Alfa Romeo Forum banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
462 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The age old question really..................

Apart from the insurance costs what are the aveage additional running costs for the V6 GTV against the running costs of the 2.0 GTV?

What are the average MPG figures for both?

I've seen a few stunning V6's for sale but need to engage my head aswell as heart on this one. Will I be crippled by the running costs of the V6 against the 2.0?

Is the V6 more reliable? Are there any additional plus points of the bigger engine (apart from the nundres of smiles every time you push the accelerator pedal!)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,736 Posts
what V6 are you looking at? 3.0 or 3.2? specs are:

2.0TS

30mpg combines, 150bhp, 8.2s 0-60

2.0JTS

30mpg combines, 165bhp, 8.1s 0-60

3.0 V6

24mpg combined, 220bhp, 6.5s 0-60

3.2 V6

21mpg combines, 240bhp, 6.1s 0-60

the V6s do seem to have a better reputation than the 4 pots, plus points are obviously performance related, also they are fewer cambelt failures on the V6 engines. however with the drop in economy its your call, can you afford to run it at that mpg? my 147 is returning 24mpg combined and i manage
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,631 Posts
I went from a 1.8TS 156 to a 3.2V6 GTA 156. The consumption difference for me was less than I was fearing. I get around 27mpg out of mine now (compared to around 30 out of the 1.8). Where it does suffer more is stop start town driving, but I dont do much of that now. On a run at 80-90 I can average 28-30mpg depending on conditions (compared to around 35 in the 1.8). Remember, if you did 12k miles a year and your average is 35mpg, it will cost you £1323 (at 85p/litre). If your average was 25mpg its £1852. Thats £529 a year extra or £44 per month extra. Not too bad.
Insurance will be slightly more, as will servicing. Tyres seem to last just as long, but will also be very dependant on how you drive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
245 Posts
Theres not a huge difference in economy, massive difference in performance though. (performance = smiles) My wifes 147 2.0 ts averages about 26, my 147 GTA averages about 24. (although around town only can see this drop to below 20)
If it were me, I'd go for the V6 everytime.
 
O

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Normally get about 29mpg average for a tankful, but I do (did) a lot of dual and motorway commuting. 75 mile each way of steady pace is boring - I love it when the M1 is blocked 'cos I get to drive from Sheffield to Staffs through Derbyshire - it's a deathbed memory in the summer *sigh* :)

Consumption is *much* higher when the M1 is blocked :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,275 Posts
Don't forget the road Tax aswell. The goverment are gonna hammer motorists who drive a 3.0l or more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,236 Posts
The V6's use less oil, and do seem to be more reliable - they suffer much fewer cambelt failures than the 4-pots. They are also stunning engines, and come with the better 6-speed gearboxes. And running costs besides fuel are not that different.

I would say it depends on your driving. If it's mostly town driving, a V6 will see poor mpg. On more open roads the 2.5 and 3.2V6's I've had have been suprisingly good on mpg, a decent trip in the GTA even with a fair bit of full-throttle work will usually see over 25mpg average as long as there is not too much town driving... Personally, I think people make far too much of the "ooh, they are too expensive to run" thing and miss out on good cars as a result - second hand, all sorts of petrol V6's are a steal and the characteristics of the engines are just so much better than 4-pots, whether pressing on and enjoying the free-revving wail or just pootling around town with no revs at all but creamy smoothness...

Personally, I'd always get a better engine, even if it meant paying less for the car in the first place to compensate for mpg.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,063 Posts
Also don't forget that you have to drive the 2.0TS engine much harder than the V6 to get similar performance and it does need to be reved a lot so doesn't tend to be as economical as you'd expect.

I would say my V6 is about 20% thirstier than my 2.0 TS Selespeed - but the sound and smoothness of that V6 engine outway the costs :D
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,631 Posts
Alfie GTV said:
Don't forget the road Tax aswell. The goverment are gonna hammer motorists who drive a 3.0l or more.

This shouldnt be too bad for anything registered before the new band came out, infact may well be the same!

Cam changes look like being a fairly hefty chunk more. Ive just been given an estimate of £950 incl all belts, tensioners, metal water pump, spark plugs and fluids. (Still £200 less than dealer).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
197 Posts
2002 Spider 3.0 - avg. 21 mpg. 2004 GT 3.2 - avg 18mpg :eek: But the V6 experience is worth every last penny!
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top