Advice wantedb on buying S type R 4.2 or S type 3.0
Discussion
Hello everyone
Let me introduce myself :
My name is Sei and I live in the Netherlands and are looking to replace my Alfa 166 V6 for a S type 3.0 or S type R
I would have preferred a Alfa to be honest (have exclusively driven Italian cars for the last 30 years) but all the newer Alfa's I find either too small or equipped with an Opel engine........
I have already seen and driven a couple of them and narrowed my chose down to two S types : a 2002 (new type) 3.0 and a 2002 4.2 R
Prices in the Netherlands are ofcourse higher than in the UK but the 2002 3.0 is around 4500 euro (225k KM) and the 2002 R (209K km) is around 5900 euro.
The price difference therefore is not too big, especially as I want the chrome bits to be painted on the 3.0 and a R rear spoiler
I am afraid though that the R will be much more expensive to maintain as it will require regualar wear parts which cannot be supplied by regualar car part shops.
Can anybody share experiences from driving a 3.0 and a R ??
I would like to make the decission beginnen of the coming week
Thanks for your input !!
Let me introduce myself :
My name is Sei and I live in the Netherlands and are looking to replace my Alfa 166 V6 for a S type 3.0 or S type R
I would have preferred a Alfa to be honest (have exclusively driven Italian cars for the last 30 years) but all the newer Alfa's I find either too small or equipped with an Opel engine........
I have already seen and driven a couple of them and narrowed my chose down to two S types : a 2002 (new type) 3.0 and a 2002 4.2 R
Prices in the Netherlands are ofcourse higher than in the UK but the 2002 3.0 is around 4500 euro (225k KM) and the 2002 R (209K km) is around 5900 euro.
The price difference therefore is not too big, especially as I want the chrome bits to be painted on the 3.0 and a R rear spoiler
I am afraid though that the R will be much more expensive to maintain as it will require regualar wear parts which cannot be supplied by regualar car part shops.
Can anybody share experiences from driving a 3.0 and a R ??
I would like to make the decission beginnen of the coming week
Thanks for your input !!
You've had Alfas and you're on this forum........I'm afraid that you already know then that you need to get an STR!
I had a non supercharged 4.2 for a number of years and although a great car, I spent much of that time wishing I'd gone for a supercharged one. Not because I needed it of course, just because it was there.
I've now had an STR for just over a year and adore it. The power and torque is of course huge but it's just such a nice place to be regardless if I'm just commuting or hustling along. If parts are a problem, it would be easy to stock up on service parts in advance and anything out of the ordinary might take a day or two to arrive from the UK so no huge hardship, especially if you are used to the Alfa spares game.
3.0 is a good car.........but it is NOT an STR even if you de-chrome it!
I had a non supercharged 4.2 for a number of years and although a great car, I spent much of that time wishing I'd gone for a supercharged one. Not because I needed it of course, just because it was there.
I've now had an STR for just over a year and adore it. The power and torque is of course huge but it's just such a nice place to be regardless if I'm just commuting or hustling along. If parts are a problem, it would be easy to stock up on service parts in advance and anything out of the ordinary might take a day or two to arrive from the UK so no huge hardship, especially if you are used to the Alfa spares game.
3.0 is a good car.........but it is NOT an STR even if you de-chrome it!
Hi and thanks for your input.
Ofcourse you are 100% right in your first sentence .
But what I perhaps should have mentioned is that I have more than a dozen of other classic cars that need constant attention/money/time .
I am a little bit afraid that running costs of a R are much higher than that of a 3.0, especially of those parts that is does not share with the lesser equipped S types and will prove costly to replace ?
(I do all the work myself but time is also limited ofcourse)
Ofcourse you are 100% right in your first sentence .
But what I perhaps should have mentioned is that I have more than a dozen of other classic cars that need constant attention/money/time .
I am a little bit afraid that running costs of a R are much higher than that of a 3.0, especially of those parts that is does not share with the lesser equipped S types and will prove costly to replace ?
(I do all the work myself but time is also limited ofcourse)
seicilindri said:
I am a little bit afraid that running costs of a R are much higher than that of a 3.0, especially of those parts that is does not share with the lesser equipped S types and will prove costly to replace ?
(I do all the work myself but time is also limited ofcourse)
Don't be a little bit afraid - it's an absolute certainty. There you are, you can stop worrying now.(I do all the work myself but time is also limited ofcourse)
There's really not that much that is specific to the STR. The CATS dampers and brake discs and pads - that's about it really. The tyres are staggered but there's no step change in price compared to the 3.0 sizes. The age the OP is looking at will dictate that it's on 18" wheels rather than 19". There are parts that are different between 4.2 S/C and 3.0 engines of course, but pricing is much of a muchness. If you need a new exhaust system, for example, then the 3.0 system isn't any cheaper than the STR system.
Annual servicing costs are the same for all petrol models - i.e. fluids and filters.
I've had a 3.0 for years. Fine car and does what we needed. The 3.0 engine is a great engine - but it doesn't really suit that car. It's an engine that likes to rev and is at its best high up the rev range. It would suit a small sports car rather well, but in the S-Type you find yourself in low gears a lot. It's not a slow car, but it's not effortless. The ZF gearbox is great so it's not so much hard work for the driver, but you're always aware that the engine and gearbox are working hard. It also uses every bit as much fuel as the STR will/does.
Annual servicing costs are the same for all petrol models - i.e. fluids and filters.
I've had a 3.0 for years. Fine car and does what we needed. The 3.0 engine is a great engine - but it doesn't really suit that car. It's an engine that likes to rev and is at its best high up the rev range. It would suit a small sports car rather well, but in the S-Type you find yourself in low gears a lot. It's not a slow car, but it's not effortless. The ZF gearbox is great so it's not so much hard work for the driver, but you're always aware that the engine and gearbox are working hard. It also uses every bit as much fuel as the STR will/does.
Edited by jamieduff1981 on Monday 28th July 06:58
Thanks, that's great info.
I am surpised that you say the fuel consumption doesn't differ that much as the factory states that it is considerable more economic ( 9,7 km to a liter and 8 km to a liter)
Perhaps the 3.0 has to work harderat the same speeds than the 4.2R ?
I am surpised that you say the fuel consumption doesn't differ that much as the factory states that it is considerable more economic ( 9,7 km to a liter and 8 km to a liter)
Perhaps the 3.0 has to work harderat the same speeds than the 4.2R ?
Edited by seicilindri on Monday 28th July 08:08
The cruising RPMs will be different on each engine. The 3.0 also spends a lot more time at high RPM accelerating up to cruising speed.
On the owners' forums the STR owners typically report near 30mpg on a long drive whereas most 3.0s only achieve around 28mpg.
Obviously the STR is capable of burning more fuel commesurate with the extra power if you always drive it at maximum performance, but under normal driving they work out the same.
On the owners' forums the STR owners typically report near 30mpg on a long drive whereas most 3.0s only achieve around 28mpg.
Obviously the STR is capable of burning more fuel commesurate with the extra power if you always drive it at maximum performance, but under normal driving they work out the same.
I don't mean to appear confrontational but the STR does everything the 4.2 N/A does but better and for the same running costs. I would suggest that the STR is the best all rounder. It costs the same as all the others to own. It's by far the best performing. They're the best equipped as standard, arguably have the better of the 2 seat designs (I find the sport seats far more supportive and comfortable than the comfort spec seats which seem aimed at obese Americans), and thanks to the CATS dampers it blends the ride of the SE with the cornering of the sports.
Thats an interesting take on the 4.2 vs STR. I'm in the other camp having had both, I think the normal one is the better option for everyday use although as with everything, it's only a personal opinion!
The ride on my SE was much nicer than the STR (it was on 17" wheels mind) and for general cruising long distance, I actually prefer the non Sport seat and I'm not a porker by any means
Real world mpg is marginally better in the SE, it's more peaceful and whilst no sportscar in handling terms, that's a very quick motor with a mere 300bhp. It had all the gadgets my new one has apart from the stupid motorised headrests and an allegedly better stereo set up.
However, this is Pistonheads and therefore the STR must be better, any car with a supercharged V8 is good and no way would I change back.......just beacuse of the way it goes!
The ride on my SE was much nicer than the STR (it was on 17" wheels mind) and for general cruising long distance, I actually prefer the non Sport seat and I'm not a porker by any means
Real world mpg is marginally better in the SE, it's more peaceful and whilst no sportscar in handling terms, that's a very quick motor with a mere 300bhp. It had all the gadgets my new one has apart from the stupid motorised headrests and an allegedly better stereo set up. However, this is Pistonheads and therefore the STR must be better, any car with a supercharged V8 is good and no way would I change back.......just beacuse of the way it goes!
Edited by LFB531 on Monday 28th July 17:27
Funny you mention the normal seats versus the sport seats
Although the sport seat is more figure hugging the seating postion for me was worse.
Problem is that it somehow takes up more room .
My knee is against the centre console while the normal seat somehow can be lowered or retracted more so there is more room for my leg.
Have to say this is in a LHD ofcourse so could be different in a RHD bur there is definitly more legroom for me in the normal seat
Although the sport seat is more figure hugging the seating postion for me was worse.
Problem is that it somehow takes up more room .
My knee is against the centre console while the normal seat somehow can be lowered or retracted more so there is more room for my leg.
Have to say this is in a LHD ofcourse so could be different in a RHD bur there is definitly more legroom for me in the normal seat
Gassing Station | Jaguar | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff