2012 alfa 159 3.2

[fgv]

opticoat sounds like a good way to go for keeping it looking good and clean; however did you consider paint protection films or do they have other downsides (besides costs)?

[As the day goes]

Wanted the best.

[bazzbazz]

bazzbazz and poohbah - are you guys considering getting a 159 at some stage? i note you both use 156s

I own 3 actually, 2004 Alfa 156 2.0 JTS Sportwagon (Patty), 2000 Alfa 156 2.0 TS Selespeed with Sports Pack (Ruby) and a 1999 Alfa 156 2.0 TS Manual (Angelo) with full wooden interior that I am repairing to sell.

Would love to buy a 159, but my wife is expanding her business at the moment so financial constraints prevent this.

Not only that but I have so many accumulated spares for 156s (no, I am not a compulsive hoarder, I run my own Alfa Romeo Diagnostic service) I could build 2 more cars from them, so I don't think I could afford to move to a new model! 

   

Baz

[fgv]

as the day goes - so opticoat is better than the paint protection film that some detailers do? some ppf quotes are around $4k for a full wrap.. which is significantly more than the opticoat if im not mistaken. i've never been to a detailer so its all based on what i've read..

bazzbazz - that's a lot of 156s! you must really like them! the problem with having too many cars is parking space - although that may not be a problem for you haha! maybe you could sell one 156 and get 159? which 159 would you get, if you were to get one?

[bazzbazz]

If money was not a concern, 3.2 all wheel drive, no question.

[poohbah]

bazzbazz and poohbah - are you guys considering getting a 159 at some stage? i note you both use 156s

Interesting question - before I bought my first 156, I was looking for a 159. But I fell in love with a Cosmos Blue series 1 156 Busso 2.5 6sp I spotted for sale on my way home from work one night, and that was that. I also had a mate who had traded in his 156 for a 159 and told me he always regretted it - he reckoned the 159 felt a lot heavier, and was less fun to drive. I haven't driven one, so can't really say whether its true.

I loved that first 156 to bits, even though it burnt to the ground (long story). The year I spent without it, I missed it like hell every day, and in particular the sound of that Busso V6. So when I finally decided my 35yo GTV really wasn't practical to keep using as my daily driver, I just had to get another 156 V6. If the 159 had come with a Busso motor, I might have been tempted to update, but to be honest I just really really love the look of the pre-facelift 156 more than anything else Alfa has built in the last 20 years, and nothing since has really got to me the same way. Not forgetting the terrific way it drives and sounds either!

I can't really imagine getting rid of it either - maybe I'll eventually pass it down to my son, (so I can still see it, drive it, and make sure it still gets looked after!) and use that as an excuse to get something else. I've always had a hankering for a 3L 75 Potenziata, but that might not be a very practical replacement unless I can find a mint one. Who knows, assuming it won't happen for a few years, as an older gent maybe I'll look out for a mint 166.  Or then again, maybe I'll take the plunge and find a 156 GTA...

[As the day goes]

as the day goes - so opticoat is better than the paint protection film that some detailers do? some ppf quotes are around $4k for a full wrap.. which is significantly more than the opticoat if im not mistaken. i've never been to a detailer so its all based on what i've read..

I have never seen a complete wrapped car I like.  At Spectaccolo there was a guy who spent a lot of money getting the front of his car wrapped with clear stuff only to point out to all how a stone had chipped this particular film.

Opticoat will help to protect your car from bird pooh and make it easier to clean.  It wont protect your car from careless people bumping or scrapping past ou.

[fgv]

bazzbazz - sounds like we should keep an eye out.. i hope to see more 3.2 Q4's coming into the used market this year (hopefully the owners will look at getting the new giulia)

poohbah - that's an interesting car history. i get the impression that what you say is some of us really want from a car; something you look forward and enjoy on a daily basis. i think i will feel the same way when i get mine =)

as the day goes - i've heard of issues with the films. i think in the end we all have to accept some degree of wear and tear with anything; it's just entropy in action. i think the bird protection would  help a lot though - i always seem to park under trees lol

[fgv]

two scenarios that i wonder about, with both the 3.2 Q4 and the tbi.. both scenarios of which i had to do semi-regularly for work in the past.

1. a quite steep elevated area (called a mountain - but its short), that has lots of bends, where you have to slow to like 20-30kmh, top speed of 50kmh - for about 15-20 minutes

2. a gradual (but still relatively steep for highways) uphill but at 80-100 kmh for a longer period (a few minutes).

are either of the 159 versions going to find those fairly exertional - or is that 'easy' for that type of engine? it was one of the things i noticed to be a struggle with my current car for the past few years; but its not a performance vehicle. having said that the 159 is carrying a lot more weight. any thoughts?

[poohbah]

Best of luck FGV - whatever you decide on, as long as you pick one in good nick, I'm sure you will love it. And then you'll be as addicted as the rest of us.

[fgv]

thanks poohbah! it will be fun when/if it finally arrives! =)

[kaleuclint]

thanks for all the info guys!

kaleuclint - what you're saying makes sense. are the 18 wheels suitable for the ti-suspension, and do they require a re-callibration of the speedometer?
i've read in certain articles that in general 18 wheels are the 'sweet spot' for sedans - in terms of performance, comfort and longevity.
if it's not too much hassle / expense - i might consider that change.
by the way i'm not sure if you've mentioned what colour your 159 is?

Sorry mate -- I don't know about speedo recalibration.  The 'South African batch' of 159Tis sold here have 18" inch wheels as do many of the EU market cars, so if a minor part change is needed it should be available.  Fitting 245s means that my tyres are slightly larger diameter anyway.  I should check speed using GPS.


My car is black.  Within two blocks of my house are two other black 1750 Tis (they are common as...) and a non-conforming silver one.

[As the day goes]

I have 18s on my 159.

Speedo seems fine according tit he GPS but the trip meter seems out.

[poohbah]

This link has been posted before, and is very handy for working out how different rim/tyre sets will affect speedo reading etc:

http://www.willtheyfit.com/

[Colin Edwards]

so what i've learned so far from this thread and other websites

1. the late 2008 onwards production are a bit lighter (?50kgs) and updated from the initial production
2. somewhere in late 2010 the 3.2 became front-wheel-drive
therefore a more balanced 3.2 is the late 2008 to ?early 2010 Q4, which is still all-wheel-drive, but less weight in the front
3. the 1.75 TBI feels more balanced than the earlier 4/5 cylinders because of reduced weight in the front
4. in Australia, most post-2008 cars that were sold were in ti spec
5. production of the 159 ceased in late 2011 - therefore any 2012/2013 models are actually 'imported in that year' rather than produced in that year.
6. most later year 159s sold in Australia are either black, alfa red, stromboli grey, or alfa silver.. with a few white ones at some stage
7. both the 3.2 and the 1.75 engines are generally reliable engines - with no particularly bad known recurring issues. so they are both good choices for long-term use.

would you guys say that the above summary is fairly correct? thanks

Hi FGV,
Your appraisal of the 159 is pretty spot on.   I put my 2009 (built mid 2008) Q4 on corner weight scales and measured around 65kg lighter than the mass published in the owners manual.  I don't think Alfa updated the doco specs to reflect the lower mass of the "updated" model.  The use of a high strength alloy front cross member amongst other things managed to reduce the mass and stiffen the chassis further.  Revised design alloy suspension components also helped reduce weight and unsprung mass a bit. 
Another improvement was a redesign of the rear bushes in the front lower control arms.  These are about 20mm longer than the earlier model.  The bush is a bit stiffer and provides better geometry control.

With regard to your "two scenarios", I haven't driven a 1750 for some time.  From what I can remember it is a very sweet engine, however way different in character to the 3.2.  The 3.2 is a pretty torquey engine thanks to the high compression possible by Direct Injection.  The longish stroke and variable inlet camshaft timing also helps torque.  The 3.2 will also rev quite freely thanks to good breathing, 4 x valves per cylinder and again variable camshaft timing and phasing.  I've had mine bouncing on the rev limiter at 7200 rpm in 4th gear down the main straight at Phillip Island!  The 3.2 will pull ok from idle in first, from 1k in 2nd and from 1500 in 3rd. 

Colin