Did the Alfa 159 not sell well (and general queries about the 159)

bmwguy

I think it is the most beautiful car on the road today, especially with a nice colour and in TI spec but there dont seem to be many for sale from about the 06-09 years. Did it not sell well or is depreciation on them so horrendous that people are just keeping them? I currently have an Alfa 156 and its time for a change, the only car I can bring myself to look at is the 159. I was very happy with the 156, trouble free for 3 years, really great looking and a great drive but time has come to move on to something else. Does anyone have any observations or comparisons between the 156 and the 159? My 156 is a 2006 model, not really looking to move up too far on years, even an 06 159 would interest me, new reg plate doesnt do anything for me just think 159 is fresher design

Anan1

I drove a 159 when it first came out, and TBH didn't find it much of an improvement over the 156 2.0 my mother had at the time. It felt a little more rigid, a little bit bigger, and a bit slower. To my eye it lacked the elegance of the original 156, although it did look better than the 2003-on facelifted one. She ended up in an E90.

anthony4335

I agree, also saw one the other day and instantly took a look on carzone to see the going rates, and I was shocked to see how little they were going for. As for the GT holy cow they are cheap, both are great looking motors, I can only imagine that the italian reliability has got the better of them. Also saw a 3.2 v6 166 another gem. Al the better for buying one I guess.

bmwguy

Never thought about the GT, usually go for saloons and the 159 is about as sporty looking as you can get, just had a look at GT now and I might go have a look at one, beautiful car! Just coupes are a bit of a pain but no harm in looking! Great prices on them too!

Nonoperational

It's one of my favourite cars. Especially the Ti version. A 2.0 diesel or 1.8 200bhp from the UK would really do it for me...

Bigcheeze

I briefly thought about one when they came out. I think the reason they didn't get much traction is the pricing. I think the base model was priced in A4 territory. People view Audi as a premium brand, not Alfa. If they were priced as an alternative to a Passat, Mondeo, Avensis (like the 156 was), they would have sold a lot more.

Dilbert75

anthony4335 wrote: »

I can only imagine that the largely outdated and undeserved perception of italian reliability has got the better of them.

FYP

pred racer

They didnt sell well, either here or in the uk, from what I can gather from alfaowners etc, its because there were so many bad experiences with the 156 that the fleet buyers didnt buy any.

I have one (1.9 Jtdm) and I love it, but they are not easy to find, especially the TI.

bmwguy

Its a pity really it didnt sell well as its an absolute beaut. I'm going to pick one up this year, probably a petrol as I know there wont be much demand for them should get a bargain. Mileage not very high so no need for diesel, although if there is a nice diesel available without much of a premium I wont discriminate. 1.8 petrol or 1.9 diesel is all the same to me, not a huge selling point. A nice red or black 159 with good spec is all I want for new year!

166man

Dad has a 2010 159 SW with the 1.9jtdm engine in it. Think there's 75k km on it now, hasn't had one single problem except one bulb going on it. I have a 156 1.6 too and there's a world of difference to be honest.

The 156 feels lighter, more nimble and accurate. When I drive the 159 after the 156 it feels a bit truck like, no doubt helped by the diesel engine. It's very precise but has none of the lightness the 156 does but it's excellent on the longer trips, something the 156 isn't so good on. I wouldn't touch a 1.8 159 after a twinspark 156 though, I think you'll be disappointed. 1.8 is a sh1t engine to be honest.

I'd go out and drive a petrol and a diesel and see what you think. Some on here still think they're poor cars, I disagree. They don't have the issues that quite a few 156's had. Best of luck with one if you get one though.

166man

166man wrote: »

......... 1.8 is a sh1t engine to be honest. ..........

It might not be a good match to a 159, as an engine there's little wrong with it though, doesn't drink oil, doesn't snap the timing belt .....

Marcusm

1750 TBI being the pick of the petrol engines (unless you can stretch to the V6)?

166man

RoverJames wrote: »

It might not be a good match to a 159, as an engine there's little wrong with it though, doesn't drink oil, doesn't snap the timing belt .....

I forgot you owned one sorry...:o

166man

Marcusm wrote: »

1750 TBI being the pick of the petrol engines (unless you can stretch to the V6)?

The 1750 was the engine the Alfa always needed. The V6 is a huge heavy disappointment.

bmwguy

Marcusm wrote: »

1750 TBI being the pick of the petrol engines (unless you can stretch to the V6)?

No I'm happy enough to go for the standard engines, they're the ones in decent supply, cant really do anything with a 200 bhp engine on Irish roads that I cant with my 1.6 120 bhp anyway. I had a BMW 530i before and although a beautiful car the 230 bhp was wasted most of the time.....although it was nice to floor it every so often.

166man

166man wrote: »

I forgot you owned one sorry...:o

I believe it was yourself that had the view that to comment on a car you had to have owned one, as I don't share that view I'll comment away and share my knowledge as I see fit, I don't remember you having owned a 1.8MPi 159 btw but do remember you reckoning only owners can and should comment on cars

Please do elaborate on how the 1.8 is a "sh1t engine", we'll give you a few mins to consult whatever is your chosen source, you can come back on here than and rehash someone else's opinion

166man

RoverJames wrote: »

I believe it was yourself that had the view that to comment on a car you had to have owned one, as I don't share that view I'll comment away and share my knowledge as I see fit, I don't remember you having owned a 1.8MPi 159 btw but do remember you reckoning only owners can and should comment on cars

Please do elaborate on how the 1.8 is a "sh1t engine", we'll give you a few mins to consult whatever is your chosen source, you can come back on here than and rehash someone else's opinion

I would give my views but I think I already have somewhere on boards so go ahead and search away this Christmas eve.

I'm sorry but I'm not retaliating this time RJ, there have been too many threads where this has happened. I know the 1.8 is a bad engine, been in 159's with them before with Alfa sales reps out in Blanchardstown who themselves have commented ''it's not the strongest engine in the range''.

Anyway no more, OP if have anymore questions ask away!

Nonoperational

I wouldn't buy a 1.8 MPI 159 because it's not fast enough for me...But I always thought/heard it was a reliable engine.

Nonoperational

Nonoperational wrote: »

........But I always thought/heard it was a reliable engine.

Apparently, they're engines.

166man

Nonoperational wrote: »

I wouldn't buy a 1.8 MPI 159 because it's not fast enough for me...But I always thought/heard it was a reliable engine.

I never said it was unreliable... I have never heard any horror stories, but it just doesn't suit the 159. The diesel is better in every single way tbh. The petrol is slow, sounds awful, hates being revved when I was in it and absolutely ate the petrol. Fair enough it might be reliable, but not a good engine as far as performance, fuel economy and it cannot match the twinsparks for noise either....

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Attention-This-vehicle-is-reversing/206413881500



Not much can match alfa variator noise to be fair.

166man

Once again you ruined a thread.

I'm done here, best of luck OP.

smcgiff

I've the 2.4l 210 bhp 159 TI saloon. I'll have it 5 years soon and haven't seen another the same as mine. And you're right i'll be keeping it for another few years i think to get value. Clutch went last year and there's a noise coming from the gear box, but nothing to worry about for now per TI autos.

Would I buy another Alfa, nope. I've enjoyed it, just not as much as i'd hoped.

Tropheus

Bought a 156 2.0l Selespeed new in 2000. It was a great car to drive, however, as an early adaptor of the Selespeed system, I had lots of woes. After a threat of legal action Alfa eventually sorted the problems which resulted in a new gearbox. It wasn't the Selespeed system that was the problem. Resulting from my wife losing confidence in the car, I sold it when it was less than a year old.

I like the look of the 159, but haven't driven one.

ottostreet

Saw thread title.

Knew 166man and roverjames would be along to argue.

Was proven correct on page 1.

Come on lads, you're good posters by yourselves, but every time I read a thread on this forum, both of ye are arguing.

Matt Simis

Now that the 159 bit has run its course, what are thoughts on its coupe sister car, the Alfa Brera, specifically the 2.4JTD and 3.2V6 models?
Ive always loved them but found it odd when window shopping (Autotrader.co.uk) that its now reached price parity with the Alfa GT, which is a lower category car (and based on older platform right?).

Ive read the GT drives better but I would accept the notion the Brera (pano sunroof as standard!) is more of a nice to be in car than a sports car (despite the looks). Any first hand experience?

Veloce

Matt Simis wrote: »

Now that the 159 bit has run its course, what are thoughts on its coupe sister car, the Alfa Brera, specifically the 2.4JTD and 3.2V6 models?
Ive always loved them but found it odd when window shopping (Autotrader.co.uk) that its now reached price parity with the Alfa GT, which is a lower category car (and based on older platform right?).

Ive read the GT drives better but I would accept the notion the Brera (pano sunroof as standard!) is more of a nice to be in car than a sports car (despite the looks). Any first hand experience?

On the Brera, the 2.4 diesel is the choice I'd have. The 3.2 (GM) engine is a big let down in comparison to the busso V6.

The Brera is very similar to the 159 in terms of handling. Feels a fair bit heavier than the GT (which is based on a 156 platform) but the quick rack steering at higher speeds and twisty bends makes it very enjoyable.

I have heard on more than one occasion of the Pano roof cracking- it's an expensive fix. Don't know if it is an inherent issue or just odd.

I'd have a black prodrive Brera, mmmm!

Nonoperational

166man wrote: »

I never said it was unreliable... I have never heard any horror stories, but it just doesn't suit the 159. The diesel is better in every single way tbh. The petrol is slow, sounds awful, hates being revved when I was in it and absolutely ate the petrol. Fair enough it might be reliable, but not a good engine as far as performance, fuel economy and it cannot match the twinsparks for noise either....

That's a fair argument. If you potter along and don't really care about performance etc it would probably suit people fine. I've read a few reports on Alfaowners of people that have it and are pretty happy with it. Gets them from A-B etc.

But yes I agree that it's slow and doesn't have much character. It's a GM unit with an Alfa head I think.

On an unrelated matter, our 156 1.6 TS (10 years old now) passed the NCT with flying colours recently and drives like a new car (touch wood)! Really love that car.

bobin fudge

I like the look of the 159, saw a 166 2004 in passing on dorset street garage the other day, never enquired about it but it looked in alright condition from teh outside walking by.

Lex Luthor

If I was going for the 159, the 2.4 diesel is the way to go and if you can get a Ti spec, even better (in white and sportswagon)
I had one for a few days on a demo a few yrs ago (not the Ti spec) but have to say it was the best diesel engine I have ever driven

I loved the GT I had but I was never won over by the 1.9 diesel engine. As for the Brera I think they would be a bit impractical for my needs and they just dont do it for me at the back.

I still miss my 156

georgefalls

I've got a Spider..

bmwguy

Maybe I'll consider keeping the 156 for a while nothing wrong with it, all the love for them on here has reminded me that the grass is not always greener on the other side and what a good car it really is. I could probably do a lot with the 5k or so it would cost to go from an 06 156 to a 08/09 159 which prob wouldnt be much better of a car. On a side note mine is classed as a 156 ti/lusso, what does this mean? I see a few advertised the same too. Thanks for all the advice anyway guys

Nonoperational

Lex Luthor wrote: »

If I was going for the 159, the 2.4 diesel is the way to go and if you can get a Ti spec, even better (in white and sportswagon)
I had one for a few days on a demo a few yrs ago (not the Ti spec) but have to say it was the best diesel engine I have ever driven

I loved the GT I had but I was never won over by the 1.9 diesel engine. As for the Brera I think they would be a bit impractical for my needs and they just dont do it for me at the back.

I still miss my 156

I miss my 156 too. I still drive it from time to time because the gf has it but as much as I like the GTI, there's definitely something about the Alfa.

In another life (and probably country), I should have got a 156 GTA. I think if I was working and didn't go back studying I would have. What a car.

georgefalls

bmwguy wrote: »

Maybe I'll consider keeping the 156 for a while nothing wrong with it, all the love for them on here has reminded me that the grass is not always greener on the other side and what a good car it really is. I could probably do a lot with the 5k or so it would cost to go from an 06 156 to a 08/09 159 which prob wouldnt be much better of a car. On a side note mine is classed as a 156 ti/lusso, what does this mean? I see a few advertised the same too. Thanks for all the advice anyway guys

Ti/Lusso, is the level of trim/extras..;)

bmwguy

georgefalls wrote: »

Ti/Lusso, is the level of trim/extras..;)

Yes but arent TI and Lusso 2 seperate soec levels whereas mine is down as both or a combination of the 2?

Matt Simis

Veloce wrote: »

On the Brera, the 2.4 diesel is the choice I'd have. The 3.2 (GM) engine is a big let down in comparison to the busso V6.

Yeah Im hearing that a lot. Tell me, was the 2.4JTD FWD only or also AWD like the 3.2? Guess I wouldnt mind either way just curious.

166man

Matt Simis wrote: »

Yeah Im hearing that a lot. Tell me, was the 2.4JTD FWD only or also AWD like the 3.2? Guess I wouldnt mind either way just curious.

I know I said I was done here but still, AFAIK Matt the 2.4 was FWD as was the 2.2 with the 3.2 being the only model with 4WD.

The 2.4 is the engine of choice in the Brera. I'd avoid the 3.2 as Veloce correctly pointed out it's a total disappointment.

Apologies folks for arguing...:o

unkel

Sad that people reckon the engine of choice is a diesel. I know all the arguments. The 2.4 is the first common rail engine in the world and diesel saves a lot of money (in fuel) compared to petrol

But jaysus, diesel in an Alfa Romeo?

Recommending a sh1t noisy 4 pot diesel in an Alfa Romeo when one could still easily get a (second hand) Alfa with the glorious Busso V6?

Stheno

unkel wrote: »

Sad that people reckon the engine of choice is a diesel. I know all the arguments. The 2.4 is the first common rail engine in the world and diesel saves a lot of money (in fuel) compared to petrol

But jaysus, diesel in an Alfa Romeo?

Recommending a sh1t noisy 4 pot diesel in an Alfa Romeo when one could still easily get a (second hand) Alfa with the glorious Busso V6?

I love the looks of the Brera, but not the reviews.

What instead? What Busso V6?

Matt Simis

unkel wrote: »

Sad that people reckon the engine of choice is a diesel. I know all the arguments. The 2.4 is the first common rail engine in the world and diesel saves a lot of money (in fuel) compared to petrol
But jaysus, diesel in an Alfa Romeo?

I saw a funny factoid on that the other day, the 2.4JTD is an Alfa engine (ok made with Fiat, but pretty much designed by Alfa). The current 3.2 petrol is, as pointed out, a GM engine used in low end US stuff and some Opels. Its nothing to do with Alfa at all! In this specific case, the JTD is the "proper" Alfa engine.

Personally while I dont like the idea of diesel in general, I do like the idea of tuning and unlocked potential, high base BHP, lots of torque etc (my 156 had the original 10v version of the 2.4JTD). The 3.2 doesnt really have anything interesting to unlock and out of the box, no one raves about it at all! I looked at a Dutch 159 3.2 review, he said something like "this engine doesnt really do much till you rev it really high.. problem is it cant rev very high at all".

unkel wrote: »

Recommending a sh1t noisy 4 pot diesel in an Alfa Romeo when one could still easily get a (second hand) Alfa with the glorious Busso V6?

But you cannot get that engine (the Busso) in a (used or not) 159 or Brera!? Also the 2.4JTD isnt a 4pot, its a 20v straight 5.

unkel

Matt Simis wrote: »

Also the 2.4JTD isnt a 4pot, its a 20v straight 5.

I know, that's why I mentioned it

The first common rail and probably one of the best diesel engines of that generation. Also very eager for a generous remap

Edit: you had one of these, didn't you?

The first few people recommended the smaller 4 pot diesel...

And no, the Busso engine never went into the 159. A good looking car, but I can't think of any other positive points about it. I'd much rather go for a well cared for 156 with the Busso myself

Matt Simis

unkel wrote: »

I know, that's why I mentioned it

The first common rail and probably one of the best diesel engines of that generation. Also very eager for a generous remap

Edit: you had one of these, didn't you?

The first few people recommended the smaller 4 pot diesel...

And no, the Busso engine never went into the 159. A good looking car, but I can't think of any other positive points about it. I'd much rather go for a well cared for 156 with the Busso myself

Yeah I had a 156 2.4JTD. The engine was good, but IMO while the 156 chassis looks smart and drives great, its really aged badly in the interior and exterior panel fit and finish. Low quality plastics (construction wise, not visually), creaky, flexible body, slightly iffy seating position (the pedal positioning too).
I think its had its day. The would kinda be my concern with the GT too, its not quite new enough to fully break away from the 156 standard.

The 159 and Brera were meant to be break out cars like the 156 itself was to the 155. On a motorway, close your eyes in my W126 Merc and in a 156 and the Alfa seems like the older car, despite being nearly 20years newer. I suspect the 159 and Brera are miles better in this regard. They also score way higher in crash tests, the 156 is poor in this regard.

unkel

Matt Simis wrote: »

I suspect the 159 and Brera are miles better in this regard. They also score way higher in crash tests, the 156 is poor in this regard.

Looks like the 156 was never submitted for the NCAP :eek:

The newer 147 (based on the 156) got 3 stars. Not great.

smcgiff

unkel wrote: »

Looks like the 156 was never submitted for the NCAP :eek:

They did, but couldn't find enough of the car afterwards to rate it

Re the 2.4l engine. I would have preferred the AWD back when I ordered it in 2008, but it wasn't an option in Ireland. It was in the UK if I recall.

166man

unkel wrote: »

Sad that people reckon the engine of choice is a diesel. I know all the arguments. The 2.4 is the first common rail engine in the world and diesel saves a lot of money (in fuel) compared to petrol

But jaysus, diesel in an Alfa Romeo?

Recommending a sh1t noisy 4 pot diesel in an Alfa Romeo when one could still easily get a (second hand) Alfa with the glorious Busso V6?

I hardly think it's sad that the engine of choice is a diesel. It suits the car perfectly. Compared with other 4 cylinder daysuls the 1.9JTD is quite a nice motor in my experience.

It's also not that easy to get a good 2nd Busso V6 engined Alfa these days in Ireland either.

Matt Simis wrote: »

Yeah I had a 156 2.4JTD. The engine was good, but IMO while the 156 chassis looks smart and drives great, its really aged badly in the interior and exterior panel fit and finish. Low quality plastics (construction wise, not visually), creaky, flexible body, slightly iffy seating position (the pedal positioning too).
I think its had its day. The would kinda be my concern with the GT too, its not quite new enough to fully break away from the 156 standard.

The 159 and Brera were meant to be break out cars like the 156 itself was to the 155. On a motorway, close your eyes in my W126 Merc and in a 156 and the Alfa seems like the older car, despite being nearly 20years newer. I suspect the 159 and Brera are miles better in this regard. They also score way higher in crash tests, the 156 is poor in this regard.

I think the 156 still looks very fresh today on the outside although the interior is a bit older alright. Seating position in my experience is spot on too.

159 and Brera are gorgeous. Period.

Anan1

166man wrote: »

I hardly think it's sad that the engine of choice is a diesel. It suits the car perfectly. Compared with other 4 cylinder daysuls the 1.9JTD is quite a nice motor in my experience.

How to damn a car with faint praise..

dgt

166man wrote: »

It's also not that easy to get a good 2nd Busso V6 engined Alfa these days in Ireland either.

It is, just not in a 156