[nikko]

Unfortunately my daily commute has increased and I really need to switch to a diesel 159.
With fuel economy being my main concern does this rule out the 2.4? (I get around 30 mpg from my 2.2 petrol)
Is the 2.0 far superior to the 1.9, especially on the motorway?
As I have never owned a diesel before I know little about dpfs, ergs and swirl flaps.
Besides a remap what other of these aforementioned items need modifying on the various engines?
Thanks in advance.

 

[SanRemo78]

1.9s have the M32 gearbox which is know to give problems.
I've got a 2.4 Q4 and get high 40's to low 50's (on the display) on longer runs and 35 on the 7 mile commute with a bit of stop start traffic.
Guy

 

[giblets46]

If I had the choice, I'd go for the 2.0 (check it's not got the m32 gearbox, some early ones had this). It's got the extra power over the 1.9, without the extra weight of the 2.4 (so better balanced), and fewer EGR/DPF problems

 

[dc]

Bloody hell, I must be a bit heavy with the right foot. I get around 22mpg on my 2.2 petrol Brera (mainly around town) and used to get around 30mpg on my 2.4 diesel on mainly motorway driving.

 

[symon]

I would go with the 2.0 as well, but as others have said make sure it doesn't have the M32 Gearbox.

You can always get it remapped to give a similar power to a standard 2.4

You should average 45mpg I reckon in normal driving, probably a bit more on the motorway.

Being a bit later in design they rarely suffer DPF or EGR problems, and they are lighetr up front than the 2.4 so it should handle a bit better.

The only thing you won't like compared to the 2.4 is the noise. I am not going to beat about the bush here, it sounds horrid (Like the 1.9) and it isn't as quiet as some modern diesels.

 

[alfa1988]

Bloody hell, I must be a bit heavy with the right foot. I get around 22mpg on my 2.2 petrol Brera (mainly around town) and used to get around 30mpg on my 2.4 diesel on mainly motorway driving.

2.0l diesel is superior to 1.9 and it has the better f40 6 speed manual from the 2.4 which doesn't have issues.
Mines for sale, I used to get 39 in traffic commute to London with average speed of about 10mph but 52mpg if you were on a run and keeping under 80. Had 58 out of it by staying at 70 with cruise on.
Lovely example..

https://www.gumtree.com/p/alfa-rome...te.-rare-full-sport-heated-leather/1176398448

 

[epsonix]

If I had the choice, I'd go for the 2.0 (check it's not got the m32 gearbox, some early ones had this). It's got the extra power over the 1.9, without the extra weight of the 2.4 (so better balanced), and fewer EGR/DPF problems

As far as I read elsewhere, only some of 2.0 136BHP had M32 gearbox, 170BHP had C635 gearbox. I heard also that some had F40, like alfa1988 says. Speculating, maybe it was that on first ones there was M32/F40 depends on BHP, and later C635?

If I remember correctly, M32 was for up to 320Nm officially rated, what was good for 1.9JTDM, 1.9/2.2 but it is no loger for 2.0JTDM 170BHP.

 

[epsonix]

Bloody hell, I must be a bit heavy with the right foot. I get around 22mpg on my 2.2 petrol Brera (mainly around town) and used to get around 30mpg on my 2.4 diesel on mainly motorway driving.

I get 16-22mpg(UK) in my TBI driving around town...

 

[tony4hop]

Hi, I'm on an 07 1.9jtdm (150bhp), 120,00 miles totally stock, 4+ years into ownership. 39mpg stop start daily commute 16 miles e/w (all be it with half of that dual carriageway). Every couple of weeks I'll do a 350 mile round motorway trip that delivers more like 48 - 50mpg (for those journeys) I'm not a spirited driver, but not Miss Daisy either!, and will sit at 80mph with cruise on, if I stay to just below 70 I'll get 55mph no problem (but that gets a bit boring).

Engine noise not a problem at all, and this is my first ever diesel - I believe I have the M32 gearbox (?) and there are no issues, touch wood. I acquired it just over 4 years ago and it had a good history (with some of it from Alfatune, that swayed me a bit) and I have had it serviced regularly by a trusted local (non alfa) specialist, who looked after our 156 s'wagon for 11 years without any issues.

Sucking eggs and all that (sorry) but as always buy with history, the more receipts the better (obviously). Good luck, let us know the outcome.

The 150bhp, is more than adequate for me (my first off the lights days were over years ago!), I've toyed with the idea of a re-map but as this is a keeper (until Guilia is a few years old) I CBA with all the torque issues through my M32 (?) gearbox etc, etc.

Swirl flaps..... hmmm - it's in when I'm on hols in August for major service and cam belt, so will be speaking about those with garage beforehand.

 

[stan laurel]

I too have a 1.9 '08 plate, knocking on 95K.

I've had no gearbox issues in the [almost] 4 years of ownership. It also returns a reasonably healthy 45+mpg on motorway, but that quickly reduces with town driving - my Fuelio app shows that i'm getting about 39mpg, now that I'm driving fewer motorway miles.

edit: as Symon says....the 1.9 sounds like a bag of spanners in a washing machine when idling, but it's fine once it's going

 

[tony4hop]

I get 16-22mpg(UK) in my TBI driving around town...

Wanted to hit the like button, but that's not a 'likey' figure. It is a 'likey' motor though :thumbup:

 

[tony4hop]

I too have a 1.9 '08 plate, knocking on 95K.

I've had no gearbox issues in the [almost] 4 years of ownership. It also returns a reasonably healthy 45+mpg on motorway, but that quickly reduces with town driving - my Fuelio app, shows that i'm getting about 39mpg, now that I'm driving fewer motorway miles.

edit: as Symon says....the 1.9 sounds like a bag of spanners in a washing machine when idling, but it's fine once it's going

Any mods (swirl flaps, egr, re-map)?

 

[neil_s]

The 2.0 and 1.9 are very similar engines, the main difference as highlighted above is later 2.0s didn't have the M32.

However coming from the performance Vauxhall scene I know the M32 well. Yes the bearing issue is common, but it's a cheap enough fix if you get the bearings done as soon as you feel any movement or hear a whine. In fact there's an excellent garage in Widnes called AS Autocare that specialise in doing M32 refurbs on VXRs, and they use Timken bearings so they've never had a box they've repaired fail again. And that includes 1.9s that have been boxed/mapped and Stage 3 VXRs putting out silly power.

FWIW I've had my 2.4 Q4 about a week, however on the journey down from Liverpool it averaged mid 40s and around town it's been mid 30s in terms of MPG. And that's driving it enthusiastically, so I'm pretty pleased with it. Certainly this is similar to what I saw on a 1.9 Astra I had a few years back (which is the same engine as the Alfa).

 

[stan laurel]

Any mods (swirl flaps, egr, re-map)?

all stock..no mods what-so-ever.

although I have had to clean out the egr once.

I have thought about a re-map, but reckon it's not worth the extra strain on the gearbox....i don't want to push my luck

 

[FiremanAxe]

Don't mess about, just get a 2.0

I've had a 1.9 and currently have a 2.0 it's a much, much better engine.

When deciding on a car if you pop the bonnet and have a look at the gearbox casing down the left hand side of the battery you should be able to see F40 stamped into the gearbox, this identifies the F40 gearbox. (Duh!)

that way you should have no issues about gearboxes, DPFs, EGRs, Swirlflaps etc etc

so no worries, just trouble free, economic motoring.

Axe
(this is just my opinion based on my personal experience, if you buy a lemon of a 2.0 don't come after me for saying it'll be trouble free!)

 

[MalcQV]

My 2 pennerth

I've had the 1.9 in a GT.
I have the 2.4 in the 159.

The 1.9 GT was my first foray into diesel. I had a couple of lease/co cars way back that were diesel so they weren't totally new to me.
Putting the different chassis aside for a minute. The 1.9 was quite a bit better at economy. I noted when driving at lower speeds the 1.9 would still get superb economy. The 2.4 does not, it's dreadful. On a decent motorway run around legal limits the 1.9 would do 50mpg. The 2.4 about 44-45mpg.
Now if you bring in the fact both are different cars then the 159 is heavier and as such may change those figures anyway.

I've not driven a 1.9 or 2.0 diesel in the 159 but I have the 2.4. One thing I detest about diesel engines is the awful clattering they do. It's crass. The 2.4 is a little forgiving in the dept. because when you hoof it at about 3k rpm it sounds rather grunty. A nice sound the 5 cylinder configuration makes. Alfas should sound good. I'm not saying the 2.4 tractor sounds better than the 2.2 petrol but it ain't half bad.
The 1.9 just constantly sounds **** :lol:

 

[tony4hop]

all stock..no mods what-so-ever.

although I have had to clean out the egr once.

I have thought about a re-map, but reckon it's not worth the extra strain on the gearbox....i don't want to push my luck

I'm with you. Seeing as I'm going to have to wait quite a few years for Guilia I decided this is a keeper until then (wish me luck with that one!) so when I'm on hols in August I'm leaving it with the garage for a good pampering (inc belts, full service etc etc.)

 

[epsonix]

Wanted to hit the like button, but that's not a 'likey' figure. It is a 'likey' motor though :thumbup:

18" wheels, heavier SW body and heavy foot are 3 ingredients. this engine consumption is very sensitive to driving style - e.g my friend has also tbi with 18" wheels, just saloon, and reaches around 25-26mpg in town.

 

[nikko]

I've had the 1.9 in a GT.
I have the 2.4 in the 159.

Thanks for all your comments. My head tells me the 2.0, my heart the 2.4. I also love the look of the GT Blackline (never owned a GT) but keep thinking this would be a backward step after the 159?

 

[dc]

The Brera/159 is a much more solid car to be in. I've owned a GT and while it was pretty fast it felt a bit basic compared to the Brera/159. Mind you, all that solidity adds a fair bit of timber to the car..