Discussion
I've just made my fourth Alfa purchase. Previous to this car, I had a 164 V6 and two GTVs one of which has a 2.5 V6 engine!.. see this thread.. http://www.pistonheads.com/GASSING/topic.asp?h=0&a...
I really wanted another busso v6, so asked some Alfa groups if there were any for sale, and someone told me a guy had a 166 V6 Manual with MOT for sale, but based on the Isle of Wight. (I'm in Harrogate, North Yorkshire). Even so, due to a very good price, and following a phone conversation with the owner, I decided to pick it up the next day. I took the train down to Southampton (7.5hrs) and got the passenger ferry to West Cowes.
I picked up the car, got the ferry back to the mainland, and drove back to Yorkshire. It didn't miss a beat over 270 miles. So, what are the details?
- Alfa 166 3.0 V6 Super Manual
- Electric everything, including heated seats
- Cloth, not leather interior sadly.
- 6 speed gearbox (which has pretty close ratios for a motorway cruiser)
- 102k miles
- 10 months MOT
- £600
I need to get the cambelt done and an oil service sharpish, but other than that, the car doesn't really need anything. I can't believe you can get such a lovely car with one of the greatest 'real world' engines ever for peanuts. There aren't many of these beasts about anymore (there never have been really).
As I have had a 164 in the past, I roughly knew what to expect from the 166. It is a comfortable cruiser but with a sportiness under the surface. The car is very quiet when feathering the throttle, but as soon as you push your foot down a bit, there is a lovely growl from the engine, it sounds fantastic.
Here are a couple of rubbish pictures, but I will try and get some good ones soon and will update the thread.
Any 166 owners on here?
I really wanted another busso v6, so asked some Alfa groups if there were any for sale, and someone told me a guy had a 166 V6 Manual with MOT for sale, but based on the Isle of Wight. (I'm in Harrogate, North Yorkshire). Even so, due to a very good price, and following a phone conversation with the owner, I decided to pick it up the next day. I took the train down to Southampton (7.5hrs) and got the passenger ferry to West Cowes.
I picked up the car, got the ferry back to the mainland, and drove back to Yorkshire. It didn't miss a beat over 270 miles. So, what are the details?
- Alfa 166 3.0 V6 Super Manual
- Electric everything, including heated seats
- Cloth, not leather interior sadly.
- 6 speed gearbox (which has pretty close ratios for a motorway cruiser)
- 102k miles
- 10 months MOT
- £600
I need to get the cambelt done and an oil service sharpish, but other than that, the car doesn't really need anything. I can't believe you can get such a lovely car with one of the greatest 'real world' engines ever for peanuts. There aren't many of these beasts about anymore (there never have been really).
As I have had a 164 in the past, I roughly knew what to expect from the 166. It is a comfortable cruiser but with a sportiness under the surface. The car is very quiet when feathering the throttle, but as soon as you push your foot down a bit, there is a lovely growl from the engine, it sounds fantastic.
Here are a couple of rubbish pictures, but I will try and get some good ones soon and will update the thread.
Any 166 owners on here?
carinaman said:
It'll be interesting to get your views on how the two compare. Some that liked the 164 didn't think the 166 drove the same. I've only driven a 164.
Is the back end planted or do any of the bushes at the back need replacement?
It was quite a long time ago that I had the 164 (mid-late 2000s) but bear with me as I try and remember..Is the back end planted or do any of the bushes at the back need replacement?
Engine wise, the 166 has a little more power according to the specs (226 vs 210), but they feel pretty similar in terms of poke. At a guess, their power/weights are probably identical. I imagine the 166 is a touch heavier than the 164. Though the 164 had a 5 speed box, the 166 has 6 and always feels 'on it' because of the closely stacked ratios.
The 166 interior is much more user friendly and this one looks in pretty good condition. The 164 interior... well the pre-facelift interior is laughable to my eyes, but the post-facelift, which is what I had (1994), was really cool in an 80s kinda way and I loved it but the 166 one makes much more sense. There is a main screen where radio/nav/trip/hvac is all controlled by. The display looks awesome in that solid old-skool aircraft flight management system kinda way...
I haven't pushed the car at all yet in terms of handling, but it feels smaller than its size. It is certainly no sports car, but isn't too much of a blobbery mess either.
I'm not really that bothered about the fact that it is front wheel drive. It makes itself known if you are trying to pull away quickly in 1st or 2nd in wet conditions though. Most of the time so far, I have been cruising about thinking I'm 'the man' and occasionally dropping a cog and getting that busso to sing.
The gearbox can't be rushed, the throw is quite long but is satisfying.
Not sure what else, I'll check in again with better pictures soon!
Chunkychucky said:
I assume this is the one that was on Retro Rides? Looks tidy fella good buy, look forward to seeing future progress 
And the Velour on these is lovely, so soft and yet grippier than leather if you want to get a move on through the twisties!
Yes, it was the one for sale on retro rides. I'm astonished it was unsold for a couple of months. I didn't actually see it on retro rides, I posted on a closed group on facebook and someone told me it was for sale.And the Velour on these is lovely, so soft and yet grippier than leather if you want to get a move on through the twisties!
I quite like the velour really, and the heated seats are awesome.
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.
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...
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.
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