159 2.4 JTD

> Eh..how do you work that out? Go and look up the official figures..the
> 3.2 has a lower top speed and is slower 0-60 than the Audi.

> Wrong..as already explained. Indeed a bigger petrol (3.2) doesn't
> outperform a *smaller* (3.0) engined diesel in the same market
> segment.

> I don't see the relevance. Alfa only do turbo diesels and normally
> aspirated petrols so that's the comparison here. If Alfa did turbo
> their petrols, there would be an improvement..but they haven't.

Ok I do agree with some of what you say but here is the point I was
trying to make, using your example of the Audi

>>For example, an Audi A4 3.0 TDI Quattro (chosen as a car with a reasonable diesel engine and serious
>> performance) *can* be had for 28000UKP if you can survive the
>> minimalism. It does 153 mph and 0-60 in 6.8 seconds.

Compare this to the Audi A4 2.0T FSI Quattro SE, it's specs are 0-60
in 6.8 and 153mph top speed (yes if you read some magazines they might
state 6.9 to 60!). Here we have s smaller petrol engine delivering the
same performance as a bigger diesel engine with 1000cc larger
displacement. Both turbocharged and both quattro. Petrol car is
significantly cheaper around 4K newish so you make a saving straight
away. I've had this debate many times before and indeed have tested
this with many different types of engine in the real world.

My other point is that Alfa don't seem to have ever produced the HP
and Torque that their engines are capable of. The 3.2 V6 although fast
could be improved on.

"davea" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Eh..how do you work that out? Go and look up the official figures..the
>> 3.2 has a lower top speed and is slower 0-60 than the Audi.
>
>> Wrong..as already explained. Indeed a bigger petrol (3.2) doesn't
>> outperform a *smaller* (3.0) engined diesel in the same market
>> segment.
>
>> I don't see the relevance. Alfa only do turbo diesels and normally
>> aspirated petrols so that's the comparison here. If Alfa did turbo
>> their petrols, there would be an improvement..but they haven't.
>
> Ok I do agree with some of what you say but here is the point I was
> trying to make, using your example of the Audi
>
>>>For example, an Audi A4 3.0 TDI Quattro (chosen as a car with a
>>>reasonable diesel engine and serious
>>> performance) *can* be had for 28000UKP if you can survive the
>>> minimalism. It does 153 mph and 0-60 in 6.8 seconds.
>
> Compare this to the Audi A4 2.0T FSI Quattro SE, it's specs are 0-60
> in 6.8 and 153mph top speed

You are only quoting the of the performance figures here that support your
point. In doing so, you are missing the point - Zathras is looking for low
end torquey power for everyday driving, not high revving turbo BHP for
racing with. What is the turbo lag like on that FSI - pretty bad if it is
the same as the 1.8 version from a few years ago, so pulling out in 5th gear
to overtake on a country road just isn't going to happen!

If you compare these figures relevant in this discussion for your 2 quoted
cars, then the petrol engine is going to look like a clockwork mouse
compared with the diesel.

Incidentally Zathras, I find my 2.0JTS to be pretty torque at low revs.
Anything over 1500rpm and it will pull nicely (leanburn below that I think).
The only diesel I have to compare it with is a 12 year old Xantia 1.9td.
Less torque until it reaches about 2000rpm. Perhaps not a good comparison,
but all I have!

> You are only quoting the of the performance figures here that support your
> point. In doing so, you are missing the point - Zathras is looking for low
> end torquey power for everyday driving, not high revving turbo BHP for
> racing with. What is the turbo lag like on that FSI - pretty bad if it is
> the same as the 1.8 version from a few years ago, so pulling out in 5th gear
> to overtake on a country road just isn't going to happen!

No, I'm quoting performance figures based on Zanthras' example that he
originally stated. I drive a petrol car with over 300 lbs of torque
and it doesn't rev over 5,500rpm! I'm not trying to convince you, I'm
merely stating some facts. Buy what you wish, MO is that having drivin
all of the 159 range I would go for the 2.2l petrol over the diesel.

You asked for peoples opinion on the 159 diesel - I've driven it and I
gave you my opinion - thats it!

"davea" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> You are only quoting the of the performance figures here that support
>> your
>> point. In doing so, you are missing the point - Zathras is looking for
>> low
>> end torquey power for everyday driving, not high revving turbo BHP for
>> racing with. What is the turbo lag like on that FSI - pretty bad if it is
>> the same as the 1.8 version from a few years ago, so pulling out in 5th
>> gear
>> to overtake on a country road just isn't going to happen!
>
> No, I'm quoting performance figures based on Zanthras' example that he
> originally stated. I drive a petrol car with over 300 lbs of torque
> and it doesn't rev over 5,500rpm! I'm not trying to convince you, I'm
> merely stating some facts. Buy what you wish, MO is that having drivin
> all of the 159 range I would go for the 2.2l petrol over the diesel.
>
> You asked for peoples opinion on the 159 diesel - I've driven it and I
> gave you my opinion - thats it!

Fair enough. Thanks.

"Zathras" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 20:33:30 +0100, "Ross"
> > wrote:
>
>> Maybe the Brera is too overweight and too
>>sanitised but it didn't feel as "special" to drive as I was looking for
>>from
>>an Alfa and for that kind of money.

> From what I can gather, you have to go back a good few years for what
> you are looking for.

Maybe, but I felt my old 147 felt more special and responsive to drive than
the competition...Golf, A3, Focus...but as you say...

> All Alfas are now sanitised by a need to compete and gain sales in
> general (not niche) markets and by EU noise legislation and safety
> requirements.

I felt the cabin of the Brera and 159 were trying to give the feel of a BMW
or Audi.

Regards
Ross
PS anybody going to the motor show in Docklands, London next week to see the
8C? http://www.motorexpo.co.uk/
I'm hoping to get a look some time on Tuesday...bet that hasn't got a
diesel engine! ;-)

"davea" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> What I meant before is that no matter what I said when I was looking
> at the 159 the salesman always tried to push the diesel. I went over
> to the brera for a look and salesmen said "that's available in a
> diesel as well!". I ended up not buying either.

It's what the majority of people seem to want. My local Alfa dealer's test
fleet is nearly all diesel...they reckon diesel GT's out sell petrol 4 to 1
which is why they only have a diesel demonstrator.

Regards
Ross

"GT" > wrote in message
...

> What is the turbo lag like on that FSI -...

Virtually eliminated, if the latest 2.0 TT I drove a few weeks ago is
anything to go by, the power just seems to keep building strongly and
smoothly...doesn't feel quite as dramatic but probably stronger.

>pretty bad if it is
> the same as the 1.8 version from a few years ago, so pulling out in 5th
> gear to overtake on a country road just isn't going to happen!

It's easy to drive around any lag on my '06 TT and it revs soooo freely, but
I probably wouldn't be overtaking in 5th gear on a country road in any
petrol motor, turbo or not.

> Incidentally Zathras, I find my 2.0JTS to be pretty torque at low revs.
> Anything over 1500rpm and it will pull nicely (leanburn below that I
> think).

You'd like the 2.2 in the 159 then, I thought it was very good from
low/medium revs.

Regards
Ross

GT wrote:

> You are only quoting the of the performance figures here that support your
> point. In doing so, you are missing the point - Zathras is looking for low
> end torquey power for everyday driving, not high revving turbo BHP for
> racing with. What is the turbo lag like on that FSI - pretty bad if it is
> the same as the 1.8 version from a few years ago, so pulling out in 5th gear
> to overtake on a country road just isn't going to happen!

Having gone from a 156 V6 to a 2.0T FSI (company car) I can honestly say
there is minimal lag and the 2.0T easily matches the bigger V6 for BHP
(slightly more) and is more torquey. Both engines are great IMHO.

Yet we are getting into the classic diesel vs petrol argument here which
is is very subjective. Diesels for lazy drivers who can't be arsed to
change down to the right gear or petrols for boy racers who should be on
a race track.

It just comes down to preference. Unlike diesels of the past they do
perform as well as petrols - just differently. Low down pulling power
can be just as addictive as a high revving surge of acceleration. It
takes all sorts.

For me the tradition of Italian engines is the latter. Unfortunately
(for me) Alfa's direction is clearly with the performance diesels with
the petrols from a previous generation or of a dated approach (a large V6).

I can't compute Alfa Romeo diesels - simply because that isn't what
rocks my boat.

VAG seem to have got the lead with the small powerful efficient petrols
which rev nicely and sound reasonably sporty. Something Alfa would have
had covered a few years ago.

However, that is my preference and for someone that prefers some torque
in a lively and super stylish Italian car then the 156 2.4JTD is a great
choice. Not as sonorous as the petrols for sure but better than pretty
much any other diesel.

Cheers
Tony

GT > wrote:

> You are only quoting the of the performance figures here that support your
> point. In doing so, you are missing the point - Zathras is looking for low
> end torquey power for everyday driving, not high revving turbo BHP for
> racing with. What is the turbo lag like on that FSI - pretty bad if it is
> the same as the 1.8 version from a few years ago, so pulling out in 5th gear
> to overtake on a country road just isn't going to happen!

It's only to be expected, really - I never found any 'lag' issues with
my 1.8T - I wouldn't expect any sub-2lt car to have great overtaking
ability without changing down a gear or two. My current diesel is
totally gutless for top-gear overtakes, often requiring a drop from 6th
to 4th.
--
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL
BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

Tony Rickard > wrote:

> Yet we are getting into the classic diesel vs petrol argument here which
> is is very subjective. Diesels for lazy drivers who can't be arsed to
> change down to the right gear or petrols for boy racers who should be on
> a race track.

Hmmmm, I'm not so sure that's the case with modern high-power diesels,
which tend to have a very narrow powerband and *need* 6-speed boxes to
keep thme on the boil.
--
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL
BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #