156 v 159 & 1.9JTD v 2.4 JTD

[Pommygranite]

Just having a thinking moment, but how does the 156 stack up against the 159 - Is the 159 worth the extra, does it feel radically more modern and is it a better steer?

Also could you buy a 1.9JTD, tune it and end up with a 2.4 worthy opponent, or it a simple case of 'dont by the 1.9, but the 2.4'?

[jamieboy]

Seems as though you can reliably map the 1.9 to get reasonably close to the 2.4 - you'd have the advantage of it being slightly lighter, but the disadvantage that it would still sound like a 4-cylinder diesel. Not the worst-sounding 4-cylinder diesel, but nothing like as nice as the 5-cylinder.

I've never owned a 156 and haven't driven them a great deal either, so this is second-hand, but from those who have owned both it seems like the 156 is more 'chuckable' and feels more engaging - understandable, because the 159 is nearer in size to the 166 than the 156. On the flipside, the 159 has a better chassis, so (I'm told) it can actually be faster down a b-road than the 156, even if it doesn't feel it.

I regularly step out of the 159 and into a 147 (more-or-less the same platform as the 156 and GT) and the difference is night and day - cars built on the older platform are really showing their age compared to the new in terms of build quality and refinement. In terms of 'fun', it might be closer, though.

Edited by jamieboy on Monday 5th July 10:50

[velocemitch]

I'd say thats about right. I've not owned a 159, but had 3 156's. I've driven 159's on track and they feel very composed and 'grown up', but not as much fun to throw about as say a 147 or GT, which are both derivatives of the 156.

For my money the 159 is just a bit too big and until recently never had the engines the chassis and body needed. Best bet is to test as many variants as you can,.I'd be tempted by a late model 156, 2.4 20V, but I'd spend a bit on the suspension as the OEM springs and dampers can't cope with the nose weight of the big 5 pot.

[wrinx]

Pommygranite said:

Also could you buy a 1.9JTD, tune it and end up with a 2.4 worthy opponent, or it a simple case of 'dont by the 1.9, but the 2.4'?

With that reasoning you could buy a 2.4 and spend the same amount for a remap and end up with a car better than a remapped 1.9

I've not driven a 159 but have got a 200bhp 2.4 Brera which amounts to much the same thing, they are very heavy and very thirsty but handle extremely well imho.

I've also got a 200bhp(-ish) 2.4 156 which is quicker than the Brera....unless it's just the way SWiMBO drives! :lol: It's also slightly better on fuel because it's lighter.

They are both great cars, with similar engines but different driving experiences.

My next car will probably be a 159 Sportwagon but if I'm honest, the 20v 2.4's fuel consumption may put me off buying one, preferring a 1.9...we'll see, the 2.4 is hard to resist!

wrinx

[Pommygranite]

Following on from what's been said, what's the fuel consumption difference between the 1.9 and the 2.4?

[jamieboy]

For the first year I had my 1.9d the average was low-mid 30s. For the second year it's been mid-high 30s. I do a load of short journeys which pulls it down, and on longer journeys I tend to press on, so you could doubtless get a lot better if you drove more sympathetically.

[wrinx]

Pommygranite said:

Following on from what's been said, what's the fuel consumption difference between the 1.9 and the 2.4?

Can't really help on that one...but everyone seems to be able to get better mileage than me anyway :smile:

I only get 30-32mpg from my 10v and the 20v does even less!

wrinx

[Pommygranite]

Thats not too impressive for a diesel is it, but hey cheap to buy, look great, well specced, quick-ish - seems like a small price to pay!

So perhaps a chipped 156 2.4 20v JTDM is the way to go as the 159 doesnt seem to offer a lot more apart from an extra dollop of blandness.

[mike9009]

Just to add another data point to the MPG question.

I have a 156 2.4SW (10 valve) and average 38mpg on short local journeys and recently averaged 43mpg on a healthy run down to Le Mans in May this year. (Averaging 80-85 leptons)

I don't always boot it - but you gotta love that engine note (for a diesel!!)

Mike

[Red Firecracker]

2.4's have a reputation (some say) for eating drive shafts. Also, the sump sits lower than the 1.9, at quite near speed hump height.

[Pommygranite]

So to summarise:

• The 2.4JTD 20v will give a 30mpg or less return
• It eats driveshafts
• Its got a sump in a potentially costly area
• Its a few $$$ for a Cambelt change (which happens regularly)

I love Alfas, had a 156 which was great, but this just makes me want to run to a 330D....

[velocemitch]

Pommygranite said:

So to summarise:

• The 2.4JTD 20v will give a 30mpg or less return.... if driven with a lead foot
• It eats driveshafts... but only if remapped and thrashed
• Its got a sump in a potentially costly area.... true, back off over bad yumps or buy a sumpguard
• Its a few $$$ for a Cambelt change (which happens regularly)... not that I've heard on JTD's, TS's yes not the oil burners

I love Alfas, had a 156 which was great, but this just makes me want to run to a 330D.... Can't argue with that but you would be able to buy two 156's for the price of 330D

just sorted that post out for you....

[Alex]

Alfas shouldn't have diesels. How many miles a year do you do?

[Reedy156]

Alex said:

Alfas shouldn't have diesels. How many miles a year do you do?

LOL! What a response!! Women should not vote either!!

Time change and things move on!!

[DamienB]

mike9009 said:

Just to add another data point to the MPG question.

I have a 156 2.4SW (10 valve) and average 38mpg on short local journeys and recently averaged 43mpg on a healthy run down to Le Mans in May this year. (Averaging 80-85 leptons)

I don't always boot it - but you gotta love that engine note (for a diesel!!)

Yep, a wonderful growling noise. I do not drive slowly and and have averaged 44.7 mpg over the last 12,000 miles according to the computer - which whenever I've checked has been accurate compared to actual consumption. About 50/50 motorway and country lanes.

[Reedy156]

DamienB said:

mike9009 said:

Just to add another data point to the MPG question.

I have a 156 2.4SW (10 valve) and average 38mpg on short local journeys and recently averaged 43mpg on a healthy run down to Le Mans in May this year. (Averaging 80-85 leptons)

I don't always boot it - but you gotta love that engine note (for a diesel!!)

Yep, a wonderful growling noise. I do not drive slowly and and have averaged 44.7 mpg over the last 12,000 miles according to the computer - which whenever I've checked has been accurate compared to actual consumption. About 50/50 motorway and country lanes.

Yeah, mines the 10v and it does sound very very nice! It does has an induction kit on and will is getting booked in for the end of August for a custom stainless exhaust to be fitted!

The economy is good given the performance on hand, it is after all a 2.4 5 pot engine!... I get 40ish average...

[tr7v8]

I had a 156 2.4JTD SW on an X so before the VTG Turbo 140BHP rather than 150BHP. That did 40MPG everywhere, irrespective of how it was driven. Ate its turbo (which BMW do!) & had an expensive clutch change. Towards the end the HP pump died & although a Bosch system took a long time 3 weeks to diagnose, even Bosch main agents failed! Very agile & chuckable. Had a 156 1.9JTD SW for a long weekend, very quick (it is 150BHP) & 45MPG driven the same way as the 2.4!
The 159 is a tad too big in my view, the 156 is an ideal size, although both smaller than the Jag S-Type I have now.
Loved it to bits & would have another if given permission by SWMBO!

Edited by tr7v8 on Saturday 24th July 12:27

[crostonian]

I deal in used Alfas, the 156 2.4 20V is a great car, just check the gear synchros. It does go through front tyres, anti roll bar drop links and ball joints but these are cheap to replace. Don't chip it or you will have driveshaft, clutch and gearbox issues. The 159 is a flop, don't go there, 2.4 is thirsty, heavy and slow with terrible paintwork, 1.9 is just noisy and even slower - it pains me to say but I would go BMW over the 159 - so glad they have stopped making it along with its lardy Brera and Spider cousins, worst Alfas since the Arna in my IMHO

[CP76]

I have a 159 2.4 which has been mapped and its a great car, i do a 30 mile commute to work on B roads with spirited driving and i get 35mpg. I'm more than happy with this for a 240bhp car which really is quick, through 3rd, 4th and 5th it just keeps pulling. I've also had BMW's before this car and its on a par with build quality plus you get a lot more for your money. Oh and there's rarely more than one 159 in the car park

[crostonian]

That's fair enough but that isn't how Alfa put them onto the market and I don't think 35mpg is that great a figure for a car of this type. I agree the 2.4 is probably the pick of the 159s but that's a hollow accolade in my view.