Alfa Romeo Forum banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Long time lurker, first time poster, great site and so forth.

So I've been searching around looking for a replacement for my venerable Megane DCi120 Megane which is getting a bit long in the tooth and the most likely replacement is either an Alfa 156 2.4 JTD or a GT with the 1.9 JTDm, however, the best, as far as I can see, of all worlds would be a 2.4 JTDm Alfa GT. You've got that (let's face it, stunning) coupe bodywork and under the bonnet one of the best, if not the best, diesel engine ever constructed.

The question that's on my mind is why? I mean, it seems so obvious for Alfa to release a 200bhp diesel 2.4 GT onto the market, and yet it never arrived, even though the same engine was simultaneously available in its stablemates.

So after pondering this, and realising that Alfa never did have the most fantastic accountants, I decided to turn to good ol' YouTube because surely some plucky tuning firm/backyard mechanic/guy from Waterford in a shed had set about this task with the remains of a crashed 2.4 JTD 156. And nope, not a single example out there.

So how come? Why didn't Alfa ever release a 2.4 JTD GT and why hasn't anyone set about building one?

It's a 156 underneath right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
343 Posts
Have you had a test drive in a gt 1.9 mjtd it's a good setup. I've got a 156 2.4 mjtd 20v but would have had a 156 1.9 mjtd 16v as i drove my mates one, was very quick and well balanced.
My 156 2.4 mjtd 20v need work and was a very good buy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,589 Posts
easy answer as to why they never made it - its not that good (in certain respects).

the GT was a massive hit with the corporate market and was very popular company type car. the lower capacity lighter 1.9 engine makes for a more economical and better engine and cheaper on tax and much much lighter on juice. its a very very strong and reliable engine as well.

the 2.4 on the otherhand is none of those things. the 2.4s, least until later in the 159, had a real problem with ruining drive shafts at a very alarming rate and the gearboxes werent all that amazing either. that and whilst providing a great amount of power, for a diesel they weren't economical. people buy diesels for economy and the 2.4 didn't sit right either side of the economy / power line. it wasnt massively powerful at 175bhp for the early 20v versions (only got more power later in 159) and it didnt have the economy, so no one wanted it.

people wanting power could buy the busso V6 3.2 version that would still return 25ish mpg around town if you were good, which is only marginally less than the 2.4s whilst having a great engine / power and petrol being cheaper than diesel made little cost effective difference for those that wanted power.

best thing you can do is buy a 1.9 (which has 5nm more tourque than the 3.2V6) and get it remapped. economy and power.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
110 Posts
easy answer as to why they never made it - its not that good (in certain respects).

the GT was a massive hit with the corporate market and was very popular company type car. the lower capacity lighter 1.9 engine makes for a more economical and better engine and cheaper on tax and much much lighter on juice. its a very very strong and reliable engine as well.

the 2.4 on the otherhand is none of those things. the 2.4s, least until later in the 159, had a real problem with ruining drive shafts at a very alarming rate and the gearboxes werent all that amazing either. that and whilst providing a great amount of power, for a diesel they weren't economical. people buy diesels for economy and the 2.4 didn't sit right either side of the economy / power line. it wasnt massively powerful at 175bhp for the early 20v versions (only got more power later in 159) and it didnt have the economy, so no one wanted it.

people wanting power could buy the busso V6 3.2 version that would still return 25ish mpg around town if you were good, which is only marginally less than the 2.4s whilst having a great engine / power and petrol being cheaper than diesel made little cost effective difference for those that wanted power.

best thing you can do is buy a 1.9 (which has 5nm more tourque than the 3.2V6) and get it remapped. economy and power.
or a later GT with the 170 diesel :) better throttle response and quicker acceleration, even more torque than the standard. it's a great engine is the 1.9
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
easy answer as to why they never made it - its not that good (in certain respects).

the GT was a massive hit with the corporate market and was very popular company type car. the lower capacity lighter 1.9 engine makes for a more economical and better engine and cheaper on tax and much much lighter on juice. its a very very strong and reliable engine as well.

the 2.4 on the otherhand is none of those things. the 2.4s, least until later in the 159, had a real problem with ruining drive shafts at a very alarming rate and the gearboxes werent all that amazing either. that and whilst providing a great amount of power, for a diesel they weren't economical. people buy diesels for economy and the 2.4 didn't sit right either side of the economy / power line. it wasnt massively powerful at 175bhp for the early 20v versions (only got more power later in 159) and it didnt have the economy, so no one wanted it.

people wanting power could buy the busso V6 3.2 version that would still return 25ish mpg around town if you were good, which is only marginally less than the 2.4s whilst having a great engine / power and petrol being cheaper than diesel made little cost effective difference for those that wanted power.

best thing you can do is buy a 1.9 (which has 5nm more tourque than the 3.2V6) and get it remapped. economy and power.
Thank you for the detailed response! My general opinion, at least going on what I'd been told by Alfisti, is that the 2.4 was a bulletproof animal of a thing, easily chippable to 200bhp out of the box. Seems like it wasn't quite the astonishing buy it first seemed to be!!

...that said, and just so we're clear, if that low-miles 2.4 JTD 156 that I'm chasing comes in at the right money I'm still buying it :p :D

Most likely, though, a 1.9 JTD GT will join my garage.

Thank you Artermis :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
974 Posts
easy answer as to why they never made it - its not that good (in certain respects).

the GT was a massive hit with the corporate market and was very popular company type car. the lower capacity lighter 1.9 engine makes for a more economical and better engine and cheaper on tax and much much lighter on juice. its a very very strong and reliable engine as well.

the 2.4 on the otherhand is none of those things. the 2.4s, least until later in the 159, had a real problem with ruining drive shafts at a very alarming rate and the gearboxes werent all that amazing either. that and whilst providing a great amount of power, for a diesel they weren't economical. people buy diesels for economy and the 2.4 didn't sit right either side of the economy / power line. it wasnt massively powerful at 175bhp for the early 20v versions (only got more power later in 159) and it didnt have the economy, so no one wanted it.

people wanting power could buy the busso V6 3.2 version that would still return 25ish mpg around town if you were good, which is only marginally less than the 2.4s whilst having a great engine / power and petrol being cheaper than diesel made little cost effective difference for those that wanted power.

best thing you can do is buy a 1.9 (which has 5nm more tourque than the 3.2V6) and get it remapped. economy and power.
Sorry to pull up an old thread, but the 2.4 has a 42.2 MPG combined cycle.. Even with a heavy foot in mine I get 44.1MPG so very economical, there are ton's of them about and the 175 is a fair bit more powerful than the 150. As my misses has one and spec's show a big difference in 0-60 times..

Driveshaft's don't get chewed half as much as some would believe, although in 200K miles I did change them. The main problem with the 156 2.4 is the suspension and wishbones, a heavier engine sitting over the front saw quite a few sump plugs and cracked wishbones about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
960 Posts
Having gone from a 2.4 20V 156 to a GT Q2 I have to say that the 2.4 engine is better in every way - apart from the weight. Koni adjustable shocks helped a bit on the 156.

My nearside driveshaft inner cv went at 90K on the 2.4. The offside inner on the GT is knackered at 50K. They appear to be the same rubbish Peugeot part to match the Alfa driveshaft with the Vx gearbox. Remapping the 1.9 will make the issue no more different than it was with the 2.4.

As to why Alfa didn't supply the GT with the 2.4 - it must have simply been down to money and perceived demand.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top