Should I buy a 159?

[CDH1750]

I've had two since 2010, the first a 2010 2.4 diesel sports wagon and the second a 2008 2.4 sports wagon.
Did 175,000 km in the first one before getting written off twice, first with hail damage then with a front end crash, no injuries.
The new, old one, is a 2008 Ti with 125,000km, also the 2.4 and a much better drive.
Absolutely a great drive and I like the look and flexibility of the wagon and think it looks nicer than the sedan.
Good servicing is paramount and history preferred although not always carried out to requirements.
Get a good Alfa Romeo mechanic to look over the car beforehand.
Love it every time I get in to drive it.

[V AR 164]

Agree with everything said so far.

Again I'm gonna +1 for the diesel 2.4's. Mine has just ticked over 315,000kms, yes you read that right, 315,000kms!!!

A good service history is essential and these cars will last forever. I've had people compliment my 159 and when I tell them how many kms it has, they laugh and tell me I am having a joke. The interior has help up exceptionally well and drives/looks like a car with only 50,000kms on it, no word of a lie.

Alfa built these cars very well, just get one that has been properly looked after and maintained.

I love the diesel, great fuel economy and they sound great when revved out. Only downside is they sound like a tractor at idle and are heavier than the 1750's and 2.2's, but its a small price to pay in my opinion.

Cheers, Andrew.

[Pseudonym]

Righto. I'm going to play devils advocate.

[emoji23] There's always one isn't there...

For what it's worth I was initially seduced by the 159, and subsequently bought a JTS 156 when I couldn't find the right example... and like a year later bought a 159 as well [emoji23]

Not that I was at all unhappy with the 156, it was just a case of good timing and the 159s devilish good looks.

For the weekend or the track day the 156 is my pick, for highway cruising or sitting in traffic the 159. That's the short version, there's so much to love about both cars a comparison could take pages.

Sent from my T04 using Tapatalk

[HL-240]

So I took a 2.4 diesel 159 for a brief test drive today.

I was impressed by the interior, in terms of aesthetics but build quality too - the materials seemed to be of good quality.
Aside from a couple of little things, I found the instruments and controls be easy to use.

It passed the 'door close test', with a solid, satisfying thud which you don't get from plenty of more expensive cars.

I was also impressed with the feel of the car; as others have suggested, the steering had an excellent feel, and the car felt solid and planted.

However, I was thoroughly unimpressed with the drivetrain. The diesel engine was utterly gutless until the turbo kicked in, not to mention very noisy and 'agricultural', and there was horrible turbo lag too.
The gearbox was also horrible - it was notchy, not very engaging to use, and imprecise. (I also found 1-3-5 and 2-4-6 to be too close together, but I'd probably get used to that.)

So driving the car has made me want to test drive a 1750 TBi in the hope that the drivetrain is nicer, as the rest of the car was good!

[Citroënbender]

Maybe, just maybe, try another 2.4 in case you had an outlier.

[poohbah]

Then test drive a 156 gta for back to back comparison...

Or even a vanilla 2.5 v6 manual. Bewdeeeful.

[HL-240]

Not really as much of a fan of the styling of the 156 though, both interior and exterior.
That being said, I'm happy to test drive one if I have the opportunity.

Happy to drive another 2.4 as well if I have the chance, but this one was pretty immaculate and had low mileage so I don't think there was anything wrong with it.

[Citroënbender]

I'm generalising, but it's not unknown for driveline NVH in front drive packages to be aggravated by misalignment of motor mounts; one can be overstressed while another more or less just sits there.  And some mounts are filled with damping oil, once the mount ruptures there is negligible drop in drivetrain alignment yet harshness is greatly amplified.

[V AR 164]

Almost guarantee there is nothing wrong with that car you drove. My 2.4 also has considerable turbo lag. I suppose it is just something I have gotten used to. Definitely a different car to drive in comparison to a 3 litre naturally aspirated V6.

Gearbox wise, mine is also notchy and in my opinion, feels awesome. Love the solid clunk I feel when it slips into gear. Very satisfying to me, but my father who has driven my car says he is not a fan of the gearbox either. It's just all down to personal preference at the end of the day I reckon.

Regarding turbo lag and response, I've heard a remap does wonders and some pretty impressive power and torque numbers can be obtained. But that's of course if you want to go down this path.

Andrew.

[Darryl]

Full disclosure:
I own possibly the worst 159 (wagon) ever... For the full story see AROCA Qld Per Sempre Alfa magazine editorials for the previous few years (available on the website if you are that bored)....

I'm not gentle on cars but I don't neglect them.

This car has just been #$#& annoying - but I try to tell myself it could happen with any car... What I have told myself (not just based on this car) is that trying to maintain anything post 2000 much beyond its warranty period is not what it was designed for and not worth doing...

Body rigidity and build is amazing.

Leather isn't rubbish.

Good cruiser.

That body is really heavy... So not the quickest thing around even with the V6.

I tried really hard to like the 2.4 diesel - but I couldn't. I did drive a number of 2.4 diesels and 3.2 petrols before I bought this one. More from a handling than an engine performance perspective. I'd probably like the Q4 diesel you can get in other markets but here it's petrol or nothing if you want AWD... People tell me I'm wrong, but its my seat and my pants, and the AWD simply feels better (as in, feels much less like a god awful lead tipped fwd arrow). Yes, ultimately it is still lead tipped, but a decent amount of torque to the rear helps (it would be great if the thing was remotely responsive).

Now that 3.2 - it was built at the same plant as a Commodore engine... It has Marelli electronics and different heads and... but basically, other than sounding better (possibly the main feature of the head design?) it's a low revving lean burn fly by wire low emissions boring thing compared to the Busso V6. It has the same timing chain issues as that engine in a Commodore (or other GM applications in other markets). If the PO has neglected it for long enough and the new owner gives it a bit of a thrashing then... the timing chain will do bad things... The new crate engine is good though (touch wood!). Honestly don't find the thing too greedy on fuel as a cruiser but would suffer if you do a lot of stop-start-stop-more stop commuting (that's what bicycles are for). Feed it good oil, often (it doesn't use it, I just mean don't give that timing chain an excuse to fail). Fuel grade sensitive. ECU seems to aim for excessively lean and wants fresh 95 or ideally 98 to be happy.

So that's one engine I don't like (now) and bought and one engine I might also not like if I'd owned it for a while and didn't buy because I didn't like the handling... Maybe I'm just hard to please...

I do like the Q4. I don't like the "no service info, no serviceable parts inside" view that Alfa have of the Q4 transfer case. Did get someone to track down bearings and rebuild it when it started getting noisy - seems good now, but far more hassle than I'd like...

Manual gearbox seems solid if truck-like in shifting. But be careful what you ask for. I had a Subi with a much slicker 6 speed - but then it ate gearboxes (stock engine) so... Slow and solid for the durability... And really making it sing isn't rewarding with a low revving flat torque engine so who needs to shift often/fast anyway... Same goes for diesel. Maybe auto would be the way to go (certainly easier to find).

Nothings perfect... The 159 is MUCH more solid than a 156 though. If you want a Busso quadcam V6 and a solid, well made car - go the 166 (cheap!). Nothing against the 156 if you just want something that feels more chuckable etc - but don't think one is as well built as the 159 (I can tell you 156 horror stories too).

The charm has worn off due to a succession of small and large issues - the small ones are disappointing from a km traveled perspective but not so bad on age. Although it's hard to be happy when you pay to have the engine dropped to do each of:

Replace aircon compressor

Replace clutch and transfer case bearings

Replace starter motor

Replace alternator (twice, but the second time was under warranty)

All within 18 months or so... That sort of labour cost, never mind the parts, will cover a LOT of depreciation on a new(er) car.
These things (modern cars) aren't designed to be worked on and the parts aren't designed to live forever (ok, its 2006, but its only done 125000km and it hasn't (at least for half of that, can't speak to prev ownership) been used on a lot of short trips so this stuff *shouldn't* fail.

Of course, this is arguably engineering perfection having everything fail almost at once (and out of warranty). Compares favorably to slightly older Jaguars where the same thing would fail over and over again, while other parts were rock solid forever

[poohbah]

Great honest review mate. Only one more comment from me, don't forget as second hand buyers we also get the benefit of Alfa depreciation on purchase , no matter what make or model, vis a vis the extra labour/maintenance costs. My 156 cost $3500 to buy, with 100K after 16 years when I bought it. Yeah it costs more annually than a new car, but I didn't spend +$30K upfront. In a car that cost $65K when new ( a thousand years ago) and still looks contemporary and has more style than most things on the road.

[HL-240]

Thanks Darryl, good write-up. I know it's easy to forget about the inconveniences of a car that you like!

In regards to the gear shift, maybe this one was badly worn, as it was much worse than just notchy. I don't mind a nice solid shift feel, but this one just felt horrible, as it was also imprecise.
I also don't think the turbo lag is something I could get used to, as I've have driven turbo cars that don't have much lag and the difference is significant.

In any case, there's no way I'm buying a 2.4d.

The other thing I forgot to ask about 159's and specifically the 1750 TBi, is what are they like to work on for the DIY'er? I usually do my own servicing (oils, filters etc) as well as whatever else I can, so I'd be interested to know how user-friendly they are in this regard. (It does look like a fairly crowded engine bay.)

[Darryl]

The other thing I forgot to ask about 159's and specifically the 1750 TBi, is what are they like to work on for the DIY'er? I usually do my own servicing (oils, filters etc) as well as whatever else I can, so I'd be interested to know how user-friendly they are in this regard. (It does look like a fairly crowded engine bay.)

No personal experience re 1750tbi maintenance. I'd expect oil changes to be simple enough. Certainly compared to transverse Busso V6 everyone likes so much (oil filter location is "challenging"). Fwiw the 159 V6 is fine in that regard.

The 159 V6 does have the usual access to rear bank challenge (plugs/coilpacks and injectors), once again 1750 has to be far easier.

[Citroënbender]

Think I agree with the "get a 166" suggestion, actually.  Alfa's answer to the Pug 607 and equally unloved (read, depreciated to sub-Corolla values).

[Craig_m67]

1750tbi servicing is easy enough.
Everything on mine has been done at home incl. cam belt, pump etc. (Giulietta QV)

The 2.4Derv is a fantastic engine.  That said, if you are not used to a diesel you won't get it at all.  You can't compare the experience to a turbo petrol, completely different power delivery.  The diesel doesn't rev so much, instead it's like surfing a huge surge of torque, it's addictive (and very quick) once you understand the sweet spot