Someone talk me out of it......

> Well, the 147 weighs in at about 2756 lbs (1250 Kg) while the 166 weighs
> in at 3285 lbs (1490 Kg). or more than 500 lbs (226 Kg) difference. I'd
> say that's significant.

Don't push.

My daily driver is 164 V6 TB increased by squadra and sometimes I take my
father in law 166 TS when I need to save for a winter (that one has GPL).
Comparison 166 TS vs. Passat 2.0 looks rather bad for VW. Uncomfortable,
weak and ugly. It's right that V6 is more than better, but TS is not that
bad. He would just need to push the pedal harder from time to time.

Regards
Szymon

Szymon > wrote:

> > Well, the 147 weighs in at about 2756 lbs (1250 Kg) while the 166 weighs
> > in at 3285 lbs (1490 Kg). or more than 500 lbs (226 Kg) difference. I'd
> > say that's significant.
>
> Don't push.
>
> My daily driver is 164 V6 TB increased by squadra and sometimes I take my
> father in law 166 TS when I need to save for a winter (that one has GPL).
> Comparison 166 TS vs. Passat 2.0 looks rather bad for VW. Uncomfortable,
> weak and ugly. It's right that V6 is more than better, but TS is not that
> bad. He would just need to push the pedal harder from time to time.

Not the best comparison in the world - in a relatively modern Passat
(ie. B5 shape from 1996-ish or later), the normally aspirated 1.8 or
later 2.0 aren't the engines of choice - they're underpowered at around
130bhp. The engine you want in a Passat is the 1.8T or 2.0T. Only a
low-pressure turbo, but they give the engine incredible levels of
flexibility.
--
Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark Lusso - Fiat Marea 20v HLX - COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

> Not the best comparison in the world - in a relatively modern Passat
> (ie. B5 shape from 1996-ish or later), the normally aspirated 1.8 or
> later 2.0 aren't the engines of choice - they're underpowered at around
> 130bhp. The engine you want in a Passat is the 1.8T or 2.0T. Only a
> low-pressure turbo, but they give the engine incredible levels of
> flexibility.

I think you are wrong. 1.8T in Passat could be comparised with 2.5 V6, not
2.0 TS.
IMO TS in 166 is enough for this guy, especially that he has 75 for fun.
What does it mean "underpowered"? Shall the car has the engine with 1HP for
1kg at least or something? What you should say to Fiat Panda happy owners?


Regards
Szymon

Szymon > wrote:

> > Not the best comparison in the world - in a relatively modern Passat
> > (ie. B5 shape from 1996-ish or later), the normally aspirated 1.8 or
> > later 2.0 aren't the engines of choice - they're underpowered at around
> > 130bhp. The engine you want in a Passat is the 1.8T or 2.0T. Only a
> > low-pressure turbo, but they give the engine incredible levels of
> > flexibility.
>
> I think you are wrong. 1.8T in Passat could be comparised with 2.5 V6, not
> 2.0 TS.

No, not at all, actually. I've had a Passat 1.8T between owning a 155
TSpark and my current Marea. All had around 150bhp. The Passat 1.8T is
definitely equivalent to an Alfa 2lt TSpark.

> IMO TS in 166 is enough for this guy, especially that he has 75 for fun.
> What does it mean "underpowered"? Shall the car has the engine with 1HP for
> 1kg at least or something? What you should say to Fiat Panda happy owners?
>

I am 'this guy' and yes, I do think a 166 *could* be underpowered with
only a 2lt TSpark - especially as they're significantly heavier than our
156.

But, you're quite right, I have my 75 for fun. A 166 would just be a
cruiser / commuter for me.


--
Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark Lusso - Fiat Marea 20v HLX - COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

> I am 'this guy' and yes, I do think a 166 *could* be underpowered with
> only a 2lt TSpark - especially as they're significantly heavier than our
> 156.

Sorry, I'm quite confused these days

> No, not at all, actually. I've had a Passat 1.8T between owning a 155
> TSpark and my current Marea. All had around 150bhp. The Passat 1.8T is
> definitely equivalent to an Alfa 2lt TSpark.

Well, I can't argue with that only because Alfa was always a little over the
range of manufacturers.
The way you look at this what should be equivalent to aspirated 2.0 Passat
from Alfa versions?

All the best
Szymon

Szymon > wrote:

> > I am 'this guy' and yes, I do think a 166 *could* be underpowered with
> > only a 2lt TSpark - especially as they're significantly heavier than our
> > 156.
>
> Sorry, I'm quite confused these days

No problem.

> > No, not at all, actually. I've had a Passat 1.8T between owning a 155
> > TSpark and my current Marea. All had around 150bhp. The Passat 1.8T is
> > definitely equivalent to an Alfa 2lt TSpark.
>
> Well, I can't argue with that only because Alfa was always a little over the
> range of manufacturers.
> The way you look at this what should be equivalent to aspirated 2.0 Passat
> from Alfa versions?

There isn't one. The closest you'd get would be if Alfa stuck the
1.8TSpark into a 166 - even then the 166 would have more power.

--
Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark Lusso - Fiat Marea 20v HLX - COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

"SteveH" > wrote in message
...

I've driven the 2.0 & 3.0 166. Once you're up to speed the 2.0 is a fine
cruiser and is perfectly adequate for UK speeds. However, most people would
feel it is underpowered. I certainly did, but I did have a 3.0 24V 164 at
the time... The weight penalty is definitely noticeable compared to a 156. I
drove a 2.0 156 on the same day.

The 156 is a better car in terms of chassis and packaging. The boot in the
166 is only marginally bigger. To me the 166 2.0 makes no sense compared to
the 156, which accelerates noticeably quicker. The only argument for the 166
is more equipment - cruise, sat nav, etc were fitted well before they became
available on the 156.

The 156 2.0 TS is the optimum petrol car from the 156 and 166 ranges for the
sort of money you are prepared to spend. With your mileage I'd be looking at
the JTD, though. They're great if you can turn a deaf ear to the diesel
rattle when cold. Superb in-gear thrust and 42mpg. That's what you should be
looking at...

Mark

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 00:24:47 +0100, "MarkK" >
wrote:


>The 156 is a better car in terms of chassis and packaging. The boot in the
>166 is only marginally bigger.

490 litres compared to 360 litres hardly seems marginal to me.

--
Stephen Poley

"Stephen Poley" > wrote in message
news
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 00:24:47 +0100, "MarkK" >
> wrote:
>
>
> >The 156 is a better car in terms of chassis and packaging. The boot in
the
> >166 is only marginally bigger.
>
> 490 litres compared to 360 litres hardly seems marginal to me.
>
490 versus 378 for the 156 saloon if you're going to be picky. You quoted
the smaller Sportwagon boot size. You're right though, it's more than
marginal. I hadn't looked up the sizes and was going on my memory of how big
they looked. However, the 166's boot is smaller than that of the 164
(504l) - it's not a particularly big boot and it wasn't significant enough
to swing it for me when I was choosing between a 166 and 156 a few years
ago, and with a family of 4 an adequate boot is important.

Mark

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 22:56:47 +0100, "MarkK" >
wrote:

>"Stephen Poley" > wrote in message
>news
>> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 00:24:47 +0100, "MarkK" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The 156 is a better car in terms of chassis and packaging. The boot in the
>> >166 is only marginally bigger.
>>
>> 490 litres compared to 360 litres hardly seems marginal to me.
>>
>490 versus 378 for the 156 saloon if you're going to be picky. You quoted
>the smaller Sportwagon boot size.

Well I rechecked and the book I referred to gives 360 for the saloon.
Apparently the book got it wrong.

Though I'm pretty sure that when I looked at the 156 a few years ago
Alfa was quoting 360 for the saloon and 330 for the Sportwagon. Did the
boot increase slightly when the 156 nose was changed?

> You're right though, it's more than
>marginal. I hadn't looked up the sizes and was going on my memory of how big
>they looked. However, the 166's boot is smaller than that of the 164
>(504l) - it's not a particularly big boot and it wasn't significant enough
>to swing it for me when I was choosing between a 166 and 156 a few years
>ago, and with a family of 4 an adequate boot is important.

Agreed. My 146 had 390 litres, and I found that just adequate - fine for
summer trips, but a bit of a struggle for Christmas holidays with four
thick coats, wellies etc to get in.

--
Stephen Poley