Alfa 155 Advice

[2volvos]

Hi

Have become aware of a 2.0 TS 155 for sale for a coupla hundred quid and am very tempted to replace the 2.0T V40 I have for it. So it's the age old Alfa head vs heart question.

I've had the Volvo from new and know all its foibles - it ain't got none. It resolutely refuses to break down or have anything fall off which would precipitate a purchase of something more fun. It's pretty quick and the front strut brace that I added makes it handle ok. But....but....I hanker after an Alfa. I had a 'Sud Sprint Veloce as a late teenager and have access to my step dad's Bertone GTV race car so Alfa is very much in the blood. But if I buy a 155 as am eveyday car will it end in tears?

I kinda know the things to look out for on buying a 156, is it the same sort of thing with a 155? Belts, service history, evidence of oil being topped up, that sort of thing.

Any advice would be appreciated.

PS have not asked for any advice on the Volvo pages so I guess you can read into that what you will....

[Sam Gamgee]

Go for it....check usual suspects like you said.
Had one for five years let me down (not badly) just once. And theyre tougher than you think...
If all checks out ok, then no reason not to.

Good Luck

Dave.

[fade2grey]

I ran a 155 silverstone for 140,000 miles - most of it trouble free. It was a few years old when I got it & I replaced all sorts to get it how I wanted - wishbone bushes were a regular item I remember. I replaced it with another 155 - a q4 which was a hoot. Only sold them because I emigrated. Do it.. cheap & surprisingly reliable.

[2volvos]

Thanks guys.

I'll go and have a look and a test drive of it and see if it is noticably more a driver's car than the Volvo and take it from there.

While I understand the (Cliche Alert! Cliche Alert!) passion behind the Alfa badge and all it stands for, I don't want a car just because it's an Alfa over and above the admittedly quite dull, but quietly competent Volvo...

[Pooh]

It partly depends on the age of the car, if it is a later wide body car it should be superb to drive but the earlier narrow cars are nowhere near as good to drive.
I had a 1996 wide body V6 for several years and loved it.

[abarth130]

155's are great cars. I have a wide-body 1.8TS as an everyday car and its never let me down. Whats more, I know the two previous owners and they report the same. I actually rate it higher than the 156 to drive - sticks like glue and can be made to oversteer on roundabouts at will!

Belts and oil are really the only things to keep fresh on them. Not sure why they're worth so little, but that works to your advantage if you're buying one. Ignore the horror stories about electrics and Alfas breaking down all the time. This 155 is my 34th Alfa and I also have a 99 Spider as a toy - not one of them has ever let me down.

Add-ons improve the experience as well. Mine has a Squadra chip, Bilstein shocks, K&N filter and Scorpion back box. It also averages 38mpg, most of which is done commuting on country roads and pottering around town.

Buy one - they're the Italian bargain hack of the century!!

[wrinx]

I'm on my third...previous two never missed a beat in over 130k miles and seven years....new one is another story :lol:

Sadly 155s are getting to the age when tin worm is having an impact, so check the rear arches and underneath. Any rot on the arches will be magnified on the inner wing. Signs of damage to the underseal (bad jacking) may mean corrosion to the floor (my 1993 Q4 has just had some welding!).

Mechanics are good if looked after, belts and tensioners every 36k/3yrs is essential. As already mentioned, front wishys and ARB drop links are consumables. Some after market wishys are not worth the money.

Overall..excellent cars which never caught the imagination of the ignoranti, but many Alfisti have owned more than one and can't leave them alone!

...and check all the electrics!

wrinx

p.s. Hello Alex

Edited by wrinx on Wednesday 28th January 21:42

[wrinx]

Pooh said:

It partly depends on the age of the car, if it is a later wide body car it should be superb to drive but the earlier narrow cars are nowhere near as good to drive.
I had a 1996 wide body V6 for several years and loved it.

Depends which model

wrinx

[chrisr29]

Don't bother if it's a narrow body. Had a v6 one of those, was like a Vauxhall Vectra bit with a really good engine.....drove like ste but sounded like a mini Ferrari!

[Pooh]

wrinx said:

Pooh said:

It partly depends on the age of the car, if it is a later wide body car it should be superb to drive but the earlier narrow cars are nowhere near as good to drive.
I had a 1996 wide body V6 for several years and loved it.

Depends which model

wrinx

True the Q4 is a very special exception but in general the wide body cars are far better.

[penryar]

A 20-25mm increase in track does not transform a cars handling (skinny f/r 1469/1402mm wide f/r 1493/1427). The reason the wide bodied cars 'feel' better is the 2.2 turn rack, in reality there is not that much difference between them. V6's lardy front end but sound nice, TS's handle better, Q4's - enough said.

[Pooh]

penryar said:

A 20-25mm increase in track does not transform a cars handling (skinny f/r 1469/1402mm wide f/r 1493/1427). The reason the wide bodied cars 'feel' better is the 2.2 turn rack, in reality there is not that much difference between them. V6's lardy front end but sound nice, TS's handle better, Q4's - enough said.

There is far more difference than just a 20-25mm increase in track, the wide body V6 does not have the quick rack but is still far better than the narrow body car.
The wide body V6 is slightly nose heavy but still handles superbly with loads of throttle adjust-ability and you notice the far superior engine far more often than you notice the slightly inferior handling.

[penryar]

Pooh said:

There is far more difference than just a 20-25mm increase in track.

Serious question: Such as?

[Pooh]

penryar said:

Pooh said:

There is far more difference than just a 20-25mm increase in track.

Serious question: Such as?

This is from memory and it is a while since I looked into this before buying my wide body V6 so I may not remember everything correctly.
Virtually every body panel except the roof, some of the interior, springs, shocks, ride height and steering. I have a feeling the suspension geometry was different too but I am not sure.
The end result was a big improvement but the narrow body cars could be made to be as good, I had a good race round Knockhill with a narrow bodied V6 fitted with a Harvey Baily handling kit and there was nothing in it, the owner said that the kit made a big difference over the standard car.

[2volvos]

I've had some correspondence with the vendor, and it's a '97 2.0 TS in Argento Blanco, so it does have the wide body and quick rack. 83k with belts last done at 50k. The owner has done most of the servicing himself and I have no reason to doubt the integrity of that claim. There is some 'bubbling' around the rear wheel arches and there some corrosion where the floor pan meets the inner sill which has been patched.

No T&T as the ABS light is on, but I believe this could be as simple as a brake light bulb failure or a wheel sensor. The asking price is £750, which I think is greatly overpriced, but what do you think? By the way the car in in Belfast and I'm in Worcestershire so it's not simply a case of popping over for a tyre kick...

I'm definitely warming to the idea of a 155 in general though...I'm gonna have to change my screen name soon!

[Le Man]

The wide bodies were mainly good.
Built on a Tipo floorpan, torsional rigidity wasn't massive as evidenced by on/off windnoise from doorseals when cornering hard.
At worst, you could see daylight between doors and body!
I always felt that the stiff suspensions of the Sport added to this problem as well as offering a rather short suspension travel.
My favourite was the 2.0 Lusso which despite taller ride height and higher profile tyres always felt more composed on the delightful A640 which was my daily commute at that time.

[wrinx]

Pooh said:

penryar said:

Pooh said:

There is far more difference than just a 20-25mm increase in track.

Serious question: Such as?

This is from memory and it is a while since I looked into this before buying my wide body V6 so I may not remember everything correctly.
Virtually every body panel except the roof, some of the interior, springs, shocks, ride height and steering. I have a feeling the suspension geometry was different too but I am not sure.

Not far off...only the front wings/front bumper and rear doors/rear wings/rear bumper were changed. Not all widebodys have the quickrack (which I don't like as it reduces feel imho), but some V6s do , ride height=springs so you can't have two for that Pretty much all the interior was changed and of course the engines, even the V6.

There are lots of little differences such as door locks...and the fuel filler flaps are different too :lol:

I suspect the main reason the widebody cars are reckoned ot handle better is just the lower suspension, compared to the widebodys.

Incidentally, the wider front track is probably due to a wider wheel offset, and not suspension changes as many think.

wrinx

Edited by wrinx on Thursday 29th January 20:16

Edited by wrinx on Thursday 29th January 20:16

[wrinx]

2volvos said:

I've had some correspondence with the vendor, and it's a '97 2.0 TS in Argento Blanco, so it does have the wide body and quick rack. 83k with belts last done at 50k. The owner has done most of the servicing himself and I have no reason to doubt the integrity of that claim. There is some 'bubbling' around the rear wheel arches and there some corrosion where the floor pan meets the inner sill which has been patched.

No T&T as the ABS light is on, but I believe this could be as simple as a brake light bulb failure or a wheel sensor. The asking price is £750, which I think is greatly overpriced, but what do you think? By the way the car in in Belfast and I'm in Worcestershire so it's not simply a case of popping over for a tyre kick...

I'm definitely warming to the idea of a 155 in general though...I'm gonna have to change my screen name soon!

Think I'd be looking for another to be honest. Sounds overpriced imho, especially as it needs belts/tensioners and there's more rust to come soon

wrinx

[Robert060379]

There's a flippy blue painted 155 cloverleaf up the road from me for £800, every time I go past it takes more and more effort for me not to book my flexible friend a chiropractors session. Someone please buy this car before I get a divorce.

[Pooh]

wrinx said:

Pooh said:

penryar said:

Pooh said:

There is far more difference than just a 20-25mm increase in track.

Serious question: Such as?

This is from memory and it is a while since I looked into this before buying my wide body V6 so I may not remember everything correctly.
Virtually every body panel except the roof, some of the interior, springs, shocks, ride height and steering. I have a feeling the suspension geometry was different too but I am not sure.

Not far off...only the front wings/front bumper and rear doors/rear wings/rear bumper were changed. Not all widebodys have the quickrack (which I don't like as it reduces feel imho), but some V6s do , ride height=springs so you can't have two for that Pretty much all the interior was changed and of course the engines, even the V6.

There are lots of little differences such as door locks...and the fuel filler flaps are different too :lol:

I suspect the main reason the widebody cars are reckoned ot handle better is just the lower suspension, compared to the widebodys.

Incidentally, the wider front track is probably due to a wider wheel offset, and not suspension changes as many think.

wrinx

Edited by wrinx on Thursday 29th January 20:16

Edited by wrinx on Thursday 29th January 20:16

Thanks, my memory is not quite as bad as I thought it might have been.