Has anyone ever upgraded to a V6 from a TS and regretted it?

[Bonkingbob]

As above really.

I know there's plenty of threads with 'should i upgrade' etc but I just wondered if anyone has ever missed the handling with the TS. Straight line power I know is awesome in comparison and I am virtually certainly going for an upgrade, but how much is lost handling wise?

Just want to know what to expect really.

[msgtv]

Originally Posted by Bonkingbob

As above really.

I know there's plenty of threads with 'should i upgrade' etc but I just wondered if anyone has ever missed the handling with the TS. Straight line power I know is awesome in comparison and I am virtually certainly going for an upgrade, but how much is lost handling wise?

Just want to know what to expect really.

Good question bob, iv'e heard those rumours that v6's aren't as ballanced, is it true?

[javars]

Theyre an awsome motor, press the loud pedal and youll never go back !!

They feel more planted due to the extra weight.

[symon]

The stories that the TS handles better than the V6 are pretty much a myth.

The V6 doesn't change direction quite a quicky in very sharp turns- it isn't quite as flickeable. But in most driving a V6 will leave a TS for dead, and not just on the straights. The V6 has a better suspension set-up. It is lower, better damped and doesn't have so many bits of rubber in the rear setup. It also rides better as it is less crashy.

The only thing a TS does better IMO is fuel economy.


Have a drive in one of each and see what you reckon.

[vela blue]

Have to pretty much go with the above statements - steering is pin point accurate on mine and I have a turbo and intercooler to add to the weight up front.

Diesel on a roundabout and a motorway turning have been the only problems I've ever had in 5 years for understeer. Both in wet conditions after a warm spell.

Previous car was a 75 twinnie, which I do miss, and it took me ages to adapt to front wheel drive again. I think you get used to your car and I'd do the same again if I was in a similar position. So V6 it is :-)

[msgtv]

Originally Posted by symon

The stories that the TS handles better than the V6 are pretty much a myth.

The V6 doesn't change direction quite a quicky in very sharp turns- it isn't quite as flickeable. But in most driving a V6 will leave a TS for dead, and not just on the straights. The V6 has a better suspension set-up. It is lower, better damped and doesn't have so many bits of rubber in the rear setup. It also rides better as it is less crashy.

The only thing a TS does better IMO is fuel economy.


Have a drive in one of each and see what you reckon.

yes had also heard that symon, re better suspension etc, guess the only thing to do is drive one, will wait til ive had the TS about a year though and enjoyed it, cos i'm pretty sure i wont want to go back to it afterwards

[Bonkingbob]

Originally Posted by msgtv

yes had also heard that symon, re better suspension etc, guess the only thing to do is drive one, will wait til ive had the TS about a year though and enjoyed it, cos i'm pretty sure i wont want to go back to it afterwards

Enjoy it mate. Mine has been written off today thanks to someone who decided not to brake at a roundabout junction when my car did.

Really not happy at all but looks like a reasonable settlement heading my way and after nearly a year in the TS (along with a TS 166 for 3 years before that) I feel like the V6 is a natural progression and it's a good excuse for the upgrade as I couldn't see myself letting the TS go in any other circumstance.

[wayne-dear]

I really dont like the way my V6 feels compared to my Twinny, feels like i am sat on top of it whereas in the twinny its man and machine in harmony
(V6 is straight, good suspension and tyres, polybushed all round)
That engine though

[hornetrider1]

Can there really be tat much difference between TS and V6 handling wise? The info I've found on the interweb only shows a 60kg kerb weight difference.

Granted you could make the comparison to having a small teenager sat on the bonnet of the twinnie, but I can't see it having that much effect. Think of the extra powerrrrrrrr!

[JDog]

Doesn't the rose jointed rear make it more unpleasant for a road car?

[GTV Bertone]

Ive owned both a TS and V6, the TS feels a little softer on the ride which makes it feel that its lighter and more chuckable, but the V6 handles well and has a slightly harder ride but that you get used to.

The real advantage of a TS is fuel economy and you can use all of the power on the roads espeacially town roads etc. The V6 is awsome on appropriate roads when getting the power down but in town you just cant put your foot down because by the time you change from 1st to 2nd and put your foot down u'l have to brake cause you hit the end of the road!

Handling wise, both my GTV's were awsome, they were all completely standard, the TS had the rose jointed orginal spring pans as that was the only replacement available on that day. My V6 with decent tyres, a Q2 diff and all renewed orginal suspension handles very well.

[Markos]

Originally Posted by wayne-dear

I really dont like the way my V6 feels compared to my Twinny, feels like i am sat on top of it whereas in the twinny its man and machine in harmony
(V6 is straight, good suspension and tyres, polybushed all round)
That engine though

You might be describing the difference between phase 1 and phase 2 seats if your TS was a phase 1...

[guiliasuper]

V6 with Q2 is an awesome piece of kit On the Europe run in October the V6 used a tank and a half less than a 2.2 modifica 4 spider. I had suspected for a long time that the V6 "on the open road" uses less fuel than our 2.0 TS. In town though

[KiwiAlfa156]

This is a real subjective one isn't it. While I haven't upgraded, when I was looking for my 156 I started by wanting a V6 and test drove about 20 different vehicles over a two week period, because I wanted a really good one. I tested V6s, Seles and manual Twinnies, and eventually chose a 2 litre manual Sportpac over the V6. My previous daily driver was a Mercedes 190E 2.3-16 Cosworth (killed when I got rear-ended while stationary at a pedestrian crossing). The Twinnie was a drop in engine power but the general handling was more like the Cossie.

I don't think its very easy to make a comparision between a Twinnie and a V6 unless you are comparing them side by side. If you jump into a V6 after driving a Twinnie and floor it, the first impression is 'whoa, this is much better' which it is... in a straight line. When you 'upgrade' from one car to another you adapt your driving style and unless the car has a fault it will always feel good, if not better.

Jumping back and forth between V6s and a Twinnies I came to my own personal conclusions and made my choice. I drove both V6s and Twinnies on country roads and gave them a solid thrashing.

My conclusions were that the Twinnie was a neutral handler with adequate power, and that the extra weight up front combined with power of the V6 through the front wheels made the car less able/accurate in tight going. The driving experience was dominated by the engine (which some people would see as a great thing) but it was also a bit distracting. The V6 felt a bit ponderous in the braking/turn-in transition.

In New Zealand we are blessed/cursed with narrow twisty roads that we call State Highways, but you guys in the UK would probably call single carriageway B roads -these have low traffic volumes most of the time. While the blanket speed limit on these roads is 100 km/h, these roads can (and do) contain twisty sections with corners posted as low as 25 km/h (read blind hairpin), and have caused many Kiwi kids much car sickness over the years.

Just this month I drove a section of our SH1 (our main 'highway'), south of Kaitaia in Northland that is about 10-15 km of continous turns with very few, very short straights. The road rises over and decends a set of hills and passes through a native forrest reserve. The Twinnie spent most of its time in 2nd gear (and occassionally 3rd) the tacho hunting between 3500 and 6500 rpm, the 156 carving accurately from apex to apex, responding surgically to wheel and pedals, the rear tyres gently breaking away and regaining grip when unsettled by mid corner bumps, the sports exhaust howling. It was just utterly sublime.

Reflecting on the drive I thought that this is what is really meant by the Twinnie being a balanced car, (the Cossie was also a well-balanced car). I really think that a 156 V6 would have been slower through this section of road because the extra engine power wouldn't have been of any advantage, and heavy nose and slower turn-in would have made the V6 more of a handful and ultimately less rewarding. Weight distribution really makes a difference when your pushing on, and has been emblematic of Alfa Romeo engineering for so many years. Rear mounted gearboxes, batteries in the boot, etc, all to try to get as close as possible to 50:50 balance. The V6 might only be an extra 60kg (which is quite a bit actually) but its in the wrong place....

Yeah, I would like the Twinnie to have to have a bit more power, but only for overtaking. I don't really miss it for the type of driving that 'floats my boat'. I don't mind being passed by a more powerful car in a straight, if I've managed to pull away from them in the corners.

[seymour beaver]

I would have thought fuel consumption and future car tax costs were as important when deciding whether or not to upgrade as handling. It was only around a year ago the state were going to increase car tax considerably.I would love a v6 as a " secondary" car the engines are a credit to Alfa.

[symon]

Originally Posted by KiwiAlfa156

This is a real subjective one isn't it. While I haven't upgraded, when I was looking for my 156 I started by wanting a V6 and test drove about 20 different vehicles over a two week period, because I wanted a really good one. I tested V6s, Seles and manual Twinnies, and eventually chose a 2 litre manual Sportpac over the V6. My previous daily driver was a Mercedes 190E 2.3-16 Cosworth (killed when I got rear-ended while stationary at a pedestrian crossing). The Twinnie was a drop in engine power but the general handling was more like the Cossie.

I don't think its very easy to make a comparision between a Twinnie and a V6 unless you are comparing them side by side. If you jump into a V6 after driving a Twinnie and floor it, the first impression is 'whoa, this is much better' which it is... in a straight line. When you 'upgrade' from one car to another you adapt your driving style and unless the car has a fault it will always feel good, if not better.

Jumping back and forth between V6s and a Twinnies I came to my own personal conclusions and made my choice. I drove both V6s and Twinnies on country roads and gave them a solid thrashing.

My conclusions were that the Twinnie was a neutral handler with adequate power, and that the extra weight up front combined with power of the V6 through the front wheels made the car less able/accurate in tight going. The driving experience was dominated by the engine (which some people would see as a great thing) but it was also a bit distracting. The V6 felt a bit ponderous in the braking/turn-in transition.

In New Zealand we are blessed/cursed with narrow twisty roads that we call State Highways, but you guys in the UK would probably call single carriageway B roads -these have low traffic volumes most of the time. While the blanket speed limit on these roads is 100 km/h, these roads can (and do) contain twisty sections with corners posted as low as 25 km/h (read blind hairpin), and have caused many Kiwi kids much car sickness over the years.

Just this month I drove a section of our SH1 (our main 'highway'), south of Kaitaia in Northland that is about 10-15 km of continous turns with very few, very short straights. The road rises over and decends a set of hills and passes through a native forrest reserve. The Twinnie spent most of its time in 2nd gear (and occassionally 3rd) the tacho hunting between 3500 and 6500 rpm, the 156 carving accurately from apex to apex, responding surgically to wheel and pedals, the rear tyres gently breaking away and regaining grip when unsettled by mid corner bumps, the sports exhaust howling. It was just utterly sublime.

Reflecting on the drive I thought that this is what is really meant by the Twinnie being a balanced car, (the Cossie was also a well-balanced car). I really think that a 156 V6 would have been slower through this section of road because the extra engine power wouldn't have been of any advantage, and heavy nose and slower turn-in would have made the V6 more of a handful and ultimately less rewarding. Weight distribution really makes a difference when your pushing on, and has been emblematic of Alfa Romeo engineering for so many years. Rear mounted gearboxes, batteries in the boot, etc, all to try to get as close as possible to 50:50 balance. The V6 might only be an extra 60kg (which is quite a bit actually) but its in the wrong place....

Yeah, I would like the Twinnie to have to have a bit more power, but only for overtaking. I don't really miss it for the type of driving that 'floats my boat'. I don't mind being passed by a more powerful car in a straight, if I've managed to pull away from them in the corners.

Great Post Darryl, I understand exactly what you mean.


The difference between the 156 TS and V6 is much greater with regards to handling than it is with the GTV though.

My 2 156 V6's (with sportpack) felt under damped and wallowed quite a bit, and tended towards understeer. The TS had great turn in and was well balanced.

There isn't such a massive difference between the GTV variants IMO, although the TS feels rigid and Go-Kart like, where as the V6 feels better damped and dare I say it more "BMW like" in terms of ride.

[KiwiAlfa156]

Originally Posted by symon

The difference between the 156 TS and V6 is much greater with regards to handling than it is with the GTV though.

My 2 156 V6's (with sportpack) felt under damped and wallowed quite a bit, and tended towards understeer. The TS had great turn in and was well balanced.

There isn't such a massive difference between the GTV variants IMO, although the TS feels rigid and Go-Kart like, where as the V6 feels better damped and dare I say it more "BMW like" in terms of ride.

Haven't driven the GTV, I really like the look of them but I needed a proper 4 seater in which to make the kids sick

[wayne-dear]

Originally Posted by Markos

You might be describing the difference between phase 1 and phase 2 seats if your TS was a phase 1...

Do you know mate i think you may have a very good point there, my twinny is indeed a ph1 and my V6 a ph2, and my god the seats are sooooo crap in the V6.
Also my twinny is dropped 20mm, hmmm, mite see if i can take out some washers

[symon]

Originally Posted by wayne-dear

Do you know mate i think you may have a very good point there, my twinny is indeed a ph1 and my V6 a ph2, and my god the seats are sooooo crap in the V6.
Also my twinny is dropped 20mm, hmmm, mite see if i can take out some washers

I was thinking that as well.

The phase 2 seats you sit on top of, instead of in. Plus they are rock hard.

[Markos]

Originally Posted by symon

I was thinking that as well.

The phase 2 seats you sit on top of, instead of in. Plus they are rock hard.

I've not tried P1 seats, but the lateral support of P2 seats should be much better. They do look very good though

I find my passenger seat a little high, but my drivers one a deeper, sugger fit, I presume because it's had 10 times more use.

And thankfully long or short journeys I've never felt uncomfortable

[Der Teufel]

Difficult one this,

I prefer the look of my Cup to the Twinny I had. Although it was a lovely shape and in the Grey very undertsated.

Until recently and still if I'm honest I feel the Twinny was a better balanced car and much more chuckable. Now I've had the Q2 fitted to the Cup for a while this is supposed to make a difference, but in truth, unless I'm drivin on the raggedy, I cant honestly say there's a great improvement.

Recently I was given a Twinny as a courtesy car and realised, in comparison, how guttless it is. Yet the handling was certainly as responsive as I remember. So yes I do miss it, but I wouldn't change the Cup now.

[the mozza]

Before i bought the GTV, i drove a 156 veloce V6 which had a new engine. I was really unimpressed. It wasnt fast, didnt excite me at all. And for 23mpg i expected much better. The driving position and soft back of seat was a big put off aswell.

I never drove a GTv V6, just because i was so dissapointed with the 156 V6, although i know it is a smaller engine.

My GTV 2.0 is not fast but handles great. It turns in real sharp and is very responsive, dont know if the front strut brace helps.

I would rather have the V6 for the sound and extra oomph, but the running costs dont justify it and i never seem to get above 50mph on the way to work and back

[symon]

Originally Posted by the mozza

Before i bought the GTV, i drove a 156 veloce V6 which had a new engine. I was really unimpressed. It wasnt fast, didnt excite me at all. And for 23mpg i expected much better. The driving position and soft back of seat was a big put off aswell.

I never drove a GTv V6, just because i was so dissapointed with the 156 V6, although i know it is a smaller engine.

My GTV 2.0 is not fast but handles great. It turns in real sharp and is very responsive, dont know if the front strut brace helps.

I would rather have the V6 for the sound and extra oomph, but the running costs dont justify it and i never seem to get above 50mph on the way to work and back

The 3.0 V6 is a totally different Animal to the 2.5 in the 156.

I too was dissapointed with the 156 V6 when I first drove one. In fact I only kept my first one for 2 weeks until I upgraded to my first 3.0 GTV

Fuel economy is similar, but the 3.0 is another big step up the performance ladder, and has masses more torque.

[Gaag]

I'm stuck in a rut after reading this thread now... I just don't know what to get!
I'm looking at either a 156 v6 (not convinced after reading this!), or a GTV Twinnie.

Is the 156 really bad on fuel compared to the Twinnie if you do a lot of long motorway driving like me? At least the V6 doesn't need the belts changing every 30k!! I've currently got a 147 with the 2litre twinnie in it, and it's pretty fast, but in truth, there are far better 2 litre hatchbacks out there, both in terms of performance and handling. The main difference is that the exterior and interior styling on Alfa's are in a class of their own. If I buy a GTV twinnie... will it handle and drive just about the same as the 147?

What's it to be, decisions decisions!

[symon]

I reckon on a long motorway cruise the V6 156 will approach 30mpg, which isn't far off a TS.

However on other roads where you need to use the gears more it will be quite a bit thirstier.

The 3.0 V6 is pretty similar on fuel to the 2.5 as well.


A GTV twinny wil perform roughly the same as a 147 2.0 in a straight line, but will handle better.