159 1750 TBi Economy - Page 6 - Alfa Romeo Forum
You are currently unregistered, register for more features.    
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: United Kingdom
County: Blaenau Gwent
Posts: 60

Member car:

alfa romeo 166

Is there a DNA switch on the Brera tbi? If so, just drive everywhere in D. My daughter drives her Mito 135 MA in N and gets 35mpg. I drive everywhere in D and get 45mpg cos the car is more responcive and you don't have to welly it.
kiddercocker is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Czech Republic
County: Jihomoravský
Posts: 30

Member car:

159 1750 TBi

My 3 weeks experience with my 159 TBi:

- Driving to work (30% city, 30% higway, 30% normal roads outside city): 11 L/100km
- Constant 130 km/h on higway: 10 L/100km
- Constant 160 km/h on higway: 11 L/100km

These values are about the same as with my previous car (2.2L atmospheric petrol, 200kgs lighter), so I don't complain.
petrv is offline  
Nev
Status: - Update
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiddercocker View Post
Is there a DNA switch on the Brera tbi? If so, just drive everywhere in D.
No, it doesn't neeed it.

If you drive around in a high gear and never go over 110kph
the car easily returns below 10 l/100km.

If you drive it "normally" it won't.
 
 
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Czech Republic
County: Jihomoravský
Posts: 30

Member car:

159 1750 TBi

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nev View Post
No, it doesn't neeed it.

If you drive around in a high gear and never go over 110kph
the car easily returns below 10 l/100km.

If you drive it "normally" it won't.
The same here. If I drive 80 kph at 6th gear, it shows something like 7 L/100km. It also seems that the turbo petrol engine needs different driving style than N/A petrols. With my previous N/A engines, I was used to push the accelerator all the way down pretty often at low revs. The engine didn't consume much petrol, but didn't accelerate much either. THe turbo engine accelerates nicely when pushed from low revs, but is also drinks a bit more
petrv is offline  
Status: -
AO Silver Member
 
steffoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London
County: -
Posts: 1,138
Images: 13
I've started to drive at lower revs at when cruising at lower speeds. Reading about the car, it says everywhere that it "produces power from 1400 rpm". Maybe that's the way it should be driven?
steffoo is offline  
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: United Kingdom
County: Suffolk
Posts: 304

Member car:

159 Ti 2.2

1.8, 2.2 and 3.2

Reading with interest as I have recently being looking for a 2.2 Ti, as they are now in the 12K price range @35K miles.
Was looking at a 2.4 diesel, but have been put off by...
1. Diesel Noise, clatter and stench. We all buy Alfa's thinking of the V6 sound and end up with a 1.9 JTDM stinker.
2. The DPF/EGR issues that you WILL have. OK, they should of designed it to work, you can get it removed for 600 notes, but then you have insurance matters, increased premiums etc.

I had written off the V6 as just too uneconomical but looking at this thread, there is not much in it.
Previous experience with Mercedes and BMW is to just get the biggest engine available in said car, if the difference is say <5 MPG.

Down sides to a V6 is the servicing costs, depreciation and resale values. In 5 years road tax will be higher, petrol 2 + a litre, heck you would have to give it away; they could be on Pistonheads 'shed of the week' for less than a grand.

Who disagrees ?
wardpaa is offline  
Status: Quo
AO Silver Member
 
harleyriv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Tuvalu
County: -
Posts: 4,706
Images: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by wardpaa View Post

Down sides to a V6 is the servicing costs, depreciation and resale values. In 5 years road tax will be higher, petrol 2 + a litre, heck you would have to give it away; they could be on Pistonheads 'shed of the week' for less than a grand.

Who disagrees ?
I got the TBi because it's the lightest of the range (110kilos lighter than the V6 - crucially in the nose), with a tweak it produces slightly more power-to-weight than the V6 with lots more torque, and with the prospect that the resale value will be higher. The only disappointment is the fuel consumption which is about the same as the V6 in real-world, spirited driving
harleyriv is offline  
Status: Still engineering
AO Silver Member
 
Old Engineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Esher
County: Surrey
Posts: 2,098
Images: 12
A good 2 weeks of London driving and with 2 fill-ups it's steady at 23MPG (both on the computer and on a calculation of refilling to the brim). The first 8 miles is a cruise on a busy 3 lane dual carriageway (27MPG) and then a stop start 6 Miles.

But today on the (clear) M25 for 30 Miles each way and cruise control on.
Set at 80MPH out I got 25MPG and set at 70MPH for the return I got 30MPG.
Old Engineer is offline  
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: United Kingdom
County: Lancashire
Posts: 28
Images: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Nason View Post
A good 2 weeks of London driving and with 2 fill-ups it's steady at 23MPG (both on the computer and on a calculation of refilling to the brim). The first 8 miles is a cruise on a busy 3 lane dual carriageway (27MPG) and then a stop start 6 Miles.

But today on the (clear) M25 for 30 Miles each way and cruise control on.
Set at 80MPH out I got 25MPG and set at 70MPH for the return I got 30MPG.
Its still very poor Chris.

My wife has a Jeep 3.0 CRD Grand Cherokee and on a run, it does better than my TBI (getting over 30mpg)...why is that?

If BMW/Audi can offer petrol engines which give sensible mpg; why cant Alfa; after all its only a 1.8 with a turbo. I could understand if we were talking about the 3.2 V6. Don't get me wrong I'm a huge Alfa fan, but with the price of petrol and such low mpg, its beginning to hurt
Luigi 1 is offline  
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: North West of Ireland
Posts: 519
Images: 8
Blame it on the tree huggers and other globally warmed up, politically correct gob sh__es! MPG is imo far more important to my wallet than co2 etc
Leitrim155 is offline  
Status: 159 TBi Ti on order
AO Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: United Kingdom
County: North Yorkshire
Posts: 46

Member car:

BMW 118dSE

Not that I really bother that much about fuel economy but my old 400 bhp V8 M3 averaged 25mpg!

Not sure why a 1.8 turbo with 200 bhp should be so thirsty?
flatpopely is offline  
Nev
Status: - Update
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by flatpopely View Post
Not sure why a 1.8 turbo with 200 bhp should be so thirsty?
Emissions control. ()

Anti-lag timing. (Squirting fuel into the cylinder and igniting it
during the outlet cycle isn't normally conducive to good fuel economy.) ()
 
Status: Shiny teledials on
AO Member
 
garethb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: United Kingdom
County: Cheshire
Posts: 448

Member car:

147GTA

25mpg at 80mph ?!! Only get 30mpg if doing 70?

That is very poor economy, that is about the same as an M3/911 (and my old 166 3.2 actually).

My 120k mile Saab 9-5 Aero estate which is a 2.3 turbo with 250bhp does considerably more too, 27mpg at 95, 30mpg at 85 and 33mpg at 75. Apart from styling obviously, why would i trade up to a TBi TI Sportswagon, as i'd be losing about 4/5 mpg and giving away 50BHP?

Shame, i'd expect what is a more modern version of broadly similar car (4cyl turbo estate) should be doing 4/5mpg MORE, especially since its down on power, maybe there is an issue with the fuelling/mapping of this engine which causes it to use so much in comparison to similar cars?
garethb is offline  
Nev
Status: - Update
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by garethb View Post

My 120k mile Saab 9-5 Aero estate which is a 2.3 turbo with 250bhp does considerably more too, 27mpg at 95, 30mpg at 85 and 33mpg at 75.


Does it conform to all the latest Euro emissions and CO2 BS rules?
 
Status: Shiny teledials on
AO Member
 
garethb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: United Kingdom
County: Cheshire
Posts: 448

Member car:

147GTA

I'm sure it doesn't ! Its only about 215 Co2, so its not in either of the top 2 tax bands. I'm sure the regs have to account for all sorts of emmisions though, not just Co2.

The figures are bad compared to most other modern cars with equivalent power which do conform to the latest regs. My wifes 330i may be one of those for example, i drove that up and down to London the other week and it was 2/3 mpg better than my Saab at the same speed and, it would appear, about 9mpg better on a motorway cruise than the TBi. That's just wrong, a 3.0 straight 6 petrol being that much better than a 1.75 turbo 4 ? And BMW are phasing out the straight 6 in favour of smaller capacity turbo engines.........
garethb is offline  
adb
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Cambs
Posts: 157

Member car:

Focus + ZX9

I'd bet that the front light clusters have something to do poor fuel economy? They look great, but must create loads of dirty air and turbulance, look at any other car, yes they might look boring, but they have nice smooth noses that improve the aerodynamic performance.

OK it would make little difference at town speeds, but must be worth a few mpg at 50mph + ?

Want improved mpg? Get the clingfilm out and shrink wrap the front of your car
adb is offline  
Status: Loving it!!
AO Member
 
daytona675's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: United Kingdom
County: Cheshire
Posts: 69

Member car:

Alfa 159 TBi Ti

It depends where you buy your juice also - I find that with Shell or BP regular unleaded I can get 2-3 mpg more than the smaller brands... the main Shell station that I use is generally amongst the cheapest also... guess it may be the additives that the major suppliers put in their juice.... I'm getting 29/30 on my regular journey using Shell , compared to 26/27 using Total regular unleaded...
daytona675 is offline  
Status: Stealth mode.
AO Member
 
dcystar147's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: United Kingdom
County: Aberdeenshire
Posts: 420
Images: 7
Garage

Member car:

2017 Giulietta

Mine now done 12,750 miles.

On 80% dual carriageway, and always within the limit, the trip computer shows between 29 and 30 MPG.
Checking using the same pump, at the same petrol station, across a full tank, I know the trip computer is optimistic by between 1 and 1.5 so my actual is between 27.5 and 29 MPG.

Only one thing to say:-

**** POOR

Will get past the last of the poor weather and grit and get it really clean, and then it's going back to the lease company for something a bit more frugal.

Giulietta 170 MA I think.
dcystar147 is offline  
Status: Still engineering
AO Silver Member
 
Old Engineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Esher
County: Surrey
Posts: 2,098
Images: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by adb View Post
I'd bet that the front light clusters have something to do poor fuel economy? They look great, but must create loads of dirty air and turbulance, look at any other car, yes they might look boring, but they have nice smooth noses that improve the aerodynamic performance.

OK it would make little difference at town speeds, but must be worth a few mpg at 50mph + ?

Want improved mpg? Get the clingfilm out and shrink wrap the front of your car
Yes, the lights may have an affect but they do have a splitter at the wing edge to hold the dirty air and the rest of the nose is clean. Alfa quote a fairly good Cda for the car but I bet that is with narrow tyres.

I find that the Ti TBi loses speed very easily when you shut the throttle. The old 156 rolled on very well at 50 MPH so that at speed camera sites I was always worried that downhill approaches needed care. In the 159 when I shut the throttle it loses speed quickly.

However, I can see that constant traffic lights in London hit the economy much harder than the 156 so I expect it is a combination of weight and tyres.
Old Engineer is offline  
Status: Alfaless!!
AO Silver Member
 
phil-gtv6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: United Kingdom
County: West Sussex
Posts: 3,080
Garage

Member car:

E82 125i

It's laughable that the official economy figures for the 156 and 159 1.9JTD 150 are the same (47mpg) when the 156 is far more aerodynamic, weighs 240 kilos less and has smaller wheels/tyres/brakes !
phil-gtv6 is offline  
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
County: West Midlands
Posts: 686
What about this chaps.

I managed 486 miles out of the last tank of liquid gold (unleaded). It worked out at 32.8 mpg so it is gradually getting better but still not the offical combined cycle.

Admitted it was mainly motorway miles and staying the right side of 75 mph but I haven't been driving like a complete granny.
jsfletcher159 is offline  
Status: working hard
AO Member
 
Chris Cousins's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
County: -
Posts: 842
Images: 38
We've got 35 mpg on Trip B now, total mileage just short of 7,500. Sticking to 70ish on the motorway but have been into city centres and caught in traffic jams too. Just using 6th on A roads, the tug is sufficient for overtaking as required. Also using the boost gauge - mpg is fine when it reads zero and mildly disturbing when you boot it - had 7mpg on the instant mpg readout when overtaking today!

There is a technique to getting better mpg and it seems to be improving with miles so we've decided to stick with the 159 TBi rather than swap to a Giulietta 170 diesel which was almost a dead cert 3 weeks ago (with 28mpg on Trip B).
Chris Cousins is offline  
Status: Absolutely loving the Norfolk Rocket
 
RomeoRaiderZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: United Kingdom
County: West Lothian
Posts: 3,456
Images: 4
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cousins View Post
........had 7mpg on the instant mpg readout when overtaking today!
You're not trying hard enough, . I'm consistently getting 4 (or slightly below) on mine during 'Italian tune-up' sessions.

Just filled it up tonight (87!!!! ) and worked out my brim to brim average over the last tankful as 33.7, so not too bad considering my enthusiastic style, .
RomeoRaiderZ is offline  
Status: -
AO Member
 
Jurin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Finland
County: -
Posts: 12
Images: 3

Member car:

159 1750 TBi TI

Does higher octane fuel give better mpg on the TBi? Currently using 98 octane.
Jurin is offline  
Status: Stealth mode.
AO Member
 
dcystar147's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: United Kingdom
County: Aberdeenshire
Posts: 420
Images: 7
Garage

Member car:

2017 Giulietta

UK spec TBi quotes 95 octane in the handbook. There is no mention of improved performance by using higher octane fuel, as I believe there is for some other current models (Mito Cloverleaf perhaps).
Tried mine once on a tank of BP Ultimate 97 Octane, but felt no difference in performance and economy was the same over the tank.
Got a settlement figure for mine last week from the lease company which I'm mulling over. Would need to replace it with something twice as economical to recover the settlement fee in a decent period of time. Might need to hang onto it for a bit.
dcystar147 is offline  
Reply

Go Back   Alfa Romeo Forum > Supported Alfa Romeo Models > Technical & Vehicle Assistance > Alfa 159, Brera & 946 Spider

Tags
159 , 1750 , economy , tbi

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

 
Replace with
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome