuff/447...
Thought of that Giant Test after Oa posted image of current issue of Modern classics that compared Alfa 164 to Rover 827 and three others that aren't the E34.
So, over 1000 happy miles on the Alfa and what have I discovered? Well, I have gone completely against any "shedding" and put 4 continental conti sport 5 tyres on. 2/3rds of the cost of the car on rubber. Anyway, the fronts needed replacing (down to the thread) and the rears weren't far behind.
Apart from that, no issues. I have uploaded the original Autocar roadtest which I thought may interest a few Alfa beards...
The mpg figures are laughable in the test. It's blatantly obvious that the testers were just ragging the car about as the engine sounds so good. Their combined figure was 16.4 mpg, which is stupid. The government claimed figure of 22.6 mpg is spot on as far as my driving is concerned. So ignore the Autocar mpg figures... silly! Basically combined is between 22 - 25 mpg and on a run it can hit between 28 - 30.
Apart from that, no issues. I have uploaded the original Autocar roadtest which I thought may interest a few Alfa beards...
The mpg figures are laughable in the test. It's blatantly obvious that the testers were just ragging the car about as the engine sounds so good. Their combined figure was 16.4 mpg, which is stupid. The government claimed figure of 22.6 mpg is spot on as far as my driving is concerned. So ignore the Autocar mpg figures... silly! Basically combined is between 22 - 25 mpg and on a run it can hit between 28 - 30.
A question to the floor... how on earth is the 166 slower than a 528i? With a mere 190 odd bhp, the 528 should be much slower. I was always amazed at the performance figures that Autocar achieved with the BMWs of this era compared to the competition. Were the BMW bhp figures conservative? I remember being amazed when the 528 cracked 0 - 100 mph in 18 seconds dead I think with just 190 bhp. Answers on a postcard...
I've thought that the BMW engines were more efficient and had better gearing for the Autobahn?
The Busso came out in 1979. It's an old engine that may not have been designed for fuel efficiency? It was almost 20 years old by the time it got to the 166 and it wouldn't have had the emissions considerations in the 70s.
I think the 12V 164 was less juicy than the 24V 164. The torque characterics are different making the 12V more economical on a run. More valves means more air and petrol in and more exhaust gases out?
How would you compare the torque characteristics of the 2.5 and 3.0 litre Busso having driven both?
Have you driven a 916 GTV V6 with the 3 litre? It could be you're mistaking the go of the 166 with difference in torque characteristic between your new to you 3 litre 166 and your 2.5 litre GTV V6?
Does it mention the difficult gestation in that Autocar article? The 166 was started before the 156 but came out after it. CAR Magazine at the time said that a senior boss looked and drove the 166 prototypes and didn't like how it drove and the size of the overhangs. That CAR Giant test of the 164 where it calls the 164s a big Golf GTi mentions the 164 having the smallest overhangs which I'm still not sure I misread, as the E34 has hardly anything ahead of the front wheels.
I think it may be a bit silly to knock magazine reviews. The 166 isn't a 164 and isn't perfect, but I think those that appreicate them and own them accept them for that. I looked at the advert for that 170K Twin Spark again on Autotrader and noticed a scuff on the OS front corner that was not obvious when I previously looked at the photos.
That 166 Autocar press car is a lovely spec. IMO, the colour, the white dials, the wood, the horseshoes.
The Busso came out in 1979. It's an old engine that may not have been designed for fuel efficiency? It was almost 20 years old by the time it got to the 166 and it wouldn't have had the emissions considerations in the 70s.
I think the 12V 164 was less juicy than the 24V 164. The torque characterics are different making the 12V more economical on a run. More valves means more air and petrol in and more exhaust gases out?
strangehighways said:
A question to the floor... how on earth is the 166 slower than a 528i? With a mere 190 odd bhp, the 528 should be much slower.
You're comparing the headline BHP figures for the 528i and 3 litre Busso and asking about the differences in performance. It could be related to their torque curves and gearing. It's not BHP that gives acceleration. I think it's torque. How would you compare the torque characteristics of the 2.5 and 3.0 litre Busso having driven both?
Have you driven a 916 GTV V6 with the 3 litre? It could be you're mistaking the go of the 166 with difference in torque characteristic between your new to you 3 litre 166 and your 2.5 litre GTV V6?
Does it mention the difficult gestation in that Autocar article? The 166 was started before the 156 but came out after it. CAR Magazine at the time said that a senior boss looked and drove the 166 prototypes and didn't like how it drove and the size of the overhangs. That CAR Giant test of the 164 where it calls the 164s a big Golf GTi mentions the 164 having the smallest overhangs which I'm still not sure I misread, as the E34 has hardly anything ahead of the front wheels.
strangehighways said:
So, over 1000 happy miles on the Alfa and what have I discovered? Well, I have gone completely against any "shedding" and put 4 continental conti sport 5 tyres on. 2/3rds of the cost of the car on rubber. Anyway, the fronts needed replacing (down to the thread) and the rears weren't far behind.
The rear Merc. 'knuckle' is OK if the rear end isn't pattering around? The back end is behaving itself?I think it may be a bit silly to knock magazine reviews. The 166 isn't a 164 and isn't perfect, but I think those that appreicate them and own them accept them for that. I looked at the advert for that 170K Twin Spark again on Autotrader and noticed a scuff on the OS front corner that was not obvious when I previously looked at the photos.
That 166 Autocar press car is a lovely spec. IMO, the colour, the white dials, the wood, the horseshoes.
Edited by carinaman on Thursday 11th February 21:45
strangehighways said:
A question to the floor... how on earth is the 166 slower than a 528i? With a mere 190 odd bhp, the 528 should be much slower. I was always amazed at the performance figures that Autocar achieved with the BMWs of this era compared to the competition. Were the BMW bhp figures conservative? I remember being amazed when the 528 cracked 0 - 100 mph in 18 seconds dead I think with just 190 bhp. Answers on a postcard...
I can believe that - my 528i felt spritely and made the best of its horses, and was a great deal more torquey than a 2.5 V6 156 I drove many years ago.OP- What sort of condition are your suspension arms in? My 146ti and 156 ate them for fun and soon wore out the rubber on the inside, make sure you're not needlessly chucking good money away after bad on expensive tyres!
ajb85 said:
OP- What sort of condition are your suspension arms in? My 146ti and 156 ate them for fun and soon wore out the rubber on the inside, make sure you're not needlessly chucking good money away after bad on expensive tyres!
That's why I asked about the Merc. knuckle in the rear suspension. Having seen that 166 advertised I thought it may have needed that done.strangehighways said:
A question to the floor... how on earth is the 166 slower than a 528i? With a mere 190 odd bhp, the 528 should be much slower. I was always amazed at the performance figures that Autocar achieved with the BMWs of this era compared to the competition. Were the BMW bhp figures conservative? I remember being amazed when the 528 cracked 0 - 100 mph in 18 seconds dead I think with just 190 bhp. Answers on a postcard...
Wasn't this the era that all the German manufacturers stated their 2.8 or 3.0 engines produced 193 BHP as a gentleman's agreement to try and avoid legislation? I think most of them actually produced a good chunk more than the published numbers which would explain the discrepancy - the BMW engine in reality produced over 200 BHP, possibly up to 220.carinaman said:
How would you compare the torque characteristics of the 2.5 and 3.0 litre Busso having driven both?
Have you driven a 916 GTV V6 with the 3 litre? It could be you're mistaking the go of the 166 with difference in torque characteristic between your new to you 3 litre 166 and your 2.5 litre GTV V6?
I've owned a 3 litre GTV as well the 2.5 one. In both the GTV and the 166 the 3 litre feels much stronger than the 2.5 GTV. It has much more mid range to it. That said the 2.5 is nicer past 6k and chasing the red line than the 3 litre, quite a lot sweeter actually. Have you driven a 916 GTV V6 with the 3 litre? It could be you're mistaking the go of the 166 with difference in torque characteristic between your new to you 3 litre 166 and your 2.5 litre GTV V6?
If you asked me which engine I would have in a lightweight car, under a tonne, I would take the 2.5 every time. But in a heavier car (most cars), I would take the 3 litre.
Against the clock, I doubt the 166 would be quicker than the 2.5 GTV though. Maybe a tad, but the GTV only weighs a tiny bit more than a 156, and the 2.5 156 posted near identical 0 - 100 mph figures to the 3 litre 166.
The 3 litre GTVs have posted between 16 seconds dead (5 speed tested in Autocar) and 17.5 seconds to 100 mph (6 speed).
carinaman said:
You're comparing the headline BHP figures for the 528i and 3 litre Busso and asking about the differences in performance. It could be related to their torque curves and gearing. It's not BHP that gives acceleration. I think it's torque.
Not sure that's right. Just look at a Civic Type R from the 2000s. 200bhp but just 145lb/ft torque. That was as quick as any 200bhp hatch. I think it could do 0 - 100 in 16 seconds.Isn't it just that if a car has a low torque figure, it needs very close gearing to make sure that the car is always in the power band?
carinaman said:
The rear Merc. 'knuckle' is OK if the rear end isn't pattering around? The back end is behaving itself?
A rear axle joint was replaced in late 2014 by the last owner. There are no suspension knocks at all as far as I can tell.carinaman said:
I think it may be a bit silly to knock magazine reviews. The 166 isn't a 164 and isn't perfect, but I think those that appreicate them and own them accept them for that.
I'm not knocking the review except for the economy part, which is clearly irrelevant for the reader as it is not a fair comparison with other cars, as the tester(s) was ragging the car.
Over 2000 miles so far and the car is racking up the miles as my daily driver.
Averaging 23.5 mpg with a mixture of driving.
The car has a leak in the drivers footwell, ahhhh!! I thought it was the windscreen as the rubber surround had fallen away on the drivers side, but after using some sealant and thinking I had solved the issue, after a load of rain, I was greeted with wet carpet again. Will have to investigate further.
The other development is that the exhaust has started to get louder, and it's been traced to one of the flexi pipes (the short one I think). This will be sorted in the next week or so at a garage.
Car feels absolutely at home hammering it down the outside lane of the motorway, and is a joy to drive. Still waiting to see another 166 owner on the road after over a month.
Averaging 23.5 mpg with a mixture of driving.
The car has a leak in the drivers footwell, ahhhh!! I thought it was the windscreen as the rubber surround had fallen away on the drivers side, but after using some sealant and thinking I had solved the issue, after a load of rain, I was greeted with wet carpet again. Will have to investigate further.
The other development is that the exhaust has started to get louder, and it's been traced to one of the flexi pipes (the short one I think). This will be sorted in the next week or so at a garage.
Car feels absolutely at home hammering it down the outside lane of the motorway, and is a joy to drive. Still waiting to see another 166 owner on the road after over a month.
Great to see one of these in attentive hands - good luck keeping everything running!
There's no sunroof to worry about so you can work through door cards, door seals, plenum chamber and all the drainage channels under the bonnet.
Tan leather interiors are on eBay...
strangehighways said:
The car has a leak in the drivers footwell, ahhhh!!
If this only occurs after rain at least it isn't the heater matrix, which is a dastardly fix.There's no sunroof to worry about so you can work through door cards, door seals, plenum chamber and all the drainage channels under the bonnet.
Tan leather interiors are on eBay...
4 months into ownership for the 166 and it's going well. I've just done 6000 miles in it, so on track for 18k a year.
Costs
- 4 new tyres (Continental conti sport 5) = £470
- exhaust leak fix (second hand flexi pipe sourced and fitted) = £120
MPG is sitting at 24.6 for the commute. Long runs see 30 mpg at 80.
The water leak into the drivers footwell doesn't seem as bad as before once I sealed the windscreen. The car needs an oil service badly, ideally before its European road trip in June. A couple of friends and I are getting the Dover Calais ferry and then driving from France to Belgium, Germany, Denmark and Sweden before getting the ferry from Malmo back to Germany. Should be a fun trip and the car will rack up about 1800 miles including my drive down from North Yorkshire.
There's a new 'niggle' developing which is on light throttle applications between 2-3k occasionally the car is hesitant, then picks-up again as normal. I'm wondering if it is an early sign of MAF failure. I'll get the car serviced and if it persists, which change the MAF, which seem to affect a lot of Alfas and can reduce the power in many cases. It isn't affecting the top of the rev range at the moment though.
Overall, I'm loving this car as my daily and is probably the best £600 I've ever spent on motoring. There is just one thing to over-rides everything else, and that is that busso v6 engine. Just a complete masterpiece. I am wondering if I should open the sound up slightly with a custom exhaust. Very tempting.
Costs
- 4 new tyres (Continental conti sport 5) = £470
- exhaust leak fix (second hand flexi pipe sourced and fitted) = £120
MPG is sitting at 24.6 for the commute. Long runs see 30 mpg at 80.
The water leak into the drivers footwell doesn't seem as bad as before once I sealed the windscreen. The car needs an oil service badly, ideally before its European road trip in June. A couple of friends and I are getting the Dover Calais ferry and then driving from France to Belgium, Germany, Denmark and Sweden before getting the ferry from Malmo back to Germany. Should be a fun trip and the car will rack up about 1800 miles including my drive down from North Yorkshire.
There's a new 'niggle' developing which is on light throttle applications between 2-3k occasionally the car is hesitant, then picks-up again as normal. I'm wondering if it is an early sign of MAF failure. I'll get the car serviced and if it persists, which change the MAF, which seem to affect a lot of Alfas and can reduce the power in many cases. It isn't affecting the top of the rev range at the moment though.
Overall, I'm loving this car as my daily and is probably the best £600 I've ever spent on motoring. There is just one thing to over-rides everything else, and that is that busso v6 engine. Just a complete masterpiece. I am wondering if I should open the sound up slightly with a custom exhaust. Very tempting.
Gassing Station | Readers' Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff