05 Peugeot 407 vs 05 Alfa 156

sudo911

Guys,

Need some advice.... looking at getting a new car this week for the missus.... toss is between a Peugeot 407 (prob 1.8 petrol) and a Alfa 156 (prob 1.6).

Went for a spin in a Peugeot 407 today and was suprised how much I actually liked the car. Have an opportunity to take a low-mileage one for small enough money, but then my wife saw some nice 156's for sale.

Having never owned either car, I'm probably more worried about the Alfa - always heard they were full of rattles and fairly unreliable.... but then I always thought Alfas were dead cool

Any owners of either to give feedback on pros/cons of each? Would welcome any advice at all!

Tragedy

You're picking an early 407, or the absolute latest 156. The 156 will be very reliable, and the 407 will mostly likely be quite unreliable.

Personally, I think the facelift 156 is still better looking than the 159 and I know what I'd choose

sudo911

I've heard that there were some problems with the diesels in the 407's, but what makes you think they would be unreliable?

The mileage on both would be around 30k.

Tragedy

sudo911 wrote: »

I've heard that there were some problems with the diesels in the 407's, but what makes you think they would be unreliable?

The mileage on both would be around 30k.

I've heard terrible terrible stories about early 407's(including petrol). Operative word being early though.

high horse

sudo911 wrote: »

Guys,

Need some advice.... looking at getting a new car this week for the missus.... toss is between a Peugeot 407 (prob 1.8 petrol) and a Alfa 156 (prob 1.6).

Went for a spin in a Peugeot 407 today and was suprised how much I actually liked the car. Have an opportunity to take a low-mileage one for small enough money, but then my wife saw some nice 156's for sale.

Having never owned either car, I'm probably more worried about the Alfa - always heard they were full of rattles and fairly unreliable.... but then I always thought Alfas were dead cool

Any owners of either to give feedback on pros/cons of each? Would welcome any advice at all!

We both know how this one will end...

sudo911

high horse wrote: »

We both know how this one will end...

:D Thankfully wifey doesnt wear the pants in this relationship!

(written while locked in a cupboard in case she sees the response!)

BrianD3

One thing that you may not have considered is the 407 is a much safer car, it's excellent while the 156 is bad. Maybe this is not a concern but it would be for me.

A post facelift (05 onwards) Renault Laguna II would probably be more reliable than the 407 and has a similar safety rating, would you consider one.

156 crash test

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0agTZgMnbY

sudo911

BrianD3 wrote: »

One thing that you may not have considered is the 407 is a much safer car, it's excellent while the 156 is bad. Maybe this is not a concern but it would be for me.

Well... now that you mention it.... we have two young kids who are just under 3 and this will be their chariot.... so safety is paramount!

Thanks man, completely forgot about the safety side of things!

I just dunno about the Renaults......

Tragedy

One thing to note is that that video was
a)Using an early 156
b)Was at 10km/h more than NCAP crash tests were taken at back then.

They added more airbags and strengthened the car more in 99 and 2000, from what I can find out.

Still not up to a modern car though, no.

sudo911

I think if it was a car for me, I'd go with the Alfa.... but for the wife & kids... it just might be the 407...

BrianD3

Tragedy, have you got a source for that? I'd be surprised if that test was 10 km/h faster than EuroNCAP and I can't find anything about the facelift car being strengthened. And remember that the 147 that was introduced in 2000 and is closely related to the 156 also did badly in its EuroNCAP offset test.

BrianD3

I just dunno about the Renaults......

If you're considering Peugeots and Alfas then you are probably open minded enough to consider Renaults! Pub experts would rate all three marques as heaps of crap.

In the case of Renault, some models are quite poor for reliability but the car I mentioned, the post facelift Laguna II, (particularly the petrol) is a reliable car. This is confirmed by ADAC reliability reports. The car also has the advantage of hatchback practicality compared to the saloon 156 and 407.

Tragedy

BrianD3 wrote: »

Tragedy, have you got a source for that? I'd be surprised if that test was 10 km/h faster than EuroNCAP and I can't find anything about the facelift car being strengthened. And remember that the 147 that was introduced in 2000 and is closely related to the 156 also did badly in its EuroNCAP offset test.

It was something people said on the owners club, but after rooting around some more it seems this was most likely a TUV test and performed at 64km/h like the NCAP!

All I could find on safety was parkers stating "Models from June 2000 fare better and passenger and side airbags became standard from July 1999." and wikipedia implying that passive safety was increased in one of the facelifts.

Without having an NCAP test telling load/damage, it's hard to know just how bad it is - though the door deforming is usually a bad sign!

BrianD3

Tragedy wrote: »

It was something people said on the owners club, but after rooting around some more it seems this was most likely a TUV test and performed at 64km/h like the NCAP!

That makes sense, that looks like a relatively old test and doing tougher tests (in terms of speed or % overlap) than EuroNCAP was unheard of years ago and not common now either.

Row

I have no experience with the Alfa 156 but am currently driving an 04 407 1.6 hdi (94,00mls) which has been very reliable...:)
Basically it's been Reliable..Great road holding..average 50mpg...(as above) its a safe car with multiple airbags.
Downside's....The 1.8's will return around 32-35 mpg and all 407's have
lower balljoint issues up to late 07.....also abs sensor failing prematurely other than that by going for a 1.8 petrol your avoiding the dpf/dmf problems that can occur at around 120k mls on the diesels.....saying that the dpf/dmf are a common problem on all new Diesel's today.....:rolleyes:

johnos1984

OP your best bet is to go and drive both cars.

They both have their own set of faults.

The Alfa is nice to look at and IMHO so is the 407.

The big let down of the 407 is the interior which isn't very nice to touch.

VolvoMan

The Peugeot 407 is a poor car in my opinion. Besides being ugly, there is no particular area that it excells other than being relatively safe. It is quite a big car, yet has no space in the back. The boot is also so small that you literally wouldn't fit a set of golf clubs into it.

Added to poor build quality and crap reliabilty, I really don't see a case to be made for this car.

johnos1984

The styling is debatable. I love it.

Its also a good drive. Softer than an Alfa but still entertaining and comfortable. Granted its not in the same league as the 405/406 was back in its day.

I'd not write it off that easily

Saruman

Having had a 407 (2006 model) which died and I wasted my money on it, I would not get another. Electrical faults everywhere and in my case the engine and turbo went at the same time.

Not sure I would get the Alfa either. Why restrict yourself to these two?

johnos1984

Saruman wrote: »

Not sure I would get the Alfa either. Why restrict yourself to these two?

An excellent point.

Surely there is better out there

Row

I have to agree the booth is small compared to my 406...:rolleyes:
Go for the Sw if you need space...:)
The diesels are good but need regular servicing to prevent engines/turbo problems.
Ron.

RobertM

BrianD3 wrote: »

One thing that you may not have considered is the 407 is a much safer car, it's excellent while the 156 is bad. Maybe this is not a concern but it would be for me.

A post facelift (05 onwards) Renault Laguna II would probably be more reliable than the 407 and has a similar safety rating, would you consider one.

156 crash test

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0agTZgMnbY

This again. The 156 NEVER had a crash test so it's safety isn't known. The video that you posted earlier is actually a manipulated version of the A4.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MBjobow808

OP: The facelift 156 is much more reliable that the pre-facelift ones. But as always you have to remember to check the oil and regular servicing. If you want to buy one, FSH is a MUST.


Good luck

Tragedy

I checked carefully, and if you look at the deformation Of the door+the roof above the door, it's quite different between the two.

Also, the sill buckles on the A4 but not the 156

johnos1984

RobertM wrote: »

This again. The 156 NEVER had a crash test so it's safety isn't known. The video that you posted earlier is actually a manipulated version of the A4.

Are you taking the piss or just in beer like myself?

RobertM

Tragedy wrote: »

I checked carefully, and if you look at the deformation Of the door+the roof above the door, it's quite different between the two.

Also, the sill buckles on the A4 but not the 156

Just posted what everybody's saying All I know is that the 156 never had a Ncap testing, so it's actual safety rating isn't known. But I reckon the Pug is the safest of the two, but still if I have a crash, I'd rather have it in my 156 :pac:

RobertM

johnos1984 wrote: »

Are you taking the piss or just in beer like myself?

Beer is for wussies

johnos1984

RobertM wrote: »

Beer is for wussies

:o:o

I'm actually drinking red wine but thought it would be worse to say that

Saruman

RobertM wrote: »

Beer is for wussies

Sacralige :eek:

sudo911

Thanks for the responses guys..... I drove the older shape 156 before, loved it as a driving car and much better dramatics than the 407 I drove recently....safety is a concern, and I actually do like the 407 styling...

Only really been looking at these two types of cars as I'm spending no more than €5k on each car, and while ideally I'd like a diesel - at this price range Id be looking at a car with 100k+ miles on it. I want a good comfortable car that will do the long cruises, fit in a twin buggy and still have room for luggage/shopping. I'll be prob driving this the weekends - and I'm a fussy fupper! :rolleyes:

Petrol consumption isnt a major issue on the 1.8, as she's driving a 2.4 petrol Voyager at the moment - so anything is going to be better than that. Most of her mileage is in and out of town, so the car will circa see about 10k miles a year.

With all that in mind, suggestions outside the Renault/Peugeot options? p.s. she hates Mondeo's :cool:

Tragedy

http://www.carzone.ie/search/Alfa-Romeo/156/1.8-TI-F/201035199415125/advert?channel=CARS
A bit expensive maybe, but full leather, MFSW and 12months dealer warranty.

RobertM

Tragedy wrote: »

http://www.carzone.ie/search/Alfa-Romeo/156/1.8-TI-F/201035199415125/advert?channel=CARS
A bit expensive maybe, but full leather, MFSW and 12months dealer warranty.

It is a TI, but it's mising the TI wheels. There she is with the right wheels

http://www.gumtree.ie/dublin/60/61671260.html

Tragedy

RobertM wrote: »

It is a TI, but it's mising the TI wheels. There she is with the right wheels

http://www.gumtree.ie/dublin/60/61671260.html

I wouldn't be surprised if the first owner downgraded the wheels for more comfort tbh!

falabo

I've owned three: 2002 156 Sportivo 1.6. 2004 156 TI 1.6. 2002 156 Sportwagon 1.6. Apart from routine maintenance and replacing consumable parts, I've never had any real trouble with any of them and they have NEVER broken down on me.

Go for the 156 1.6 in either Saloon or Sportwagon styles. The 1.8 is not worth the additional outlay in motor tax imo and the 2.0 is just too thirsty. Alternatively, the diesels are meant to be excellent but as you say - only high milers at your budget.

My advice - unless you absolutely MUST have one, avoid the TI - the ride and seats are too hard and the TI alloys buckle badly. The discomfort will drive you ever so slowly, but completely, mad.

In any case, check for: Service History, Engine Oil (run if it's low or black), Timing belt & variator (interval is every 36,000 miles), MAF Sensor (engine stuttering, uneven power delivery, hesitation), Suspension bushes (rattling, knocking, squeaking, loose feeling to the handling, uneven tyre wear), Central Locking (does it stay locked?) and electrical problems especially on models from late 2002 onwards with the new dash and trip computer (check all toys, bells, whistles and lights work).

I wouldn't give too much thought to the crash test results. The video someone posted earlier is genuine but would probably date from the first series of 156 model. The 156, like the 155, was developed on the FIAT Tipo platform as were many FIAT group Alfas', Lancias etc. The car was competitive with all of it's contemporaries for crash safety at the time of its launch. Check youtube for 1997 NCAP tests of the Laguna, 406, Mondeo, Xantia, 3 Series, A4, C-class and Saab 900. Few of them were all that impressive. Afterall, it was NCAP that pushed the manufacturers to up their game so it's only really since they started testing that car's improved.

There are a lot of abused 156's out there but if you can find a good one they are fabulous cars to own, drive and look at.

I wouldn't give anyone a 'thank you' for a super-thirsty 407 1.8 or chronically unreliable Laguna II. Check whatcar.com for their used car reviews if you want an impartial opinion or reviews based on actual owner feedback.

Good luck with the purchase whatever you decide.

falabo

RobertM wrote: »

It is a TI, but it's mising the TI wheels. There she is with the right wheels

http://www.gumtree.ie/dublin/60/61671260.html

04 WW 1299...

This is the same car advertised in two locations with different wheels? Why? Or is it that the person who possibly bought it since it was advertised on Gumtree - in July - is selling it already? A good sign. Sounds just like my experience of my maddening TI.

I kept my TI 3 months before I sold it on and bought an Astra GTC.

Tragedy

I found an ad of him selling it for €3,550(Ronan, 0862505056) so looks like he might have ended up trading it in or selling it for peanuts.

It says 103,000miles, but that could have been a typo and it was 103,000km(now 108!).

falabo

Tragedy wrote: »

I found an ad of him selling it for €3,550(Ronan, 0862505056) so looks like he might have ended up trading it in or selling it for peanuts.

It says 103,000miles, but that could have been a typo and it was 103,000km(now 108!).

*OUCH* I sold mine in July for €6,000!

BrianD3

falabo wrote: »

I wouldn't give too much thought to the crash test results. The video someone posted earlier is genuine but would probably date from the first series of 156 model. The 156, like the 155, was developed on the FIAT Tipo platform as were many FIAT group Alfas', Lancias etc. The car was competitive with all of it's contemporaries for crash safety at the time of its launch. Check youtube for 1997 NCAP tests of the Laguna, 406, Mondeo, Xantia, 3 Series, A4, C-class and Saab 900. Few of them were all that impressive. Afterall, it was NCAP that pushed the manufacturers to up their game so it's only really since they started testing that car's improved.

I think you've missed the point there, the OP was not considering a Xantia, 406, 900 etc. he was considering a 407. A 2005 156 is an 8 year old design whereas a 2005 407 is a 1 year old design. And there is no evidence that Alfa made the 156 body more crashworthy through the cars development. Addition of airbags is of little help if the car's passenger compartment collapses around the driver

The 156 in that video collapses more than the 147 did in its NCAP test. And the 147 scored a rubbish 3 out of 16 points in its NCAP offset test.

I wouldn't give anyone a 'thank you' for a super-thirsty 407 1.8 or chronically unreliable Laguna II. Check whatcar.com for their used car reviews if you want an impartial opinion or reviews based on actual owner feedback.

For the umpteenth time the facelift Laguna II is a reliable car, this has been independently shown. Saying it is "chronically unreliable" is simply wrong. Also, LOL at Alfa 156 advocates making sweeping, uniformed statements about Laguna reliability.

falabo

BrianD3 wrote: »

I think you've missed the point there, the OP was not considering a Xantia, 406, 900 etc. he was considering a 407. A 2005 156 is an 8 year old design whereas a 2005 407 is a 1 year old design. And there is no evidence that Alfa made the 156 body more crashworthy through the cars development. Addition of airbags is of little help if the car's passenger compartment collapses around the driver

The 156 in that video collapses more than the 147 did in its NCAP test. And the 147 scored a rubbish 3 out of 16 points in its NCAP offset test.

For the umpteenth time the facelift Laguna II is a reliable car, this has been independently shown. Saying it is "chronically unreliable" is simply wrong. Also, LOL at Alfa 156 advocates making sweeping, uniformed statements about Laguna reliability.

I wouldn't advise someone to buy a car if I thought it was a bad purchase and I stand by what I have said. Must've hit a raw nerve; do you drive a facelifted Laguna II?

First: I never said that there was any evidence that Alfa made the 156 any more crashworthy apart from the addition of more airbags and ASR. Don't try to put words in my mouth thanks.

Second: The 406, Xantia, A4 and the others I mention were contemporaries of the 156 at the time of it's launch. I don't think YOU understand how to compare and contrast the crashworthiness of cars. It is unfair to compare a 156 to a 407. They are a generation apart. The 406 was a one year old model when the 156 was first revealed. A car first launched in 1997 is obviously going to be inferior to a car launched in 2004 in terms of crash worthiness. I never said this was not the case. I merely wanted to put it in context that the 156 should not be considered a 'dangerously' unsafe car. It was as good as anything else from it's era. I notice while you talk about the 147, you make no mention of the 159 which came along two years after the 407. That put in an excellent performance in the NCAP tests.

Third: How do you know I am uninformed? You don't know that. I never mentioned the 'facelifted' Laguna II. I was talking about the original Laguna II launched 2001. It has a pretty poor reputation for reliability which is reflected in it's residuals values. Check them out... they go for thousands less than an equivalent Mondeo. Why do you think that is? http://www.whatcar.com/search/@22renault+laguna+hatchback+%2800-08%29@22/used-car-reviews/
Please provide some evidence to support your claims that the Laguna II has been independently proven to be a reliable car - ever. I'd be really interested to see an alternative opinion on this.

I find that Alfa Romeo's are as good as any other car and serious problems are usually the product of the owner's complete ignorance or stupidity. I maintain that Alfa Romeo build really good cars which are afflicted by an image that people such as yourself insist on cultivating. I'm sorry if my experiences and opinions offend your sensibilities.

FYI: JD POWER Customer Satisfaction Survey 2010. Of 12 Family class cars...

11: Renault Laguna (The new one - which you'd imagine would be superior to the Laguna II).
Vehicle owner satisfaction score 77.1%
Overall 81st=
The only area in which the Laguna scored more than two stars was for the appeal of the car's exterior — hardly a ringing endorsement. Owners experienced a range of problems inside the car, from operating the stereo successfully to faults with the door locks, and weren't impressed with the service they received at dealerships.

Worst in Class
12: Peugeot 407
Vehicle owner satisfaction score 76.8%
Overall 87th=
The 407 was rated below average in most areas. The build quality came in for criticism: loose moulding and faults with the doors were reported. Inside, owners had problems with the tyre pressure monitor system and found the audio systems difficult to use. The engine caused few issues but service standards were ranked below average.

I reiterate, check whatcar.com reviews of the Laguna II and Peugeot 407. This is not just my sweeping, uniformed statements about their reliability. Seriously... this is just one webpage and there are very few positives mentioned by those who are 100% informed... the owners.

Finally, I'm not a raving Alfa Romeo advocate ... I've just had good experiences and loved the cars - so I have had 3. I currently own a 2008 Opel Astra GTC.

BrianD3

falabo wrote: »

Second: The 406, Xantia, A4 and the others I mention were contemporaries of the 156 at the time of it's launch. I don't think YOU understand how to compare and contrast the crashworthiness of cars. It is unfair to compare a 156 to a 407. They are a generation apart. The 406 was a one year old model when the 156 was first revealed. A car first launched in 1997 is obviously going to be inferior to a car launched in 2004 in terms of crash worthiness. I never said this was not the case. I merely wanted to put it in context that the 156 should not be considered a 'dangerously' unsafe car. It was as good as anything else from it's era. I notice while you talk about the 147, you make no mention of the 159 which came along two years after the 407. That put in an excellent performance in the NCAP tests.

Jesus, do i have to explain it again. The OP is looking at a 407 and a 156 from 2005. It's of no relevance to the discussion how a 406, 900, E36 etc. perform in a crash compared to the 156. What is relevant is how the 156 performs compared to the 407.

The OP may walk away from a crash in a 407 that would kill him in a 156 - but I suppose he can console himself with the fact that he'd also have died in a Xantia, E36 or 900 :rolleyes:

Third: How do you know I am uninformed? You don't know that. I never mentioned the 'facelifted' Laguna II.

You're right you never mentioned it. I mentioned it, somebody thanked my post and this was your response.

I wouldn't give anyone a 'thank you' for a super-thirsty 407 1.8 or chronically unreliable Laguna II

Next

I was talking about the original Laguna II launched 2001. It has a pretty poor reputation for reliability which is reflected in it's residuals values. Check them out... they go for thousands less than an equivalent Mondeo Why do you think that is?

People spouting bullcrap on the internet is a factor in residual values and the Mondeo doesn't hold its value well either. Anyway the OP is talking about 2005 year cars....which includes the facelift Laguna II. So first you start waffling about how the 156 is as good as its 15 year old contemporaries in a crash - no help to the OP. Now you're on about 2001 Lagunas - no help to him either.

I find that Alfa Romeo's are as good as any other car and serious problems are usually the product of the owner's complete ignorance or stupidity. I maintain that Alfa Romeo build really good cars which are afflicted by an image that people such as yourself insist on cultivating. I'm sorry if my experiences and opinions offend your sensibilities.

LOL, the only negative thing I said about the 156 in this thread was its safety. So no, it doesn't "offend my sensibilities" if you say the 156 is a reliable car and I'm not "cultivating" anything.

FYI: JD POWER Customer Satisfaction Survey 2010. Of 12 Family class cars...

11: Renault Laguna (The new one - which you'd imagine would be superior to the Laguna II).
Vehicle owner satisfaction score 77.1%
Overall 81st=
The only area in which the Laguna scored more than two stars was for the appeal of the car's exterior — hardly a ringing endorsement. Owners experienced a range of problems inside the car, from operating the stereo successfully to faults with the door locks, and weren't impressed with the service they received at dealerships.

Wow, Laguna owners have difficulty operating the stereo, car must be a heap of crap so. That's a self reported satisfaction survey. Proper reliability surveys such as the ADAC Pannenstatistik deem the Laguna from 2005 onwards to have good reliability.

falabo

Blah blah blah. Do you work for Renault? You really should. They could do with your nit picking attention to detail. Well, I bow before you most excellent, informed, superbrained one. Clearly I know nothing and my opinion is worth dung because I went off on a tangent. Something you'd never be found doing*.

No need for taking the lord's name in vain by the way.

I wouldn't say the Lagunas are heaps of crap because the owners can't work the stereo; it does say a lot about the intellect of the sort of people who buy them though. Lets be honest with ourselves... large family and executive size French cars from all marques have almost always tanked it in the residual values area. This is regardless of who says what on the internet or otherwise.

*The original poster was wondering about the merits of the 156 v's the 407. You threw the Laguna II into the mix when the original poster had specifically stated he wanted to discuss the 156 v's 407. So please don't criticise me because I mention other cars. How did I go any more off topic than you?

The OP may have thanked you for your suggestion but he also said: "I just dunno about the Renaults." I'd have read that as: 'I wouldn't touch one with yours'.

But here we are - where we are; all because you can't let go of the Laguna thing.

samsemtex

falabo wrote: »

The 1.8 is not worth the additional outlay in motor tax imo and the 2.0 is just too thirsty. Alternatively, the diesels are meant to be excellent but as you say - only high milers at your budget.

My advice - unless you absolutely MUST have one, avoid the TI - the ride and seats are too hard and the TI alloys buckle badly. The discomfort will drive you ever so slowly, but completely, mad.

Sorry but i have to call bull**** on some of this. I have a 1.8 TI. All 1.8 alfas are actually 1.7s as the displacement is 1747cc.

You dont think its worth €80 a year for 20bhp extra? That is 21cents a day! Fuel consumption is actually better on the 1.8 and you can definitely feel the difference when over taking. I drove a 1.6 and i felt like getting out and pushing. You would be mad to choose a 1.6 over a 1.8.

Also the ride on my TI is excellent. It is sporty but it is definitely not jarring. All my family who have had a ride in it agree that the ride is excellent for such a sporty car. We have a C-class with a sport pack and the ride is way harsher, you feel every little bump that the TI damps out nicely. The one you had must have been wrecked or something. If it was just me who said it was smooth i might think i was biased but all my friends and family seem to think it is rather good too.

The seats are quite hard but VERY supportive. I had a volvo with soft leather seats before and i often had back pain after a long journey. Never had a problem after a long drive in the Alfa. My dad who suffers with a lot of back pain thinks it has the best seats of any car he's been in.

The wheels on mine are in good nick but it wouldnt sureprise me if they do buckle quite easily.

As for the OP. If you are single or just have a wife/girlfriend I would advise you to get the 156 all day, every day. It is a way more fun car to drive and it will put a grin on your face. If you have a family id say forget it. Its not practical, its not roomy in the back, the seats dont fold flat and the boot entry is tiny. Also its probably not as safe as a newer design car (this would not affect my choice at all tbh, but with kids maybe it would). Id go for something else if you need a family car. Definitely not a 407 though.

falabo

samsemtex wrote: »

Sorry but i have to call bull**** on some of this. I have a 1.8 TI. All 1.8 alfas are actually 1.7s as the displacement is 1747cc.

You dont think its worth €80 a year for 20bhp extra? That is 21cents a day! Fuel consumption is actually better on the 1.8 and you can definitely feel the difference when over taking. I drove a 1.6 and i felt like getting out and pushing. You would be mad to choose a 1.6 over a 1.8.

Also the ride on my TI is excellent. It is sporty but it is definitely not jarring. All my family who have had a ride in it agree that the ride is excellent for such a sporty car. We have a C-class with a sport pack and the ride is way harsher, you feel every little bump that the TI damps out nicely. The one you had must have been wrecked or something. If it was just me who said it was smooth i might think i was biased but all my friends and family seem to think it is rather good too.

The seats are quite hard but VERY supportive. I had a volvo with soft leather seats before and i often had back pain after a long journey. Never had a problem after a long drive in the Alfa. My dad who suffers with a lot of back pain thinks it has the best seats of any car he's been in.

The wheels on mine are in good nick but it wouldnt sureprise me if they do buckle quite easily.

I never owned a 1.8 so I never missed the 20bhp extra. At the time I bought my first 156 I was on a tight budget so I thought I would be saving by opting for the 1.6. I never actually done the calculations. The difference between the 1.6 and 1.8 in insurance for me was about €80 per annum for fully comp at the time also. A mate of mine, who had the 1.8 Sportivo, drove mine and thought it was quite fast considering the difference in engine size. As I used each of the cars mainly for a commute, with just myself on board, I never felt the car lacked any power. 1.6 is more than enough for some people.

I did also say I got rid of my TI after just 3 months. There was a good reason for this; the ride quality was horrific. The seats were very supportive but for me, in combination with that ride, they felt too hard. Quite possibly it was wrecked or tampered with by previous owners but as there was no noise from the suspension so I presumed it was meant to be set up that hard as there didn't seem to be anything obviously 'wrong' with it. Whatever the case was, it couldn't compare to the older 2002 Sportivo for ride comfort.

samsemtex

falabo wrote: »

I never owned a 1.8 so I never missed the 20bhp extra. At the time I bought my first 156 I was on a tight budget so I thought I would be saving by opting for the 1.6. I never actually done the calculations. The difference between the 1.6 and 1.8 in insurance for me was about €80 per annum for fully comp at the time also. A mate of mine, who had the 1.8 Sportivo, drove mine and thought it was quite fast considering the difference in engine size. As I used each of the cars mainly for a commute, with just myself on board, I never felt the car lacked any power. 1.6 is more than enough for some people.

I did also say I got rid of my TI after just 3 months. There was a good reason for this; the ride quality was horrific. The seats were very supportive but for me, in combination with that ride, they felt too hard. Quite possibly it was wrecked or tampered with by previous owners but as there was no noise from the suspension so I presumed it was meant to be set up that hard as there didn't seem to be anything obviously 'wrong' with it. Whatever the case was, it couldn't compare to the older 2002 Sportivo for ride comfort.

Maybe he changed the springs or something but the quality of the ride is probably the most pleasantly surprising thing about my TI. I'm sure there are more comfortable versions of the car but i think the super sharp handling of the TI more than makes up for it. Its certainly not what i would call uncomfortable while the handling is superb. It just never understeers and i always feel like i can push into a corner more. I think the wheels and skirts make it look much better than a standard 156 so with all that in mind i would always take a TI over a Sportivo/Lusso.

falabo

My TI cornered like a go-kart, very flat with very sharp steering but there was little or no give in the springs and sharp ridges sent violent shocks through the car. Perhaps it was crashed and badly repaired or something. I'll never know now. I'd love to test drive another sometime and see if there is a big difference. It sounds like there would be.

I agree about the side skirts, it gives them more presence - even is the shape without them has more design purity. Both of the 156's saloons I have owned had pretty much the same side skirts. The Sportwagon I still run as a second car also has them.

1st looked exactly like this

The TI like this except the mirrors and foglight cowlings were red.

karlkhan

All, I'm thinking of buying this car, but I would need it checked out. I had a company car - 156 Lusso 1.8 with all the skirt and trimmings, any thoughts ? It's a pity that the wheel have been changed, the spokes really made the car look more attractive, but like said above, it handles like a dream !!!

Any recommendations re getting this car checked out for electrics etc ?