Talk to me about 15 year old twinspark engines

[Vitorio]

Hi guys

After spending way too long trudging around in company cars, the current corp-mobile is at the end of its lease at the end of may, and ive gotten the stupid idea to switch back to private ownership, and get back into Alfas (had two mitos and a 33 some 5 years back)

Now considering my budget and use, im looking at a 156 or 147 (sadly 155s are getting a bit too scarce), and the twinspark variety of those (dont do the miles to justify a JTD, and im not quite brave enough to go for a V6 just yet)

Now from my previous years in the alfa community, i remember twinsparks having some niggles, mostly to do with oil. IIRC all 16v TS engines will eat their big end bearings when running below the minimum level, which ends up being a rather costly job. Now i seem to remember that the larger engines were more prone to this (so a 1.6 would be safer then a 2.0) is there any truth in this?

Any particular engines to avoid/look for?

Also, any other attention points besides timely cam belt change, oil level and diesely noise from the cam variator?

[paul makin]

buy on condition not history - assume it'll need at least a belts service. not financially catastrophic these days - specialists are offering a belts service on a TS for around £300 - add another £100 for the variator.

front arms are usually moulded from chocolate, treat as service items. thermostats seem to fail open with alarming frequency.

they use oil - the handbook tells you this, ignore at your peril. some less than others but not a sealed unit that needs no inspection between services. some will tell you that it's down to the extreme lean burn of the TS design - personally i think the specified oil is too thin !!

rust in the floorpan is the real killer on 156's - check where the sills join and also the bulkhead

don't be alarmed by the V6 - much more robust that then the TS with the added advantage of a much longer belts interval. and, the Busso

paul

[Vitorio]

paul makin said:

buy on condition not history - assume it'll need at least a belts service. not financially catastrophic these days - specialists are offering a belts service on a TS for around £300 - add another £100 for the variator.

front arms are usually moulded from chocolate, treat as service items. thermostats seem to fail open with alarming frequency.

they use oil - the handbook tells you this, ignore at your peril. some less than others but not a sealed unit that needs no inspection between services. some will tell you that it's down to the extreme lean burn of the TS design - personally i think the specified oil is too thin !!

rust in the floorpan is the real killer on 156's - check where the sills join and also the bulkhead

don't be alarmed by the V6 - much more robust that then the TS with the added advantage of a much longer belts interval. and, the Busso

paul

Thanks!

I know the rust/upper front suspension niggles, same for the thermostat. I am just mostly concerned about buying a TS engine which could have hidden bearing damage due to low oil running, wouldnt want to end up with a shot engine two weeks after purchase. This was mainly why i was wondering whether there is any truth to my remembering the lower displacement TS units being less vulnerable to this.

As for the V6, i very much know the Busso is amazing (ideally speaking id want a 155 V6, but those are getting pretty pricey), but both petrol usage and belt costs are a fair bit higher, and while the interval might be higher on miles, it still is three years, and i expect to hit the 3 year period before i hit 36k miles in those three years. As this will be my first real privately owned car (had a 33 for a while as a secondary, but this will be my primary mode of transport), im trying to at least keep it somewhat sensible, even if im going for a 15 year old italian.

[GJR68]

A lot of twinnies will have had recent rebuilds due to belt failure. Check they did the bottom end shells too and you could end up with a good engine that could last a while longer. Regular oil checks, 10w-40 semi synthetic and not a mile over 35k for the belt change. I bought my 2.0l at 110k with rebuild and now at 170k with no issues at all.

[Vitorio]

GJR68 said:

A lot of twinnies will have had recent rebuilds due to belt failure. Check they did the bottom end shells too and you could end up with a good engine that could last a while longer. Regular oil checks, 10w-40 semi synthetic and not a mile over 35k for the belt change. I bought my 2.0l at 110k with rebuild and now at 170k with no issues at all.

Ive not seen many adds explicitely mentioning rebuilds, but i guess a rebuilt engine would be a good gamble, provided they did the bottom end as well

And yes, i will be religious about oil and belt changes

[DamienB]

Frankly any twinnie still around these days is likely to have been kept topped up with oil, because otherwise it'd be dead. Least of your worries with a 147/156 really. I chose the 1.8 because the 1.6 is rather lacking, the 2.0 isn't much faster and has more expensive belt changes due to the additional balance belt.

[Vitorio]

DamienB said:

Frankly any twinnie still around these days is likely to have been kept topped up with oil, because otherwise it'd be dead. Least of your worries with a 147/156 really. I chose the 1.8 because the 1.6 is rather lacking, the 2.0 isn't much faster and has more expensive belt changes due to the additional balance belt.

Yeah, if im going 156 the 1.8 is top of my list, its a decently fast engine, and as you mention, no balance shaft means cheaper belt change

For a 147 im not quite sure, i think even a 105 1.6 (no cam variator, so cheaper service) would be fast enough for comfortable use, but im sure i will be wanting more power soon enough, so a 2.0 might be in the cards then (which would make it a proper warm hatch)

[Vitorio]

Slight update, i might have underestimate Diesels, even at relatively low mileage a diesel can be cost effective over here

And i might just be able to man-math myself into a 156 2.4 JTD, its not a big stretch to think itll be cheaper then a 1.6 TS 147

[Pat H]

Vitorio said:

Slight update, i might have underestimate Diesels, even at relatively low mileage a diesel can be cost effective over here

And i might just be able to man-math myself into a 156 2.4 JTD, its not a big stretch to think itll be cheaper then a 1.6 TS 147

I had a 2.4 JTD 20v. It did 43mpg and was fast.

It also wore out bottom arms and ARB bushes at an alarming rate.

I now drive a 2.5 V6. It does 27mpg and is not as fast.

The V6 steers and handles much more nicely, it is nothing like as heavy on tyres and suspension components and sounds magnificent.

I would take the V6 every time. Much tougher than a TS. Can run to 50k miles for a timing belt instead of 36k. That said, changing the timing belt on the TS can be attempted at home. I'm not brave enough to change the belt on my V6.

The 2.4 JTD is an impressive lump and doesn't sound bad for a diesel. Good for motorways, not much fun on a twisty road.

[Vitorio]

Pat H said:

I had a 2.4 JTD 20v. It did 43mpg and was fast.

It also wore out bottom arms and ARB bushes at an alarming rate.

I now drive a 2.5 V6. It does 27mpg and is not as fast.

The V6 steers and handles much more nicely, it is nothing like as heavy on tyres and suspension components and sounds magnificent.

I would take the V6 every time. Much tougher than a TS. Can run to 50k miles for a timing belt instead of 36k. That said, changing the timing belt on the TS can be attempted at home. I'm not brave enough to change the belt on my V6.

The 2.4 JTD is an impressive lump and doesn't sound bad for a diesel. Good for motorways, not much fun on a twisty road.

Thanks for the notes!

V6 isnt really an option for me, id love one, but petrol usage (and petrol/diesel price difference) make it a rather hard sell at the moment, as i am trying to keep the cost somewhat under control (every 100 euros spent on fuel is 100 less for the"oh fk something blew up" fund)

Id be looking at a 10v 2.4, but im willing to bet even the oldest 136 horse version is a very nice lump, loads of torque, hadnt accounted for the extra load on the front suspension though

Im not sure if ill be able to find one though, i kinda settled on wanting an SW if i go the 156 route (i have some moving in my future, having a hatch/estate is just soo much more practical), and there are currently a whole 2(!) 2.4 SWs for sale in my budget in my country

[DamienB]

My 10v 2.4 JTD was no harder on suspension bits than my current 1.8 TS and just as much fun on twisty roads. The only serious difference I found in handling was the nose would dip more under braking and any up/down undulations in the road you had to be wary of, as you really don't want the nose going down when the road is going up... sump/exhaust bracket hits the deck, sump cracks, ouch... my 1.8 TS has no such bracket, and doesn't dip its nose anywhere near as badly.

[DavidJG]

From ownership some years ago (2.0TS), watch for camshaft variator failures. I used to get about 20k miles, then have to have it replaced (again). I used to run the car on 6k oil changes, so old oil was definitely not to blame (doing about 18k / year at the time).

[Vitorio]

DavidJG said:

From ownership some years ago (2.0TS), watch for camshaft variator failures. I used to get about 20k miles, then have to have it replaced (again). I used to run the car on 6k oil changes, so old oil was definitely not to blame (doing about 18k / year at the time).

Ouch, that is a belt-off job right? not a funny thing to do each year

[DamienB]

And highly unusual. Sort of thing that goes once in an engine's life, certainly not every 20k.

[GJR68]

Yep, variator every 20k is highly unusual. They rarely fail, just get noisy on start up which get's worse over time. Is often related to the spec of oil used.

[awooga]

I had a 2 litre twinny spider for 6 years - had a rebuilt engine in it due to the crank seizing rather than the belt snapping. Apart from that, in my ownership, it proved to be virtually utterly reliable. The crank temp sensor started playing up at about 40k miles on that engine (100k on the car) but would restart as soon as it had cooled down. Cheap repair - £35 for the spare and a few hours labour. Cambelt and tensioner swap I did at 32k miles, can't remember the specific cost as there were some other niggles getting sorted at the same time (upgrading pads, MOT stuff like suspension bits etc)

It sip oil - my missus' saab just never ever needs it, but the Alfa was a weekly check and maybe needed topping up with half a pint every thousand or so miles. I did rev the nuts off it though...

I certainly wouldn't be scared off one that's been looked after. The front suspension on the saloons / hatches is more of an issue than engine woes.

[fin racer]

Vitorio said:

Thanks for the notes!

V6 isnt really an option for me, id love one, but petrol usage (and petrol/diesel price difference) make it a rather hard sell at the moment, as i am trying to keep the cost somewhat under control (every 100 euros spent on fuel is 100 less for the"oh fk something blew up" fund)

Id be looking at a 10v 2.4, but im willing to bet even the oldest 136 horse version is a very nice lump, loads of torque, hadnt accounted for the extra load on the front suspension though

Im not sure if ill be able to find one though, i kinda settled on wanting an SW if i go the 156 route (i have some moving in my future, having a hatch/estate is just soo much more practical), and there are currently a whole 2(!) 2.4 SWs for sale in my budget in my country

I had a 10v 2.4.
All the aforementioned stands in my opinion. A heavy lump of an engine way out over the axle line, not terribly well damped so I was always conscious of yumps.
Lovely engine note on part throttle and even up around 4-5k. Not massively thirsty.
Front suspension was dire. Constantly replacing drop links, upper and lower wishbones etc. Mine was the 150 brake Veloce spec. Momo tan leather, Alfa red, teledials. Christ I still miss that car. Good luck with your search.

[Vitorio]

fin racer said:

I had a 10v 2.4.
All the aforementioned stands in my opinion. A heavy lump of an engine way out over the axle line, not terribly well damped so I was always conscious of yumps.
Lovely engine note on part throttle and even up around 4-5k. Not massively thirsty.
Front suspension was dire. Constantly replacing drop links, upper and lower wishbones etc. Mine was the 150 brake Veloce spec. Momo tan leather, Alfa red, teledials. Christ I still miss that car. Good luck with your search.

Thanks!

I keep going back and forth on the engine front, the sensible part of me says "just get a diesel", but honestly, ive been driving econoboxes for a little too long, and want to get the derv-clatter cleaned out of my ears, and there is a good looking red SW with a 1.8 TS unit for sale close-by (at an alfa-specialist no less, and the car will receive a new belt and MOT before sale)

And then there is the part of me that says "sod it all, get a v6", which would be a no-brainer in about a year, but finances might be a tad unstable the coming year, so i might want to keep some amount of sense involved, also, i really need an SW, and the more special engines (V6, 2.4) really limit my options quite a bit, and im not to keen on having to hunt through half the country to find that one decent car in my price-range.

[Dave Brand]

I've had a 1.8 145 & a couple of 2-litre 147s. I found the 2-litre a better engine for everyday driving, as the 1.8 is a little bit lacking in power under about 3,500 rev/min whereas the 2-litre pulls strongly from around 2,000.

[Vitorio]

Dave Brand said:

I've had a 1.8 145 & a couple of 2-litre 147s. I found the 2-litre a better engine for everyday driving, as the 1.8 is a little bit lacking in power under about 3,500 rev/min whereas the 2-litre pulls strongly from around 2,000.

Thanks

Im trying to avoid 2.0s because of the more expensive belt job if possible, but i might end up getting one anyway.

EDIT: other reason to be looking at 1.8s, they are much more common, and im trying to get a phase 1.5 model, in which the 2.0 TS was replaced by the JTS lump, which ill be avoiding, considering it had some issues from what i remember.

Edited by Vitorio on Tuesday 8th March 10:38