RE: Shed(s) of the Week: Alfa 166/BMW 5 Series
Discussion
A good SOTW article this week.
The Alfa is a much more charismatic car than the BMW, but it is manual which for me at least does discount it. Fundamentally though, I like them. The engine sounds great, the styling is distinctive and the whole has a certain verve. I have read that they understeer quite badly with the 3 litre engine; I don't know if this is true or just relative.
I recognise that the E39 is a very fine car. They are competent rather than exciting, but that's the appeal to a lot of people. I like a car to have more character, but they do still impress in the way they drive. A friend had a 530iSE a while back. It was worryingly troublesome despite being very shiny, which does put me of them. They're hugely complex cars and can be fragile as they age. A well maintained one (rather than just polished) would still impress with its all-round competence on the road, even compared to many modern cars.
So of the two, I would take the BMW, but purely on account of the transmission.
The Alfa is a much more charismatic car than the BMW, but it is manual which for me at least does discount it. Fundamentally though, I like them. The engine sounds great, the styling is distinctive and the whole has a certain verve. I have read that they understeer quite badly with the 3 litre engine; I don't know if this is true or just relative.
I recognise that the E39 is a very fine car. They are competent rather than exciting, but that's the appeal to a lot of people. I like a car to have more character, but they do still impress in the way they drive. A friend had a 530iSE a while back. It was worryingly troublesome despite being very shiny, which does put me of them. They're hugely complex cars and can be fragile as they age. A well maintained one (rather than just polished) would still impress with its all-round competence on the road, even compared to many modern cars.
So of the two, I would take the BMW, but purely on account of the transmission.
Heart says Alfa.
Head says BMW for shedding / bangernomics, just for the fact that it's not got any advertised faults and has nigh-on 100k less miles on the clock (but noting the 'plate change you'd have to do a data check before parting with cash!)
Love the fact that whoever reads the Alfa ad and decides to buy will be taking a big brave pill. I can't be the only one that interprets "needs an enthusiast to take it on now" as "I need to get rid of this thing as it is crippling my wallet."
Head says BMW for shedding / bangernomics, just for the fact that it's not got any advertised faults and has nigh-on 100k less miles on the clock (but noting the 'plate change you'd have to do a data check before parting with cash!)
Love the fact that whoever reads the Alfa ad and decides to buy will be taking a big brave pill. I can't be the only one that interprets "needs an enthusiast to take it on now" as "I need to get rid of this thing as it is crippling my wallet."
I'm an avid German car fan, but for me it would be that 166 every time.
It looks sensational and the interior (well, the seats anyway) are way more aesthetically pleasing than the E39. And that engine is sublime.
I owned a 166 2.0 TS in red, back in early 2010. Used it daily, even through central London traffic, and it never skipped a beat. It turned heads everywhere it went, which the contemporary S Class, 7 Series, etc that litter the streets there don't evoke.
IF the BMW was an E39 530i M Sport, then the choice would be more difficult (however, examples at this sort of money will be needing a lot of tic).
No doubt the E39 will be better built, and (bar the common issues any car may have) could prove to be more reliable. But, you are going to have much more fun in the Alfa!
The 520i is never going to be a desirable model (look at the price of an E30 320i compared to the 325i). It's neither here nor there and to be honest a 523i or a 528i is not that much different in fuel.
Good choices from SOTW.
It looks sensational and the interior (well, the seats anyway) are way more aesthetically pleasing than the E39. And that engine is sublime.
I owned a 166 2.0 TS in red, back in early 2010. Used it daily, even through central London traffic, and it never skipped a beat. It turned heads everywhere it went, which the contemporary S Class, 7 Series, etc that litter the streets there don't evoke.
IF the BMW was an E39 530i M Sport, then the choice would be more difficult (however, examples at this sort of money will be needing a lot of tic).
No doubt the E39 will be better built, and (bar the common issues any car may have) could prove to be more reliable. But, you are going to have much more fun in the Alfa!
The 520i is never going to be a desirable model (look at the price of an E30 320i compared to the 325i). It's neither here nor there and to be honest a 523i or a 528i is not that much different in fuel.
Good choices from SOTW.
Peppka said:
It would be the Alfa for me it is all about that V6 the best V6 sound ever, I have had 2 a V6 GTV and now one of the around 360 V6 GT's left in the UK. 
it is such a shame that no manufacturer makes the effort (and spends the money) to make an engine attractive any more. The Alfa V6 is a thing of beauty.Styling the engine never seemed to be a priority for German manufacturers. BMW's were reasonably attractive in a functional sort of way, but Mercedes engines were always very plain. The Jaguar XK and AJ6 were lovely looking things though. Part of the drama of the Alfa's V6 is that it is so unexpectedly exotic in look and sound.
Random E39 fact: all E39s from the factory have alloy wheels. Even the ones with wheel trims and black wheels behind them that look like steel. This confuses some tyre fitters who hammer steel wheel weights on to alloy wheels.
I do not like the E39 cloth seats, they would go nicely with the E39 heater controls with rotary dials (very rare).
I do not like the E39 cloth seats, they would go nicely with the E39 heater controls with rotary dials (very rare).
I'm an Alfa fan boy so I think my choice is obvious. I owned a 166 a couple of years ago.
I'd enjoy either car though, but the BMW would have to have the 2.8 to have a chance of being picked.
Quite surprised that many would prefer the Autobox on the Alfa. Though it is an executive car, these days in the hands of an enthusiast the manual would be much more fun and with the wonderful flexible nature of the V6, you don't have to keep changing gears all the time (you will want to though to rev out the busso). Ok, it isn't the most torquey V6, but it pulls cleanly from tickover to redline. I haven't driven the Auto but I think it only has 4 ratios, as opposed to the 6 speed manual box. Also, I've read that the Auto really saps power.
Not sure I agree with the following...
"Not brilliantly well made mind. The interior plastics on the first one were nasty and well out of kilter with the high asking price Alfa GB asked for it on launch (around £28K)"
The 166 is WAY better made than the other Alfas of the time and so it should be if competing with the E-Class and the 5 series. I've had a 164, GTV and 156 and 166, and the 166 is miles ahead for build quality. I don't agree the interior plastics are poor.
Great things about the 166 - V6 is masterful and sounds amazing, nice gearbox (though the throw is a bit long), great interior, comfy seats, rarity, looks (ok the front is a bit odd but from certain angles looks good, the side profile is amazing and the rear is good), razor sharp throttle response (there's a button that sharpens response up when pressed).
Bad - floaty at high speed which can be disconcerting especially in the UK where there are some terrible stretches of motorway with bumps and dips. Front wheel drive, which can get a bit tedious when pushing it, unspectacular economy (24/25mpg combined, maximum on a run would be 28-30).
I'd enjoy either car though, but the BMW would have to have the 2.8 to have a chance of being picked.
Quite surprised that many would prefer the Autobox on the Alfa. Though it is an executive car, these days in the hands of an enthusiast the manual would be much more fun and with the wonderful flexible nature of the V6, you don't have to keep changing gears all the time (you will want to though to rev out the busso). Ok, it isn't the most torquey V6, but it pulls cleanly from tickover to redline. I haven't driven the Auto but I think it only has 4 ratios, as opposed to the 6 speed manual box. Also, I've read that the Auto really saps power.
Not sure I agree with the following...
"Not brilliantly well made mind. The interior plastics on the first one were nasty and well out of kilter with the high asking price Alfa GB asked for it on launch (around £28K)"
The 166 is WAY better made than the other Alfas of the time and so it should be if competing with the E-Class and the 5 series. I've had a 164, GTV and 156 and 166, and the 166 is miles ahead for build quality. I don't agree the interior plastics are poor.
Great things about the 166 - V6 is masterful and sounds amazing, nice gearbox (though the throw is a bit long), great interior, comfy seats, rarity, looks (ok the front is a bit odd but from certain angles looks good, the side profile is amazing and the rear is good), razor sharp throttle response (there's a button that sharpens response up when pressed).
Bad - floaty at high speed which can be disconcerting especially in the UK where there are some terrible stretches of motorway with bumps and dips. Front wheel drive, which can get a bit tedious when pushing it, unspectacular economy (24/25mpg combined, maximum on a run would be 28-30).
Edited by strangehighways on Friday 18th August 12:57
I had three 3.0 V6 Alfas back in the '90s; an '89 75, a 164 Lusso, and another 75 - a '91 Green Cloverleaf. Loved every minute with them - apart from the unfortunate (rear)endings of the two 75s. 
RWD is good - IMO - but in an E39 520 you won't be able to tell whether it is pulled or pushed!
166 for me, even if the nose does look pinched. I think that got fixed with the facelift.
RWD is good - IMO - but in an E39 520 you won't be able to tell whether it is pulled or pushed!
166 for me, even if the nose does look pinched. I think that got fixed with the facelift.
Agent XXX said:
The early 166s whilst nowhere near as nice to look at as the facelifted ones that BM is a fugly frump by comparison.
And what's not to like about a 3 litre Busso V6 with a manual box?
How did I guess? Surprised though, usually there's an unexplainable, moronic statement about how every BMW ever created is horrible in every single way. And what's not to like about a 3 litre Busso V6 with a manual box?
boz1 said:
Mileage notwithstanding, that 520i is grossly overpriced.
I agree, at first I thought both of them cost 1500 together, early basic 520i and an old Alfa! - It's an old pre-facelift model,
- It's an undesirable colour
- It an automatic, which makes it even more dog slow and increases the breakage factor
- It's low spec
The comment about being doctor owned is quite apt. I remember seeing a series of doctor-owned BMW 5 series (same private plate on each one - he obviously got through them) being driven quite dangerously/aggressively back in the 90s/noughties - am not convinced that 'doctor owned' is much to write home about!
As for the car - an E39 needs to be in the correct colour and ideally a facelift m-sport model to look at all interesting. I have driven a few and they vary from very nice to so-so depending on spec and how well cared for they are. This one is just an old car with an underpowered engine, though with an attractive mileage on it.
The Alfa on the other is an interesting car with a great engine, though possibly not the best example of the breed if you want a 'collectors car' (though low mileage Busso 166s are actually quite a lot of money).
As for reliability, the Alfa may well suffer electrical niggles and suspension components wear out, but I am not convinced that older E39s are very good at all, seemingly suffering electrical or cooling system issues that can be terminal. Also they can rust like crazy too. From my experience BMWs of this period in general can also suffer a surprising number of engine problems too.
As for the car - an E39 needs to be in the correct colour and ideally a facelift m-sport model to look at all interesting. I have driven a few and they vary from very nice to so-so depending on spec and how well cared for they are. This one is just an old car with an underpowered engine, though with an attractive mileage on it.
The Alfa on the other is an interesting car with a great engine, though possibly not the best example of the breed if you want a 'collectors car' (though low mileage Busso 166s are actually quite a lot of money).
As for reliability, the Alfa may well suffer electrical niggles and suspension components wear out, but I am not convinced that older E39s are very good at all, seemingly suffering electrical or cooling system issues that can be terminal. Also they can rust like crazy too. From my experience BMWs of this period in general can also suffer a surprising number of engine problems too.
We had a 528i in the family (of doctors) since 1998. In 2015 we gave it to a waiter at a favourite restaurant who converted it to LPG sand has been enjoying it since. It never missed a beat, requiring nothing other than routine maintenance, the body work was perfect and it was reasonably brisk (0-60 in 6.9). I used it for commuting for 2 years and it was very comfortable and amusingly barge like.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff