RE: Shed(s) of the Week: Alfa 166/BMW 5 Series

[Jhonno]

Blackpuddin said:

Jhonno said:

For £1500 you can get a MUCH better E39..

That depends on your definition of 'better'. For some, it would be a 185,000-mile 528i. For others, perhaps those looking at longer-term costs, it would a 59,000-mile 520.

I think there are many E39 options that are better than this example.. Mileage being pretty irrelevant, as they can do big miles with nothing more than routine maintenance..

[boz1]

Blackpuddin said:

That depends on your definition of 'better'. For some, it would be a 185,000-mile 528i. For others, perhaps those looking at longer-term costs, it would a 59,000-mile 520.

It oft-repeated, but I believe true, that age matters more then mileage, especially with proper maintenance. This shed is objectively a crap choice.

For example, you could have this facelift model 525i, in a much nicer colour and with leather, for 2/3 of the price and it's still only done 120k miles, which is only 7.5k miles per year:
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2017...

[Jhonno]

boz1 said:

Blackpuddin said:

That depends on your definition of 'better'. For some, it would be a 185,000-mile 528i. For others, perhaps those looking at longer-term costs, it would a 59,000-mile 520.

It oft-repeated, but I believe true, that age matters more then mileage, especially with proper maintenance. This shed is objectively a crap choice.

For example, you could have this facelift model 525i, in a much nicer colour and with leather, for 2/3 of the price and it's still only done 120k miles, which is only 7.5k miles per year:
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2017...

Exactly my point.. At which point the choice becomes much harder!

[Gandahar]

What about a Japanese car too so we could have an Axis tripartite? Trick missed....

[Blackpuddin]

Jhonno said:

boz1 said:

Blackpuddin said:

That depends on your definition of 'better'. For some, it would be a 185,000-mile 528i. For others, perhaps those looking at longer-term costs, it would a 59,000-mile 520.

It oft-repeated, but I believe true, that age matters more then mileage, especially with proper maintenance. This shed is objectively a crap choice.

For example, you could have this facelift model 525i, in a much nicer colour and with leather, for 2/3 of the price and it's still only done 120k miles, which is only 7.5k miles per year:
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2017...

Exactly my point.. At which point the choice becomes much harder!

Of course you'd have to ignore the 'oil leak' advisory on that AT one. Not trying to be clever but at this price level I would personally always take an immaculate, low-mileage, well cared-for, privately-owned example with a 'story' over something being bought blind from a dealership.

[boz1]

Blackpuddin said:

Of course you'd have to ignore the 'oil leak' advisory on that AT one. Not trying to be clever but at this price level I would personally always take an immaculate, low-mileage, well cared-for, privately-owned example with a 'story' over something being bought blind from a dealership.

Yeah, agree you'd want to take into account all the information available. However, when it comes to oil leaks from the rocker cover, with the E39 it's case of "they all that, sir".

[Jhonno]

Blackpuddin said:

Jhonno said:

boz1 said:

Blackpuddin said:

That depends on your definition of 'better'. For some, it would be a 185,000-mile 528i. For others, perhaps those looking at longer-term costs, it would a 59,000-mile 520.

It oft-repeated, but I believe true, that age matters more then mileage, especially with proper maintenance. This shed is objectively a crap choice.

For example, you could have this facelift model 525i, in a much nicer colour and with leather, for 2/3 of the price and it's still only done 120k miles, which is only 7.5k miles per year:
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2017...

Exactly my point.. At which point the choice becomes much harder!

Of course you'd have to ignore the 'oil leak' advisory on that AT one. Not trying to be clever but at this price level I would personally always take an immaculate, low-mileage, well cared-for, privately-owned example with a 'story' over something being bought blind from a dealership.

Oil leak could be something as simple as they spilt oil filling it up.. Or a little weep somewhere. They all tend to have a minor rocker gasket "issue"..

Well, you'd be buying the 520i blind from a dealer too.. It would just as likely be leaking a bit of oil also!

[PoopahScoopah]

Cambs_Stuart said:

The alpha. Great engine and interior. And I'll accept the fact it may need more tlc than the bmw.

Oh dear Time to grab your coat and hand in your PH membership at the door

The amount of times I see Alphas for sale, I always wonder how anyone can get something to so well known and so simple wrong.

[PoopahScoopah]

Gribs said:

I'm not sure which I'd pick between a poverty spec E39 and a faulty Alfa. I'm disappointed that with the budget increase this is the best that could be found.

Faulty Alfa? What on earth are you wittering on about chap? He's listed a few niggles, big deal. Faulty indicators - that will be the non self cancelling left turn, which is not a "fault" it's a "feature" on a 166 that all owners know about, makes feck all difference to the driving experience and is easily fixed if you can be arsed. Non working cruise control is likely a sticky or duff pedal switch. Faulty NS windows, well whoopadey-doo, not an issue 99.9% of the time and you still have 50% ventilation if the AC doesn't work (and at least for once we have a SOTW that is touted as having icy cold AC rather than non working AC that "just needs a regass").

[PoopahScoopah]

mooseracer said:

I'm guessing from the pictures that the Alfa has been massively lowered

Looks stock to me.

[carinaman]

Blackpuddin said:

Jhonno said:

boz1 said:

Blackpuddin said:

That depends on your definition of 'better'. For some, it would be a 185,000-mile 528i. For others, perhaps those looking at longer-term costs, it would a 59,000-mile 520.

It oft-repeated, but I believe true, that age matters more then mileage, especially with proper maintenance. This shed is objectively a crap choice.

For example, you could have this facelift model 525i, in a much nicer colour and with leather, for 2/3 of the price and it's still only done 120k miles, which is only 7.5k miles per year:
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2017...

Exactly my point.. At which point the choice becomes much harder!

Of course you'd have to ignore the 'oil leak' advisory on that AT one. Not trying to be clever but at this price level I would personally always take an immaculate, low-mileage, well cared-for, privately-owned example with a 'story' over something being bought blind from a dealership.

Thanks for checking the MoT history. I thought that looked much better than the two official sheds and made a case for not raising the limit by 50%.

[BVB]

Easy. The ALFA every single day of the week, month year. You'd have to be a total bore/sheep choosing the BM.

[PoopahScoopah]

strangehighways said:

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).

Edited by strangehighways on Friday 18th August 12:57

Yay, some sense at last!

Shed's comments about build quality are way off the mark. 166s have a wonderfully solid feel and loads of neat little touches. Just closing the drivers door you feel the weight of it and then a nice soft thud. Yes there are areas of painted plastic interior trim and these are known to go soft and sticky with age, but it's mostly compensated by the acres of soft leather laid in a wonderful flowing design. The whole cockpit has an enveloping feel to it, and it is in the most part very cohesive. But it can also feel a little claustrophobic, which for a car of this sort won't be everybody's cup of tea.

The pre facelift nose is a very marmite design and I think that's why I love it. Is it really ugly? Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess. I acknowledge it's not classically good looking but I love the fact it's different, rather something distinctive and divisive than bland and boring. In the right colour, with the official Zender sport bodykit and a mild lowering they look phenomenal IMO. So much better than the facelift version which so many people seem to give credit for - yes it has broader appeal but only because it is bloody boring. The front styling no longer fits with the tail on the FL, which is another gripe.

It's been about 3 years since I got rid of mine. I had it for about the same time and it was a love/hate relationship. Nothing went wrong, it was dependable and solid, made a lovely noise, I liked it's rarity, it was comfortable in many ways...............but it frustrated me in many ways too. I used to take the P out of the saddos who would bleat on about Alfas having a soul and the feeling of an emotional connection you just don't get with other cars. I still think it's a crazy notion, but something must have been there, something I can't put my finger on, becuase I've missed my 166 ever since I got rid of it. I still have Alfa 166 as a saved eBay search and looks at the listing that get emailed to me.

So, on the basis of this week's choice it's the 166 for me. It's not the tidiest example mind. New exhaust a and a PDR guy to sort the boot would make an immediate improvement. And as I said last week, it's not "nearly due" a cambelt change, it's past it's interval if you go by the more commonly accepted recommendation to do it every 4 years. So that's another ~£500 IIRC. Yeah, yeah, I know, this is shedding, we're not supposed to bother with such frivolous maintenance, just hope you get a year out of it, but it's a Busso, do you really want to have the death of such a wonderful engine on your conscience?

Edited by PoopahScoopah on Friday 18th August 16:26

Edited by PoopahScoopah on Friday 18th August 16:27

[huytonman]

Interesting reading about E39 reliability issues, I had my first in 1996, a 523i which needed a new block after six months due to the Nicasil lining failure, after that another 523 and anoter 523 then a 528, 535, 525, 530 and an M5. Until the M5 the only failures were ABS sensors which is a well known issue, the M5 had a propshaft and clutch failure but that was it. The last one was the 525 that I gave to my sister a few years ago with 33k on the clock, its now touching 90k and apart from a few minor niggles is still going strong. I did drive a 164 twin spark back in 1990 but it felt like it was made from plastic packing material inside, drove nicely though and I was tempted but got a 318iS instead...
E39 every time but the 2 litre is a bit gutless and that V6 would be very tempting!

[kaikyoung]

An advert for an E39 5 series, with doctors and CAPS, is a classic among used car dealers.

[waynedear]

PoopahScoopah said:

Cambs_Stuart said:

The alpha. Great engine and interior. And I'll accept the fact it may need more tlc than the bmw.

Oh dear Time to grab your coat and hand in your PH membership at the door

The amount of times I see Alphas for sale, I always wonder how anyone can get something to so well known and so simple wrong.

I do not think you got that quite right....... or did you mean it, hmmm

[AC43]

2.0 Busso wins it.

If the Bimmer were a 2.8 it would be harder but it's not.

[unsprung]

I'd go for the sexy Italian. Who would be satisfied with that small-displacement German? (certainly not Mrs Shed, I must say)

[Behemoth]

I've had both the BMW and the Alfa. In fact I had two of the Alfas, one a manual and one a Sportronic & both with the Busso 3 litre 6. The E39 was a V8 company car and I didn't get on with it at all. It was very lazy and american in feel, both it's engine and chassis. I'd go for the 166 every time.

I had no serious problems with them over many years of ownership. Only parts you'd expect and want to refresh as the years go by. No electrical faults that I can remember whatsoever except for mashing the cruise stalk spring once. Even that was my own fault because I lazily used it on long high speed continental journeys as a throttle.

[E65Ross]

Alfa for me, simply because I don't like cloth and a 2.0 in an E39.

Although I really don't see what the fuss is over the 166 styling.....I think the front end is pretty hideous to be honest, certainly not one of their better looking cars!