Alfa GT 3.2. Why shouldn't I buy this?!

[1878]

Had a happy four years with a GT, admittedly not a 3.2 though. It was 8 yrs old when I sold it. Stranded twice in my ownership: one broken drive-shaft and a clutch slave cylinder died. Need plenty of preventative maintenance, probably more so than many cars but it's worth it. Front suspension components on 147/156/GT series can be considered consumables, sadly. On the upside I think they still look great and there is much more room for rear passengers than you might think - and a decent sized boot.

Find a decent local independent and go for it. Some example service prices here http://autolusso.co.uk/service/gt.html Note their recommendations for a 4 year not a 6 year cycle on cambelt changes.

Plenty of technical and other advice here http://www.alfaowner.com/Forum/#supported-alfa-rom...

JFBI

[wiv1728]

I say no. They're ten year old cars that, despite the best will in the world, were not particularly reliable when new.

If I was ever going to go down this painful route of motoring again, I would buy the most expensive of the breed from the likes of Autolusso with some sort of cast iron warranty. Without that, V6 Alfas of this vintage are liable to leave a bitter impression.

Cheap is dear...

[Pat H]

Warnie said:

I've already owned the 2.5v6 156, but the 3.2 is on a different level completely. It feels far quicker than the figures suggest.

Yep.

I certainly wasn't suggesting that the 2.5 can be compared to the 3.2 in terms of performance. The 3.2 is definitely in a different league, as you would expect with almost an extra litre and another 50 horses.

I've owned a couple of 3.2 GTVs and a 2.5 156. I reckon that the smaller motor is sweeter.

I used to own a 3.2 GTV with equal length exhaust manifolds and the Q2 diff. It sounded incredible, was properly fast and felt like a truly exotic Italian sports car. It was just a pain to live with compared to a 156.

I guess that the 3.2 GT makes a great compromise. I'll have a red one with tan leather, please. Or maybe black with red leather....

[daveco]

Nothing sounds as good as the Alfa six cylinder.

Heard one accelerating behind me a few years ago as I trundled along to the shops. Thought it was something far more exotic until it passed me. Lovely cars and a rare sight.

Love the arse of the Brera as well but the GT has the far more characterful engine so go for that!

[Chris Type R]

Pat H said:

I guess that the 3.2 GT makes a great compromise. I'll have a red one with tan leather, please. Or maybe black with red leather....

Gratuitous photo opportunity:

Edited by Chris Type R on Tuesday 31st March 11:33

[Limpet]

Pat H said:

I've owned a couple of 3.2 GTVs and a 2.5 156. I reckon that the smaller motor is sweeter.

This seems to be quite a commonly held view.

Both engines are undersquare, but the 2.5 is especially so with a short 68mm stroke. Makes for a very sweet revving engine. I've only experienced the 3.2 briefly, but the extra muscle at low to middling revs is immediately noticeable. I seem to recall the bigger engine produces about nearly half as much torque again as the smaller one, and you can really feel it.

The sweetness of the 2.5 at high revs is a delight though. It sings.

[r11co]

I had a 1.9 JTD GT, and the only reason I sold it is because it wasn't a V6. If I wasn't over the moon with my 330i I'd have that car in a shot as it is only up the road from me.

Front top wishbones on these cars are consumable items, but changing them is easy (can be reduced to 45 minutes if you cut the old pivot bolt off and refit a new one the other way around to make future changes just as quick).

Other issue to look out for is crushed sill extensions caused by someone misinterpreting the markers on the jacking points.

Edited by r11co on Tuesday 31st March 11:17

[Pat H]

Chris Type R said:

Pat H said:

I guess that the 3.2 GT makes a great compromise. I'll have a red one with tan leather, please. Or maybe black with red leather....

Gratuitous photo opportunity:

Lovely.

Here's my old GTV...

wiv1728 said:

I say no. They're ten year old cars that, despite the best will in the world, were not particularly reliable when new.

Have courage....

I've had five Alfas on the trot. The youngest was six years old when I bought it. None of them has ever left me stranded. None of them has ever suffered a catastrophic failure.

Buy an immaculate low miler, preferably privately and from an enthusiast.

The V6s are more robust and require less fettling than the twin sparks. If you can afford the petrol, then they are a better prospect than the four pot Alfas. Listen carefully to make sure that the exhaust manifold doesn't blow when first started from cold. Apart from that, just keep the oil topped up and enjoy.

The biggest PIA with these old Alfas is the tedious and expensive frequency with which they need top arms, bottom arms and ARB bushes. My V6s haven't been so bad, but my 2.4 JTD 156 wears out front suspension at an alarming rate.

Ground clearance and turning circles are pants, but you soon get used to that.

[MattHall91]

Very useful information, thanks!

A red Alfa sure is evocative...

[wiv1728]

I

Pat H said:

Have courage....

I've had five Alfas on the trot. The youngest was six years old when I bought it. None of them has ever left me stranded. None of them has ever suffered a catastrophic failure.

I do appreciate this optimistic view of Alfa, and of my four, none ever left me stranded either. It's the constant remedial maintenance that wears you down. You just want to enjoy them, so take it out and then you hear the squeaking rear suspension that you know will cost another £500 quid.

The market has set the price of these cars low - in relation to their contemporaries - for a reason. Anecdotal stories of near faultless ownership are at odds with the vast swathes of people who had enough of Alfa from this period.

Despite looking better than anything in their segments, poor build quality and the fact the the cars - including this one - were based on increasingly shonky platforms, understandably compelled people to steer clear.

Just to say, I drive a Fiat... Ehem... Abarth 500 Eesseesse and the build, reliability and even dynamics, are miles ahead of the old Alfas. Gives me confidence for the up coming Alfa range, but means nothing fur the past.

[Chris Type R]

wiv1728 said:

I do appreciate this optimistic view of Alfa, and of my four, none ever left me stranded either. It's the constant remedial maintenance that wears you down. You just want to enjoy them, so take it out and then you hear the squeaking rear suspension that you know will cost another £500 quid.

This is very true. When everything is working well, it's a pleasure to drive. But very often you're driving around nursing niggles.

[Oilchange]

I'd say that if you are going to change the suspension arms, it would be a good idea to upgrade to poly bushes as you go and they will last the life of the car, made a huge difference to my 156.
I swapped out the original arb with a polybushed GTa one and fitted a strut brace which made the car much tighter handling...

[Agoogy]

Oilchange seems rather insistent on that advice... clearly very important

[Chris Type R]

So to be clear - are polybushes recommended ?

[pjwind]

I owned one of these and I loved and hated it. I loved all the Alfa bits but hated the modified suspension with the springs replaced seemingly with rocks. I live in Switzerland where winter tyres are required from November to April. I test drove it on the standard rims with winter tyres and while it seemed stiff it did handle quite well and even four wheel drifted which is quite good for front driver.

I took delivery on the summer tyres with wheels 2 inches bigger than standard. Then I hit my first decent bump (had to drive to France, not too many bad roads in Switzerland). Oh My God. I actually stopped to see if the car was alright. I then realised that all the suspension I experienced on my test drive was coming from the side walls of the winter tyres. The suspension was so rock hard the car experienced scuttle shake like a convertible on bad roads. That isn't a comment on bad body rigidity just stupid suspension. I think the only way to have suspension like that is to have it braced with a roll cage.

Fabulous car, just keep it standard or take it to an expert like Autodelta to modify it. I got rid of mine to buy a 1 series convertible - epic fail.

[Krikkit]

Much love for these cars, especially the marmite-looking GTV, but having changed the whole front suspension on my 156 I'd be very careful about buying one which hasn't been apart recently.

Everything on the front end was seized on mine, it needed hours to take it all apart, and ended up costing a fortune as quite a few of the weird-sized bolts were destroyed removing the old components.

[r11co]

Oilchange said:

I'd say that if you are going to change the suspension arms, it would be a good idea to upgrade to poly bushes as you go and they will last the life of the car...

They won't y'know, and the front ones will squeak like hell because of the design, plus the front arms also have a ball-joint on them that will wear out and necessitate replacement of the the entire arms (upper and lower) anyway. Better to just get the best quality arms at the lowest price you can find (bargains to be had always on OEM stuff if you shop around) and dismantle and lubricate the feckers well with silicone grease before fitting.

[Otispunkmeyer]

kapiteinlangzaam said:

Only reason not to, would be if that particular car is not "straight".

The 3.2 GT is a mad little car, and I think the last iteration of any Alfa to be fitted with the legendary Busso.

£3.5k is much cheaper than I ever remember these being. Awesome!

So in the Brera they put a GM V6.... what is it about the Busso that makes it sound better, makes the engine better? The GM one just sounds lazy, from what I have heard.

[z06tim]

It's not just the sound, it's the way it revs, delivers its power, and some might say most importantly, its looks:

Edited by z06tim on Tuesday 31st March 17:16

[jamies30]

Like others, I'd go for a phase II 3.0 GTV instead - compromised, but much more special, bespoke-feeling compared to the GT which never feels quit far enough removed from a standard shopping-spec 156. Not that a 156 is a bad car by any means, but if you're buying a coupe then it should feel special.

For the V6s, the old 12v 2.5 is my favourite, then the 3.0 12v, then the 3.0 24v, then finally the 3.2 24v and 2.5 24v in whichever order. The 3.2 always felt like a stretch too far, sacrificing some of the 'joy' of the engine for outright power.