First of all I would be careful making the obvious paper choice
I bought my first alfa 8 months ago and if you look at everything on paper then a model stands out. Power, 0-60, emissions and of course mpg.
Dont believe all you read.
I went for the 2.4 diesel as much better mpg, good power and faster than the 2.2 .
Of course there is the 3.2 but I feel that's a little bit of a let down also in terms of what you think you should get power wise.
Well the diesels do give good power but aren't earth shattering. The 2.4 is heavy and like the 1.9 sounds like a 1970's land rover. The 5 pot 2.4 does have a nice growl under acceleration and isn't bad on fuel on long journeys.
So what I am perhaps saying personally I would find the 1.9 a rather dissapointing choice as it's slower sounds worse but you get an extra few miles a gallon.
I would also make sure you factor in a dpf removal and remap for £700 as that makes the car
If I was looking again I would definitely try out the petrol 2.2 - they tend to be cheaper than the diesel so you have a grand or two savings up front for very little difference in performance and it sounds like an engine not a bag of bolts rattling about. It's not a v6 and not hugely powerful but it's an option.
If you have a dpf removal in mind the the mpg increases and the power shoots up to around 260 ish bhp on the 2.4
It's a shame they didn't have another engine in the middle or a different power form to fill the gap and give a real option. The later 1750 has great reports and is lively enough with decent mpg but not going to get one for 7 k
So I'd say get the 2.2 petrol or 2.4
Leave the 1.9 in the cold