156 - 1.9JTD or 2.4 JTD?
Discussion
If you're looking at the diesels then economy is obviously important. The 1.9 offers economy, the 2.4 doesn't. Did 1000 miles in a 159 1.9 and thought it was an excellent car. The 156 will be a generation older, but the engine should be much the same. When I was looking at buying a 159 I had a look on the Alfa forums and owners were getting diastrous economy (30ish) in average driving. You should be looking at 45mpg from the 1.9 without too much trouble.
I find it rather ironic that the for a company that has made some great engines in the past, Alfa is using an awful lot of crap at the moment. The 3.2 V6 is now a crappy GM unit, the 2.4 diesel drinks fuel, as does the 2.2 petrol and 1.4 turbo. You really have to want one because the predictable German rivals make much more sense.
I find it rather ironic that the for a company that has made some great engines in the past, Alfa is using an awful lot of crap at the moment. The 3.2 V6 is now a crappy GM unit, the 2.4 diesel drinks fuel, as does the 2.2 petrol and 1.4 turbo. You really have to want one because the predictable German rivals make much more sense.
Not quite Sonic. The OP was asking about 156s. You are right that the 2.4 economy is not so good in the 159 but it has been crippled by the standard fit DPFs. These were never fitted to 156s! Sure the 1.9 is always going to be more economical than the 2.4 but on a motorway run my 2.4 156 would sit in the high 40s which is the same as my wife's 1.9 147.
In reality the biggest difference bewteen the two engines is the weight - the 1.9 is lighter and gives a more nimble turn-in. However the noise, grunt and power delivery of the 2.4 always makes that the choice I would recommend - especially if you can find one of the last 20 valve versions.
Both 1.9 and 2.4 are reliable and sturdy, especially in 2 valve versions. The 4 valves really need the waterpumps changing at cambelt time - say 60,000 or 5 years.
Phase 2 156s came out mid 2002 - silver dash with inegral stereo, colour coded bumpers and mirrors. Phase 3 came out late 2003 with big nose front and the 20 valve 2.4 with six speed box.
In reality the biggest difference bewteen the two engines is the weight - the 1.9 is lighter and gives a more nimble turn-in. However the noise, grunt and power delivery of the 2.4 always makes that the choice I would recommend - especially if you can find one of the last 20 valve versions.
Both 1.9 and 2.4 are reliable and sturdy, especially in 2 valve versions. The 4 valves really need the waterpumps changing at cambelt time - say 60,000 or 5 years.
Phase 2 156s came out mid 2002 - silver dash with inegral stereo, colour coded bumpers and mirrors. Phase 3 came out late 2003 with big nose front and the 20 valve 2.4 with six speed box.
I'm buying one of these in a couple of weeks, A '55 reg 156 Sportwagon with the 2.4JTD Mjet engine. Picking it up from an Alfa owner forum member.
It bloody well better do 40ish MPG!
Now I'm not an Alfa geek, yet but......
To the OP, did you drive a 10v or a 20v 2.4? The 10v has about 40bhp less than the 20v so might account for what you experiences. If you drove an older 2.4 (137bhp) against a newer 1.9 (150bhp) then it makes sense that it would feel slower.
Can't wait for my trip over in 2 weeks to pick her up, great looking cars and my first ever Alfa
It bloody well better do 40ish MPG!
Now I'm not an Alfa geek, yet but......
To the OP, did you drive a 10v or a 20v 2.4? The 10v has about 40bhp less than the 20v so might account for what you experiences. If you drove an older 2.4 (137bhp) against a newer 1.9 (150bhp) then it makes sense that it would feel slower.
Can't wait for my trip over in 2 weeks to pick her up, great looking cars and my first ever Alfa
Ahhh that would explain it then, i drove a 140bhp 1.9 and the 137bhp 2.4.
There's probably not a huge difference between the two, and so it 'felt' slower as i was expecting more go. The main difference in power delivery that i saw was that on the 1.9 you felt the turbo boost pick you up and shoot off, if you see what I mean, whereas in the 2.4, there was no noticeable oomf in the same way, so maybe that also added to the 'slowness'?
Anyhoo, on the lookout for a phase 3 estate.
There's probably not a huge difference between the two, and so it 'felt' slower as i was expecting more go. The main difference in power delivery that i saw was that on the 1.9 you felt the turbo boost pick you up and shoot off, if you see what I mean, whereas in the 2.4, there was no noticeable oomf in the same way, so maybe that also added to the 'slowness'?
Anyhoo, on the lookout for a phase 3 estate.
That's what I'm getting - the next 2 weeks are going to be a loooong wait 
They are 175bhp and 385nm which should be nippy enough.
All the following is what I've gleaned from a bit of internet research.
General consensus is the 2.4 10v is bullet proof and the 20v isn't, they seem to have a habit of throwing cam belts due to knackered water pump pulley bearings. Make sure this has been changed with the cambelt service, if not you would need to get it done for piece of mind. Other thing is suspension bushes which are integral to the wishbones, they perish and start to creak meaning you need to change the entire wishbone assembly. Not too bad a job though. Other than that they seem to be very robust. They are a great drive too.
Good luck finding a well looked after 2.4 20v SW Veloce, they are very few and far between. I've dropped very lucky with a guy trading up to a 159 who seems to have really, really looked after it.
They are 175bhp and 385nm which should be nippy enough.
All the following is what I've gleaned from a bit of internet research.
General consensus is the 2.4 10v is bullet proof and the 20v isn't, they seem to have a habit of throwing cam belts due to knackered water pump pulley bearings. Make sure this has been changed with the cambelt service, if not you would need to get it done for piece of mind. Other thing is suspension bushes which are integral to the wishbones, they perish and start to creak meaning you need to change the entire wishbone assembly. Not too bad a job though. Other than that they seem to be very robust. They are a great drive too.
Good luck finding a well looked after 2.4 20v SW Veloce, they are very few and far between. I've dropped very lucky with a guy trading up to a 159 who seems to have really, really looked after it.
Nice looking one here if you're that end of the country...
http://search.autotrader.co.uk/es-uk/www/cars/ALFA...
Lovely looking cars
http://search.autotrader.co.uk/es-uk/www/cars/ALFA...
Lovely looking cars
IanMorewood said:
1.9 if ecconomy is in any way important plenty of them about have done 100k+. 2.4 only makes sense if your going to live on the motorway and dont have to pay your own fuel bill (in which case a v6 petrol is the way to go).
Really??? The V6 petrol, although glorious, is going to use nearly (but not quite) twice as much fuel as the 2.4 20v JTD (25mpg vs 42mpg combined). I say twice as much and I know the maths doesn't agree but when you have that sexual V6 engine your much more likely to be giving it plenty more beans, more regularly, than in the diesel. Plus the JTD is far more desireable in terms of resale.JTD is also cheaper to tax and insure and they sound remarkably good for what they are, far from the dag dags of old.
Not knocking petrol engines or anything, in an ideal world I'd be getting one and would encourage anyone else to do so if fuel consumption isn't a worry. I just had a BMW V8 and looking forward to anything north of 30mpg, my E39 was averaging 18mpg
Edited by dave_s13 on Saturday 12th September 20:56
SonicHedgeHog said:
Interesting. Could someone explain the DPF problem, please?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_particulate_fi...The DPF apparently traps the most harmful exhaust particles in a filter, and occasionally burns off the residue. Having the filter in place (I think) affects the efficiency of the exhaust, so increases the fuel consumption, and regeneration (burning the filter clean) uses a bit more fuel too.
So it's good for kittens
but bad for your wallet. It's not a problem specific to Alfa, I think it's a general problem with still being a relatively young technology. It's standard on all diesel 159, Brera, Spider, but was never on the 156, 147, GT.
SonicHedgeHog said:
If you're looking at the diesels then economy is obviously important. The 1.9 offers economy, the 2.4 doesn't.
I got a 2003 2.4JTD and I get 39-45+ mpg depending on speed and conditions I seen 48 on a long motorway trip to highlands 3 up in the car. The 1.9JTD may get 1-2mpg more but not much from the real world people who I know have one (not internet experts who have never owned one).Gassing Station | Alfa Romeo, Fiat & Lancia | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff