Talk me out of buying a 166

In article >,
Zathras > wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 01:04:53 GMT, George Graves >
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >Except that it's the prettiest current station wagon on the planet and
> >maybe the best looking one this side of an Aston Martin Shooting Brake.
>
> I agree..but as a load carrier...1/10

Could be, I've never been in one, and they aren't sold on this side of
the pond. Seen plenty of them in Europe though, and have admired their
looks. I have an Italian friend named Jocopo (who posts here
occasionally) who has one. He seems to like it.

In article >,
"PeterMcC" > wrote:

> George Graves wrote in
> >
>
> >
> > I have driven the 1.6 liter 147 extensively. Even in a car the size
> > of a Ford Focus, the 1.6 is anemic, I cannot even imagine how
> > lackluster the performance would be in a car the size and weight of a
> > 166.
>
> That would be a good point, were it possible to buy a 1.6l 166

I was going by what someone else wrote. Alfas aren't marketed in the US
so I have no way of knowing which engine is available in which model,
where.

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:09:34 GMT, George Graves >
wrote:

>In article >,
> Zathras > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 01:04:53 GMT, George Graves >
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> >Except that it's the prettiest current station wagon on the planet and
>> >maybe the best looking one this side of an Aston Martin Shooting Brake.
>>
>> I agree..but as a load carrier...1/10
>
>Could be, I've never been in one, and they aren't sold on this side of
>the pond. Seen plenty of them in Europe though, and have admired their
>looks. I have an Italian friend named Jocopo (who posts here
>occasionally) who has one. He seems to like it.

I don't doubt it.

I really fancied one until I saw the inside. It is one of those cars
that I opened the tailgate of (in a showroom) and immediately thought
someone had filled it..it was just the back seat backs though. I don't
understand it..it's built to be some sort of load carrier (otherwise
why bother) and looks like one from the outside but inside there's no
useful load carrying capacity unless you make it a two seater. Even
then, the tailgate lip and size make it rather difficult to load. It's
the best style-over-function I've seen from Alfa.

--
Z
Scotland
Alfa Romeo 156 2.4JTD Veloce Leather
'Oil' be seeing you..
(Email without 'Alfa' in subject are auto-deleted..sorry!)

On 19-9-2005 23:35, Zathras wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:09:34 GMT, George Graves >
> wrote:
>
>
>>In article >,
>>Zathras > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 01:04:53 GMT, George Graves >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>Except that it's the prettiest current station wagon on the planet and
>>>>maybe the best looking one this side of an Aston Martin Shooting Brake.
>>>
>>>I agree..but as a load carrier...1/10
>>
>>Could be, I've never been in one, and they aren't sold on this side of
>>the pond. Seen plenty of them in Europe though, and have admired their
>>looks. I have an Italian friend named Jocopo (who posts here
>>occasionally) who has one. He seems to like it.
>
>
> I don't doubt it.
>
> I really fancied one until I saw the inside. It is one of those cars
> that I opened the tailgate of (in a showroom) and immediately thought
> someone had filled it..it was just the back seat backs though. I don't
> understand it..it's built to be some sort of load carrier (otherwise
> why bother) and looks like one from the outside but inside there's no
> useful load carrying capacity unless you make it a two seater. Even
> then, the tailgate lip and size make it rather difficult to load. It's
> the best style-over-function I've seen from Alfa.

Alfa's have never been designed just for practicality, so what do you
mean...? IMHO the sportwagon was only built to be attractive, for a load
carrier you should buy an other car. And as you initialy fancied one,
they did their job well apparently.

Arjan

I have a 2003 2.5L V6, my first alfa and i love it. Its done 28,000 miles

If I cruise at say 80MPG down the motorway I get 31MPG. My computer tells me
that my combined MPG is 27.4MPG (thats over 13,000 miles since I last reset
it)
I changed my front tyres after 20,000 miles. My rear tyres have still got at
least another 20K wear left in them.

My 12,000 and 24,000 mile services both cost about £230.00 from a main
dealer

Its great to drive, very comfortable, lots of toque, effortless even when
the car is fully loaded.

Would i buy another - YEP :-)

I have had lots of company cars in my time and quickly got bored with each
of them, but I always look forward to driving the Alfa.

Rob



> wrote in message
oups.com...
> I'm thinking of buying a used 166, maybe a '99 and almost certainly a
> 3l V6 auto. The problem is that I am rather scared of the costs
> involved after I purchase. There's a baby on the way and I don't have
> much cash so the last thing I want is a massive bill when something
> goes wrong.
>
> Can anyone give me an idea of prices of common parts such as brake
> disks and pads and service parts.
>
> I can handle most jobs myself on older cars but my experience is
> limited on anything in the last 10 years with the exception of simple
> stuff like a Fiat Punto, so I'm worried I might get in over my head
> with all the gadgetary in a 166 and end up with a huge Alfa main dealer
> bill that I can't afford.
>
> Is a cam-belt change on one of these involved? And if it is, are they
> costly from the dealer?
>
> And is there any other advice anyone can offer?
>
> What I'm getting at is, is a 166 going to cost me a lot more to
> maintain than something dull like a Vectra? CShould I wait till I am in
> a beter financial position before becoming an Alfa owner? I'd hate my
> first experience with an Alfa to be a bitter one.
>
> My heart says Alfa Romeo, my head says Ford Mondeo
>
> Cheers,
> Dave
>

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 10:48:26 +0200, Arjan Renting >
wrote:

>On 19-9-2005 23:35, Zathras wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:09:34 GMT, George Graves >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
>>>Zathras > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 01:04:53 GMT, George Graves >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>Except that it's the prettiest current station wagon on the planet and
>>>>>maybe the best looking one this side of an Aston Martin Shooting Brake.
>>>>
>>>>I agree..but as a load carrier...1/10
>>>
>>>Could be, I've never been in one, and they aren't sold on this side of
>>>the pond. Seen plenty of them in Europe though, and have admired their
>>>looks. I have an Italian friend named Jocopo (who posts here
>>>occasionally) who has one. He seems to like it.
>>
>>
>> I don't doubt it.
>>
>> I really fancied one until I saw the inside. It is one of those cars
>> that I opened the tailgate of (in a showroom) and immediately thought
>> someone had filled it..it was just the back seat backs though. I don't
>> understand it..it's built to be some sort of load carrier (otherwise
>> why bother) and looks like one from the outside but inside there's no
>> useful load carrying capacity unless you make it a two seater. Even
>> then, the tailgate lip and size make it rather difficult to load. It's
>> the best style-over-function I've seen from Alfa.
>
>Alfa's have never been designed just for practicality, so what do you
>mean...?

But Sportwagons are about fun AND practicality according to Alfa. To
build an Estate-style Sportwagon with LESS luggage capacity than the
saloon it's based on with the seats in place is just hopeless. I used
to Windsurf competitively as a sponsored sailor so I know a lot about
loading a car to the absolute max. It is possible to make good
practical cars and in smaller packages than a 156. Don't get me
started on the 147 load space though.... I bet the 159 will be a lot
more practical than the 156.

>IMHO

Yes but Alfa built it to be MORE practical than the saloon - they
never said it was less practical.

>the sportwagon was only built to be attractive,

That's not how Alfa described it and, presumably, they know. I agree
with you though.

>for a load carrier you should buy an other car.

That's true.

>And as you initialy fancied one, they did their job well apparently.

No..for me it failed completely. As I said, the minute I saw the
interior and realised I could load more into the even better looking
saloon, it was game over.

--
Z
Scotland
Alfa Romeo 156 2.4JTD Veloce Leather
'Oil' be seeing you..
(Email without 'Alfa' in subject are auto-deleted..sorry!)

On 20-9-2005 13:17, Zathras wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 10:48:26 +0200, Arjan Renting >
> wrote:
>>Alfa's have never been designed just for practicality, so what do you
>>mean...?
>
>
> But Sportwagons are about fun AND practicality according to Alfa. To
> build an Estate-style Sportwagon with LESS luggage capacity than the
> saloon it's based on with the seats in place is just hopeless. I used
> to Windsurf competitively as a sponsored sailor so I know a lot about
> loading a car to the absolute max. It is possible to make good
> practical cars and in smaller packages than a 156. Don't get me
> started on the 147 load space though.... I bet the 159 will be a lot
> more practical than the 156.
>
>
>>IMHO
>
>
> Yes but Alfa built it to be MORE practical than the saloon - they
> never said it was less practical.
>
>
>>the sportwagon was only built to be attractive,
>
>
> That's not how Alfa described it and, presumably, they know. I agree
> with you though.
>
>
>>for a load carrier you should buy an other car.
>
>
> That's true.
>
>
>>And as you initialy fancied one, they did their job well apparently.
>
>
> No..for me it failed completely. As I said, the minute I saw the
> interior and realised I could load more into the even better looking
> saloon, it was game over.

Well in general I think that the choices (or compromises) that are made
in the design of an Alfa normally are in favour of style and
drivability. Other marks hang more to practicality and/or economy.
That's what I like about Alfa's, you have either to deal with it and
(learn to) like it or you better buy an other car. I agree that within
the plan of the design of an Alfa there is some space for improvement
but somehow they just don't do that, for stylish reason or just to
distinguish themselfs from the ordinary...

La Bellezza Necessaria

Arjan

George Graves wrote in
>

> In article >,
> "PeterMcC" > wrote:
>
>> George Graves wrote in
>> >
>>
>>>
>>> I have driven the 1.6 liter 147 extensively. Even in a car the size
>>> of a Ford Focus, the 1.6 is anemic, I cannot even imagine how
>>> lackluster the performance would be in a car the size and weight of
>>> a 166.
>>
>> That would be a good point, were it possible to buy a 1.6l 166
>
> I was going by what someone else wrote. Alfas aren't marketed in the
> US so I have no way of knowing which engine is available in which
> model, where.

No personal criticism intended, George - and it *would* have been a good
point

--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

Zathras wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 10:48:26 +0200, Arjan Renting >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> But Sportwagons are about fun AND practicality according to Alfa. To
> build an Estate-style Sportwagon with LESS luggage capacity than the
> saloon it's based on with the seats in place is just hopeless. I used
> to Windsurf competitively as a sponsored sailor so I know a lot about
> loading a car to the absolute max. It is possible to make good
> practical cars and in smaller packages than a 156. Don't get me
> started on the 147 load space though.... I bet the 159 will be a lot
> more practical than the 156.
>

One of the 'improvements' to the 159 is the introduction of 'proper'
rear door handles, apparently because 156 owners complain that
passengers have difficulty getting in! Perhaps Alfa-Romeo should tell
people who complain about such quirks to bugger off and buy a Vectra or
a Mondeo if door handles are such a big issue...

--
Halmyre

f c e k
i r i s h c o n n e c t i o n

Halmyre > wrote:

> Zathras wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 10:48:26 +0200, Arjan Renting >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > But Sportwagons are about fun AND practicality according to Alfa. To
> > build an Estate-style Sportwagon with LESS luggage capacity than the
> > saloon it's based on with the seats in place is just hopeless. I used
> > to Windsurf competitively as a sponsored sailor so I know a lot about
> > loading a car to the absolute max. It is possible to make good
> > practical cars and in smaller packages than a 156. Don't get me
> > started on the 147 load space though.... I bet the 159 will be a lot
> > more practical than the 156.
> >
>
> One of the 'improvements' to the 159 is the introduction of 'proper'
> rear door handles, apparently because 156 owners complain that
> passengers have difficulty getting in! Perhaps Alfa-Romeo should tell
> people who complain about such quirks to bugger off and buy a Vectra or
> a Mondeo if door handles are such a big issue...

Or a Honda Civc. Oh, they now have Alfa-esque door handles. As will
every car soon. Which is probably the reason Alfa moved away from them.
--
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 - Passat 1.8 Turbo SE - COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #