166 3.0 Super - Long term report - where now?

chrisf_v6 · #1 (**Post Link**) 06-01-12

I bought my absolute favourite car ever (no contest) in May 2006. As I prepare myself for moving on, I thought I'd share my long term report here.

Experience:
Utterly fabulous. The noise, the performance, the noise, the interior, the performance, the interior, the noise, the performance. I have a ten mile commute to work on a range of country roads. Twenty minutes of pleasure every day. Third and Fourth are to die for. It's amazing. The car is totally smooth when cruising but demands that you drive like a hooligan on the b-roads. Great car.

Reliability:
She's been recovered (un-driveable) twice for burst power steering hoses.
Many, many things have gone wrong. I have 23 garage receipts so, on average, it's been to the garage about 4 times a year.

Running costs:
Total garage bills (Alfa Sport Sawston) add up to ... wait for it ... £13,161.
That's £2300/year. Depreciation is less than £500/year on top of that.
What an absolute f*****g bargain.

She's currently in very good shape (new clutch & flywheel in November) but I feel it's time to move on.

I'm planning to test drive some 159 Q4's tomorrow.

I'm hoping they can get close to my 166 3.0 Super.

a17esh · #2 (**Post Link**) 07-01-12

I'd suggest u keep the 166!

Or GTA or 3.2 gt :-)

Chris Cousins · #3 (**Post Link**) 07-01-12

If you have the space keep the 166 and get something else.

We did after buying our 159 and have not regretted the decision. Depends very much on how much you can get for it but VED on a pre Mar 2001 car is at the fixed level (albeit increasing each budget) rather than being emissions based.

chrisf_v6 · #4 (**Post Link**) 07-01-12

Originally Posted by a17esh

I'd suggest u keep the 166!

Or GTA or 3.2 gt :-)

I've not driven a 159 yet. I take it it's not much cop compared to the 166?

By GTA, do you mean 147? I'm looking for something younger than a 156.
I have considered 'GTA'ing a 159 at Autodelta.

I suppose I could squeeze the three kids in the back of a GT ...

cdrewett · #5 (**Post Link**) 07-01-12

Originally Posted by fryercjn

I've not driven a 159 yet. I take it it's not much cop compared to the 166?

By GTA, do you mean 147? I'm looking for something younger than a 156.
I have considered 'GTA'ing a 159 at Autodelta.

I suppose I could squeeze the three kids in the back of a GT ...

Go for the GT, once you're in the back there's plenty of room, and a big boot too. According to the boss of Fiat, they made the 159 400kg too heavy. That's a lot of weight to drag around.
Chris

michaelb · #6 (**Post Link**) 07-01-12

Originally Posted by fryercjn

Running costs:
Total garage bills (Alfa Sport Sawston) add up to ... wait for it ... £13,161.

OMG. I ran my 166 for seven years and the total repair bill over that period was one side-light bulb which the helpful MoT chap put in for a token sum. Other than that it had an oil change every year, one cambelt (and bits) change, tyres, and one set of brake pads. I never added it up but would be surprised if it was over £3,000 total - the most reliable car I've ever owned.

Originally Posted by fryercjn

I'm planning to test drive some 159 Q4's tomorrow.

I'd be interested to read your report. The 159 just didn't do it for me when I felt it was time to move on and so I jumped ship

ultraviola · #7 (**Post Link**) 07-01-12

I think it'll largely come down to your budget and priorities of what you're really after.

I had to go the other way (159 to 166!) due to finances but in all honesty, both cars have a lot to offer. The 159 had the right 'oomph' from the 1750 TBi engine (but you forsake sound of course). However, the interior material quality of the 159, seat support (if TI) and front end aesthetic looks IMO are better.

In reality, my 166 is about 5-10 mpg less efficient (depending on driving style), £15 more per year in road tax due to age/emissions and about the same (£30 a month) in insurance.

I have to say though that I'm having more fun driving the 166

Both are great cars and it would have been great if they'd just dropped a V6 Busso into the engine bay of a 159!

chrisf_v6 · #8 (**Post Link**) 07-01-12

Originally Posted by michaelb

OMG. I ran my 166 for seven years and the total repair bill over that period was one side-light bulb which the helpful MoT chap put in for a token sum. Other than that it had an oil change every year, one cambelt (and bits) change, tyres, and one set of brake pads. I never added it up but would be surprised if it was over £3,000 total - the most reliable car I've ever owned.

I've done 65k in that time. I've had lots and lots of suspension work (I blame the speed bumps) various new arms (£400 each!), roll-bars, wishbones, bushes. Two clutches, one flywheel, some brake discs, some brake pads, two sets of timing belts, lots of spark plugs, some head gasket, a radiator (caused the head gasket), a burnt out heater fan, some coil springs (bloody speed bumps), some wheel bearings, lots of power steering fluid, an alternator, a silencer and quite a few tyres.

I honestly still think it's very good value for that quality of car.

Originally Posted by michaelb

I'd be interested to read your report. The 159 just didn't do it for me when I felt it was time to move on and so I jumped ship

I've gone off the 159 idea - seems like a downgrade from the 166: Smaller. Better looking front, worse looking rear. No significant performance improvement. Just seems less special.

Becoming quite smitten by a 3.2 GT as recommended here. Took the family to look at one today. They really are very spacious in the back for a coupe.

a17esh · #9 (**Post Link**) 07-01-12

Grey with red leather and the must have 18" alloys!!!!! Ohhh I want one!

michaelb · #10 (**Post Link**) 07-01-12

Originally Posted by fryercjn

I've gone off the 159 idea - seems like a downgrade from the 166: Smaller. Better looking front, worse looking rear. No significant performance improvement. Just seems less special..

Agreed.

I like the sound of the 3.2

alfaaddicted · #11 (**Post Link**) 07-01-12

Hi having owned a GT 3.2 i can say that the GT especially in 3.2 is my favourite Alfa ,i prefered the looks to the Brera and there is a suprising amount of space for even adults in the rear seats and the the boot is very practical even with the seats down.
The downsides i found were the squeaking bootlid that Mangoletsis did their best to cure although they did say it was a "GT problem" Also the pathetic stereo even with the Bose system (V6 soundtrack made up for it though ) I didnt like the cheapo 147 type dash.
The ride on 18" wheels was just this side of awful and i was the slowest thing on wheels when there was speed humps as it scraped its arse on every one and people driving lesser cars who followed me used to get impatient as they could just drive over them at normal speeds !
Also wet shoes nearly caused me to have accidents due to them slipping off the metal pedals
But these are mere niggles on what must be the last true Alfa made.
But i still remember the first time i went to look at it and even though it was round the back of the showroom i heard its deep chested bellow while i was sat at the salesmans desk.
Dont bother with a 159 unless you want a car later than 2005/6 but if you want newer go for the 159 with the 3.2 even though its GM based it still sounds glorious and the upside is newer technology and better build quality ,you are in an enviable position enjoy your hunting .

niallmoran · #12 (**Post Link**) 07-01-12

ken can probably give you his impression from moving from a 166 to a 3.2 159....

Paul S · #13 (**Post Link**) 08-01-12

I just could not contemplate getting an Alfa with an American engine. Maybe it's an irrational mental block. I can't get over it, even if the heads are by Alfa. Just look at it compared to the Busso

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/2176/478800.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...omeo30-24V.JPG

Pomeo · #14 (**Post Link**) 08-01-12

Originally Posted by niallmoran

ken can probably give you his impression from moving from a 166 to a 3.2 159....

I thought Ken had gone to the dark side.Pomeo learning awe ra time.etc

Originally Posted by Paul S

I just could not contemplate getting an Alfa with an American engine. Maybe it's an irrational mental block. I can't get over it, even if the heads are by Alfa. Just look at it compared to the Busso

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/2176/478800.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...omeo30-24V.JPG

Just doesn't look the same as Paul Says

Pomeo

chrisf_v6 · #15 (**Post Link**) 08-01-12

Originally Posted by Paul S

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/2176/478800.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...omeo30-24V.JPG

Oh. That's a bit unfortunate isn't it?
Time to pick up an end-of-line Busso!

mocky166 · #16 (**Post Link**) 08-01-12

[QUOTE=michaelb;4554503]

I was looking at changing to a 159(2.2) about 6 months ago,but came to the same conclusion!

Just could not do it in the end!

Mufasa · #17 (**Post Link**) 09-01-12

Originally Posted by Paul S

I just could not contemplate getting an Alfa with an American engine. Maybe it's an irrational mental block. I can't get over it, even if the heads are by Alfa. Just look at it compared to the Busso

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/2176/478800.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...omeo30-24V.JPG

Like comparing tacky PVC to leather eh?

CCOVICH · #18 (**Post Link**) 09-01-12

Honestly, I've had a GT for nearly 4 years now, but don't overestimate the size of the rear seats. If nothing else, getting kids or anyone else in and out isn't the easiest. If you need to use the back seats regularly, get a 159 or keep the 166.

Chris Cousins · #19 (**Post Link**) 09-01-12

Originally Posted by ultraviola

In reality, my 166 is about 5-10 mpg less efficient (depending on driving style)

Ho Ho Ho!

Our 166 3.0 Sportronic = 24mpg
Our 159 TBi = 27mpg

I happily admit I don't try to save fuel but both cars are used on the same routes at the same times by the same people (mr Mrs and me) and the real world difference is not as much as you might expect. Admittedly on a single tank it might be more, but when you average over 10,000 miles it's not that big!

chrisf_v6 · #20 (**Post Link**) 09-01-12

Originally Posted by CCOVICH

Honestly, I've had a GT for nearly 4 years now, but don't overestimate the size of the rear seats. If nothing else, getting kids or anyone else in and out isn't the easiest. If you need to use the back seats regularly, get a 159 or keep the 166.

Thanks for the tip but meh. I've checked they fit and that's good enough for me.
We've always got the wife's motor ... oh ... that's a Boxster

I'm convinced the GT is the most practical option available. Heck, it's a hatchback! That's a family car!

a17esh · #21 (**Post Link**) 09-01-12

How do you rate the Boxster to drive?

I drove a 911 GT3 something - I just didnt like it.

chrisf_v6 · #22 (**Post Link**) 09-01-12

Originally Posted by a17esh

How do you rate the Boxster to drive?

I drove a 911 GT3 something - I just didnt like it.

I like the Boxster alot. It's a great little car and great value.
It's fun, quick enough (only a 2.7), rides and handles beautifully.
It's very tuneful at high revs and feels a little bit special.

But there's something missing. Maybe it's all a bit efficient, I don't know. I could use it every day if I wanted to but I always choose the 166. That's mad really. When I bought the wife the Porsche, everyone said "oh yeah, like you're not going to drive it every day!". That was four years ago. The only times I use the Boxster is when the 166 is in the garage ...

GLPoomobile · #23 (**Post Link**) 10-01-12

Originally Posted by Chris Cousins

Ho Ho Ho!

Our 166 3.0 Sportronic = 24mpg
Our 159 TBi = 27mpg

I happily admit I don't try to save fuel but both cars are used on the same routes at the same times by the same people (mr Mrs and me) and the real world difference is not as much as you might expect. Admittedly on a single tank it might be more, but when you average over 10,000 miles it's not that big!

But the difference is going to be somewhat dependant on the type of journey, as different conditions will suit different types of engines.....errrr, differently

I guess if you are seeing 24mpg average from a 3.0 sporto, your journey must be reasonably long, and mostly cruising around 60-70mph, so a lot of motorway or open A/B roads, and not a lot of urban driving. I reckon if you were doing a lot of shorter and/or urban driving then the difference between the 166 and 159 maybe be greater, as the TBi engine may not be quite so thirsty at the lights. The 3.0 absolutely slurps through fuel every time you are stopped at a junction or traffic lights.

john elford · #24 (**Post Link**) 10-01-12

hi
i was in the same boat as you last year, so i kept my 166 2.5 V6 and bought a 159 2.4 Qtronic
really great car and nice to drive espeicially on long runs.
could not sell the v6 anyway, couldnt even give it away , its even got a 2K+ gas kit on it!
so thats another one in the shed!.
Happy days
just keep the 166 they make great coffee tables
cheers
john boy