you could go for the 1.9, save money on insurance and road tax. get it remaped, dpf removal and delete and egr delete. it should give you somewhere near to the 200bhp mark of the 2.4 but with better fuel consumption.

thats what im doing anyway, already have the car just waiting to remap an remove dpf.

 

I bought a 2.4 Ti about a month ago, had it re-mapped DPF removal & EGR delete by Adie at AHM and it is fantastic!! the performance is superb and on top of that I am averaging 41mpg!! Go for the 2.4!!

 

If you can afford a good 2.4 and the re map / dpf removal do that....then you get the best of both worlds. Excellent punch and good economy to boot.

...I'm currently trying to squeeze together £700 to get it done myself but have bigger fish to fry at the moment :/

 

FIIIIGHT!! :cheese:

Both are great, they just sit at slightly different points on the performance / economy curve. Overwhelmingly, the biggest problems with either engine tend to be EGR and DPF. Get either remapped with EGR/DPF removed, and you'll be laughing. :thumbs:

 

Thanks for the tips guys. Will defo consider a re-map which ever i end up with!

Looking for a Ti, and from the second-hands on market at the mo, there is very little if any price difference between 1.9 & 2.4. Acutally seen a 1.9 Ti at same dealership on same plate with 10k more miles as a 2.4 Ti for £450 extra. Which had me a bit confused.

Take the 1.9 is more popular for the economy reasons then?!?!

As my first Alfa tho, reluctant to get one that lacks grunt, so am leaning towards the 2.4. Tbh tho just cant wait to get hold of either - on the Ti spec looks a fabulous machine.

 

I've heard off a few people, that the 1.9 is a better engine.

I have a 1.9, and am pleased with it. Very pleased!

 

+1 :thumbs:

I never let myself test drive the 2.4 as my plans for a more economical car would have probably gone out the window! So, ended up with a 1.9 and really pleased with it too. It's easily as good as any Ford/PSA diesel I've driven, and significantly better than any VWAG ones.

 

I can only comment on the 2.4 engine which I've had in the 156 and the 159, these were 175bhp and 210bhp standard; I've had both remapped with them producing circa 225bhp and 250bhp post map; and only driven a 1.9 in GT & 159 on Test Drives.

The 156 was without DPF, I covered 96k miles in 3yrs without a hitch and averaged around 41mpg, with a 50+ on long journeys. I had the EGR deleted on the 159 2yrs ago but have yet to get the DPF removed, in 34k miles I've had no issues, though economy is down on the 156 by some margin (getting around the 38mpg mark).

For me the 2.4 just gives the extra grunt, and nice (as diesels go) warble of the off beat 5 pot lump. The smooth acceleration is phenomenal

 

In this day and age- Performance and Economy rarely go hand in hand- with the exception of the Alfa 159.
But behind the wheel is where it really counts, the 1.9 has a lighter engine and so tends to feel more agile turning in the bends. Reduced weight giving less understeer compared with the heavier 2.4 5cyl unit, luckly you've test driven both.
I made the decision to buy the 1.9jtdm, having been really suprised how well the engine performs- with the additional bonus of better MPG.
Still awaiting EGR & DPF Removal- 'so things can only get better!!' (Old Song- Long Time Ago )
Good luck- you'll love it what ever you choose.

Cheers

david44

 

Also worth noting that the 1.9 engine is basically the same GM powerplant that you get in a Vectra etc. So bits are relatively easily sourced if it does need work.

 

No its a Fiat Group engine that is also used by GM in the Vectra and the Saab

 

I looked at the 1.9, but knew id always regret it if i did. The 2.4 is just that much stronger, and i know the 1.9 can be mapped but so can the 2.4 so same as. I got the 2.4 and couldnt be happier, i think any less power in a 1600KG car would just be a bit too dull for me. Just my 2 pennies

 

2.4, 5 pot is a lovely engine, great sound, great power but obviously thirsty - I had one before the dpf/egr delete/remap was available, I always thought that nothing happened before 2000rpm but after that there was huge power. I averaged 32.7 mpg over the period I owned the car. I've had 2 1.9's - under rated engine by some but very good, good economy, powerful enough, smooth delivery of power. Average economy for these was; 41.1 ('07 plate saloon Lusso 17'' wheels), 40.6 ('58 plate SW, Lusso 18'' wheels).

The only failure I've had on an Alfa has been wth the 2.4, eg valve replacement needed after a limp home moment on the way to Hollyhead for the ferry. I loved that car however but the economy was poor so it had to go. The 2 1.9s were excellent but.......... Heart vs. head

My current 2.0 Ti is the best compromise good step up from the 1.9s, almost the same economy, cheaper road tax, smoother, quieter engine than both 1.9 & 2.4.

 

I test drove the 2.4, and ended up with the 1.9. It is booked in for a remap with Alfatuner on 30th of this month

 

Ive had both and the 2.4 in 210bhp guise is a much better plant, even as standard its in a higher state of tune than the 1.9's considering its only got 25% better capacity, but 40% higher output, plus its far more refined.

1.9 is undoubtedly less costly to run though and there isnt really anything wrong with it, its just on comparison, its difficult against the 2.4. Mechanically the 2 engines are just the same just with an extra cylinder so not all that much to choose from

I only kept my 1.9 for 18 months - had the 2.4 for 44 months so far..

There is of course more weight over the front on the 2.4 though, but on the Ti I have its not an issue.

 

The 2.4 is (I think) a 1.9 with an extra cylinder tacked to the end.

The 2.4 is naturally heavier and that extra weight is noticeable if you use a lot of B roads, and is tougher on the front suspension and front tyres, plus the 2.4 is a tight squeeze in the engine compartment so some servicing tasks are more expensive. So it's probably a good idea to factor in extra maintenance charges on top of the potential fuel/insurance/road tax differences.

Here's some reading matter on some things to look out for: Alfa Romeo 159 Buyer's Guide

HTH

 

The 2.4 is (I think) a 1.9 with an extra cylinder tacked to the end.

HTH

Nearly right... the 2.4 was the worlds first common rail diesel and the 1.9 is a 2.4 with a cylinder lopped off!

 

I love my 2.4! There's no replacement for displacement. The 1.9 felt more tractorish

 

Does anyone have any real world MPG figures for the 1.9 and 2.4?

 

My 2.4 averages 44mpg and has been chipped. Thats brim to brim not using the on-board

 

My standard 2.4 Ti Qtronic averages 27-28mpg. But i dont drive it economicaly, just normally with a bit of 'fun' here and there