Alfa Romeo Forum banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts
U

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Did anyone else notice that on the AlfaRomeo.com web site there is a list of the "available" engines and transmissions, presumably for the MY2009 model year.

In the list are two ECO engines where they have raised the gearing by 5%, used thinner engine oil, low rolling resistance tyres, different engine mapping and new power steering pump. The ECO configuration is available on the 2.0 JTDm 170 hp and 1.9 JTDm 120hp engines.
Its only a rumour that they come with crocheted covers for the headrests :lol:

According to the main site the current engine options are as follows

Diesels

2.4 JTDm 200hp Q-Tronic only?
2.0 JTDm 170hp Euro 5 149 g/km emissions 6 speed manual
2.0 JTDm 170hp Euro 5 ECO version - 5% higher geared. Low rolling resistance tyres. Thinner oils. New power steering pump. 136 g/km emissions 6 speed manual
1.9 JTDm 150 hp Euro 4 6 speed manual or Q-Tronic
1.9 JTDm 120 hp Euro 4 6 speed manual
1.9 JTDm 120 hp Euro 4 ECO 6 speed manual

Then the petrols

1.8 MPi 140 hp 5 speed manual only
2.2 JTS 185hp 6 speed Selespeed only?
1750TBi 200hp Euro 5. 6 speed manual
3.2 JTS 260hp Q4, Q-Tronic only?

The auto only option to the 3.2 and 2.2 seems genuine because on the Italian site you can't select those engines with manual boxes.

Those seem to be the only options listed on the AlfaRomeo.com site.

Presumably not every market will be offered the full range of engines and transmissions and some of the older engines may be phased out depending on demand. Also you have to expect that ARUK will want to sell-through some of the old stock before they introduce new engines, so no guarantees when they might appear in your dealers showroom.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
864 Posts
There's a bit of a worrying trend at the moment for manufacturers to release so called ECO models.

Usually done as a marketing exercise so they can trumpet about lower emissions and a couple of extra mpg.

The potential cost (to the buyer of course) is high - apart from the extra outlay to buy the misguided heap in the first place you then have to put up with 'low rolling resistance tyres' i.e. low grip (because that is exactly what it means) and the possibility of a prematurely worn out engine due to this thinner oil.

I doubt anyone would feel quite so smug about saving the planet while they sat in their smashed up car with their dead family having skidded into the back of a truck on these crappy tyres.

I have two golden rules when running any car: decent tyres and decent oil. These ECO cars break both of those rules as well as being pretentious and are therefore a total no no.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,495 Posts
I doubt anyone would feel quite so smug about saving the planet while they sat in their smashed up car with their dead family having skidded into the back of a truck on these crappy tyres.

I have two golden rules when running any car: decent tyres and decent oil. These ECO cars break both of those rules as well as being pretentious and are therefore a total no no.
Actually running Energy savers on my other vehicle, these low rolling resistance tyre grip very well indeed, perhaps not the greatest in the wet but not much worse than some of the ****e that Alfa have fitted stock to their cars.

Wear rate is good too, car is 1600kg and tyres are looking good for 40k, makes them look decent value despite their slightly higher purchase price costing me approx 0.9p a mile. Most other rubber normally sets me back between 1.5 and 2.5p a mile.

If I think a tyre is rubbish or perhaps a bit dangerous for the roads I drive on it comes off my car and gets replaced pretty sharpish regardless of how much life is left in them like the Rossos I had on my GT, I thought these Energy savers were pretty respectable, OK its the family motor I wouldn't use them for hairing around tracks and getting to the limits of grip etc. but I gave them a pretty good testing as I thought much like yourself and they proved themselves pretty worthy.

TUV test results
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
864 Posts
Actually running Energy savers on my other vehicle, these low rolling resistance tyre grip very well indeed, perhaps not the greatest in the wet but not much worse than some of the ****e that Alfa have fitted stock to their cars.

Wear rate is good too, car is 1600kg and tyres are looking good for 40k, makes them look decent value despite their slightly higher purchase price costing me approx 0.9p a mile. Most other rubber normally sets me back between 1.5 and 2.5p a mile.

If I think a tyre is rubbish or perhaps a bit dangerous for the roads I drive on it comes off my car and gets replaced pretty sharpish regardless of how much life is left in them like the Rossos I had on my GT, I thought these Energy savers were pretty respectable, OK its the family motor I wouldn't use them for hairing around tracks and getting to the limits of grip etc. but I gave them a pretty good testing as I thought much like yourself and they proved themselves pretty worthy.
Fair enough. :thumbs:

To be fair I've never tried them, but to me: low rolling resistance = low friction = lower grip.

I just can't get my head round how they can actually be any good, but on the other hand I totally respect your opinion as someone that has actual experience of using them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,495 Posts
Fair enough. :thumbs:

To be fair I've never tried them, but to me: low rolling resistance = low friction = lower grip.
Well to some extent that's true, they cost about the same as Eagle F1 and they are not as good as an Eagle F1, they don't have the same level of grip or feedback wet or dry, they are not something I'd put on a motor thats going to be driven ethusiastically everywhere but on your everyday average saloon that spends its time trudging motorways or city driving like the missus taking the kids to school etc then those sports tyres are overkill, they would last no time at all and never be used to there potential, for that something like these are fine.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top