[maxib]

My beautiful 156 1.9 was written off last week so on the hunt for a new car. Have always liked the 159s as a bigger version of the 156 (my argument to the wife for not looking at 7 seaters!)

Always thought that for a bigger car, you would need the bigger engine. So was naturally looking at the 2.4 for the 159... until I read that thread on its fuel consumption. Whats the deal on how much fun they are to drive? Having trouble imagining a 1.9, same engine as my 156, being anything but downright sluggish in a beast the size of the 159. Or am i missing a trick?

 

[twincamms]

I've been having the same thoughts, but my 1.9 is remapped in the GT, would the 1.9 be ok in the 159 remapped or is 2.4 the way to go................................

 

[twissler]

1.9 is fine unmapped. Nice flexible power delivery and likes to rev. From reports on here a remap makes it as good as the 2.4 but with the advantage of being lighter.:thumbs:

 

[Squadrone Rosso]

I went from a 2.0JTS Veloce 156 to a 2.2 Ti 159 in similar circumstances

Initially a tad underwhelmed but as time goes on (and the miles loosened up the engine) the better it gets

Despite what the loyal 156ers say, the 159 is a far superior car, if a little less raw & fun until you push it hard and it amazes.

 

[maxib]

So would the 1.9 be as chuckable and damn good as my 156? And performance wise, a remap would bring it up to a 2.4 level? But with better fuel economy?

Oh and are there any 1.9s with twin exhausts?

Cheers, might have to alter my searches!

 

[wynne71]

I have a 1.9 unmapped and it is great! Came from a 175bhp low pressure turbo Saab petrol and thought I would be annoyed by the diesel power.
Couldn't be further from the truth! Very flexible engine, pulls from low down, even revs for a diesel.
Once I had worked around the initial 1st gear lull, all was well.
Mine has 72K miles, so is well loosened as it were.
I would recommened one for sure. Light weight over the front wheels, handles really well and returns pretty decent mpg if driven with a little care....not that that happens very often.....

 

[maxib]

Hmm...food for thought. I'm test driving a 2.4 on the weekend. Might have to give the 1.9 a go to be sure. Thing is, the 1.9s seem to be more expensive on the used cars sites for similar if not more miles Would the 1.9 give me about 600 miles on a tank of motorway driving (the most scientific I can manage in terms of consumption figures:lol. Should I dare ask what a 2.4 would do?

 

[wynne71]

Easily 600 miles of enthusiastic motorway driving!
Did 1400 miles in France over the summer, got around 700 miles per tank.
I get 550ish miles per week, mixed town driving and a trip to Bristol and back.
When I get bored with the car later in the summer, a few hundred quid and a remap will take the power close to the 2.4jtdm.
Does the 5 cylinder cost more to service? Sounds nicer than the 4 pot though!

 

[maxib]

Ok, sounds pretty much like my 156 then. Anyone hazard a guess as to what I could expect from the 2.4?

Can anyone advise me whether I should be looking at newer (post 08) models too - read that there were changes in 08. I'm test driving an 06 this weekend - will there be much difference? Cheers

 

[156Chris]

Despite what the loyal 156ers say, the 159 is a far superior car, if a little less raw & fun until you push it hard and it amazes.

Blah blah blah ... don't let the fact that I've never driven a 159 stop me from saying that the 156 is a far superior car :lol: (in reality though the 159 is more a replacement for the 166)

 

[twissler]

Coming from a 156 2.0 T/S I will back up SR in saying that the 159 is much better than a 156. The reason some think the 156 is more "fun" is because the 156 is not as capable as the 159. Take a corner at any speed in a 156 and the 159 will feel more planted and secure than the 156 at the same speed. The problem with this is to get the same kicks from the 159 you tend to go a fair bit quicker in the bends.

How many times have I just said 156 and 159!