Alfa Romeo Forum banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Curious to know if my remapped 2.4 159 is quicker than the 3.2 GT. I was behind the gt and we both overtook a car doing about 30 mph in a 50 mph and I was gaining on him but not sure if he maybe short shifted or was maybe slightly holding back? Mine is remapped to approximately 265bhp but is heavier than the GT. What is people's oppinions/experiences?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
558 Posts
I've had both. The mapped 2.4 with turbo is quick. The V6 lacks a bit in torque low frown but once you get past 4000 rpm it comes into it's own and think the 159 then would be tested
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
542 Posts
For the noise alone would be worth having the V6. I would think in everyday situations the 2.4 remapped would feel quicker, until you had an open stretch of road that you could use the revs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
526 Posts
No offence at all to the OP but I never understand posts like this as there are too many variables with where both cars are in their particular power band the main one, alongside weather both drivers were actually pushing 100%.

To be fair most diesels can now be mapped to feel faster than a standard 3.2GT, but weather you get the same enjoyment driving one is a completely different argument...

But if I had to have a diesel and use the car for commuting then it would be the 2.4 159ti. My old man has the 2.0jtdm 159ti which looks amazing but it's heavy, sounds rubbish and is not that quick. The 2.4 would still be heavy but would sound and go much better.
 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
4,556 Posts
Got both. 159 2.4 with an AHM remap and a GT3.2.

Power outputs are similar - the 2.4 is 260 HP (according to the dyno chart that came with it) and the 3.2 is 240 according to the book. 159 is heavier.

Off the line, the 3.2 wipes the floor with the 2.4, mainly because the box is easier and band of revs where material torque is available is so much wider.

In gear, different story. Overtaking in say 4th at 50 in the 2.4 is like engaging warp drive, not very much drama, just a big shove in the back. It's easy, you just get the engine spinning at about 2500 rpm and then floor it, off you go. In the 3.2 you need to get it to 3.5 - 4K for maximum shove, which is pretty wearing if you're following some car waiting for an overtaking slot.

Generally I don't notice much difference in capability, just in the way the power is delivered and the 159's handling is more limiting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,872 Posts
Would depend on gear. In gear acceleration in a diesel is effortless, but when driving the GT 4th at 50 I wouldn't expect anything amazing, 3rd on the other hand, would be a different story!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,688 Posts
It's simple. The 3.2 GT. V6 Busso. It's up there with the best Ferraris IMHO.

I own a 2.4 tractor and whilst it's good and actually sounds OK for Dieseasal it's still **** compared to that beautiful V6.

Does anybody really buy a tractor for it's performance? I'd wager deep down there is a compromise towards economy.

Diesels mostly sound crap. 4 cylinder ones are by and far the worst. I think the more cylinders the better but for shear pleasure the petrol counterpart will always be more fun.

I mean the TS we have is a 4 cylinder peach. Sounds bloody great that even the best V8 tractors would struggle to sound better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: A_Venables

·
Registered
Joined
·
711 Posts
You're right. To an extent.

I picked my 159 2.4 derv because there wasn't a decent petrol equivalent offered by Alfa at the time.

It gets worse. I've just swapped into something German because Alfa don't even offer an equivalent car to the 159 yet, let alone a choice between derv or petrol!!!!
 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
4,556 Posts
For a long distance motorway drive, I'd pick the diesel over the 3.2 any time. Yes, the 3.2 sounds great, but the 2.4 at 80 sounds .... of nothing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
489 Posts
There isn't an auto 3.2 gt option either and for some that would be the clincher. Those of us with bad knees like them.....my 911 is tiptronic and great. Why didn't Alfa do the Busso with an auto box?
Brera auto isn't as good looking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
489 Posts
A good point,but those GTA models fetch a large premium in cost and aren't really in the same equation are they? Just been on e bay looking at Alfas and the GTA models are lovely but very expensive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
542 Posts
There isn't an auto 3.2 gt option either and for some that would be the clincher. Those of us with bad knees like them.....my 911 is tiptronic and great. Why didn't Alfa do the Busso with an auto box?
Brera auto isn't as good looking.
I know people will say the newer GM based 3.2 isn't the same, but I have the Auto Q Tronic version in the Spider, have to say, a lovely drive, relaxing and listen to the lovely 4 pipes when you put your foot down. I think the Selespeed GTA would be a fantastic car to drive, but if I had one, I would be worrying about the gearbox so much given the reliability of the Seles on twin sparks....

If I had my pick, the 3.2 with the TCT in the Giulietta with paddles. Would be a good giggle and most of the time the TCT picks the right gears you actually want (or does for me in the Giulietta.)
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top