RE: Shed of the Week | Alfa Romeo 166
Discussion
Timberwolf said:
Indeed - I've driven both generations of 5 series the 166 went up against and while the E39 in particular had a certain charm in how unrelentingly competent it was, I think you would struggle to spend much time describing the interior without an early landing on the word "efficient".
When I settle behind the wheel of my own standard German fare there is certainly much to commend it over my Alfa experiences. Everything is well laid-out and legible. Switchgear is in sensible places for it to be, rather than inexplicably on the floor, roof or the passenger side of the central tunnel. Storage consists of substantial bins and boxes rather than apologetic indentations designed to fling your accoutrements about the cabin at the first sign of cornering. The starting procedure does not require gathering errant pieces of trim from the footwell and a futile prod at the peeled-up corner of an airbag cover. I have a dial which shows me how much fuel and range I have left rather than an elegant Milanese denial of responsibility for the task of discovering whether there may or may not be petrol today. And indeed, while it may be the lowest of the motoring hack clichés there is some tiny satisfaction in switches and stalks which engage with a weighted click rather than the resistanceless feeling they are one operation away from pinging off into some forgotten interior crevasse.
And yet... it is worthy but dull. There is no design or sense of flair, there is a collection of shapes which are in places merely because they needed to be there. There is nothing there like the feeling of sinking into an Alfa cockpit, staring down twin dials that evoke GTA Juniors and snarling twin cams. There is no incongruous wooden steering wheel elevating your commute to the level of Nuvolari wrestling some prewar beast. Even when the reality was slightly closer to frustrating exploration of the dynamic limitations of a Tipo-derived chassis than feeling racing heritage with every turn of the steering wheel, I still find it hard to look at a photo of an Alfa interior and not feel the urge to jump in and drive.
Other than the boot release being in the glove box (which is seriously weird, but you always open it with the fob anyway) - what's in a bizarre place? The fuel gauge I have found to be entirely accurate. It was very odd coming from a 156 which reads "full,full, no really full ....arrgh, empty", but this one is perfect. Nothing has ever fallen off in the footwell - that's also a 156 trait where the OBD cover would end up by your feet with alarming regularity.When I settle behind the wheel of my own standard German fare there is certainly much to commend it over my Alfa experiences. Everything is well laid-out and legible. Switchgear is in sensible places for it to be, rather than inexplicably on the floor, roof or the passenger side of the central tunnel. Storage consists of substantial bins and boxes rather than apologetic indentations designed to fling your accoutrements about the cabin at the first sign of cornering. The starting procedure does not require gathering errant pieces of trim from the footwell and a futile prod at the peeled-up corner of an airbag cover. I have a dial which shows me how much fuel and range I have left rather than an elegant Milanese denial of responsibility for the task of discovering whether there may or may not be petrol today. And indeed, while it may be the lowest of the motoring hack clichés there is some tiny satisfaction in switches and stalks which engage with a weighted click rather than the resistanceless feeling they are one operation away from pinging off into some forgotten interior crevasse.
And yet... it is worthy but dull. There is no design or sense of flair, there is a collection of shapes which are in places merely because they needed to be there. There is nothing there like the feeling of sinking into an Alfa cockpit, staring down twin dials that evoke GTA Juniors and snarling twin cams. There is no incongruous wooden steering wheel elevating your commute to the level of Nuvolari wrestling some prewar beast. Even when the reality was slightly closer to frustrating exploration of the dynamic limitations of a Tipo-derived chassis than feeling racing heritage with every turn of the steering wheel, I still find it hard to look at a photo of an Alfa interior and not feel the urge to jump in and drive.
I've honestly found the 166 to be absolutely solid in 3.2 guise. I've driven all sorts of modern stuff while hiring cars and I've never found it particularly lacking from an interior POV. Dynamically it suffers from being big and FWD - but don't underestimate the difference a (drop in) LSD can make.
Lord.Vader said:
Thats (was) mine!
Sold for £800.
Such a shame, absolutely no interest what so ever, even on the shed / barge thread.
Would certainly have another but 3 other cars and a bike on the way enough.
On that basis, it was probably my Dad who bought it off you? You'd likely remember me if he did - I'm 6'7".Sold for £800.
Such a shame, absolutely no interest what so ever, even on the shed / barge thread.
Would certainly have another but 3 other cars and a bike on the way enough.
Edited by Lord.Vader on Friday 20th March 08:37
ETA, Thinking about it, I think my Dad paid more than that for it. £800 would've been a bargain.
I do know that the current owner bought it off my Dad.
At 1200 quid, it's a bargain. It wanted for nothing whilst my Dad owned it. He did the brake upgrade and a mini restoration in line with the other cars PH have mentioned recently, which included a cam belt (kit) and a clutch. He also spent a considerable amount of time fitting a reverse camera that integrates into the OE head unit.
It was a lovely car and driven gently i.e. at legal speeds, regularly returned over 35mpg.
sidewinder500 said:
Si 330 said:
...ECU can go pop as they are under I think the heater matrix which can dribble on to them, which they don’t like...
Exactly that, the leaking heater matrix was responsible for some irritating malfunctionsWhen I picked up mine in '09 ( a 02, 100k, fully specced manual 3.0, one owner, full Alfa service records etc etc) for 1.200 (!!!! it was sitting with an dubious dealer after the Alfa-dealer was fed up to sell it for 3 yrs...) I had to invest 2k to correct EVERYTHING, having a Bosch-Service correcting all the bad leads, installing some new/used ECU's and covering the ECU below the heater with plastic sheets, after a thorough TLC the car looked like new.
So much so that it was sold off while standing in a car park for an offer I could not refuse (5,5k...).
Other than that, it was a real looker, much better in metal as the saying goes, nicely done inside, roomy, the busso sounding great, and capable of really high speeds.
Other than that, pathetic turning cycle, not that economical, pretty uninspiring to drive...
Nice shed, but considering the main reason for a car like this should be something remarkable, which the busso definetly is, no doubt, then this one is a fail with the TS. No guts, no glory...
Tony Middlehurst said:
Still, at least our shed won't go through a pint of oil every thousand miles, as Busso 3.0 V6 versions are wont to do.
It's the t-sparks that burn oil. Mainly those that were thrashed by reps when new, but they do use some. Busso V6s, not so much unless you're constantly redlining them.Tony Middlehurst said:
You'll need to keep your nose primed for the depressing whiff of burning electrics. Scouse comic Alexei Sayle panned his early 166 for having more electrical problems than North Korea, but issues in that area are hardly exclusive to Italian cars. The only one confessed to in our vendor's ad is an intermittent SRS light, but 166 windows, indicators and cruise control can all play up.
That's unfair. The electrics in 166s are generally rock solid, as is the build quality, which is vastly improved over a 156. The air bag light the seller describes is likely a loose connection under the seat - owners usually end up with something rolling about in the rear footwell which then rolls under the front seat dislodging the connection.Tony Middlehurst said:
Distorting body panels were another 166 foible, and whatever paint you have on it will eventually lose its sparkle, not to mention its lacquer.
Between my Dad and I, we've had 10 and worked on a number of others. I can honestly say I've never come across one with distorted body panels! Don't think I've even seen it mention on the Alfa forums. But, I will admit, I haven't spent much time in the 166 specific lounges. Are you sure you don't mean wheels? As the seller mentions, the wheels are slightly bent. However, being the (gorgeous) 18" ti wheels they are made from unobtainium. I'd also back up his assertion that they don't cause any issues with the way it drives.Laquer peal - Compared with a merc of similar vintage with porous laquer I'd suggest that they've held up well.
Tony Middlehurst said:
Assuming you're lucky in all those areas, what will you end up with as the next owner of this car? Well, one 166-owning PHer commenting on that Nov 2012 Shed said that driving his Twin Spark made him feel like a king. Right now that doesn't sound like a bad feeling to be having. Plus it's something nice to look at through the lounge window as you glumly self-isolate.
Agreed 
Edited by Zombie on Saturday 21st March 01:40
Edited by Zombie on Saturday 21st March 01:48
Zombie said:
Lord.Vader said:
Thats (was) mine!
Sold for £800.
Such a shame, absolutely no interest what so ever, even on the shed / barge thread.
Would certainly have another but 3 other cars and a bike on the way enough.
On that basis, it was probably my Dad who bought it off you? You'd likely remember me if he did - I'm 6'7".Sold for £800.
Such a shame, absolutely no interest what so ever, even on the shed / barge thread.
Would certainly have another but 3 other cars and a bike on the way enough.
Edited by Lord.Vader on Friday 20th March 08:37
ETA, Thinking about it, I think my Dad paid more than that for it. £800 would've been a bargain.
I do know that the current owner bought it off my Dad.
At 1200 quid, it's a bargain. It wanted for nothing whilst my Dad owned it. He did the brake upgrade and a mini restoration in line with the other cars PH have mentioned recently, which included a cam belt (kit) and a clutch. He also spent a considerable amount of time fitting a reverse camera that integrates into the OE head unit.
It was a lovely car and driven gently i.e. at legal speeds, regularly returned over 35mpg.
You had the 147 GTA / 159 SW? Your dad had a broken 159 SW TBi on the drive with a Brera!
Great car and was forced to sell quickly due to a new car arriving, that then didn’t arrive, wish I’d have kept it now.
No idea where this thing about distorting body panels has come from. It's incorrect and should be removed from the article. I've never heard of it or seen it.
Also, the electrics in these are pretty good. My 20 year old one ran like clockwork with everything working perfectly. No electronic glitches whatsoever. Paint was pristine too. I'd love to post a picture but I have no idea how to imbed a photo on this website.
Also, the electrics in these are pretty good. My 20 year old one ran like clockwork with everything working perfectly. No electronic glitches whatsoever. Paint was pristine too. I'd love to post a picture but I have no idea how to imbed a photo on this website.
llcoolmac said:
No idea where this thing about distorting body panels has come from. It's incorrect and should be removed from the article. I've never heard of it or seen it.
Also, the electrics in these are pretty good. My 20 year old one ran like clockwork with everything working perfectly. No electronic glitches whatsoever. Paint was pristine too. I'd love to post a picture but I have no idea how to imbed a photo on this website.
The oil usage comment is also incorrect but it is an Alfa and this is Pistonheads so you cannot expect accurate information about the car.Also, the electrics in these are pretty good. My 20 year old one ran like clockwork with everything working perfectly. No electronic glitches whatsoever. Paint was pristine too. I'd love to post a picture but I have no idea how to imbed a photo on this website.
When they released the 166, everything was fine and dandy until you looked at the grille - somehow Mr Ugly got in and ruined the whole look of the car. Having owned a trio of 164s including the 3 litre which I loved the 166 intrigued me but I could never get past Mr Ugly.
Facelift car much better but too late. The 2 litre version will always struggle to impress you if you fancy the odd quick blast.
Still they are so cheap you can enjoy a little Italian style and then prepare to throw it away.
Facelift car much better but too late. The 2 litre version will always struggle to impress you if you fancy the odd quick blast.
Still they are so cheap you can enjoy a little Italian style and then prepare to throw it away.
rxe said:
Other than the boot release being in the glove box (which is seriously weird, but you always open it with the fob anyway) - what's in a bizarre place? The fuel gauge I have found to be entirely accurate. It was very odd coming from a 156 which reads "full,full, no really full ....arrgh, empty", but this one is perfect. Nothing has ever fallen off in the footwell - that's also a 156 trait where the OBD cover would end up by your feet with alarming regularity.
My experiences were purely 156-based, plus a bit of poking round an old 33 which I didn't swallow enough brave pills to buy. Admittedly by then Alfa had curbed their more out-there ideas such as roof-mounted window switches and the rather appealing idea of "glovebox... no, BRIEFCASE!" but I do recall such fun as passengers turning on the fog lights in the mistaken belief the control was meant for them, and some switch that was mounted behind the steering wheel and rather an exercise in contortion to reach while under way (possibly trip reset? It was a while ago).Admittedly, some of the 156 idiosyncrasies I rather enjoyed. There is some amusement in sitting in the front while bemused passengers-to-be stare forlornly at the side of the car, aware there are rear doors but with no idea how to open them. (Also that's a rather fantastic design element, the way despite being a four door saloon each side has a single handle directly in the middle of the car)
As ever, there is a contrast on this forum between those who have owned the cars and those who post based upon hearsay and prejudice.
I had a 156 as my company car back in 1998 and it behaved appallingly when new. IIRC, the plenum chamber was the culprit and the Alfa dealer didn't know how to repair it so it got to the point that I was threatening to hand it back but once the problem was fixed,it was the most reliable car I had and the most characterful - I bought it from the lease company and ran it for almost 200k miles - during that time it hardly used any oil despite being driven with some brio; The 2.0 TS engine was musical and loved being revved - all you needed to do was remember to change the cambelt every 40k miles and keep it serviced.
Chassis rust caused its demise but I think it was gorgeous to behold (red, with grey Momo upholstery and a wooden steering wheel)
I then bought a secondhand 2003 166 2.0 TS (metallic blue with velour upholstery, wooden steering wheel , sad face & 40k miles) for £1800 and it has been similarly reliable but a totally different character - it has a beautifully compliant ride quality and composed handling; I think the power is sufficient - meaning that I can fully exploit its range without me or it exceeding our respective limits!. I just love the 4 cylinder TS engine and whilst I would love to own a 3.2 V6 for the operatic engine, I have heard that it can be a little nose heavy.
Perversely, I love the sad face - it seems to suit the car more than the facelift,is less bland and prettier in profile.
I can't say that I have the same feelings for the current products from Alfa Romeo.
I fondly remember the days when cars from different countries seemed to mirror national characteristics; Mercedes were built like bank vaults but very basically equipped with most models lacking a rev counter, BMWs had beautiful driver focussed dashboards, Saabs were quirky and bought by architects, Citroens were technically advanced and beautiful (other than the engines) , Peugeots had the best ride quality and could always be identified by their huge headlights, Renaults went round corners on their doorhandles but always clung on , Triumphs were British BMWs and Jaguars were feline and actually looked like they were about to pounce. VWs were bought by intellectuals and Audis were bought by doctors,!!
Now all cars look generic, are styled to look aggressive and scary with stupidly sized wheels, harsh ride quality and no finesse whatsoever.
I've never understood the importance of 0-60 times or maximum speeds as a measure of the quality of a car (or the lap times around the Nurburgring) - surely 30-50/ and 50/70 times acceleration times, are a more relevant measure of to day to day performance ?
And don't get me started on SUVs and 4x4s ....
I come from a time when CAR magazine was the best car magazine on the market, edited by Mel Nichols and had diverse,perverse and erudite contributions from LJK Setright , George Bishop and Russell Bulgin with cartoons by Stan Mott
I am a dinosaur and will now shuffle back to my cave
Stay healthy everyone !
I had a 156 as my company car back in 1998 and it behaved appallingly when new. IIRC, the plenum chamber was the culprit and the Alfa dealer didn't know how to repair it so it got to the point that I was threatening to hand it back but once the problem was fixed,it was the most reliable car I had and the most characterful - I bought it from the lease company and ran it for almost 200k miles - during that time it hardly used any oil despite being driven with some brio; The 2.0 TS engine was musical and loved being revved - all you needed to do was remember to change the cambelt every 40k miles and keep it serviced.
Chassis rust caused its demise but I think it was gorgeous to behold (red, with grey Momo upholstery and a wooden steering wheel)
I then bought a secondhand 2003 166 2.0 TS (metallic blue with velour upholstery, wooden steering wheel , sad face & 40k miles) for £1800 and it has been similarly reliable but a totally different character - it has a beautifully compliant ride quality and composed handling; I think the power is sufficient - meaning that I can fully exploit its range without me or it exceeding our respective limits!. I just love the 4 cylinder TS engine and whilst I would love to own a 3.2 V6 for the operatic engine, I have heard that it can be a little nose heavy.
Perversely, I love the sad face - it seems to suit the car more than the facelift,is less bland and prettier in profile.
I can't say that I have the same feelings for the current products from Alfa Romeo.
I fondly remember the days when cars from different countries seemed to mirror national characteristics; Mercedes were built like bank vaults but very basically equipped with most models lacking a rev counter, BMWs had beautiful driver focussed dashboards, Saabs were quirky and bought by architects, Citroens were technically advanced and beautiful (other than the engines) , Peugeots had the best ride quality and could always be identified by their huge headlights, Renaults went round corners on their doorhandles but always clung on , Triumphs were British BMWs and Jaguars were feline and actually looked like they were about to pounce. VWs were bought by intellectuals and Audis were bought by doctors,!!
Now all cars look generic, are styled to look aggressive and scary with stupidly sized wheels, harsh ride quality and no finesse whatsoever.
I've never understood the importance of 0-60 times or maximum speeds as a measure of the quality of a car (or the lap times around the Nurburgring) - surely 30-50/ and 50/70 times acceleration times, are a more relevant measure of to day to day performance ?
And don't get me started on SUVs and 4x4s ....
I come from a time when CAR magazine was the best car magazine on the market, edited by Mel Nichols and had diverse,perverse and erudite contributions from LJK Setright , George Bishop and Russell Bulgin with cartoons by Stan Mott
I am a dinosaur and will now shuffle back to my cave
Stay healthy everyone !
honevo said:
As ever, there is a contrast on this forum between those who have owned the cars and those who post based upon hearsay and prejudice.
I had a 156 as my company car back in 1998 and it behaved appallingly when new. IIRC, the plenum chamber was the culprit and the Alfa dealer didn't know how to repair it so it got to the point that I was threatening to hand it back but once the problem was fixed,it was the most reliable car I had and the most characterful - I bought it from the lease company and ran it for almost 200k miles - during that time it hardly used any oil despite being driven with some brio; The 2.0 TS engine was musical and loved being revved - all you needed to do was remember to change the cambelt every 40k miles and keep it serviced.
Chassis rust caused its demise but I think it was gorgeous to behold (red, with grey Momo upholstery and a wooden steering wheel)
I then bought a secondhand 2003 166 2.0 TS (metallic blue with velour upholstery, wooden steering wheel , sad face & 40k miles) for £1800 and it has been similarly reliable but a totally different character - it has a beautifully compliant ride quality and composed handling; I think the power is sufficient - meaning that I can fully exploit its range without me or it exceeding our respective limits!. I just love the 4 cylinder TS engine and whilst I would love to own a 3.2 V6 for the operatic engine, I have heard that it can be a little nose heavy.
Perversely, I love the sad face - it seems to suit the car more than the facelift,is less bland and prettier in profile.
I can't say that I have the same feelings for the current products from Alfa Romeo.
I fondly remember the days when cars from different countries seemed to mirror national characteristics; Mercedes were built like bank vaults but very basically equipped with most models lacking a rev counter, BMWs had beautiful driver focussed dashboards, Saabs were quirky and bought by architects, Citroens were technically advanced and beautiful (other than the engines) , Peugeots had the best ride quality and could always be identified by their huge headlights, Renaults went round corners on their doorhandles but always clung on , Triumphs were British BMWs and Jaguars were feline and actually looked like they were about to pounce. VWs were bought by intellectuals and Audis were bought by doctors,!!
Now all cars look generic, are styled to look aggressive and scary with stupidly sized wheels, harsh ride quality and no finesse whatsoever.
I've never understood the importance of 0-60 times or maximum speeds as a measure of the quality of a car (or the lap times around the Nurburgring) - surely 30-50/ and 50/70 times acceleration times, are a more relevant measure of to day to day performance ?
And don't get me started on SUVs and 4x4s ....
I come from a time when CAR magazine was the best car magazine on the market, edited by Mel Nichols and had diverse,perverse and erudite contributions from LJK Setright , George Bishop and Russell Bulgin with cartoons by Stan Mott
I am a dinosaur and will now shuffle back to my cave
Stay healthy everyone !
Wow, well said and good lurking!I had a 156 as my company car back in 1998 and it behaved appallingly when new. IIRC, the plenum chamber was the culprit and the Alfa dealer didn't know how to repair it so it got to the point that I was threatening to hand it back but once the problem was fixed,it was the most reliable car I had and the most characterful - I bought it from the lease company and ran it for almost 200k miles - during that time it hardly used any oil despite being driven with some brio; The 2.0 TS engine was musical and loved being revved - all you needed to do was remember to change the cambelt every 40k miles and keep it serviced.
Chassis rust caused its demise but I think it was gorgeous to behold (red, with grey Momo upholstery and a wooden steering wheel)
I then bought a secondhand 2003 166 2.0 TS (metallic blue with velour upholstery, wooden steering wheel , sad face & 40k miles) for £1800 and it has been similarly reliable but a totally different character - it has a beautifully compliant ride quality and composed handling; I think the power is sufficient - meaning that I can fully exploit its range without me or it exceeding our respective limits!. I just love the 4 cylinder TS engine and whilst I would love to own a 3.2 V6 for the operatic engine, I have heard that it can be a little nose heavy.
Perversely, I love the sad face - it seems to suit the car more than the facelift,is less bland and prettier in profile.
I can't say that I have the same feelings for the current products from Alfa Romeo.
I fondly remember the days when cars from different countries seemed to mirror national characteristics; Mercedes were built like bank vaults but very basically equipped with most models lacking a rev counter, BMWs had beautiful driver focussed dashboards, Saabs were quirky and bought by architects, Citroens were technically advanced and beautiful (other than the engines) , Peugeots had the best ride quality and could always be identified by their huge headlights, Renaults went round corners on their doorhandles but always clung on , Triumphs were British BMWs and Jaguars were feline and actually looked like they were about to pounce. VWs were bought by intellectuals and Audis were bought by doctors,!!
Now all cars look generic, are styled to look aggressive and scary with stupidly sized wheels, harsh ride quality and no finesse whatsoever.
I've never understood the importance of 0-60 times or maximum speeds as a measure of the quality of a car (or the lap times around the Nurburgring) - surely 30-50/ and 50/70 times acceleration times, are a more relevant measure of to day to day performance ?
And don't get me started on SUVs and 4x4s ....
I come from a time when CAR magazine was the best car magazine on the market, edited by Mel Nichols and had diverse,perverse and erudite contributions from LJK Setright , George Bishop and Russell Bulgin with cartoons by Stan Mott
I am a dinosaur and will now shuffle back to my cave
Stay healthy everyone !
Lord.Vader said:
I bought it from your Dad.
You had the 147 GTA / 159 SW? Your dad had a broken 159 SW TBi on the drive with a Brera!
Great car and was forced to sell quickly due to a new car arriving, that then didn’t arrive, wish I’d have kept it now.
Ah, I see, I assumed it was you selling it as it's still in Flintshire.You had the 147 GTA / 159 SW? Your dad had a broken 159 SW TBi on the drive with a Brera!
Great car and was forced to sell quickly due to a new car arriving, that then didn’t arrive, wish I’d have kept it now.
honevo said:
As ever, there is a contrast on this forum between those who have owned the cars and those who post based upon hearsay and prejudice.
I had a 156 as my company car back in 1998 and it behaved appallingly when new. IIRC, the plenum chamber was the culprit and the Alfa dealer didn't know how to repair it so it got to the point that I was threatening to hand it back but once the problem was fixed,it was the most reliable car I had and the most characterful - I bought it from the lease company and ran it for almost 200k miles - during that time it hardly used any oil despite being driven with some brio; The 2.0 TS engine was musical and loved being revved - all you needed to do was remember to change the cambelt every 40k miles and keep it serviced.
Chassis rust caused its demise but I think it was gorgeous to behold (red, with grey Momo upholstery and a wooden steering wheel)
I then bought a secondhand 2003 166 2.0 TS (metallic blue with velour upholstery, wooden steering wheel , sad face & 40k miles) for £1800 and it has been similarly reliable but a totally different character - it has a beautifully compliant ride quality and composed handling; I think the power is sufficient - meaning that I can fully exploit its range without me or it exceeding our respective limits!. I just love the 4 cylinder TS engine and whilst I would love to own a 3.2 V6 for the operatic engine, I have heard that it can be a little nose heavy.
Perversely, I love the sad face - it seems to suit the car more than the facelift,is less bland and prettier in profile.
I can't say that I have the same feelings for the current products from Alfa Romeo.
I fondly remember the days when cars from different countries seemed to mirror national characteristics; Mercedes were built like bank vaults but very basically equipped with most models lacking a rev counter, BMWs had beautiful driver focussed dashboards, Saabs were quirky and bought by architects, Citroens were technically advanced and beautiful (other than the engines) , Peugeots had the best ride quality and could always be identified by their huge headlights, Renaults went round corners on their doorhandles but always clung on , Triumphs were British BMWs and Jaguars were feline and actually looked like they were about to pounce. VWs were bought by intellectuals and Audis were bought by doctors,!!
Now all cars look generic, are styled to look aggressive and scary with stupidly sized wheels, harsh ride quality and no finesse whatsoever.
I've never understood the importance of 0-60 times or maximum speeds as a measure of the quality of a car (or the lap times around the Nurburgring) - surely 30-50/ and 50/70 times acceleration times, are a more relevant measure of to day to day performance ?
And don't get me started on SUVs and 4x4s ....
I come from a time when CAR magazine was the best car magazine on the market, edited by Mel Nichols and had diverse,perverse and erudite contributions from LJK Setright , George Bishop and Russell Bulgin with cartoons by Stan Mott
I am a dinosaur and will now shuffle back to my cave
Stay healthy everyone !
Bravo. Us dinosaurs gotta stick togetherI had a 156 as my company car back in 1998 and it behaved appallingly when new. IIRC, the plenum chamber was the culprit and the Alfa dealer didn't know how to repair it so it got to the point that I was threatening to hand it back but once the problem was fixed,it was the most reliable car I had and the most characterful - I bought it from the lease company and ran it for almost 200k miles - during that time it hardly used any oil despite being driven with some brio; The 2.0 TS engine was musical and loved being revved - all you needed to do was remember to change the cambelt every 40k miles and keep it serviced.
Chassis rust caused its demise but I think it was gorgeous to behold (red, with grey Momo upholstery and a wooden steering wheel)
I then bought a secondhand 2003 166 2.0 TS (metallic blue with velour upholstery, wooden steering wheel , sad face & 40k miles) for £1800 and it has been similarly reliable but a totally different character - it has a beautifully compliant ride quality and composed handling; I think the power is sufficient - meaning that I can fully exploit its range without me or it exceeding our respective limits!. I just love the 4 cylinder TS engine and whilst I would love to own a 3.2 V6 for the operatic engine, I have heard that it can be a little nose heavy.
Perversely, I love the sad face - it seems to suit the car more than the facelift,is less bland and prettier in profile.
I can't say that I have the same feelings for the current products from Alfa Romeo.
I fondly remember the days when cars from different countries seemed to mirror national characteristics; Mercedes were built like bank vaults but very basically equipped with most models lacking a rev counter, BMWs had beautiful driver focussed dashboards, Saabs were quirky and bought by architects, Citroens were technically advanced and beautiful (other than the engines) , Peugeots had the best ride quality and could always be identified by their huge headlights, Renaults went round corners on their doorhandles but always clung on , Triumphs were British BMWs and Jaguars were feline and actually looked like they were about to pounce. VWs were bought by intellectuals and Audis were bought by doctors,!!
Now all cars look generic, are styled to look aggressive and scary with stupidly sized wheels, harsh ride quality and no finesse whatsoever.
I've never understood the importance of 0-60 times or maximum speeds as a measure of the quality of a car (or the lap times around the Nurburgring) - surely 30-50/ and 50/70 times acceleration times, are a more relevant measure of to day to day performance ?
And don't get me started on SUVs and 4x4s ....
I come from a time when CAR magazine was the best car magazine on the market, edited by Mel Nichols and had diverse,perverse and erudite contributions from LJK Setright , George Bishop and Russell Bulgin with cartoons by Stan Mott
I am a dinosaur and will now shuffle back to my cave
Stay healthy everyone !
Lovely old things for wafting about motorways, and surprisingly nimble on twisties too.
I have an early 166 Super (Super means 3.0 Busso V6 with six speed manual gearbox).
I invested a bit when the car was on about 130,000 miles (new clutch/solid flywheel/quaiffe diff, plus suspension stuff, and new rad and thermostat)..it's been fine for the last seven years and 50,000 miles..a lovely car and always gets compliments, as it has original blue/green/gold pearlescent paint which shows the lines really well.
Electrics have been all good on mine, just the switch on the brake fluid reservoir, and engine oil pressure sensor since I've owned the car (8 years).
I like the retro late 90's computer screen, dsp sound system (Becker) with the old six stack CD player.
I would say the twin spark you need to keep a watchful eye (at least when first using the car) to monitor engine oil use.
I'm not sure why Shed says the V6s guzzle engine oil? The Twin sparks can use oil. My 3.0 V6 has covered 180,000 miles and I never top up the engine oil between changes (about 8,000 miles)...that wouldn't likely happen with a twinnie.
Most people prefer the facelift (generic conservative mid-00s) for looks, but as time goes on, the original will be the classic look, just like the early 164s are mostly preferred to the softer exec. styled facelift models.
I have an early 166 Super (Super means 3.0 Busso V6 with six speed manual gearbox).
I invested a bit when the car was on about 130,000 miles (new clutch/solid flywheel/quaiffe diff, plus suspension stuff, and new rad and thermostat)..it's been fine for the last seven years and 50,000 miles..a lovely car and always gets compliments, as it has original blue/green/gold pearlescent paint which shows the lines really well.
Electrics have been all good on mine, just the switch on the brake fluid reservoir, and engine oil pressure sensor since I've owned the car (8 years).
I like the retro late 90's computer screen, dsp sound system (Becker) with the old six stack CD player.
I would say the twin spark you need to keep a watchful eye (at least when first using the car) to monitor engine oil use.
I'm not sure why Shed says the V6s guzzle engine oil? The Twin sparks can use oil. My 3.0 V6 has covered 180,000 miles and I never top up the engine oil between changes (about 8,000 miles)...that wouldn't likely happen with a twinnie.
Most people prefer the facelift (generic conservative mid-00s) for looks, but as time goes on, the original will be the classic look, just like the early 164s are mostly preferred to the softer exec. styled facelift models.
Edited by courty on Saturday 21st March 21:14
Edited by courty on Saturday 21st March 21:17
I have had the pleasure of owning a 166 3 litre Manual, amongst other Alfas (currently have a 156 v6). I have a thread on it......
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Not sure I agree with all the points of the article. I have had 5 or 6 busso v6s and none has used much oil really. Also, the 166 is a MASSIVE step up in quality from the 156/GTV etc of the time. I had the 166 when it was 16 is years old and it felt very well built. I found the interior was perfectly well built and just don't agree about it being flaky. (The GTV was very fragile and the 156 isn't bad but doesn't have that solid germanic feel).
I really enjoyed my 166, but I think the 164 pips it for character.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Not sure I agree with all the points of the article. I have had 5 or 6 busso v6s and none has used much oil really. Also, the 166 is a MASSIVE step up in quality from the 156/GTV etc of the time. I had the 166 when it was 16 is years old and it felt very well built. I found the interior was perfectly well built and just don't agree about it being flaky. (The GTV was very fragile and the 156 isn't bad but doesn't have that solid germanic feel).
I really enjoyed my 166, but I think the 164 pips it for character.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff