Alfa Romeo Forum banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi All ...

Still shopping ..so...

Which is the better engine .. 1.8TS or 2.0JTS ?

From a reliability point of view mainly .. extra HP isn't much good if its parked up needing assistance a lot of the time .

Thanks in advance ..
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,721 Posts
2.0 JTS is the one I'd go for if only for cheaper servicing (though the balance belt kit equates to the 4 less plugs). The engine is essentially the same bar the balance shafts, head, plugs, coil packs, exhaust cam and vacuum advance system, plus a couple of other little bits, though people have said the JTS is underpowered, it's economy is more than making up for it and with a few minor (cost free) tweaks there's a few more horses that can be let loose.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
with a few minor (cost free) tweaks there's a few more horses that can be let loose.
Easy ones ?

and with the balance belt etc to be replaced .. is it really all that much cheaper to service . ? I keep hearing the JTS is a more specialised engine and I will be doing most of the work myself ... sounds mildly scary tbh ..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,171 Posts
I keep hearing the JTS is a more specialised engine and I will be doing most of the work myself ... sounds mildly scary tbh ..
If you can change the cambelt on a 1.8TS, you can do the 2.0JTS.

You are unlikely to be getting involved with the direct-injection side of the 2.0JTS engine for any maintenance anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,643 Posts
...though people have said the JTS is underpowered, it's economy is more than making up for it and with a few minor (cost free) tweaks there's a few more horses that can be let loose.
What are these cost free tweaks?
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
46,129 Posts
I would go for the 1.8 TS. Tried and tested, if a little bit under-powered (or should that be under-torquey) compared to a JTS in full working order.. Fuel consumption though, it should be better with the 1.8, as the stats show a GT 1.8 TS has better fuel economy figs than GT 2.0 JTS, although in real life the difference would probably be pretty negligable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,643 Posts
I've owned both. Fuel consumption from the 1.8 Twinny was about 29 mpg. I get about 33 mpg from the 2.0 JTS.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
46,129 Posts
I've owned both. Fuel consumption from the 1.8 Twinny was about 29 mpg. I get about 33 mpg from the 2.0 JTS.
Was that driving them the same though? You did say you've made a conscious effort to be more gentle with the Ti than you were with your twinny.. 33mpg is really good though :thumbs:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,643 Posts
Was that driving them the same though? You did say you've made a conscious effort to be more gentle with the Ti than you were with your twinny.. 33mpg is really good though :thumbs:
I reckon I drive them the same. :blush:
 

·
Registered
Giulia Quad, Cayman GT4, Cayenne Turbo
Joined
·
23,458 Posts
I'd go for the 1.8 engine.

All the JTS engines I've seen on the rollers are well underpowered from their "Claimed figures". :eek: :(

The 1.8 is a cracking engine. Better than the 2.0 twin spark engine as it's more free revving and has less to go wrong with it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,643 Posts
Rolling road BHP figures are just pub talk. What is really important is how the car drives. I suggest you test drive both cars and buy the one you prefer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Rolling road BHP figures are just pub talk. What is really important is how the car drives. I suggest you test drive both cars and buy the one you prefer.
Agreed ! .. but i was just wondering which is thought to be the less trouble of the two .

BTW ...

what wheels are these , on a 2003 2.0 JTS.. ?



Thought they looked different to the usual ones ..
 

·
Registered
Giulia Quad, Cayman GT4, Cayenne Turbo
Joined
·
23,458 Posts
Rolling road BHP figures are just pub talk. What is really important is how the car drives. I suggest you test drive both cars and buy the one you prefer.
Hardly pub talk when a car is producing over 20% less power than it's meant to be!!!! :eek:

In addition.. some of the 2003 156 JTS engines were the ones with the biggest problems!! :eek:

http://forum.alfa156.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=37964&PN=1

Please don't be ignorant to this. It is quite serious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
I do appreciate the input ...

I'm trying to decide between a minter of a 2002 1.8 veloce and a 2003 2.0 JTS . good condition too and actually cheaper than the 2002 .

Thing is i just dont want to walk into any problems ..for the sake of a newer number plate ..
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,522 Posts
As far as I know, the early JTS' did have the major problems with cam/ecu but this was corrected on the post april 2003 cars.

However, I'm not sure if it was all of the JTS' or just a bad batch as some on here and other forums have produced near 160bhp.

If you do get the JTS, get it re-mapped. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
Had both - 2.0 cost me a fortune in petrol. 1.8TS is underpowered to start with but it's a lot cheaper on petrol - both have their advantages but if I was to do it again I'd go for either the 1.8 or 1.9JTD.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,522 Posts
The 1.8 may be better on insurance and tax too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,171 Posts
The 1.8 may be better on tax too.
UK Tax.
They are both band "F" and both move to band "K" next year.
So you pay the same tax on both 1.8TS & 2.0JTS

Even the 1.6TS is band "F" at the moment, but is "J" next year.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top