Alfa Romeo Forum banner

Brera diesel v petrol used purchase quirey

3K views 30 replies 17 participants last post by  jurdy1 
#1 ·
Looks like I may go the diesel route . 2.2 petrol engine looks to have heavy fuel and tax costs ,flawed chain design and poor driveability thanks to Alfa Romeo's mapping.

Forget the 3.2 , I have to pay my way.

So is the 2.4 more common diesel fine or is the 2.0 better and lighter ,better handling?

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App
 
#2 ·
the 2.4 is a good strong engine - I wouldn't worry about that. The 2.2 seems more prone to problems than the 2.4 and the 2.4 benefits from the F40 gearbox where 2.2 has the problematic M32 GM unit made from cream cheese.

You'll find the 2.4 should be slightly more economical, although she can be a bit of a hungry beast, but it has slightly more BHP and much more torque so will move you along nicely. Being a 5 cylinder they're actually very smooth and worryingly make a rather tasty noise too! You won't be disappointed.
 
#5 ·
My understanding is that, although the 2.2 has the M32 gearbox, due to less torque compared to the 1.9 diesel, it doesn't have as many problems.

Regular oil changes can also help with the chain as far as I'm aware (although I don't own one, I'm going off what I have read here) a remap will also sort out the AR mapping.

Alternatively, the 2.4 is a beauty, don't listen to Squadrone and Tata.. they don't know what they are talking about :cheese::lol:

The tax on the 2.4 is still pretty high (around the £220 mark)

If you're doing short runs, get the petrol, if you're not doing short runs, get the diesel.

The 2.0 diesel has the F40 gearbox and good fuel economy, along with a decent amount of torque.
 
#9 ·
What's with your avatar pic?
Is the GT Blackline a previous car or another dream?

I have a 2.2 but I wouldn't have another, way too many flaws without throwing loads of money at it to cure problems that should never have been there in the first place...

I'd certainly never touch a diesel for a car that's supposed to be all about pleasure and fun.
Could you seriously put up with the clatter every morning and people looking out of their windows thinking their taxi's arrived? :lol:

A 2.0 petrol GT could be the answer.
 
#13 ·
I had a GT black line 1.9 diesel. Not perfect. Noisy on right lock not on left,rattle from rear boot lid area cured when osr seatbelt wouldn't unroll and I changed it. Worst problem was driver's seat wasn't me shaped and heavy clutch. My leg was aching constantly. Even so, l loved it.
But I don't want to be stung again.

So info much appreciated.


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App
 
#14 ·
Might as well throw my five eggs in the 2.4 diesel and i'm not a diesel lover but went this route for the amount of miles I travel each year is IMHO a great car, has a lovely exhaust note on regen performance wise look at the facts is not that far off the 3.2 for top speed etc

Fell like a tank but is that a bad thing! the five cylinder is fairly rattle free average 33mpg compared to just above 22 got the same looks.

If I had money to burn a 3.2 otherwise it has to be the 2.4

pulls like a train but doesn't sound like one :)
 
#20 ·
I am one of very few people who have actually driven all of them.

To be honest, at launch, I was unimpressed by all the engines in early 2006, so I just got the 150 Jtd, which sounded awful.

However, when the 2.4 210 bhp came along, I had one ordered straight away, with Ti trim, it is, in my opinion, head and shoulders above the rest, it only sounds like tractor when cold, and unlike the V6, doesn't need a kazoo in the inlet to generate a pleasing induction note.

It's not perfect by any means, it simply has to be given a good run every couple of days to avoid DPF problems and you may end up needing a cylinder head rebuild on early 210's before they redesigned the valve seats.

TBi is a nice car, but disappointing in character and not a huge amount of performance considering the fuel burn rate.

Some people hate them, fair enough.
 
#22 ·
I have always had petrol Alfa's with the exeption of my previous 156 Sport.
The 1.9 derv unit in that was great, on the motorway it was the quietest engine i have owned and the torque was fantastic.
But it ate my clutch and the EGR getting clogged up was a pain, all of which i could forgive,,, Just.
But the clatter at start up was something i could not live with on such a good looking car.
 
#26 ·
It matters little which engine you get, they all have pluses and minuses. If you have no money to spend you'll likely to be buying an old high mileage, poor history, badly maintained load of trouble and that really goes for whatever make of car you buy.

Buy a car with low mileage, good histroy that hasnt been ragged every outing and you will be happy whatever the choice. There will allways be exceptions though where that rule has been followed and it didnt work.

Both our 2.2 jts cars easily do 28 mpg, 30+ on a longer run. Drive to the rev limit in every gear or stop start in city traffic and 22 mpg will be all you get if you are lucky.
 
#27 ·
I've had the 2.2 petrol, the 2.4 diesel and now the 2.0 diesel (all 159's) The 2.4 was my fave out of the lot. Strong smooth and more economical then the 2.2. The 2.0 diesel is pretty good on fuel consumption in general and far better then what I got from the other engines. It just doesn't feel as solid as the 2.4. Sorry I can't articulate it any better then that.
If you can, go for the 2.4 with the 210bhp, you won't regret it!
 
#28 ·
Well I will be spending about 10-14k tops. So I guess I'm in very late car territory. The prodrive cars look to have very plush interiors. When did the later cars with one colour seats come out? Is that a series 2 car?

I may go for a auto diesel but I only do about 14k a year mileage so I guess diesel is the way?
 
#31 ·
I've driven most of Alfa's offering overt he last twenty years and am a huge petrolhead. The problem is the 2.4 derv unit becomes a veritable monster when mildly tweaked and I'm still getting around 38/39 mpg on my mainly motorway commute. I loved the boxer engines, I still love the twinnies and busso V6 but felt that both the 2.2 and the 1750 engines wanting/lacking for the car we are talking about. The 2.4 has cost a fair amount so far but it is a fantastic tool for long distance and a credit to alfa (ford/Saab/whoever) designed it as it is a robust unit. It just feels like the best unit for the 159. I'm going to duck now ....
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top