Alfa Bashing - gone?

RobAMerc

Ok, I am not silly enough to believe that most people read alot of reviews or try alot of stuff before they form their opinion - but does anyone else here think that the level of Alfa bashing round here has dropped since TG and Clarkson gave an insight into what Alfa are all about a few weeks back ?

I know alot of people take whatever TG says as gospel - and alot more take the Clarksonesque view when asked about anything motoring ( to lambaste it first and ask questions later ) but is TG going to actually inform (inspire) the masses ?

I mean there was a 159 thread last week and not one ' it'll break down ' posts in the whole thing !.

daveharnett

Don't think it's gone Rob. IIRC the tone of the 159 thread was that everyone was terribly impressed with a 2 year old alfa model that didn't have a huge number of problems. yet. To say that it is better in terms of reliability is not to say that it is necessarily good. I think most people who buy alfas with their eyes open accept the possibility that it will break their heart at some stage.

maidhc

RobAMerc wrote: »

Ok, I am not silly enough to believe that most people read alot of reviews or try alot of stuff before they form their opinion - but does anyone else here think that the level of Alfa bashing round here has dropped since TG and Clarkson gave an insight into what Alfa are all about a few weeks back ?

I was in Court today. While waiting for my matter to come up there was an application for discovery against Fiat Ireland concerning engine failures in Alfa 156 models.

The case concerned a person who bought an Alfa, the engine of which failed at 20k miles due to the big end bearing and failing and a conrod bolt breaking. Alfa claim it was for the want of oil, the claim by the plaintiff and his expert witness is that the failures were common and widespread.

So, in essence, I suspect there is no smoke without fire. I think there is no doubt but that some Alfas and many 156s did suffer some pretty catastropic failures. In court today there were 5 seperate instances mentioned, and the way Alfa trenchantly tried to oppose the order for discovery was interesting.

L1011

Alfa 156 is from when Fiat were basket case, close to bankrupt, incapable of making a vehicle that stayed on the road.

159/166/etc are from under the new regime. If a Fiat Auto car was designed after 2003 its a world apart from any designed before - such as the 1997 Alfa 156.

Anan1

MYOB wrote: »

Alfa 156 is from when Fiat were basket case, close to bankrupt, incapable of making a vehicle that stayed on the road.

Somebody must have forgotten to tell our one, it's 10 years old and over 140,000 miles up and it's still going like a train.

maidhc

MYOB wrote: »

Alfa 156 is from when Fiat were basket case, close to bankrupt, incapable of making a vehicle that stayed on the road.

I think you are right there. The newer Fiats do seem to be very good. I certainly would have no hesitation about buying one. Actually half thinking of a Croma JTD to replace our aging Mondeo when it dies.

Nonoperational

The big end bearings failing IS due to running low on oil. The twin sparks could burn 1L every 1000 miles.

pburns

Regarding the Alfa 159 thread, there was a certain level of consensus that yes, quality and reliability seem to have improved (with the major caveat that the 159 has only been around a couple of years).

However dynamically (handling, performance) the Alfa is leagues behind the 3 series which is now only a few grand more and behind 'mass-market' cars like the Mazda 6 and Mondeo as well.

Emissions are the 159's achilles heel. High CO2 = high VRT = uncompetitive pricing.

JHMEG

maidhc wrote: »

Actually half thinking of a Croma JTD to replace our aging Mondeo when it dies.

They're nearly free 2nd hand, the depreciation is monumental...

maidhc

JHMEG wrote: »

They're nearly free 2nd hand, the depreciation is monumental...

Best value s/h car, ever, I reckon.

Guy:Incognito

MYOB wrote: »

Alfa 156 is from when Fiat were basket case, close to bankrupt, incapable of making a vehicle that stayed on the road.

159/166/etc are from under the new regime. If a Fiat Auto car was designed after 2003 its a world apart from any designed before - such as the 1997 Alfa 156.

The 166 came out in 99, the 156 in 98. That was some turnaround and why would they not use their new found greatness to just fix the 156 from 99 on? Doesnt really fit in with the post 03 thing either.

JHMEG wrote: »

They're nearly free 2nd hand, the depreciation is monumental...

Which is why they are great 2nd hand buys. Hopefully the C6 will depreciate quicker than a 156 with a siezed engine so I can buy one in a coupel of years.:)

gpf101 wrote: »

. The twin sparks could burn 1L every 1000 miles.

The same has been said of Golfs for years yet it hasnt dented percieved reliability or residuals.

Sandwich

It has decreased anyway.

But Id put that down to the falling number of Alfas being sold. AlfaBashing was at its height in the hayday of the 156 : lots being sold but so-so quality. If no one were buying Alfas at all , then Alfa Bashing would drop to fantastically low levels.
Alfa missed a great opportunity with the 156 to transform their image completely : a beautiful, distinctive, car, great hadling, great engines - load bought it. But they bungled on the quality front and the high numbers sold (versus say 155) only meant that that many more people were sore at having been seduced but let down.
Shame. Opportunities to transform a marques image and market position are very rare.

RichyX

I don't see any reason why Alfa bashing would have decreased following the Top Gear episode in question.

They seemed to be doing their best to make their cars appear to be unreliable heaps of junk by hammering them around a track etc.

bazz26

I think in the vast majority of brand bashing threads around here lately the words Alfa Romeo have been replaced with Renault or Citroen.

Guy:Incognito

bazz26 wrote: »

I think in the vast majority of brand bashing threads around here lately the words Alfa Romeo have been replaced with Renault or Citroen.

The vast majority of "my X isnt working " threads seem to involved the initials V and W though.

bazz26

Stekelly wrote: »

The vast majority of "my X isnt working " threads seem to involved the initials V and W though.

Very true indeed.

L1011

Anan1 wrote: »

Somebody must have forgotten to tell our one, it's 10 years old and over 140,000 miles up and it's still going like a train.

That did also happen too, my auld lad had an indestrucable 94 Uno. Unfortunately he also had a 96 Punto and an 00 Punto who ate head gaskets quicker than I can eat a takeaway!

Stekelly wrote: »

The 166 came out in 99, the 156 in 98. That was some turnaround and why would they not use their new found greatness to just fix the 156 from 99 on? Doesnt really fit in with the post 03 thing either.

166 had a major internal and external revamp in.... 2003.

HashSlinging

hold on.....nah still there.

Guy:Incognito

MYOB wrote: »

166 had a major internal and external revamp in.... 2003.

A mid life facelift hardly constitutes the 166 being from a new era. A new car to replace the 166 with higher standards would be a better option. The post 05 facelifted Laguna 2 apparently has most of the issues that plagued the car ironed out yet it still gets lumped with the 01-05 pre facelift. HonestJohn - "QUALITY VASTLY IMPROVED FROM 2005 FACELIFT AND LAGUNAS SINCE THEN HAVE HAD LITTLE TROUBLE" (the caps are theirs, I just copied and pasted)

L1011

Stekelly wrote: »

A mid life facelift hardly constitutes the 166 being from a new era. A new car to replace the 166 with higher standards would be a better option. The post 05 facelifted Laguna 2 apparently has most of the issues that plagued the car ironed out yet it still gets lumped with the 01-05 pre facelift.

Unfortunately I don't think they thought of that - around the same time Fiat rebuilt the internals of the Stilo, even got it accepted as a 'new' car for NCAP (and gained a star) - while not touching the outside. As a result nobody bought it still (as the 02-04 version was arse)

L-M

Has any1 here driven or been passenger to Alfa's "150 bhp" JTD engine?

Deeply disappointing. I like the seats and the over all design of the car. I felt it was a bit cramped, not big enough for the money kinda thing.

Nonoperational

[/QUOTE]
The same has been said of Golfs for years yet it hasnt dented percieved reliability or residuals.[/QUOTE]

It has no impact on reliabitity if you watch it. It does however cause big end failure if you dont check the oil. Thats why so many blew their big ends. Wouldnt be an issue if the oil was checked regularly!

maidhc

gpf101 wrote: »

It has no impact on reliabitity if you watch it. It does however cause big end failure if you dont check the oil. Thats why so many blew their big ends. Wouldnt be an issue if the oil was checked regularly!

That may well be true, however few people check their oil between service intervals. Indeed I don't blame them for this, as there should be no need. Furthermore if you ever look at the service schedule for a modern car you can assume manufacturers don't expect people to fill their windscreen washer, replace their wipers or notice their tyres are bald... why should they then expect to have to put smelly stuff into the engine.

Nonoperational

maidhc wrote: »

That may well be true, however few people check their oil between service intervals. Indeed I don't blame them for this, as there should be no need. Furthermore if you ever look at the service schedule for a modern car you can assume manufacturers don't expect people to fill their windscreen washer, replace their wipers or notice their tyres are bald... why should they then expect to have to put smelly stuff into the engine.

It specifically says to check it in the manual. It also says the car can burn upto 1L per 1000 miles. Its a well known characteristic of the twin sparks so by right the dealer should mention it to them. I check it every 3 days myself but I understand where your coming from...

As for putting "smelly stuff" in then engine... engines need oil and some burn it more than others. If people dont appreciate this then they run the risk of engine damage. Its not a big task to check and top up the oil!

astraboy

maidhc wrote: »

That may well be true, however few people check their oil between service intervals. Indeed I don't blame them for this, as there should be no need. Furthermore if you ever look at the service schedule for a modern car you can assume manufacturers don't expect people to fill their windscreen washer, replace their wipers or notice their tyres are bald... why should they then expect to have to put smelly stuff into the engine.

The engines drink a bit of oil allright, I used to check mine on my 156 every 2 weeks religiously. The problem today is that people DO think they never need to look under the bonnet between services, but the alfa engines especially just use a little oil, and to be honest its a small price to pay for such glorious engines on the 156. Nice and relaxed below 3000rpm, a bit crazyer and more reactive after that.

Saying this, however I did have some niggles with my 156, thermo went, needed a new rad and the day before I sold it last week the coil started to go and idle was very rough, so I lost some money on the resale! I did not have the legions of issues people warned me of though, and overall my 156 was very reliable, only ever failing to start once, due to a flat battery(can happen any car!). A hoot to drive and own, but prob not for the toyota avensis brigade........

Mine was a 00 1.8 btw, so maybe the niggles had been worked out by 2000?

Nonoperational

Ya my thermo went too. I think it happens to them all. Get stuck open and car runs cold. Other than that and a drop of oil every few weeks its a great car. Got to love the sound at 6-7000 rpms!

What did you replace it with astraboy? Was the name derived from the new car!?

astraboy

No, name was from my 1st car(mk3 astra), the 156 was an upgrade, I loved it, really different compared to all the mid 90's 3 series and boring saloons in my price bracket. A lot of car for the money I thought. I sold it as I'm moving away and won't need a car where I'm going for a few months, hope to buy another alfa soon in the future and get to pay uk road tax and no VRT:D! Great marque IMO, they do need a bit of attention though but thats all the fun in owning them.

Definitely one of the best sounding engines in the saloon bracket from its time.

pburns

Limerick-man wrote: »

Has any1 here driven or been passenger to Alfa's "150 bhp" JTD engine?

Deeply disappointing. I like the seats and the over all design of the car. I felt it was a bit cramped, not big enough for the money kinda thing.

Yeah, I drove one and was a bit disappointed by performance.

But why are you linking size with value-for-money? The 159 is a perfect size for what it is - medium-sized sports saloon. Not everything in the class has to have the whale-like proportions of the Mondeo. If you want a big footprint for small money something like a Hyundai Sonata would be the thing.

siralfalot

Limerick-man wrote: »

Has any1 here driven or been passenger to Alfa's "150 bhp" JTD engine?

Deeply disappointing. I like the seats and the over all design of the car. I felt it was a bit cramped, not big enough for the money kinda thing.

yep, I've driven most of them, to which car are you referring?

the GT 147 and 156 150bhp jtd goes like a train
but the 159 is a tad slower due to the weight of the car which is to be expected

the 150bhp jtd engine is also geting a revamp with the introduction of the M-JET II and TST technologies, it will be 190bhp, with a 50% improvement in torque below 1500rpm

fjon

I don't think Alfa will win any new fans with the designs of their newer cars:

149
MiTo
169

RichyX

fjon wrote: »

I don't think Alfa will win any new fans with the designs of their newer cars:

149
MiTo
169

I'm not sure that the designs of the 169 or 149 have been confirmed.
There were pictures of a very different 169 on one site a few months back, bit more 159 like iirc.

The mito does look silly from the front though. The rear and sides are much smarter though.