RE: SOTW: Alfa Romeo 166 3.0
Discussion
No you twit, it means the things that are likely to go wrong at about 60,000 miles have all been sorted so it's good to go for another 60,000.
Incidentally, do other cars never need cambelts/wishbones bushes/exhausts etc or are they all million milers?
Incidentally, do other cars never need cambelts/wishbones bushes/exhausts etc or are they all million milers?
Frimley111R said:
"...cambelt and waterpump changed, Air Flow Meter replaced, Front wishbones, Front springs, CV boots, Battery, recent exhaust system etc." means "Its a money pit and I selling it before it bankrupts me. Good luck!"
J4CKO said:
big_boz said:
J4CKO said:
You havent quite got this "Shed" thing have you 
You dont buy a grands worth of old Alfa and then spunk a grand on it, couple of hundred to get it through an MOT, driven it until it requires a major spend, then scrap it or stick it on Ebay for bits, ultimate handling precision isnt in the Bangernomics ethos, you dont do the belts, if it snaps thats it, buy another one as spending £800 having the belts done is pretty much the cost of another one.
It is acceptable to polish it to death and get it looking nice, it has to be safe and have an MOT, perhaps an oil change but anything else doesnt make sense, the savvy shed purchaser looks for cars where some other poor sod has spent all the money and now wants rid, they absolutely dont spend it themselves.
"A couple of hundred to get it through its MOT".....You clearly have never owned an alfa.You dont buy a grands worth of old Alfa and then spunk a grand on it, couple of hundred to get it through an MOT, driven it until it requires a major spend, then scrap it or stick it on Ebay for bits, ultimate handling precision isnt in the Bangernomics ethos, you dont do the belts, if it snaps thats it, buy another one as spending £800 having the belts done is pretty much the cost of another one.
It is acceptable to polish it to death and get it looking nice, it has to be safe and have an MOT, perhaps an oil change but anything else doesnt make sense, the savvy shed purchaser looks for cars where some other poor sod has spent all the money and now wants rid, they absolutely dont spend it themselves.
"Drive it until it needs a major spend" - should read "pick it up and drive it home"
"scrap it and put it on ebay for bits" - what with the 000's of other alfas on ebay being broken?
"the savvy shed purchaser looks for cars where some other poor sod has spent all the money and now wants rid" - That will be every modern alfa on the market that works then? You spend £400 getting the belts done, then drive over a speed bump and that another £300 for a front ARB, do that and then drive back over the same speed bump and the front lower arms need replacing....never ending
My thinking is that brakes and suspension I generally do myself, as long as the parts are available and not ridiculous then its time to crack out the spanners, any older car like this can be a money pit, especially if you end up paying garage rates, the suspension arms are £59 each off Ebay + 3.50 postage so an £130 ish job if you really cant avoid it, ARB drop links are £13 a pair.
The non OEM suspension arms (cheapies off E-bay) are made of butter, i tried them once, the passenger side one lasted 2k before it started rattling, i got about 8k miles out of a proper alfa set. ARB drop links are cheap, but its the bushes on the actual bar that wear out after about 12-15k miles, but the bar actually wears too so you cant just replace the bushes (at a few pounds each) the whole bar needs doing..total job with labour is about £250.
To the comment later down referencing the official service guide for spark plug intervals....you can ignore the service guide, it originally stated 60k on cam belt changes on the TS engine, when they started snapping at 40k miles (or less) alfa changed the manual to say 36k miles.......
So if you do 10k miles a year you can pretty much bank £1000 in general running costs if you are getting a garage to do the labor, thats before anything else goes...which it will.
Join the Alfa owners forum and have a read...there isn't one model that does not have lots of issues, even the new ones..Brera's and new 159's included.
I understand Bangernomics, ie buy a car on the cheap, then run it until something major goes wrong, bin it and go find another...the problem with an alfa is it will have a big bill every few months!
Quite right, Alfas ALWAYS want for something, at any given age or mileage. Fundamentally the engines are good, despite using some cheap parts (plastic pulleys etc). They go through perishables at an alarming rate. I too have had to fork out frequently overhauling suspension bits on the 156 and 146 I had. So to argue against; they are not what you'd call an economical 'run it into the ground and get rid' sort of banger. It just wouldn't work, not least because you have to get the thing through an M.o.T every 12 months.
With a little luck, you could quite possible buy the equivalent Audi, BMW, old Merc etc and get away with trouble free motoring on a shoestring. I don't for a minute believe you can do likewise with an Alfa.
With a little luck, you could quite possible buy the equivalent Audi, BMW, old Merc etc and get away with trouble free motoring on a shoestring. I don't for a minute believe you can do likewise with an Alfa.
big_boz said:
I did nearly 30k in my 156 which i bought @ 60k miles with a FSH and the belts just done at a main dealer. Shortly after i got it the variator went...which requires the cam belt to be done...so i never got it done and thus the car always sounded rough as bear's back side.
The non OEM suspension arms (cheapies off E-bay) are made of butter, i tried them once, the passenger side one lasted 2k before it started rattling, i got about 8k miles out of a proper alfa set. ARB drop links are cheap, but its the bushes on the actual bar that wear out after about 12-15k miles, but the bar actually wears too so you cant just replace the bushes (at a few pounds each) the whole bar needs doing..total job with labour is about £250.
To the comment later down referencing the official service guide for spark plug intervals....you can ignore the service guide, it originally stated 60k on cam belt changes on the TS engine, when they started snapping at 40k miles (or less) alfa changed the manual to say 36k miles.......
So if you do 10k miles a year you can pretty much bank £1000 in general running costs if you are getting a garage to do the labor, thats before anything else goes...which it will.
Join the Alfa owners forum and have a read...there isn't one model that does not have lots of issues, even the new ones..Brera's and new 159's included.
I understand Bangernomics, ie buy a car on the cheap, then run it until something major goes wrong, bin it and go find another...the problem with an alfa is it will have a big bill every few months!
And the service schedule I quoted shows 36k/ 3 yrs for cam belt. I've had mine for nearly 5 yrs, I've done the cam belt twice, oil & filters annually, plugs once (really, they are 10 years / 60k items) The non OEM suspension arms (cheapies off E-bay) are made of butter, i tried them once, the passenger side one lasted 2k before it started rattling, i got about 8k miles out of a proper alfa set. ARB drop links are cheap, but its the bushes on the actual bar that wear out after about 12-15k miles, but the bar actually wears too so you cant just replace the bushes (at a few pounds each) the whole bar needs doing..total job with labour is about £250.
To the comment later down referencing the official service guide for spark plug intervals....you can ignore the service guide, it originally stated 60k on cam belt changes on the TS engine, when they started snapping at 40k miles (or less) alfa changed the manual to say 36k miles.......
So if you do 10k miles a year you can pretty much bank £1000 in general running costs if you are getting a garage to do the labor, thats before anything else goes...which it will.
Join the Alfa owners forum and have a read...there isn't one model that does not have lots of issues, even the new ones..Brera's and new 159's included.
I understand Bangernomics, ie buy a car on the cheap, then run it until something major goes wrong, bin it and go find another...the problem with an alfa is it will have a big bill every few months!
and two front tyres. Over and above these items I've replaced the discs and pads all round for ~£150 on parts and doing it myself. Other expenditure falls into the miscellaneous category: wiper blades etc. Don't see the £1000 yearly bills at all. (I don't have a spare £1k pa so I'd notice it...). Like I said, my experience doesn't match yours, maybe I've been lucky, maybe you've been unlucky, maybe the typical experience is somewhere in the middle...Okay, here goes! Never wanted to trade my 164 Cloverleaf for a 166. Bought my 24V 'Leaf as a stop-gap car (first ever Alfa for me) in 2002 with 77k on the clock, while I was tracking down my next performance Fiat or Lancia. Thought it looked elegant and sophisticated (no bulging wheelarches/gaping grilles etc) plus different in white - at a time when white cars were well out of fashion.
Soon fell under the Alfa spell hence ten years down the line it's still my daily driver - plus it's just clocked 177k as I write this. I've experienced the financial pain that's been mentioned, although the engine is a gem which has never been opened.
Yes, I've had the heater matrix fail (a nightmare as half that Pininfarina dash has to be dismantled), the suspension has needed bushes, wishbones, roller mounts etc, the car's had two starter motors replaced plus that tiny rear subframe succumbed to rust and split (amusing handling traits!).
The shell was factory-galvanised but the rear jacking points have had to be cut out and replaced and there's slight corrosion under the fuel filler flap. Otherwise, bodily (especially the paint quality) the car has weathered its twenty outdoor years surprisingly well.
The biggest expense was the gearbox rebuild at 105,000 miles - partly my fault as I allowed the 'Leaf to pit itself against an Audi RS4 (when they were new) just to see what they were made of! The 'Leaf is prepared to do that sort of thing though - wade into battle knowing that it will occasionally come out with a bloody nose...
Still, I never fail to be impressed by how quiet a car suddenly becomes after a gearbox rebuild!
The 164 Cloverleaf is without doubt semi-EVO in nature. Forget traffic light 0-60's etc - this car delivers its best between 60 and 140+ MPH and just never stops breathing. Push it very hard on twisty, undulating B-roads and, despite its FWD, the car's handling and braking never deteriorates and placing the car with absolute accuracy soon becomes effortlessly intuitive. If you've ever wanted a super-executive, four-door Fiat Strada Abarth then this is the car or you! I've tried hard to 'ground' the underside on many occasions and it's never happened yet. That's because the 'Leaf (unlike the 166) doesn't really 'do' ride comfort!
Electrically, I've suffered one electric window switch failure and the interior lights once stayed on, requiring a new relay. Otherwise it all still works, including the faultless alarm system's battery back-up facility (forget to isolate recently when I lifted the negative lead to take out the CD changer recently and jumped out of my skin when the alarm went off!).
All in all, a very under-rated, extremely competent and sadly forgotten car. I sometimes think to myself "God, I can't keep it forever - maybe I should get rid of it?". Then I go to the window and peek out at it sitting on the driveway and suddenly the word "NO!" is involuntarily ejected from each and every orifice in my body...
I'm told that there is therapy available but that it involves strait jackets and men in white coats. I'm afraid that's definitely what it would take...
I know photos can be misleading but this was taken two years ago at 150k.
Soon fell under the Alfa spell hence ten years down the line it's still my daily driver - plus it's just clocked 177k as I write this. I've experienced the financial pain that's been mentioned, although the engine is a gem which has never been opened.
Yes, I've had the heater matrix fail (a nightmare as half that Pininfarina dash has to be dismantled), the suspension has needed bushes, wishbones, roller mounts etc, the car's had two starter motors replaced plus that tiny rear subframe succumbed to rust and split (amusing handling traits!).
The shell was factory-galvanised but the rear jacking points have had to be cut out and replaced and there's slight corrosion under the fuel filler flap. Otherwise, bodily (especially the paint quality) the car has weathered its twenty outdoor years surprisingly well.
The biggest expense was the gearbox rebuild at 105,000 miles - partly my fault as I allowed the 'Leaf to pit itself against an Audi RS4 (when they were new) just to see what they were made of! The 'Leaf is prepared to do that sort of thing though - wade into battle knowing that it will occasionally come out with a bloody nose...
Still, I never fail to be impressed by how quiet a car suddenly becomes after a gearbox rebuild!
The 164 Cloverleaf is without doubt semi-EVO in nature. Forget traffic light 0-60's etc - this car delivers its best between 60 and 140+ MPH and just never stops breathing. Push it very hard on twisty, undulating B-roads and, despite its FWD, the car's handling and braking never deteriorates and placing the car with absolute accuracy soon becomes effortlessly intuitive. If you've ever wanted a super-executive, four-door Fiat Strada Abarth then this is the car or you! I've tried hard to 'ground' the underside on many occasions and it's never happened yet. That's because the 'Leaf (unlike the 166) doesn't really 'do' ride comfort!
Electrically, I've suffered one electric window switch failure and the interior lights once stayed on, requiring a new relay. Otherwise it all still works, including the faultless alarm system's battery back-up facility (forget to isolate recently when I lifted the negative lead to take out the CD changer recently and jumped out of my skin when the alarm went off!).
All in all, a very under-rated, extremely competent and sadly forgotten car. I sometimes think to myself "God, I can't keep it forever - maybe I should get rid of it?". Then I go to the window and peek out at it sitting on the driveway and suddenly the word "NO!" is involuntarily ejected from each and every orifice in my body...
I'm told that there is therapy available but that it involves strait jackets and men in white coats. I'm afraid that's definitely what it would take...
I know photos can be misleading but this was taken two years ago at 150k.
uncinquesei said:
And the service schedule I quoted shows 36k/ 3 yrs for cam belt. I've had mine for nearly 5 yrs, I've done the cam belt twice, oil & filters annually, plugs once (really, they are 10 years / 60k items) and two front tyres. Over and above these items I've replaced the discs and pads all round for ~£150 on parts and doing it myself. Other expenditure falls into the miscellaneous category: wiper blades etc. Don't see the £1000 yearly bills at all. (I don't have a spare £1k pa so I'd notice it...). Like I said, my experience doesn't match yours, maybe I've been lucky, maybe you've been unlucky, maybe the typical experience is somewhere in the middle...
You are probably right on the balance being somewhere between the good (yours) and the bad (mine), the problem is that with alfa's there as so many Friday afternoon cars that I cant see it as being a viable shed. and two front tyres. Over and above these items I've replaced the discs and pads all round for ~£150 on parts and doing it myself. Other expenditure falls into the miscellaneous category: wiper blades etc. Don't see the £1000 yearly bills at all. (I don't have a spare £1k pa so I'd notice it...). Like I said, my experience doesn't match yours, maybe I've been lucky, maybe you've been unlucky, maybe the typical experience is somewhere in the middle...Like is said though, I wouldn't not recommend and alfa, I would just warn the prospective buyer that if they don't plan for a big bill chances are it will be sooner rather than later that an un-economical spend will arise.....
If i needed a 2 grand saloon i would still consider a 156 over a 3 series/A4/C class, but i would spend the 2 grand on the car for the Germans, and more like £600 on the Italian and keep the rest in the bank ready for when more likely than not it will be required. If it isn't, awesome il have a cheap week in the sun, i wouldn't keep my passport on standby knowing what i know though!
Equally if i was buying a company car with someone else's money i wouldn't hesitate going to the alfa section of the list!
On the subject of 164's however...This one looks pretty ruddy tidy..
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2012...
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2012...
firebird350 said:
Okay, here goes! Never wanted to trade my 164 Cloverleaf for a 166. Bought my 24V 'Leaf as a stop-gap car (first ever Alfa for me) in 2002 with 77k on the clock, while I was tracking down my next performance Fiat or Lancia. Thought it looked elegant and sophisticated (no bulging wheelarches/gaping grilles etc) plus different in white - at a time when white cars were well out of fashion.
Soon fell under the Alfa spell hence ten years down the line it's still my daily driver - plus it's just clocked 177k as I write this. I've experienced the financial pain that's been mentioned, although the engine is a gem which has never been opened.
Yes, I've had the heater matrix fail (a nightmare as half that Pininfarina dash has to be dismantled), the suspension has needed bushes, wishbones, roller mounts etc, the car's had two starter motors replaced plus that tiny rear subframe succumbed to rust and split (amusing handling traits!).
The shell was factory-galvanised but the rear jacking points have had to be cut out and replaced and there's slight corrosion under the fuel filler flap. Otherwise, bodily (especially the paint quality) the car has weathered its twenty outdoor years surprisingly well.
The biggest expense was the gearbox rebuild at 105,000 miles - partly my fault as I allowed the 'Leaf to pit itself against an Audi RS4 (when they were new) just to see what they were made of! The 'Leaf is prepared to do that sort of thing though - wade into battle knowing that it will occasionally come out with a bloody nose...
Still, I never fail to be impressed by how quiet a car suddenly becomes after a gearbox rebuild!
The 164 Cloverleaf is without doubt semi-EVO in nature. Forget traffic light 0-60's etc - this car delivers its best between 60 and 140+ MPH and just never stops breathing. Push it very hard on twisty, undulating B-roads and, despite its FWD, the car's handling and braking never deteriorates and placing the car with absolute accuracy soon becomes effortlessly intuitive. If you've ever wanted a super-executive, four-door Fiat Strada Abarth then this is the car or you! I've tried hard to 'ground' the underside on many occasions and it's never happened yet. That's because the 'Leaf (unlike the 166) doesn't really 'do' ride comfort!
Electrically, I've suffered one electric window switch failure and the interior lights once stayed on, requiring a new relay. Otherwise it all still works, including the faultless alarm system's battery back-up facility (forget to isolate recently when I lifted the negative lead to take out the CD changer recently and jumped out of my skin when the alarm went off!).
All in all, a very under-rated, extremely competent and sadly forgotten car. I sometimes think to myself "God, I can't keep it forever - maybe I should get rid of it?". Then I go to the window and peek out at it sitting on the driveway and suddenly the word "NO!" is involuntarily ejected from each and every orifice in my body...
I'm told that there is therapy available but that it involves strait jackets and men in white coats. I'm afraid that's definitely what it would take...
I know photos can be misleading but this was taken two years ago at 150k.
Great story, great car. Keep it until you die, then get yourself put in a mausoleum with it. Soon fell under the Alfa spell hence ten years down the line it's still my daily driver - plus it's just clocked 177k as I write this. I've experienced the financial pain that's been mentioned, although the engine is a gem which has never been opened.
Yes, I've had the heater matrix fail (a nightmare as half that Pininfarina dash has to be dismantled), the suspension has needed bushes, wishbones, roller mounts etc, the car's had two starter motors replaced plus that tiny rear subframe succumbed to rust and split (amusing handling traits!).
The shell was factory-galvanised but the rear jacking points have had to be cut out and replaced and there's slight corrosion under the fuel filler flap. Otherwise, bodily (especially the paint quality) the car has weathered its twenty outdoor years surprisingly well.
The biggest expense was the gearbox rebuild at 105,000 miles - partly my fault as I allowed the 'Leaf to pit itself against an Audi RS4 (when they were new) just to see what they were made of! The 'Leaf is prepared to do that sort of thing though - wade into battle knowing that it will occasionally come out with a bloody nose...
Still, I never fail to be impressed by how quiet a car suddenly becomes after a gearbox rebuild!
The 164 Cloverleaf is without doubt semi-EVO in nature. Forget traffic light 0-60's etc - this car delivers its best between 60 and 140+ MPH and just never stops breathing. Push it very hard on twisty, undulating B-roads and, despite its FWD, the car's handling and braking never deteriorates and placing the car with absolute accuracy soon becomes effortlessly intuitive. If you've ever wanted a super-executive, four-door Fiat Strada Abarth then this is the car or you! I've tried hard to 'ground' the underside on many occasions and it's never happened yet. That's because the 'Leaf (unlike the 166) doesn't really 'do' ride comfort!
Electrically, I've suffered one electric window switch failure and the interior lights once stayed on, requiring a new relay. Otherwise it all still works, including the faultless alarm system's battery back-up facility (forget to isolate recently when I lifted the negative lead to take out the CD changer recently and jumped out of my skin when the alarm went off!).
All in all, a very under-rated, extremely competent and sadly forgotten car. I sometimes think to myself "God, I can't keep it forever - maybe I should get rid of it?". Then I go to the window and peek out at it sitting on the driveway and suddenly the word "NO!" is involuntarily ejected from each and every orifice in my body...
I'm told that there is therapy available but that it involves strait jackets and men in white coats. I'm afraid that's definitely what it would take...
I know photos can be misleading but this was taken two years ago at 150k.
V8RX7 said:
y2blade said:
MC Bodge said:
A mate bought a 'bargain' (about 4 years old, IIRC) from the auctions for a couple of grand.
I drove it and it handled nicely. It was, however, riddled with faults and was sold on for about half the original 'bargain' price.
That's "Character" for you. I drove it and it handled nicely. It was, however, riddled with faults and was sold on for about half the original 'bargain' price.
t dealers they decently reliable and lots of fun. One of the best sheds of all time. I had a 3.0 manual Super for a short while, for not much more than shed money, only sold it to get a GTA. Magnificent sound, pretty nippy and all round a very classy car, much in the vein of a QP. Never missed a beat, and not too bad on fuel on a run (high 20's)
The MS Dos type satnav was quite retro!
The MS Dos type satnav was quite retro!
Pitching it against an E39 5 series is an interesting one for me, as I used to run both an E39 and an Alfa 164 before I left the UK.
The E39 was in ALPINA flavour with the 4.8l V8, so not to be sniffed at, and the 164 had the same engine as this 166, the 3.0l V6 24V. For all "measurable" parameters, the E39 was the better car, but I still enjoyed both and drove similar mileage with both cars. I'm not sure why I loved the 164 so much when on paper its an inferior car. That engine note certainly helped, I don't know many other engines that sing as much as it as you climb up in the rev range, but there was more to it.
The most surprising for me was the handling and the mechanical feel of the car. Obviously it suffered a lot from torque steer (and I suspect the 166 being more modern is better in this respect), but to me the 164 felt very nimble for a mid-size saloon, whereas driving the B10 you knew it was heavy and bulky. The handling of the 164 was akin to a 90's hot hatch, it loved being thrown around on a twisty B road and just puts a huge grin on your face. I'm not sure how Alfa managed this, its the same platform as a Saab 9000 yet with the Saab you know you're in a mid size saloon. The 164 lets you forget that. Then there's the gearbox, the manual is a must in these as so far, I am yet to find a car with a nicer gear change. It's precise, fairly weighty and with a nice mechanical feel to it with just a hint of a notch as you push the gearlever into its next postition to let you know the gear is selected. The icing on the cake was the positionning of the pedals, ideal for heel and toe, making the 164 a true driver's car.
So it may not be RWD and it may not have perfect 50-50 weight distribution, but for driving pleasure it makes up for it in other areas that the B10 somewhat overlooked.
The E39 was in ALPINA flavour with the 4.8l V8, so not to be sniffed at, and the 164 had the same engine as this 166, the 3.0l V6 24V. For all "measurable" parameters, the E39 was the better car, but I still enjoyed both and drove similar mileage with both cars. I'm not sure why I loved the 164 so much when on paper its an inferior car. That engine note certainly helped, I don't know many other engines that sing as much as it as you climb up in the rev range, but there was more to it.
The most surprising for me was the handling and the mechanical feel of the car. Obviously it suffered a lot from torque steer (and I suspect the 166 being more modern is better in this respect), but to me the 164 felt very nimble for a mid-size saloon, whereas driving the B10 you knew it was heavy and bulky. The handling of the 164 was akin to a 90's hot hatch, it loved being thrown around on a twisty B road and just puts a huge grin on your face. I'm not sure how Alfa managed this, its the same platform as a Saab 9000 yet with the Saab you know you're in a mid size saloon. The 164 lets you forget that. Then there's the gearbox, the manual is a must in these as so far, I am yet to find a car with a nicer gear change. It's precise, fairly weighty and with a nice mechanical feel to it with just a hint of a notch as you push the gearlever into its next postition to let you know the gear is selected. The icing on the cake was the positionning of the pedals, ideal for heel and toe, making the 164 a true driver's car.
So it may not be RWD and it may not have perfect 50-50 weight distribution, but for driving pleasure it makes up for it in other areas that the B10 somewhat overlooked.
The 164 felt different from the other Tipo Quattro cars? I think they altered the front suspension of the 164 when they did the facelift which also allowed a lower bonnet line. The reviews at the time said it handled like a big hot hatch and there was even a 164 V6 advertised I think here for sale last year described as a 'hot hatch'. On the Top Gear SAAB farewell piece they mentioned how much SAAB changed the Tipo Quattro when creating the 9000 undermining any savings made by the collaboration, using more and thicker steel so the 9000 probably had more weight.
Link for Top Gear SAAB good bye, with 9000 construction from 51 minutes:
http://www.saabsunited.com/2012/02/top-gear-saab-v...
The V8 E39s have a different front subframes and recirculating ball streering where as the straight sixes had rack and pinion. I'd really like a B10 but in straight six manual gearbox form. I think I'd lean more to a straight six B10 than an E39 M5, I just associate BMWs with straight sixes and I'd rather have the rack and pinion steering than the V8s.
Link for Top Gear SAAB good bye, with 9000 construction from 51 minutes:
http://www.saabsunited.com/2012/02/top-gear-saab-v...
The V8 E39s have a different front subframes and recirculating ball streering where as the straight sixes had rack and pinion. I'd really like a B10 but in straight six manual gearbox form. I think I'd lean more to a straight six B10 than an E39 M5, I just associate BMWs with straight sixes and I'd rather have the rack and pinion steering than the V8s.
Edited by carinaman on Saturday 3rd November 01:38
Frimley111R said:
"...cambelt and waterpump changed, Air Flow Meter replaced, Front wishbones, Front springs, CV boots, Battery, recent exhaust system etc." means "Its a money pit and I selling it before it bankrupts me. Good luck!"
Apart from the MAF every one of those things is something that needs replacing on an older car to ensure its continuing reliability and decent performance, the fact it has been done recently can only ever be a bonus. In fact a couple might even be considered enhancements depending what components were used... I find the majority of Alfas rather beautiful but this one looks a bit melted. Edited by vsonix on Saturday 3rd November 01:38
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff