RE: SOTW: Alfa Romeo 156 2.5 V6

[Ali_T]

Dave_ST220 said:

IPAddis said:

Article says V6 is now long dead. I'm waiting for 159 (awesome looking car) prices to come down, especially the Q4 version. Does this mean that the 159 3.2l V6 is different?

Ian A.

GM unit IIRC.

Yup, and a terribly flat affair it is too, compared to the old unit. It also seems to be dead too, as speaking to the local Alfa dealer, only 1750s and JTDs are being sold for the next two years. The Brera, Spider and GT are all dead as of this summer as well.

And regarding the RX8, sorry, but a 2.5V6 would stand no chance. I certainly won't be accepting Youtube evidence over my own personal experience. I've happily kept up with GTAs with a stock RX8. However, take evidence of older RX8s with a pinch of salt. The number now running around with compression, catalyst or coilpack problems or a combination of all three is quite scary. A properly working RX8 will easily outpace a 2.5 V6 156 all day long. The 156 GTA has a bhp/ton of 165, the RX8 PZ has 174. But RX8s never FEEL fast thanks to utterly linear torque delivery.

[jamcam23]

Ali_T said:

Dave_ST220 said:

IPAddis said:

Article says V6 is now long dead. I'm waiting for 159 (awesome looking car) prices to come down, especially the Q4 version. Does this mean that the 159 3.2l V6 is different?

Ian A.

GM unit IIRC.

Yup, and a terribly flat affair it is too, compared to the old unit. It also seems to be dead too, as speaking to the local Alfa dealer, only 1750s and JTDs are being sold for the next two years. The Brera, Spider and GT are all dead as of this summer as well.

And regarding the RX8, sorry, but a 2.5V6 would stand no chance. I certainly won't be accepting Youtube evidence over my own personal experience. I've happily kept up with GTAs with a stock RX8. However, take evidence of older RX8s with a pinch of salt. The number now running around with compression, catalyst or coilpack problems or a combination of all three is quite scary. A properly working RX8 will easily outpace a 2.5 V6 156 all day long. The 156 GTA has a bhp/ton of 165, the RX8 PZ has 174. But RX8s never FEEL fast thanks to utterly linear torque delivery.

Agree to disagree then, but having driven both cars (and was loaned the 230 RX8 by a good friend for a month) I'm pretty sure I know which ones quicker, outright pace was very similar, but the V6 would pull away from 70 mph+ convincingly. Also if you're keeping up with a GTA in a standard RX8, then the GTA driver needs to be shot or shown how to drive..

[the Fantom]

Lots of youtube of standing cars revving, but here is a V6 24v on the move:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_ebW02BDu4

[Lead]

I have recently parted with my 156 ( replaced with a 159)after over 8 years of totally trouble free motoring and 60K plus miles. It was my first Alfa and looked fantastic plus drove well compared to other small saloons that I tried before buying. Servicing done by a local specialist (Alfatune) for very reasonable cost. If you find a good one then take the risk.

[Dr Imran T]

10 Pence Short said:

Pommygranite said:

10 Pence Short said:

Pommygranite said:

Majority of those who have had a modern alfa have loved them and had very few issues. Majority of those who have never had an alfa preach unreliability.

I loved my 156 and I wouldn't think £1000 on this is any worse than £1000 on any other car. In fact the v6 is the more reliable of the range.

Edited by Pommygranite on Friday 16th July 11:22

Not sure the statistics work with you on that one.

which part? The defenders of the alfa faith have tried them. Those who rubbish them generally haven't and rely on rumour. Hence my use of the word majority.

Also the v6's don't have many of the twinspark's issues.

Try the Warranty Direct survey of UK cars- all about cars purchased 3-10 years old. In the 2010 survey Alfa came 2nd from bottom in 31st place.

Note, this isn't a JD Power survey based on 'satisfaction'. It's a survey based upon actual faults and the cost of fixing them.

In summary, as far as reliability goes, they're still st.

http://www.warrantydirect.co.uk/press/117.doc

Edited by 10 Pence Short on Friday 16th July 16:02

There could be some truth in that. My neighbour had an epic engine failure whilst the car was still under warranty! was the 1.8 version mind. Still a rather poor show.

[10 Pence Short]

jamieboy said:

10 Pence Short said:

Note, this isn't a JD Power survey based on 'satisfaction'. It's a survey based upon actual faults and the cost of fixing them.

In summary, as far as reliability goes, they're still st.

Do you know which of the current cars are included in that?

According to their website, they only have figures for the 156 and the 147, with only the facelift 156 really pulling down the average. The one which is still in production, the 147, gets 98.55 - perhaps not brilliant, but not atrocious either.

Sorry, I thought we were discussing the 156?

We could always talk about a Fiesta if you want to get off topic!

[JonSpiderMan]

I bought a 1998 one of these with 113k and all belts done for £500 a couple of months ago, the only problem being a whine in sixth which seems to have cured itself (although a possible new gearbox may be on the cards sooner or later) and small dent on one of the doors.

These engines will just keep going as long as you maintain them and change the belts, the other thing is the water pump which has a plastic impeller which can go.

The noise is fantastic even with the standard exhaust, the only cost so far is a leather interior to replace the velour one it came with and that was £100!

Edited by JonSpiderMan on Friday 16th July 18:02

[exgtt]

ExPat2B said:

The infamous problems are :

Top ends failing due to cambelt snapping. And what is Alfa's response ? Change it at 36,000 miles. This is a crap response, and shows how they refuse to stand by their products. When Rover had a problem with the Headgasket in the K series they redesigned it 3 times, and made the parts ( metal dowels, gasket and thermosat ) available to the public. Alfa just say change it more frequently.

Engines failing due to Oil starvation/bearing failure. I have heard a number of excuses from the fanboys about why this is so, ranging from blaming the owners ( I love that reponse, blame your customer ) but the facts are that there seem to be more Alfa out there with replacement engines than any other cars, and I have personally viewed Alfa with replacement engines, and seen Alfa in the scrappy with failed engines, so have some first hand knowledge of the issues.

Some survey results for Alfa :

FIAT/Alfa joint worst for breakdowns attended by German ADAC during 2001. 9th from Bottom of 100 models for reliability in Auto Express 2002 survey. 18th from Bottom in 144 car 2002 JD Power / What Car? Customer Satisfaction Survey of V and W reg cars. Alfa Romeo had joint highest average cost in warranty claims for cars up to 10 years old in 2002 Warranty Direct index Joint fourth bottom in 2002 Which reliability survey of cars up to 2 years old; 74 cars surveyed. Alfa Romeo 2nd least reliable of 31 makes of car in 2002 'Which?' reliability survey cars 2000 - 2002; 3rd least reliable cars 1997 - 1999. Only 87% breakdown free in 2003 Which survey. Alfa Romeo had fourth highest warranty repair costs in 2003 Warranty Direct Reliability index (index 155.10 v/s lowest 31.93). 98-2000 average for breakdowns and faults and poor for problems; 2001-2003 average for breakdowns and poor for problems and faults in 2003 Which survey. 7th from bottom out of 137 models in 2003 Top Gear survey. 156 8th bottom model and Alfa Romeo bottom marque in 2004 JD Power Customer Satisfaction Survey. Alfa Romeo 5th bottom of Reliability Index for 2004 combining average cost of repair of £392.88 with high 39.55 failures per 100 Warranty Direct policies. Link:- www.reliabilityindex.co.uk Came 16th from bottom in 2005 JD Power/What Car Survey of 23,000 cars reg Sep 2002 to Aug 2003 with satisfaction score of 74.7%

But don't worry about all that. Just keep fapping to those shiny pipes.

Why use twinspark faults in an argument against the V6? Alfa never specified a 36k mile cambelt change on the V6 as 50k mile failures wern't an issue.

I agree with you on the noise/intake runner thing to a certain extent, although compaire the v6 to the vauxhall/ford/audi V6's of the same era and it's clear to see why people were excited about those chrome runners at the time, the oppositions engines were soo dull looking.

Edited by exgtt on Friday 16th July 18:57

[exgtt]

JonSpiderMan said:

I bought a 1998 one of these with 113k and all belts done for £500 a couple of months ago, the only problem being a whine in sixth which seems to have cured itself (although a possible new gearbox may be on the cards sooner or later) and small dent on one of the doors.

These engines will just keep going as long as you maintain them and change the belts, the other thing is the water pump which has a plastic impeller which can go.

The noise is fantastic even with the standard exhaust, the only cost so far is a leather interior to replace the velour one it came with and that was £100!

Edited by JonSpiderMan on Friday 16th July 18:02

Mine whined in 6th when i bought it @ 90k miles and was fine until the car was binned @ 130k ish. Is it a faint whine thats noticible but not terminal sounding? If it is then dont worry about it! I tried an oil change but that never cured it. It's the crunch when changing from 3rd to 4th at high revs that you wanna watch lol.

[Ali_T]

jamcam23 said:

Agree to disagree then, but having driven both cars (and was loaned the 230 RX8 by a good friend for a month) I'm pretty sure I know which ones quicker, outright pace was very similar, but the V6 would pull away from 70 mph+ convincingly. Also if you're keeping up with a GTA in a standard RX8, then the GTA driver needs to be shot or shown how to drive..

Like I said, the RX8 doesn't feel fast. It often disappoints people when they drive it, especially without other cars to reference again. But if it doesn't keep up with a 2.5 156 (there's nearly 3 seconds difference from 60-100 in the Mazda's favour) then there was something wrong with the RX8. Most people don't realise there is because even compression loss is only evident with reduced bhp, as is a gradually melting catalyst (RX8s kill a cat in 20k if you ever flood the engine) plus some 230s have sticking 3rd inlet port butterflies so the power tails off from 7000-9300 rather than increasing.

The GTAs should be faster, I agree, but it's never been my experience. I've happily kept pace with GTAs in my old EP3 Civic Type R and the RX8s and neither should be able to. However, no GTA will keep up with even a standard RX8 on a twisty road. I had the advantage of owning the Prodrive tweaked PZ version latterly and it cornered with similar speed (if not acceleration) to my current STI 330S. It was also a damned sight more fun.......I really miss that car

But I still love Alfas! They're all incredibly flawed but there's just something about them. If only they would make a car that I knew would start on a cold Scottish winter morning, I'd swap the Subaru in a second. But they won't and I'm self employed and have to get to work, nice car or not. Too many broken promises.

Ironic that Dan put up the Warranty Direct file. Those are the shysters that screwed me royally over my 33 P4's warranty claims for fuel lines, rear diff, ignition system and driveshaft. Apparently they're all fair wear and tear to be utterly screwed at 2 years old and

Edited by Ali_T on Friday 16th July 19:00

[tr7v8]

ExPat2B said:

The infamous problems are :

Top ends failing due to cambelt snapping. And what is Alfa's response ? Change it at 36,000 miles. This is a crap response, and shows how they refuse to stand by their products. When Rover had a problem with the Headgasket in the K series they redesigned it 3 times, and made the parts ( metal dowels, gasket and thermosat ) available to the public. Alfa just say change it more frequently.

Oh so it is OK for VAG to change their interval to 40K for a lot of there engines then, quite a few manufacturers have shortened their belt change intervals, lots of Vauxhall's which prematurely fail. My 944 belt interval is 36K & was only 45K max when new. The original was eternally optimistic at 72K & an attempt to help the fleet car running costs. Lots of the issue occurred on early cars, later ones are a lot better & the diesels are a 72K belt interval & belt damage on these is very rare. A lot of the bits that fail on Alfa's are German like crappy Bosch MAF sensors & the diesel pump on mine.

Edited by tr7v8 on Friday 16th July 18:57

[Donmeado]

I miss my GTV Cup with the 3.0 version of that engine.... Still love the 147GTA, 156 and the last of the facelifted 166 3.2's.

[jamieboy]

10 Pence Short said:

jamieboy said:

10 Pence Short said:

Note, this isn't a JD Power survey based on 'satisfaction'. It's a survey based upon actual faults and the cost of fixing them.

In summary, as far as reliability goes, they're still st.

Do you know which of the current cars are included in that?

According to their website, they only have figures for the 156 and the 147, with only the facelift 156 really pulling down the average. The one which is still in production, the 147, gets 98.55 - perhaps not brilliant, but not atrocious either.

Sorry, I thought we were discussing the 156?

We could always talk about a Fiesta if you want to get off topic!

Have a look at the post you were responding to - it was a fairly generic comment about the experiences of the majority of owners of modern Alfas, and then you specifically said "Alfa came second from bottom", as opposed to "the 156 came..."

Also, the document you linked to didn't mention the 156, just 'Alfa' in general.

Edited by jamieboy on Friday 16th July 19:18

[carinaman]

Another Fiat ECOTY winner

I drove a new one in 2000. The engine didn't make itself heard as much as the 24V 164 I was also lucky to have a drive in.

[Pat H]

I've had mine for six months and seven thousand miles.

It has cost me two new tyres and petrol at 27.5mpg.

Handling isn't the sharpest, nor are the brakes. The interior looks fab, but the seats aren't the most comfortable nor the most supportive.

The 2.5 V6 engine is divine. Not especially powerful, but silky smooth, sounds great and is really tractable.

Mine doesn't even use any oil, though my 3.2 GTV absolutely drank the stuff.

Mine replaced an E36 328 Coupe, which was a better driver's car, but was a characterless lump compared to the Alfa.

I love mine.

[peerlessgt]

Let them denegrate the beautiful Alfa marque all they like and i'll just keep buying them as cheap as chips! Not had a 156 yet but the 164 and 166 twinnies were lovely £1500 for the pair, but the V6 164 Cloverleaf i wish i'd never sold was fantastic. I ended up doing loads of mileage around town and then the fuel prices got silly, given the chance i would get an earlier 12v version now (rather then the 24). Maybe i was lucky but i can honestly say it used to cost more to service my wife's Nissan Primera - get a decent independent and they'll look after you. Never had a German vehicle so i don't have a chip on my shoulder or a pretentious private plate, and i always indicate at roundabouts.

[Dave_ST220]

exgtt said:

I agree with you on the noise/intake runner thing to a certain extent, although compaire the v6 to the vauxhall/ford/audi V6's of the same era and it's clear to see why people were excited about those chrome runners at the time, the oppositions engines were soo dull looking.

Because looking at the engine really affects the enjoyment of the car The noise & the way it drives matters, to that extent I see no reason to get excited, even the Ford V6 sounds as good.

[exgtt]

Dave_ST220 said:

exgtt said:

I agree with you on the noise/intake runner thing to a certain extent, although compaire the v6 to the vauxhall/ford/audi V6's of the same era and it's clear to see why people were excited about those chrome runners at the time, the oppositions engines were soo dull looking.

Because looking at the engine really affects the enjoyment of the car The noise & the way it drives matters, to that extent I see no reason to get excited, even the Ford V6 sounds as good.

Some of us like a shiny engine bay thank you!

I'm a fan of the Ford V6, even if it has a boringly flat torque curve and damps the revs between gear changes to flatter ste drivers. Ford were obviously catering to its target audience there.

[Dave_ST220]

exgtt said:

Dave_ST220 said:

exgtt said:

I agree with you on the noise/intake runner thing to a certain extent, although compaire the v6 to the vauxhall/ford/audi V6's of the same era and it's clear to see why people were excited about those chrome runners at the time, the oppositions engines were soo dull looking.

Because looking at the engine really affects the enjoyment of the car The noise & the way it drives matters, to that extent I see no reason to get excited, even the Ford V6 sounds as good.

Some of us like a shiny engine bay thank you!

I'm a fan of the Ford V6, even if it has a boringly flat torque curve and damps the revs between gear changes to flatter ste drivers. Ford were obviously catering to its target audience there.

Arhh,the old throttle hang, not noticed it on the 220 as the yanks never got it Good sounding unit though IMO. I always fancied a GTA Alfa but just never got around to it...................

[exgtt]

: - )

Ive got my eye on a 3.0 x-type!