Is this the bargain it seems??

[jof]

Been looking for a 156 JTD for a new job which means an 80 mile round trip on the motorwat every day.

Saw this on autotrader and can't help thinking there's something wrong withe he spec vs. price.

I'm a bit new to the Alfa thing - I'm a die-hard VAG man really but I got bored looking at Passats and A4s/A6s and thought seeing as I have a Corrado VR6 to keep the faith (and fun!!) at the week-ends, I'd look at something with a bit of character for the daily drudge.

All sugestions/advice welcome but the one proviso is diesel,

Ta in advance,

Jof

http://search.autotrader.co.uk/es-uk/www/cars/ALFA...

Edited by jof on Tuesday 19th February 01:43

[robemcdonald]

You need to add a link to the car on the trader.

[jof]

Edited above to add link - oops!

also going to have a look at this

http://search.autotrader.co.uk/es-uk/www/cars/adve...

[Wombat Rick]

Certainly looks a good price. The Lusso suspension is quite soft and doesn't take well to spirited back road driving but is fine for motorway cruising.

[jof]

To be honest that's big part of what I want - comfy on the m/way.

How much harder is the suspension on the Veloce (sp?) and the Tourismo?

Edited by jof on Tuesday 19th February 09:59

[bint]

jof said:

To be honest that's big part of what I want - comfy on the m/way.

How much harder is the suspension on the Veloce (sp?) and the Tourismo?

Edited by jof on Tuesday 19th February 09:59

I have a Veloce SW and I could never describe the suspension as being 'hard'.

If anything I find it too soft.

[Wombat Rick]

jof said:

To be honest that's big part of what I want - comfy on the m/way.

How much harder is the suspension on the Veloce (sp?) and the Tourismo?

Lusso and Turismo is the same setup. Veloce (or Sport Pack on earlier cars) is lowered and can be quite firm and doesn't cope very well with a quick sequence of bumps. It's a very personal thing though isn't it?

Bint - most Sportwagon Veloces are not lowered so don't suffer the same affliction as badly as the saloons.

[jof]

I'm looking to get between an '01 Y reg and an 04 reg - budget up to 5k - as it must be diesel, what would you guys reccomend between the 1.9 and 2.4 & why?

Ta in advance

Jof

[robemcdonald]

Looks like a nice car. The drivers seat look as though it's had a hard life though.

[Wombat Rick]

jof said:

I'm looking to get between an '01 Y reg and an 04 reg - budget up to 5k - as it must be diesel, what would you guys reccomend between the 1.9 and 2.4 & why?

Ta in advance

Jof

The 2.4 5 pot is a big grunty unstressed throbby lump - probably the most characterful diesel engine there is. Fantastic performance and driving pleasure. I can't recommend it enough.
The 1.9 is lighter and slightly more frugal and is still an excellent engine - way better than the overboosted, laggy and noisy VAG equivalent - but unless absolute economy is your priority I would much prefer the 2.4.

Remember there was a mild facelift in mid 2002 (colour coded bumpers, mirrors and integrated stereo are the most obvious spotting points) and then a major facelift end of 2003 with the big nose version.

[sjg]

Looks fine to me too, I'm happy with my 2.4. Veloce is pretty hard by normal car standards, doesn't bother me but passengers usually comment on the ride. Mine has the sports interior too (leather Recaros) and the two together mean it's a bit uncomfortable on longer journeys - if I chose again I probably wouldn't pick that combo.

The 2.4 isn't that economical (expect 42ish mpg) and the earlier non-multijet ones aren't that powerful either - 136bhp I think. It is a nice, torquey, refined, characterful engine though - perfect as a motorway hack.

[75_Steve]

2.4 maintenance can be eye-wateringly expensive.

I'd probably avoid anything with an oil burner that has been lowered - you'll clout the sump on every speed bump.

My personal choice would be a 1.9JTDm 16v. 150bhp, which is more than an early 2.4, and much easier to work on.

The 2.4s are great engines, but the economy is shocking for a diesel and cambelt changes need a 2nd mortgage.

ETA: If you do fancy that one, make sure the cambelt has been done.... it's quite possible that's why it's cheap. Alfa dealers charge a grand to do the job. Specialists from around 400 quid incl. service.

Edited by 75_Steve on Friday 22 February 22:05

[Colin RedGriff]

That's quite interesting about the 2.4. I'm thinking about trading in my 2.0 tspark and going to one of the diesels, my first choice was the 2.4 but having had 7 years of cam belt and variator repalcements on the tspark it would be nice not to have to worry so much about the service bill, what year did the 150 1.9 come in?

[Wombat Rick]

Colin RedGriff said:

That's quite interesting about the 2.4. I'm thinking about trading in my 2.0 tspark and going to one of the diesels, my first choice was the 2.4 but having had 7 years of cam belt and variator repalcements on the tspark it would be nice not to have to worry so much about the service bill, what year did the 150 1.9 come in?

To be honest I would ignore the above hand wringing as misguided at best.

The 2.4 in 10 valve form is as strong as an ox. The cambelt change is £450 or so - not much different from the Twin Spark, yet it can be left for almost twice the length of time - say 60,000 to be safe, but most owners wait to 72,000. It has no known weak spots and there are examples in the AROC with 200,000 miles. There are also many running hugely increased power (through remaps) and other than wearing clutches they are coping with the extra demanded of them. In my four years (50,000 miles) of ownership I had nothing under the bonnet go wrong other than a replacement battery cable.
In it's final form (mid 2002 on) the 10 valve 2.4 was 150bhp and 225lb ft of torque. Before that it was only slightly down at 140bhp but torque remained much the same. The 1.9 150 is hard to find, and as it is 16 valve it has a more fragile cambelt situation than the 2.4 10 valve. It also doesn't have as pleasant a power delivery or noise so would very much be my second choice. I appreciate it is a lighter lump though.
As for economy, the 2.4 in a 156 will realistically return 35 round town and 45 on a long run. My trip computer used to regularly show high 40s on the motorway. It is comparable to the 1.9 - maybe 1 or 2mpg down.
If you go for Veloce suspension (preferably with a strut brace) you will not smack the sump. The Lusso setup is too soft for spirited driving on bumpy roads, but lets face it no 156 version is at at it's best when it's bumpy.

In short I can't recommend the 2.4 highly enough. It is powerful, economical, strong and has bags of character.

[75_Steve]

Whilst I agree the 2.4 is a strong engine, I'd still be wary of anything that's so tight a fit under the bonnet.

Belts do last, but, again, would you really want to chance 72k miles on one..... I wouldn't. Personal choice, though. And belt changes can be expensive unless you seek out a decent, cheap and realiable specialist.... again, make sure it has been done on anything you're looking at, as a lot get sold when the change comes around, rather than pay the main dealer cost of doing it.

But, and this is the biggest issue I have with the 2.4 - they're over-weight, under-powered and a lot thirstier than a modern multi-valve diesel. Which is why, as an ownership proposition, I'd prefer to seek out a 1.9 16v. (as an example, my average MPG, with a mixture of A- and B- road caning, city work and motorways in my Passat TDI is 48mpg, a 156 2.4 would turn in the best part of 10mpg less than that for the same performance).

[sjg]

Cambelt change is no more expensive on a 2.4, certainly at the specialists anyway.

Not tried a 10v, but my 20v mjet hasn't gone below the official 42.8mpg on a fairly even mix of motorway plodding and London stop-start traffic. If I do a whole tank on the motorway it's high 40s. And it sounds a hell of a lot better than some rough VAG 4-cyl unit.

[75_Steve]

sjg said:

Cambelt change is no more expensive on a 2.4, certainly at the specialists anyway.

Not tried a 10v, but my 20v mjet hasn't gone below the official 42.8mpg on a fairly even mix of motorway plodding and London stop-start traffic. If I do a whole tank on the motorway it's high 40s. And it sounds a hell of a lot better than some rough VAG 4-cyl unit.

Whole tank on a motorway with my 'rough' VAG 4-pot will see nearly 60mpg. I've set my cruise to 70mph in the past and seen the high 60s.

The 2.4 10v is relatively old tech. these days. Fantastic engine in it's day, but looking a bit long in the tooth now - the only thing it has going for it is the sound.

In terms of cost, you're looking at 400 quid for a belt change on it at a specialist, against 200 quid for the 1.9 16v.

If you're going to buy a diesel, at least make sure you're getting on that's economical and cheap to maintain in exchange. Otherwise you may as well get a TSpark or JTS, which sound infinitely better and, on balance, will cost you no more to run - especially when you take into account the rather steep premium you pay for a 2.4JTD over the TSpark / JTS.

A 1.9 16v may cost a bit more to buy than a 2.4 10v, but it will repay this by being significantly more economical, cheaper to maintain, and in these days of rapidly rising fuel costs, probably have better residuals.

[Wombat Rick]

Oh well. Enjoy the Passat Steve.

[75_Steve]

Wombat Rick said:

Oh well. Enjoy the Passat Steve.

It's a good car, but I'd prefer a 159 1.9JTD.

We've had a 156 2.0TSpark for 3 years now - it was around half the price of a 2.4JTD of the same age and has returned over 30mpg on average. When you look at those figures, the 2.4 really doesn't make a lot of sense. I'd thought about buying one for myself when I needed a commuting hack, but the figures never really added up - hence my suggestion that the OP would be much better off looking at a 1.9JTDm 16v - all the power of a 10v 2.4, but much more economical, less nose-heavy and cheaper to maintain.