2.0 isnt TI?

 

I would go for the Ti personally much better spec unless its fuel economy your after..

Martin

 

Sorry I should have said...the black one is a TI as well.

 

Now I drive a car with 60hp. So I buy 2.0 because it is rocket comapring to my punto, and economy is beter. Maybe tyre wear is lower. Insurance is probably cheaper... But if you dont drive too much, about 15t miles, buy 2.4. You live only once. And if you doing a lot of short trips or city driving. I dont think diesel is for you. Diesel need some air!

 

Thanks...the question of whether to get a diesel has been bothering me to be honest. I don't think I'll be using the car to commute, so on a daily basis it'll just be the missus taking it to the shops. But then at weekends we'll definitely use it to explore the countryside or take it for longer runs into France or Italy, so I just don't know if diesel is worth it.

On the other hand, I'm not sure the petrol is going to be right for me, except maybe the 3.2 V6. There's a second hand 2007 3.2 available at the same garage....worth a look?

 

Cant say because I dont have one. But diesel will have problem if you make a lot of short trips. Because EGR ventil... You need I think at least once in week put your pedal to the metal. Its a car with 170hp or even 210! You need to drive it like that!

 

I just bought a 2.4 Ti jtdm 159 and it's really nice. I do drive on the commute with it but must say I found the 2.0 really flat. It's a heavy car so you need some clout with it but it depends what you're used to. The 3.2 sounds great but you'll get bored quickly filling it up. Combined you won't get much more than high teens per gallon out of it whereas the 2.4 common rail is the best of both worlds, looks great and will return mid 30's to the gallon. In my opinion go for the white one or better still, hold out for a manual 2.4. I's a better transmission than the auto in my opinion.

Cheers,
Iain

 

Would it worth bearing in mind that the white 2.4 would be the older version of the Fiat JTD engine first introduced way back in 1997 and that the black 2.0 is the much newer (2008) designed JTD engine. If there isn't much in it then that might make my mind up.

As we all know, diesel engine design has really moved on since the late 90's.

 

Neither. Go find a nice 1750.


Oh alright then.... if you have to get a DERV white is naff, so go for the black.

 

Got to agree on all points. A white 159 is wrong.

 

I agree with Nev(well you'd expect that from another TBi owner...) The 1750 has more grunt, a lighter nose (so it handles better) and broader rev range. Only downsides are 'the sound' and an average fuel consumption of between 25 and 28mpg driven enthusiastically........

....yep, they get better with age.:thumbs:

 

.....average fuel consumption of between 25 and 28mpg driven enthusiastically........

Your enthusiasm must be falling!

I think my Tbi has some hidden computer that dumps fuel when I'm cruising or cuts the power when I'm driving enthusiastically because the answer is always 23mpg.

But it's always fun and I'm so glad I didn't get a diesel.

 

Between the 2.4 and 2.0 I would go for the 2.0, from what I've read reliability is better and it's still got 170horses. Also, the satnav in the 2.4 is a waste of money, a cheap tomtom these days is a million times better. I would go for the Bose system as a preferable option in the black 2.0. I've had my 1.9JTDm for nearly a year, bought second hand and great so far with no problems. It's got satnav (waste of money) but no Bose, I had the latter in the 147 and miss it!!

 

The 2.0ltr is a pretty good engine..for a diesel, but it does let you know its a diesel, especially at idle. Don't believe the stated economy figures, I only get 34-35mpg out of mine :S

 

2.4, better sound, and ive heard from my cousins in Italy who have friends that own a 2.0 JTDm that it is a true diesel. I find with my 2.4 that some of the sporting pedigree remains.

Salute, Giordano.

 

Go for the black one, nicer spec - as others say - the OE sat nav is rubbish. If you can live with the noise of the 2.0 JTD then I'd go for it, - it's easily re-mapped for more power if 170 isn't enough

 

Thanks everyone for the advice!

My dealer has no new petrol 159's in stock, and I get the impression they are cutting down to just one model as production slowly winds down. If I want a new car (and the warranty and leasing deal makes that tempting) then its either the 2.0 derv or this last 2.4 in white.

I'm hearing the comments on white, but it does have a certain individuality. The problem with black is that absolutely every other 159 I see is black. They do have a red one in the showroom (another 2.0) without Bose I think, but I could ask for a deal on it.

All in all, with my first choice I'm not hearing encouraging things about the gearbox, satnav, engine or colour! Looks like I need to look again....

 

A red one? Well there you go then, your decision is made ;-) Get a deal on that one - if it's a TI. Personally, I'd rather get good deal and not worry about things like Bose. If the black one is a diesel AND a TI then I don't think you would ever get the benefits of Bose anyway (such as they are) . The diesel can definitely sound like one and the Ti's tyres and general set up aren't designed to minimize road noise shall we say...

Plus, you'd be getting a red alfa Don't forget ugliness can be defined as individuality, doesn't make it right though. Not that I'm biased or anything.

 

For me 159SW in white looks great! i saw one 2.4. Beautiful car! This one here: Alfa Romeo 159 SW | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

And this one looks pretty good too but not that good as SW YouTube - ALFA ROMEO 159 White

 

Colour is always subjective. I've even read a few unflattering comments on red on this forum!

Can anyone tell me what is so bad about the satnav? I heard that the revised one was much better than the original - and there's no doubt that it looks really cool in the console (better than a tom-tom stuck on anyroad). Also I'm going to be keeping this car for many years (I hope) and it'll look really dated without a screen soon (every car seems to be adding satnavs now) which might hurt the resale when I eventually get rid of it.

On the other hand, what is so good about the Bose? The standard stereo has 8 speakers bla bla bla so it can't be too shabby. How enhanced is the sound with the Bose system?

Thanks to all for your comments.

 

Not sure about the new satnav. I have read here that it is beter than the old one as well, but I was told to avoid it nonetheless.

I too thought it looked nice and was discounting cars without one when I was looking. I got to try a car with the old satnav and another with blueandme nav, both were really rubbish and detracted from the cars.

I really wouldn't pay too much attention to things like satnav and bose, certainly don't let them be deal breakers. You can always go after-market. I put a Pioneer in-dash satnav in mine. Which was probably cheaper in the end anyway.

 

Well, can only go on what I have now and what I test drove and the 1.9 (I know you aren't looking at one) was a little flat, but not bad for a derv. The 2.2 petrol was a doozy in terms of go and noise, but was thirsty and a tad expensive.....so, the 2.4 it was. And I love it! I don't have the Bose, but really don't think the standard set up is bad at all. In fact, I would go as far to say its the best stereo I have heard in a car and I had a top spec Renault 21 a few years ago with all the gadgets and a 10 SPEAKER stereo in it and I thought I was in a concert hall every time I put it on! The car was crap though ;-) But the standard system is pretty damn good, so no complaints there.

As for the engine, apart from start up, behind the wheel it has a really lovely noise, which I was very, very surprised about for a derv. Have always hated the sound, but being a 5 pot, its got real character. And goes like bloody stink! And so far, pretty economical, around 38-40 average, even with spirited driving. Get one with Blue&Me and you're sorted.....just see if you can hang on till the right car comes along and you really won't regret it.....fantastic thing!

 

Cheers for the input.

To be honest I like the grunt of the 2.4 but if I find a petrol one then I'll definitely need to test it to compare. The satnav is a tempting draw because living in Europe the roads are unfamiliar and the light of my life is wonderful in all ways except that she's a useless map reader

Funnily enough the thing I care most about is the gearbox. If I go for a manual then a good gearchange is an absolute dealbreaker for me - I can't stand a stiff or rubbery gearbox. I've mostly heard good things about the 159 manual except for some difficulties with 2nd to 3rd. So I'll probably have to test that quite carefully. On the other hand I really liked the Q-tronic, so that would be the easy option (also for the wife, who is worried about the shift to left-hand-drive).

 

I think its going to come down to what your heart tells you. Go for a decent test in both of them again one after the other and that may help you decide.

Personally I'd much rather have the BOSE option as that must be over £600 option, a sat nav nowadays for £100 will be better than an optional one.

The 2.4 engines are supposed to sound lovely, but as people have already mentioned the 2.0engine is the most modern latest engine which will replace the 2.4. A remapped 2.0 engine would be just as quick as the 2.4 I should imagine, and you could get rid of the DPF and EGR valve.

Either way you should be very happy with a 159 once you get ued to driving it.

 

Either way you should be very happy with a 159 once you get ued to driving it.

Definitely :thumbs:

And the great thing about the 159 is that you don't see many of them on the road

 

So, the plot thickens.

Today I got hold of a 1750 TBi and had a test drive. Interesting. You can really tell that the nose is lighter - turn in was definitely sharper, there was much less understeer, and generally it felt livelier. The manual gearbox was lovely - very precise and almost impossible to stall in first (which will help the wife).

So handling-wise I marginally prefer the petrol/manual combo over the still great diesel/auto that I tried last week. However......my test drive gave me no chance to see how well the TBi copes with mid-range overtaking acceleration. This is something I know the 2.4 diesel is particularly good at. There was one point where I floored the TBi in a high gear and not a lot happened, which concerns me. Can any TBi-ers tell me what its like if you pull out for a cheeky overtake and find you're not on the boost?

 

I take the road from Sisteron to Grenoble sometimes and the 1750
is a hoot for overtaking on this single carriageway route.

The antilag system means even when off boost it's pretty
darn responsive.

Better for these kind of manoeuvres than the NA 2.2 JTS in my view.

 

The tbi has always been described as quite diesel like in its power delivery, mid range acceleration is more than adequate. You don't have to be a gear stick jokey to get past every lorry you come across.

 

I get a bit of lag with mine but simply work the thing earlier to compensate once on song it's fantastic (I've got the 240bhp upgrade) It's equally as fast in a high gear using the prodigious torque as it is dropping down a gear to overtake and you get the turbo rush as well. I've experimented with accelerating through the gears but missing out 5th and it just keeps going at the same rate. The most satisfying thing is the pick up between 80 and 100mph in top- awesome....