My personal preference would be the 2.0 (170), just make sure it is not one of the few produced with the M32 gearbox. When mapped you can typically get around 215bhp (stage 1). getting maintenance on it should be easy, as it's essentially the same engine as in the Giulietta, and there is a lot more space than on the 2.4 (cambelts etc are cheaper). Unmodified it will have less issues than the 2.4 as it has a watercooled EGR and close coupled DPF.

The 2.4 (210bhp) (its 200bhp on pre-facelift (2008 ish cars)) is a great engine, and can be mapped for a lot of power (stage 1: 245bhp (210 versions)), but it's also a big heavy lump, and some have suggested it has poorer handling as a result, MPG also isn't great with it, though if it's all about the power, then it's the one to get. From what Ive heard, it is one of the few diesels with a great sounding engine though!

But guess you need to think about what you want it for, and want from it, what your budget is etc (hence stating 'my preference'). If you are looking at a post 2010 car, you will be limited to the 2.0

 

I wish I would have come on this site before purchasing mine, would have definitely gone with the 2.0 with F40 over the 1.9 just for the gearbox issues alone. 1.9s still good though if you don't over map and strain it in 5th and 6th gear I guess.

 

I believe I have the 136bhp 2.0. I had it mapped to apparently 215bhp. When it was at 136bhp it was terribly slow, economy sucked too, I get 42mpg on combined cycle. Now at 215bhp the speed is better and economy has stayed the same.

It's nowhere near as good as the Germans.

 

Do you know what box you have?

 

.

 

F40 gear box on 2.0 170hp was supplied till the 3rd and last series was introduced (MY2011).
C635 gear box was supplied afterwards and also standard on all 136hp versions of the 2.0. This box doesn't bear as much torque as the F40 does, latter is the same box on the 2.4's. Hence the reason Gilblets pointed you correctly to go for the F40 if its the very max power you're after. Otherwise the C635 is also fine.

 

All I am thinking is I like the look of nearly 400lb/ft of torque of the 2.4 but it seems to have it's issues such as starting problems and all other bits and pieces haha. It would be fun to keep up with the odd focus st etc haha.

So the gearbox to look for is the F40 then? That's on the 2.0l model. Did the 2.4 have different boxes and one to get over the other?

Thanks for all the input fella's

 

400Nm I believe...in lb/ft I believe the 2.4 is 295.

I have the 2.4, with auto box mind, but it pulls like a train. 3rd gear is demon

 

I think the reason you see more talk about the 2.4 is due to the fact theres sold more of them than the 2.0...But hey, as a 2.4 owner, what else could i possible think

 

Believe all 2.4s had the F40.
Interestingly my understanding is that for the 2.0, the only difference between the 136 and 170bhp flavours is the map (and possibly gearbox).
On the Giulietta, which also has the same options, there is an additional intake restriction physically built into the manifold (that needs to machined out!), thankfully not the case on the 159.

In terms of the 1.9, my advice has always been to keep it above 1,500rpm, especially in 5th/ 6th gear to avoid too much torque through the gearbox. It's specifically the 5/6th gear that have the issue due to a poor design and bad lubrication (it relies on oil splashing onto the bearings and the oil gets too hot and degrades (gets thinner) making the problem worse). If you have one, get the gear oil changed regularly (at least as often as the cambelt).

 

No machining required, but you need to remove the manifold before you can remove the flaps. the 170 in the Giulietta doesn't have the restriction, nor has it any other kind of swirl valves.

 

It's all about how you look after it. Would almost be worth when getting a 1.9 mapped have a torque cap put in place on the 5/6 gears under 2000rpm to stop you straining it.

Does anyone know what the difference was between the 200 + 210hp 2.4's?

 

Main difference is the turbo. BW BV50 on the 200, Garrett GT2056V on the 210
BUT there are some minor differences as well, like slightly modified cylinder head with longer glow plugs, ECU tunes, eQ2 and maybe some other stuff I'm forgetting. The BV50 doesn't flow as good as the garrett hence the tune differently as well (latter boosts from lower revs and with stage 1 can go up to 260BHp, the former goes to 245-250).
Bear in mind that all Automatics, regardless of year have the 200BHp engine version as it was deemed that the AISIN auto box would be safer on that (about 20Nm less torque).

 

Brilliant. Cheers mate. So it's the 210 one I want then haha. Is there anyway to see via looking under the bonnet haha?

 

Engine code should be A9 on the 210, A3 for the 200. I think it should be in the engine bay factory tag. Think they started using them from Fall 2007 onwards.

 

Beautiful. Cheers for all the help mate. Much appreciated

 

Go for the 2.4 for performance and a nice-ish noise.

For reliability and fuel economy go for a 2.0 and get a remap.

 

I'm with Symon,

Get a 2.0 if thats in the age/price range you are looking for.

But make sure you don't get the M32 box (you can check by looking at the gearbox casing down the side of the battery, if it states F40 then buy it)
also the selector is different on M32 and F40 boxes.

this all depends on your budget, the 2.4 is great, but has it's issues which are well documented, the 2.0 is a much better engine and will hold it's value longer, The 1.9 is still a great car but has a history of costing a lot of money in repairs. (this is all subjective, you pay your money, you take your choice)

My first 159 was a 1.9 and it cost me a lot of money (over 1/2 the purchase price in the first 8 months), I didn't do much research (and if I had it would not have made much difference) but then I was bitten by the Alfa bug and when I got rid of the 159 I bought another (a 2.0JTDm SW) which is a much better car and hasn't cost me a penny other than servicing and the usual fuel/insurance/mot/tax in 18 months.

From what I've read/seen on here if you get a 2.4 you will have to get one that has had mods or fund them yourself, if you get a 2.0 you can either keep it stock and have no issues or mod it at your own cost and have no issues. I had mine remapped to 210BHP and it's never missed a beat in the 14 months since I had it done. In the first 2 months of ownership I used to get shown a clean pair of heals by Skoda Fabia VRSs, but not since the remap. there is very little that leaves me behind.

Axe.

 

Trouble is most 2.0 litres start at around £5k for a highish mileage variant and without checking first hand, may even have the M32. If you can only just stomach £3k for a 1.9, fat chance you're going to be able to hang about until you've doubled your kitty. Shame really, money was a factor in my decision as I needed transport, I don't think I could have viably waited for a 2.0 to come around at another £2 grand ontop so I was stuck. Some 159s are going for 8,9,10,000 still so to get such a car for low money, even the 1.9 has it's merits, but like Axe said, once bitten it's hard to turn back. I'm in the boat of whether to pay for the mods and fixes on the 1.9 or put it away and try and save for a 2.0 with p/x of my 1.9...

 

I have driven both, and currently have the 2.4 (200) myself. While I was impressed by the lightness of the 2.0, I truly prefer the performance of the 2.4. Despite being heavier (particularly in the nose), it just has that "oooompf"-effect when you floor it when joining the highway that the 2.0 lacks. And the sound of the 5-cylinder is truly probably the best you'll ever have in a diesel of this price category.

 

So I have this then to think about

2.0

Pro's - Cheaper tax, cheaper fuel costs, slightly more reliable?, Has the nice red and black interior, newer, can be mapped well, slightly better handling
Con's - Not as fast as 2.4, doesn't sound as smooth, regular diesel power really.

2.4

Pro's - 5 cylinder Diesel <3 , some serious oomph for a diesel, could hold its own against focus st's etc maybe.
Con's - Not as reliable?, More fuel cost, higher tax

-_- so hard to decide!

 

If I was looking for a 2.4 - What mods would I need to do. What makes them unreliable?

 

Personally I don't think they're unreliable. Any car that has not been treated well by previous owners is a risk. My 2/4 had a good history and it's been cared for by me.
The subframe across the range could be very problematic.
The 2.4 because of it's nose weight may go through bushes/wishbones quicker than the others .

The engine in the 2.4 (EGR off, DPF out, straight through rear exhaust) is powerful and sounds good when revving. It'd be a no brainer for me which one to get.

 

The problem is that if you remove the Particulate filter you make the car illegal and uninsurable.

The chances of being caught are increasing, and if you happen to crash you will be in even more serious trouble.


The 1.9 and 2.4 are an earlier generation of engine. Many lessons were learnt from them and applied to the 2.0 to make it more reliable.

Close coupled DPF, Water cooler EGR, fixed swirl vanes rather than swirl flaps which soot up then snap off and get ingested into the engine to name just a few things.

I think the 2.4 is a terrific engine, probably a classic as far as Diesel engines go but in the 159 fitted with first generation emissions technology it is flawed.


The only downside I can see (or rather hear) with the 2.0 is that it sounds awful. It is just a typical 4 cylinder Diesel noise which you hear on any taxi rank up and down the country.

 

i cannot comment about the 20V 159 model, I have the 156 20V and i can say if you are doing BIG mileage these things are amazing on fuel.

i genuinely get 700miles per tank but i do spend 90% on motorways

 

Regarding the unreliability... I'm not sure if I would call them unreliable. I believe the common issues are the ones that you would find on other common diesels as well. We're talking about the usual suspects here - EGR, DPF, sometimes the glowplugs. I myself so far had 3 EGR's in 133K KM, and need to replace a couple of glowplugs every winter. Not a big deal, but good to be aware of. Never left me standing, and always started though.

Between the 2.0 and the 2.4, I would say that the biggest drawback is the size of the engine and therefore the servicing costs. At least over here in Switzerland, a cambelt change means that they need to take out the whole engine (I know that some people on the forum claim that it's possible to do it without taking out the engine, but the official recommendation by AR is to take it out, and therefore I believe the far more common way to do it), and at 126 GBP/hour in labor, it turns to a rather expensive bill every 4-5 years. This is for me possibly the only drawback of the 2.4.

...but as mentioned earlier, totally worth it once you're in third geard and floor it and leave a few guys behind you

 

At least over here in Switzerland, a cambelt change means that they need to take out the whole engine (I know that some people on the forum claim that it's possible to do it without taking out the engine, but the official recommendation by AR is to take it out, and therefore I believe the far more common way to do it)

I had my Cambelt last week at my mates garage, they didn't take the engine out and took 3.5hrs to do, this included the water pump too they went by Autodata (or something) to price up the job and it stated it should only take 3hrs.