For all Alfa bashers!

ciarsd

http://www.italiaspeed.com/2005/cars/alfa_romeo/11/coty/1311.html

Ratchet

i love these awards for cars that hardly been driven. i would just wait 3 years or when they reach 60k and see if they stand up to the task.

if i remember , 156 got some awards too and turned to be :rolleyes: solid car

maidhc

Certainly looks nicer than the average repmobile. I like the big old fashioned alfa grille they are using now.

Still people dont bash alfa for the cars as such, rather their reliability and depreciation.

The people who decide the European CotY must be on something though. The Clio? The Pug 807 won car of the year a few years ago. My uncle bought one and found it to be the most vile thing he ever sat into. He gave it to the wife and bought himself an old BMW.

ciarsd

Ratchet wrote:

i love these awards for cars that hardly been driven. i would just wait 3 years or when they reach 60k and see if they stand up to the task.

if i remember , 156 got some awards too and turned to be :rolleyes: solid car

hey dont shoot the messenger!

Ratchet

i just don't believe in any of this marketing bull anymore that's all.

still design is something else GRRRRR

ciarsd

Ratchet wrote:

i just don't believe in any of this marketing bull anymore that's all.

still design is something else GRRRRR

I'm just interested in finding the judges reports / write ups / findings / likes-dislikes on all the cars, especially the Passat/159/Fugly 3 series

Eoin

Ratchet wrote:

if i remember , 156 got some awards too and turned to be :rolleyes: solid car

Mine has been a very solid car (I presume the image in the middle of the sentence conveys sarcasm?)

jayok

Well all Alfa boards users must be the luckiest people going. Imagine by simply signing up as a member the reliability of your Alfa car increases! It seems no boards Alfa owner every had a problem with their Alfa

I'd imagine that they Alfa users here are sick to the teeth of people throwing out the reliability issue. But I am afraid that it is a matter opinion that you're battling here and that is the hardest thing ot change While I accept that Alfa have improved their reliability over the last few years, the bulk of experience by Irish users has been from 99 on with the Alfa 156. Most people got these are company cars and they gave a lot problems. Full Stop. As such people have left the Alfa brand and vowed never to go back (myself included as a previous Alfa owner). The battle will continue...

ds20prefecture

jayok wrote:

I'd imagine that they Alfa users here are sick to the teeth of people throwing out the reliability issue. But I am afraid that it is a matter opinion that you're battling here and that is the hardest thing ot change While I accept that Alfa have improved their reliability over the last few years, the bulk of experience by Irish users has been from 99 on with the Alfa 156. Most people got these are company cars and they gave a lot problems. Full Stop. As such people have left the Alfa brand and vowed never to go back (myself included as a previous Alfa owner). The battle will continue...

And yet the bulk of opinion of Alfa owners in this community tends to be positive. And most of these people are private owners who would buy Alfa again. I base this assertion on the number of posts in this forum over the last year by alfa owners. As opposed to pulling it out of thin air.

alias no.9

I guess alfa's just aren't up to being company cars, which after all have quicker acceleration, shorter baraking distances, corner faster, can take speed bumps at higher speed, don't need to be warmed up before being thrashed, have longer service intervals and no requirement for oil or water between services.

prospect

The simple issue here is that Alfas require an extra bit of TLC. They need their service intervals adhered to strictly, and need the oi regularly checked and replaced. If this isn't done, they give trouble. And in alot of cases, company cars are not treated properly, and this is where Alfa Romeos fall down.

I don't think this is a bad reflection on the cars. If you buy a Ferrari you have to get it serviced every 6 months, or 6K iirc. You often hear of them having their engines overhauled or re-cond after 60K or 70K. Yet you'd never hear anyone say Ferraris are crap, because the majority of owners accept their need for extra attention, and duely observe the regular maintenance the cars require.

Fey!

What ever happened to the old expression "you're not a petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa"???

egan007

I can't believe that any of you are using reliability and Italian engineering in the one sentence.

Italian engineering is beauty at the compromise of reliability. The most spectacular cars ever have come from Italy. They are all about the driving experience. If you have never owned an Italian car you would not know.

You can have far more fun in an Alfa / Fiat in than it's equivalent by another manufacturer. Obvioulsy there is a baseline where there is no fun from any car but you know what i mean. Seriously - take one for a test drive - but don't buy it for reliability!

el tel

Forget about saloons, rep-mobiles and JTDs, this is why Alfa's are wonderful:
http://www.autodrome-cannes.com/alfa-romeo_sz_es30.htm

jayok

And yet the bulk of opinion of Alfa owners in this community tends to be positive. And most of these people are private owners who would buy Alfa again. I base this assertion on the number of posts in this forum over the last year by alfa owners. As opposed to pulling it out of thin air.

Not quite sure of the purpose of highlighting the words bulk and most. But I base my opinion on personal experience. I have personally owned and will never again own and Alfa Romeo.

My point was once bitten, twice shy. Alfa's sold like hot cakes in the boom days (99-02), it seemed every rep had one and indeed they were used as company cars. However the high servicing costs, low MTBF experienced by fleet managers meant a policy was brought in on these 99-02 cars and the brand never again. This is the battle that Alfa Romeo have.

While the experience of the Alfa Romeo owners here is positive - of course it is. That's while the still have them. Ask yourself honestly would still hold onto your <insert any brand> car if it had a major failure every say 10,000 miles? Probably not. I don't doubt the experience of users here is relevant, but unfortunately the experience of those that had one and got burned seems to be skipped over.

From my observation over the last years there are about 5-7 owners of Alfa on these boards that post regularly with 147s, 156s and someone (bmofarrell I believe) has a 156 2.5 V6 monster. This 5-7 users represents a small fraction of the overall Alfa owners and that's why it is necessary to look beyond this board for a true interpretation of a cars' reliability. I apply this logic to all cars, not just Alfa.

I am not an Alfa basher par se, they are stunning looking cars, but require TLC to keep on the road. Personally I would not buy once again, but this is simply because of my experience with them and I was not willing to pay for the TLC they required. For me and most other that have had a bad experience this is the battle Alfa owners have.

If you're fond of observation, consider this: How many 92/93/94 Alfa Romeo's do you see on the road? Comapre that to how many 92/93/94 Toyota, Nissan, Honda's?

May be it just me. :rolleyes:

Ratchet

prospect wrote:

..... .... Yet you'd never hear anyone say Ferraris are crap, because the majority of owners accept their need for extra attention, and duely observe the regular maintenance the cars require.

well, Ferrari is not made for day to day run to work is it Ted?

el tel

jayok wrote:

If you're fond of observation, consider this: How many 92/93/94 Alfa Romeo's do you see on the road? Comapre that to how many 92/93/94 Toyota, Nissan, Honda's?

Yah but to start with there were probably disproportionately more 92/93/94 Toyotas, Nissans, Hondas on the road back then too. But I hear what you are saying, run of the mill Alfas from back then were right old lemons.

I read an article in The Times a while back about a couple from the North and their 156. It went on at length about the whole litany of problems - it spent 8 months of it's first year sitting in the dealer's workshop with every possible thing that could have gone wrong, going wrong. And repeatedly so.
At the end of the article the couple stated that the car was a disaster and how much they were looking forward to buying another one.

Different strokes for different folks...

The Clown Man

I wouldn't buy an old (pre 98) Alfa. I did however buy a 99 Alfa 156 and it's still going strong at 100k miles. Not one ounce of trouble. Apart from the alloys which I put on myself!

Definately buying Alfa again. Head and shoulders beyond the rest for pure drivability and style.

And thanks to all you eejits that don't want to admit they are not the heaps of rusty unreliability they once were the price of a second hand one is ridiculously low. Keep it up fellas I'm hoping to own one or two more before I have to pay for them what they are actually worth.

Yea Alfa's are terrible! Boooo! Don't buy them! Keep them cheap for me!

stormin

I've had my 2.0 156 for a long time and not always adhered strictly to the service schedule, even done some of the servicing myself. It's an absolute pleasure to use. It's at 80K miles and has never failed.

My father had Alfa Romeo's since 1973 and they were nothing but trouble before but they have come a very long way since then. The engines have always been incredible. We once had a 1.8 1974 alfa that was left sitting for 3 years and when we connected a new battery it started.

I only have 2 issues with the 156:

The suspension is not able for the Irish roads (and is very expensive to replace).
The dealers have got to be joking with their servicing and repair pricing.

I am definitely buying another alfa after the 156. Would love a GT.

maidhc

Why is servicing so expensive when it is the same mechanics that service seicentos and puntos? (at least around cork anyway). I presume that at least some of the parts are shared with other fiats, which should be reasonable.

Alfas look savage, and drive well too (but no so much better than normal cars that some make out). However you do need to be a martyr to buy one new, if for no reason other than the brutal depreciation. I also saw a person mention in a thread that you need to go to a mechanic to get at the lightbulbs, not to mention the fact that doing the timing belt is a very very expensive job.

Toyota owner normally dont consider it an achievement when their car reaches 80 or 100k (or twice that) troublefree mls.

My only experience of anything from the Fiat group are New Holland tractors, which are damn good. I have seen so many of those machines wrecked by farmers and never serviced from one end of the year to the next, but keep going... So everything Fiat make isnt complete rubbish.

TempestSabre

I've had a few friends with alpha's over the years. Some had no problems but were generally more sympathetic drivers. Others who are harder on cars had lots of problems including major ones. One mate had a 156 company car, he had nothing major happen but lots of minor problems. Mind you that bloke is hard on cars. Had a couple of friends with Cloverleaf 33's. They were a bit patchy.

I'd buy a clean one with good history, and a decent warranty if possible. Nice looking cars.

beer enigma

stormin wrote:

I've had my 2.0 156 for a long time and not always adhered strictly to the service schedule, even done some of the servicing myself. It's an absolute pleasure to use. It's at 80K miles and has never failed.

My father had Alfa Romeo's since 1973 and they were nothing but trouble before but they have come a very long way since then. The engines have always been incredible. We once had a 1.8 1974 alfa that was left sitting for 3 years and when we connected a new battery it started.

I only have 2 issues with the 156:

The suspension is not able for the Irish roads (and is very expensive to replace).
The dealers have got to be joking with their servicing and repair pricing.

I am definitely buying another alfa after the 156. Would love a GT.

Yep agree 100% with that, I've got a 1999 2.0 156TS & having looked after it, have had very few problems. There are bits that you have to look out for, but the biggest problem is the high cost of servicing & the apparent lack of knowledge of some of the servicing staff..........Anyway, I digress

The thread was about the new 159...........which I was fortunate enough to drive last week in Italy......its Fantastic !!. I have driven a GT in Ireland and that was amazing too, but a lot of cash for what you get. Not sure what price the 159 will hit the market at, but certainly worth a look if you fancy a change.

Eoin

maidhc wrote:

Why is servicing so expensive when it is the same mechanics that service seicentos and puntos? (at least around cork anyway). I presume that at least some of the parts are shared with other fiats, which should be reasonable.

Because they are not the same as Fiats, any more than Ferraris are.

maidhc wrote:

However you do need to be a martyr to buy one new, if for no reason other than the brutal depreciation. I also saw a person mention in a thread that you need to go to a mechanic to get at the lightbulbs

Probably me. It's a bit of a pain alright... Depreciation for me has been a killer.

unkel

jayok wrote:

My point was once bitten, twice shy

You haven't given any details. I suspect you just bought a lemon that was abused by previous drivers that did not maintain it properly

Such a shame

junkyard

I think Alfa owners are the most forgiving bunch of people in the world! I knew one in particular who would only drive an Alfa and the money he used to pour into the things was just unbelievable. He had two and one was always off the road with one thing or another. Lets face it... try finding a secondhand engine anywhere for an Alfa 156... you'll have your work cut out as so many of them have blown up. The price of parts is another thing.. they are really Fiat parts in a fancy Alfa box with fancy prices to match. Then the people who buy them think they're in some kind of exclusive club.... take a look around.. the're everywhere, the're as common as muck. I honestly believe people are paying over the odds for them. I really don't know what the fascination is with them. Don't get me wrong I'm not having a go at the people who own them I just feel they could get better value for money if they set their sights a bit higher.

unkel

junkyard wrote:

they could get better value for money if they set their sights a bit higher.

Eh? There is not that much between a 156 and a 3-series from a drivers point of view. Buying a 156 both new and second hand can represent excellent value for money provided you know what you are buying

Or do you mean with better value for money that they should just get a similar sized A to B box that will never let them down and drives like a sofa? If so, fair enough. It seems to suite most people, even a lot of people on this board

junkyard

I think that Alfa in general don't give value for money, the're unreliable in a big way, both electrically and mechanically, and the're depreciation is unacceptable. And lets face it, its just a fancy Fiat. I've delt with these cars on many levels and feel I know what I'm talking about. I've sold them new and secondhand, towed them, fixed them and scrapped them and many of them over the years and its the same story every time, people think the're buying a status symbol, quality car but are in fact buying an unreliable, poorly built and over hyped Fiat.

beer enigma

junkyard wrote:

I think that Alfa in general don't give value for money, the're unreliable in a big way, both electrically and mechanically, and the're depreciation is unacceptable. And lets face it, its just a fancy Fiat. I've delt with these cars on many levels and feel I know what I'm talking about.

That analogy is the same as saying the Jaguar is a fancy Ford ?? ......

Well I for one would like to apologise to everyone here for conveying the impression that I'm delighted with my Alfa, how dare I actually like my car, let alone feel that it represents excellent value for money, is reliable and god help us !!!....a quality car.

One corrected 'hyped fiat' owner

:mad:

junkyard wrote:

I've sold them new and secondhand, towed them, fixed them and scrapped them and many of them over the years and its the same story every time, people think the're buying a status symbol, quality car but are in fact buying an unreliable, poorly built and over hyped Fiat.

If its the same story 'every' time, why did you continue selling them ??...are you openly saying that you sold cars knowingly them to be unreliable ?

ds20prefecture

That was certainly not my experience with my own alfa 156 or the other 5 the company ran, Junkyard. Servicing costs were reasonable, the cars faultless, and the value second to none.

In 2000, my 156 2.0 cost IRP21000 new. A 320i was over £30000 and a Merc C-Class the same. Which was over-hyped? The 156 was certainly not over-hyped, if anything it was under-hyped. It is a competent 4 door front drive saloon with adequate performance, comfort and handling. Looks-wise it is probably one of the best designed compact saloons ever. It is also exceptionally good value for money, particularly second hand. Minus points less than perfect packaging, somewhat short gearing and occasionally excessive wind noise.

Regarding being a glorified Fiat, what fiat used wishbone suspension or the TSpark engine? There was no visible Fiat switchgear in a 156 (unlike, say, the Jaguar X-Type). For me the 156 is an example of how platform sharing should be done - keep costs low by sharing tried and tested components, but change the "touch" points - the things that define the character of a car. i.e. engine, suspension, body shape and interior fittings.

The 156 and 147 have their weak points - they are well documented, and listed above. I'm sure a man of your broad experience will recognise that ALL cars have their weak points. Even your M5. I would say the Alfa's two biggest weaknesses are its dealer network and depreciation.

junkyard

I'm not getting at the people that bought them, I sold Alfa's because people wanted to buy them, I'm not a main dealer but sell every make, I tried to advise people against them as I know for a fact what they're really like, but they seem to be blinded by the image that goes with them. All I'm saying is I feel people could do better. At the end of the day its your money I'm only giving my experiences with the marque.

maidhc

ds20prefecture wrote:

In 2000, my 156 2.0 cost IRP21000 new. A 320i was over £30000 and a Merc C-Class the same.

But you cant compare a 156 to a 320i or C-Class. A mondeo is also good value compared to one of those. The Alfa is a mainstream car for slightly above mainstream prices that doesnt hold its value. The majority of Irish people are not as forgiving as members of boards.ie. Having said that the car probably holds its value as well as a 2.0~2.5 mondeo (not saying much).

The only real benefit the 156 has over a mondeo is the styling. The mondeo is more sensible, probably better to drive (The mondeo has always had a great chassis), and is a better quality car. Incidently they also make a great s/h buy.

Please dont elevate the alfa above its real status.

el tel

I have a friend who has a Alfa 147. They freely admit it's a heap of junk and have to spend a small fortune keeping it on the road. What really annoys them most is when people refer to it as a 'spare spark'.

Big Nelly

Best was one time in TopGear Jeremy asked the audience about what they where driving....named out differnet types and then said Alfa.....nobody said anything.....then you get "oh yeah they probably broke down on way here!".....was very funny!!

Anyway I dont rate those awards....didnt those stupid looking Renault win aload of them a few years ago?????

prospect

maidhc wrote:

The mondeo .............. Incidently they also make a great s/h buy..

Absoloutly

maidhc wrote:

The mondeo is ......probably better to drive

Haaaaaa ha ha haa, Aren't you the right funny onion.. Thats a good one....
BTW, i have regularly driven the mondeo, and the 156, and i can tell you for fact that the alfa is a FAR better drive.


Look, some people like them, some don't. The same as every marque.
I am planning on buying one in the new year. Not to get a car thats cheap to service, or to run, or that will hold its value etc. I want a car that I love, that drives brilliantly and that handles well. If i wanted a good value, reliable every day car, i would not even entertain any BMW or Merc, I'd go for a Toyota, Mazda or Honda.

junkyard

Yes they did, and I think most of us know what Renaults are like:) and the Fiat Ritmo also won one of those awards....say no more.

ds20prefecture

maidhc wrote:

But you cant compare a 156 to a 320i or C-Class.

I can and will. I would pick the 156 over both of them. All three are marketed as so-called "compact sports saloons", meaning all three openly make concessions to practicality in favour of style and performance.

Our company also ran 2 C-Class mercs from new, and had plenty of issues with both of them, primarily electrical. Even without the gaping price difference, the Merc was a less well engineered car than the Alfa, surpassing it only in terms of rear legroom.

The 320i is a fine car, particularly in terms of engine and handling. I dislike it's samey look and it is also guilty of poor packaging. It is horrifically overpriced, and over-hyped.

Because these two are from supposed "premium" brands does not exclude their products from comparison with brands "beneath their status" as you put it. This distinction is crafted by marketing boffins and swallowed by idiots.

Regarding Alfa's build quality reputation, it has not been my experience that they are badly built. Companies can improve their actual quality (Jaguar, Audi for example) and also the perception of quality (Skoda). In my experience, the poor reputation of Alfa is based on poor quality product like the 33.

If I were buying a modern car today the first place I would put my money is on an Alfa.

ciarsd

jayok wrote:

While the experience of the Alfa Romeo owners here is positive - of course it is. That's while the still have them.

what? so I keep the mouth zipped as long as i own an Alfa and post on this forum - get a grip, this would be one of the first places I would pop into for advice/experiences on my Alfa/BMW/Honda whatever.

jayok wrote:

Ask yourself honestly would still hold onto your <insert any brand> car if it had a major failure every say 10,000 miles? Probably not.

I'm actually toying with the idea of buying another model Alfa in the new year. Like with any other car, I'm doing my homework on it at the minute, and seeing what/if anything needs to be checked out when buying. Granted with Alfa's you need to know exactly what to be looking for along with the usual checks you would carryout on a 2nd hand car - but if we all bought Toyotas or whatever we'd all be very boring..

jayok wrote:

From my observation over the last years there are about 5-7 owners of Alfa on these boards that post regularly with 147s, 156s and someone (bmofarrell I believe) has a 156 2.5 V6 monster. This 5-7 users represents a small fraction of the overall Alfa owners and that's why it is necessary to look beyond this board for a true interpretation of a cars' reliability. I apply this logic to all cars, not just Alfa.

valid point, but at the same time, all 7 of us cannot be wrong all the time? or is it coincidence?
having said that, of the 7 or so owners/drivers, I think we've all been honest and acknowledged that if you want to buy an Alfa be prepared to walk away from a few when viewing - no one ever said that they were all singing all dancing and as reliable as a boring oul plasticy Jap car for example
bmoferrell's car is the GTA model (thats 3.2 V6)

jayok wrote:

If you're fond of observation, consider this: How many 92/93/94 Alfa Romeo's do you see on the road? Comapre that to how many 92/93/94 Toyota, Nissan, Honda's?

another valid point, but Alfa Romeo is/was certainly not as popular in Ireland back in the early 90s - the explosion of ownership only came with the release of the 156. How many Alfa dealers did you see back in the early 90s anyway?

Yet another interesting read.

Mailman

headlight bulbs do not need to be changed by a mechanic but you do need dainty hands and an ability to contort to replace bulbs.

156 is very popular because it is a very sweet drive and I went searching for a mainstream vehicle of similiar size, age and price and nothing comes close to the same power.

Most modern 2 litre executive cars are pushing out 140BHP. An early alfa 156 pushes out 155, a later one 165 and delivers the power in a eager way.

I myself would never buy another another moderate to high milage 156 without a full/complete service history. Even then I might not as they may have run it without oil between services.

maidhc

ds20prefecture wrote:

I can and will. I would pick the 156 over both of them. All three are marketed as so-called "compact sports saloons", meaning all three openly make concessions to practicality in favour of style and performance.

Indeed, they do. The A4 could also come into this category and would have been about half ways between the alfa and merc in price. But as you recognise yourself, this is all marketing anyway (why dont they stiffen the suspension on an octaiva etc...). The BMW IMO is worth the price difference, the merc isnt, but is still a more desirable brand that Alfa for 90% of that particular market.

ds20prefecture wrote:

Our company also ran 2 C-Class mercs from new, and had plenty of issues with both of them, primarily electrical. Even without the gaping price difference, the Merc was a less well engineered car than the Alfa, surpassing it only in terms of rear legroom.

The 320i is a fine car, particularly in terms of engine and handling. I dislike it's samey look and it is also guilty of poor packaging. It is horrifically overpriced, and over-hyped.

Mercs are bad at the moment, no doubt there, I'd prefer an alfa to one. I think the BMW is expensive, but they are still a fine car. Worth the price difference over an Alfa, if for no reason other than you will get it back on trade in.

ds20prefecture wrote:

Because these two are from supposed "premium" brands does not exclude their products from comparison with brands "beneath their status" as you put it. This distinction is crafted by marketing boffins and swallowed by idiots.

I agree. But the distinction exists. Whether it is a honda or an Alfa, you wont get BMW money on a resale. All I am saying is the Alfa is no more worthy of comparison than a mondeo is.

ds20prefecture wrote:

If I were buying a modern car today the first place I would put my money is on an Alfa.

I would buy a nice secondhand one, but the stories of turbo chargers and cambelts in JTDs scare the hell out of me. I wouldnt buy a new one because of the depreciation.

jayok

unkel wrote:

You haven't given any details. I suspect you just bought a lemon that was abused by previous drivers that did not maintain it properly

Such a shame

May be its was a lemon, but the shame was we bought it. We bought it from new and stuck to its service schedule religiously - not that it really made a difference the first failure was the coolant seal at 6,000 miles (first service was supposed to be 9,000 miles). The second was the gearbox failure at 18,000 miles, the third (strike 3 I am out) was sump oil leak at 22,000 miles.

It was a shame, a comfortable car nice looking car. But the purpose my car serves it to transport my family around the place. I do not need my wife breaking down in the middle of nowhere - even with AA cover.

ciarsd wrote:

what? so I keep the mouth zipped as long as i own an Alfa and post on this forum - get a grip, this would be one of the first places I would pop into for advice/experiences on my Alfa/BMW/Honda whatever.

Of course not, its good to have a discussion. I take on board your points about the good fortune you've had with your Alfa. And long may it continue - but people need to be aware of the bad points also.

ciarsd wrote:

I'm actually toying with the idea of buying another model Alfa in the new year. Like with any other car, I'm doing my homework on it at the minute, and seeing what/if anything needs to be checked out when buying. Granted with Alfa's you need to know exactly what to be looking for along with the usual checks you would carryout on a 2nd hand car - but if we all bought Toyotas or whatever we'd all be very boring..

Knock yourself out, again great looking cars, if it wasn't for my experience I would review them. Please bear in mind I am not basing my view on just hearsay or the general view, I am basing it on my experience. And during my experience and research -I ended up taking Alfa Romeo to court- I was not the only one to suffer with reliability issues.

ciarsd wrote:

bmoferrell's car is the GTA model (thats 3.2 V6)

My bad - I knew it was some sort of monster!

ciarsd wrote:

another valid point, but Alfa Romeo is/was certainly not as popular in Ireland back in the early 90s - the explosion of ownership only came with the release of the 156. How many Alfa dealers did you see back in the early 90s anyway?

True, but Alfa have been in Ireland a very long time (didn't an Alfa Romeo win the first Phoenix Park road race?). The reason they were less popular in the older days was for the simply reason - reliability. In the hey days between 99-00 they were bought a company cars simply because they were cheaper with a better they say an Audi equivalent. This kept BIK down and thus Alfa experienced massvie growth. After three years of experience some fleet managers (I know of two) then discovered the horrendous running/service costs of the cars compared to alternative makes. As such a whole load of Alfa Romeo's were dumped onto the 2nd hand market and the price plummeted and this fed further depreciation. Don't believe me? Fair enough, but again, just from an observational point of view I see less 04 / 05 Alfas on the road that I did in 99/00

Eoin

jayok wrote:

Fair enough, but again, just from an observational point of view I see less 04 / 05 Alfas on the road that I did in 99/00

True, I also didn't see any 04/05 Alfas on the road in 99/00

jayok

eoin_s wrote:

True, I also didn't see any 04/05 Alfas on the road in 99/00

Ooops, I meant there seems to be less 04/05 registered Alfa's on the road today, than 99/00 registered Alfas on the road in 1999/2000 (i.e comparison by numbers)

maidhc

jayok wrote:

I ended up taking Alfa Romeo to court- I was not the only one to suffer with reliability issues.

Out of interest, what happened in the end? Did Alfa ever offer you a new car or anything?

jayok

maidhc wrote:

Out of interest, what happened in the end? Did Alfa ever offer you a new car or anything?

In the end they took the car back and refunded us the money to clear the outstanding loan on the car and bills for the car. So as such we were back to square one with no car and we just bought another one as if we never went down the Alfa route!

alias no.9

jayok wrote:

Don't believe me? Fair enough, but again, just from an observational point of view I see less 04 / 05 Alfas on the road that I did in 99/00

Cars reaching the end of their production life cycle tend to sell in fewer numbers. The 156 has been on sale here since 1998 and the 159 is mere months away and is probably overdue. 8 years is an extremely long lifecycle for car these days.

UberNewb

Had a good laugh thinking that some Alfa Romeo owners are getting excited about coming 3rd in that bullsh1t competition!

Have you forgotten that the Alfa Romeo 156 came first in 1998 and look at how badly it performs in ALL the surveys.

At least the 156 came 1st and not 3rd!

stormin

I drive a 156 and this is a fascinating thread. I must be really lucky. I've driven the crap out of mine and have never had a moments trouble with it. I've driven all sorts of vehicles over the years and my 156 is the favourite.

I think people are missing the fact that if you buy a second hand one with FSH it's a lot of car and fun for the money.

I wonder how many alfa owners there actually are on boards?

The Clown Man

Get used to the Alfa bashers. They are everywhere and they all drive for the sake of getting there.

And get used to smiling smugly and knowing what the poor souls are missing out on.

That's what I do.

I know lots of Alfa owners and we all love them. But some people will never get it. The same way I will never get why people eat 3 day old bread before eating the new loaf or why people will spend €100 on a duffle coat.

jayok

The same way I will never get why people eat 3 day old bread before eating the new loaf....

or way people try to drive a 3 year old Alfa instead of buying a new one

ds20prefecture

stormin wrote:

I wonder how many alfa owners there actually are on boards?

Good question, so I posted a poll.

maidhc

In fairness, for every Alfa Basher there is an Alfa Zealot who believes driving a Toyota is akin to selling your soul to satan! Its a bit like the way apple compter people defend the brand to the last.

I guess at the end of the day there is a place for Alfa, although maybe not in the hearts of those who want a thoroughly reliable and saleable car. I dont question the style of Alfas, or that they make for a slightly sportier drive than the class average. But I really dont think thought that they are ferraris any more than my New Holland tractor!

There is space for difference: I dare say the place would be as boring if everyone drove Alfas as if everyone drove Toyotas.