156 or 166?

I can't decide between a 156 or a 166. I think they both look good, but the size of the 166 would nice.

I'm up to date with the main issues to look out for on the 156. Are they similar for the 166? Which tends to be most reliable; 156 or 166?

if you go for the twin spark then mechanically the 166 is very similar to the 156...similar kinda niggles as well in terms of suspension etc. Personally, i think the 166 is miles ahead of the 156 in terms of quality and interior and also a rarer sight....it is a bit heavier and bigger so maybe not as sharp in terms of handling. Cost wise i think you'd be hard pressed to get a better value car than a 166....you might get a different opinion in the 156 lounge

nah, buy a 156 and then i'll get the 166 you were looking at

I keep thinking about the 166, but thinks it's a bit too big for me, but lots of toys on them

I took mine into the hills today...I personally think the handling is fantastic

Then again mine is lowered and I can barely get over some speed humps.

Without a doubt, go for the 166! I´ve had two 156´s and now a 166 and I wouldn´t change back! Overall feel of the 166 i so much greater, both in terms of quality, comfort, and looks. Never mind the size, it still isn´t bigger than most other saloons.

Originally Posted by Snokio

I keep thinking about the 166, but thinks it's a bit too big for me, but lots of toys on them

Big from the inside (compared to the 156 / 159) and not so big on the outside (only less than 3 inch longer than a 159).

In standard set up the 166 is more comfy and the 156 more sporty. But with big wheels and lowering kit the 166 is sporty as well. You can't describe the feeling you have when getting in. Jeremy Clarkson made a good attempt though:

+ YouTube Video

Like mentioned before, you don't want to go back to a 156 when you've owned a 166.

I never get bored of watching that vid

That is the same thing I was asking myself 2 years ago.
Look at 156 first, did not like my "work" space, went to see 166 - me like, me like a lot and now she is mine.

It was also the same thing with my first Alfa - first looked at 33 and also did not like the interior, went for 75 instead.

Go for test drive, try them both and then decide.

They are very different cars so drive them both before making any conclusions. I'd have to say the 166 is a better car in terms of refinement, build quality and trim level, but the more "raw" handling of the 156 is fun, and if you do very few long journeys, you won't get the best out of the 166.

i was very disappointed with the interior of the 156 i drove a year or so ago, the dash is horrible, the 2 litre engine was brilliant though, you will get more from it in the 156 than the 166 but why would you buy a 2 litre 166? get the 3 litre with manual box,put 17's on it and it will handle like a dream. ive just put 17's on mine and the difference is staggering, everyone should do it. the interior of the 166 is streets ahead of the 156 and everyone and their auntie has a 156.

166 is better in every aspect, but I would stay clear of worn early examples. they could cost a fortune to keep them running.

I don't agree that 156 is more sporty or handles better. 166 has perfect suspension, and drives more neutral then 156. no understeering problems at all.

My statements are based on 3l Super with Bilstein B6 shocks. default shocks were terrible, but 2l or 2.5 V6 could have lack of power

I had a 156 Veloce and moved on to a 166ti - I loved the 156 and kept her for 6 years, but the 166 is in a different class, no wind noise on motorways and the equipment is superb - the TS isn't under-powered, the TS is pokey enough, there is very little noticeable performance difference on the 156 TS and the 166 TS which is surprising considering the extra size and weight - I don't track race and let's face it neither is really quick. On the subject of size it's a tardis - feels very roomy inside, boot is huge but isn't that wider and only about a foot longer than the 156. Both are great cars though - it's a nice problem to have deciding between them Good luck.

go for the 166 ,i had a twin spark lusso and loved it to bits.they are a rare sight on the road and they smack of individuality .The 156 just didnt do it for me in the past . your choice is between a great car the 156 and a rarer great car the 166 . So good luck Pipster and keep us all posted with your final choice

wait a bit and then buy my 166 when I'm ready to sell. 166 is massively comfy and always a nice place to be - which I'm liking this week because I have a stinking cold.

even the 166 2.0 is not THAT slow (0-60 in 9.6 seconds: I promised myslef i'd never buy a car that takes more than 10 seconds!)

I am slightly tempted by a 3 litre 166 because of the VFM, how would a 3 litre manual compare with a 3 litre GTV in the driving stakes? As I have owned one of those. I have also owned a 3 litre 164 which I loved.

Simon.

You get an awful lot of car for the money with a 166. OK, I paid £4k for my 1999 3.0 Super earlier this year, but it is soooo clean and it came with a £1k service including belts, fluids, spark plugs and a water pump. I even got a new air flow meter, air intake hose, track rod end and central locking motor fitted under warranty! I guess it was the top end for price, but at least everything is done. It even came with a loads of tax and a year's MOT! If I'd of bought it for £3k needing half the above work, it would of cost me another grand.

So, in conclusion, be careful of cheaper 166s as they may bite you in the bum. But, it's a nice feeling in an Alfa that's a bit different to the more popular 156. I certainly wouldn't turn a nice V6 156 down though.....

Decisions, decisions.....

having moved from a 156 to a 166 at the begining of the year i haven't turned back, a lot more car for your money and a bti of a sense of uniqueism....