A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Alfa Romeo
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Recommended insurer?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 25th 04, 08:26 PM
Hellraiser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"SteveH" > wrote in message
k...
> Hellraiser > wrote:
>
> > One question I forgot to ask - which model 155 do you drive?

>
> 2lt TS Lusso 'Narrowbody'. 10 years old on an L-plate.
>
> ISTR the 75 is about the same.


Cheers Steve, are these 155's really as good as they say?

Hellraiser........>


Ads
  #12  
Old April 25th 04, 08:46 PM
SteveH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hellraiser > wrote:

> "SteveH" > wrote in message
> k...
> > Hellraiser > wrote:
> >
> > > One question I forgot to ask - which model 155 do you drive?

> >
> > 2lt TS Lusso 'Narrowbody'. 10 years old on an L-plate.
> >
> > ISTR the 75 is about the same.

>
> Cheers Steve, are these 155's really as good as they say?


Probably a bit early for me to say, as I've only had it a week. Although
I have put 500 miles on it in that time.

Initial impressions are that it has a very odd driving position (even
compared with a 75, which is saying something), but the seats are
comfortable, and once you're used to the relatively high seat complete
with the long arm / short leg ergonomics it's not a problem. However, I
do miss the telescopic adjustment of the wheel that was standard on the
75.

It's slower than the 75 with the same engine - a combination of catalyst
and close on 200kgs of extra weight have taken the edge of the
performance.

Other than that, it handles well (if a little tail-happy in a lift-off
oversteer style), performs better than most of it's contemporaries,
still has the lovely classic Alfa twin-cam engine noise and seems pretty
well screwed together (120k miles old and everything still works, apart
from the wiper motor, which was my fault anyway).

Plenty of kit in mine, too - alloys, fogs, electric front windows /
sunroof / mirrors.

I think I'd still prefer my 75 for a back-road thrashing, but the 155 is
an altogether more refined car for long distance travel.

Bear in mind that mine's a 'narrowbody' so doesn't have the enhancements
(better driving position, neater handling) that the 'widebody' cars got.
However, the ideal combination of older Alfa 8v TS engine and 'widebody'
chassis is very rare (only available for 6 months), so I'd settle for a
narrowbody any day over a 16v widebody any day.

Still prefer the 75, though.... but that's not back from it's gearbox
rebuild until the middle of next week.
--
Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300
VW Golf GL Cabrio - Alfa 75 TS - Alfa 155 TS Lusso - COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #
  #13  
Old April 25th 04, 09:09 PM
Hellraiser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> Bear in mind that mine's a 'narrowbody' so doesn't have the enhancements
> (better driving position, neater handling) that the 'widebody' cars got.
> However, the ideal combination of older Alfa 8v TS engine and 'widebody'
> chassis is very rare (only available for 6 months), so I'd settle for a
> narrowbody any day over a 16v widebody any day.


Now that's weird - everyone I've spoken to reckons the 16v engines are
better than the 8v, so why the narrowbody/8v preference? The 16v has more
umph apparently, or does it suffer from the usual lack of bottom end torque
most 16vs have?

Hellraiser..........>


  #14  
Old April 25th 04, 09:22 PM
SteveH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hellraiser > wrote:

> > Bear in mind that mine's a 'narrowbody' so doesn't have the enhancements
> > (better driving position, neater handling) that the 'widebody' cars got.
> > However, the ideal combination of older Alfa 8v TS engine and 'widebody'
> > chassis is very rare (only available for 6 months), so I'd settle for a
> > narrowbody any day over a 16v widebody.

>
> Now that's weird - everyone I've spoken to reckons the 16v engines are
> better than the 8v, so why the narrowbody/8v preference? The 16v has more
> umph apparently, or does it suffer from the usual lack of bottom end torque
> most 16vs have?


16v has marginally more BHP, but more weight. I'd love a widebody 8v,
but try finding one!

My preference for the 8v is that it's an all-alloy engine (helps the
balance of weight distribution against the iron-block Fiat-based 16v)
and is proven to be a totally bulletproof lump - 8v, camchain, Bosch
injection. Not much to go wrong there!

Whereas the 16v suffers from problems with the timing variator, and also
needs the belt replacing every 40k-ish miles. Ignore this at your own
risk.... they're also, should we say, a little 'thirsty' when it comes
to oil, too, and many haven't been looked after by enthusiast, so will
have run low on oil, which effectively means you're sitting on a
time-bomb.

It's all personal preference, of course, but I know and trust the 8v
engine.


--
Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300
VW Golf GL Cabrio - Alfa 75 TS - Alfa 155 TS Lusso - COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.