Alfa 156 diesel or petrol

king_of_inismac

Have been looking at these two cars:

2002 Alfa 156 1.6 petrol 56000 miles

or

2000 alfa 2.4 diesel 90000 miles

for pretty much the same money. I do a good bit of driving. How would these compare in terms of running costs (MPG) and insurance/tax etc?

Thanks!

kluivert

Diesel will put more of a smile on your face, so if your thinking about one of these then I would go with this.

king_of_inismac

is it much more expensive in terms of tax and insurance?

kluivert

Tax yes as based on old CC system - so your taxing a 2400c v 1600cc, but can you afford it, if yes why not.

Insurance - depends on your circumstances, but the diesel will be a higher group rating than the petrol.

Something tells me the diesel will be more reliable - but its an alfa -

unkel

The 1.6 is a bit like a BMW 316. Good car, but it won't go anywhere in a hurry. A bit pointless so.

The diesel however, that's a class engine. Easily chipped to boost performance. The first common rail diesel engined car. Lots of torque and well worth the extra few bob on tax and insurance imho

bazz26

Petrolheads will tell you that a diesel in an Alfa Romeo is a cardinal sin but the 2.4 JTDM in the 156 has had great reviews over the years. Despite being a fan of diesels myself, given the choice between that and a 1.6 petrol 156 it is still a no brainer for me - the diesel.

I will be more expensive to tax and insure but you are looking at one of the best diesel cars in it's class available at that time. A small price to pay for that privilage.

Have you driven the 2.4? I reckon after you drive it, it will be an easy decision for you.

quarryman

The diesel, no question.

dr.bollocko

It's the difference between a symphonic drive of sheer ecstasy, and driving an unreliable saloon with no oomph IMO. The cost of running is the only issue.

Eoin

unkel wrote: »

The 1.6 is a bit like a BMW 316. Good car, but it won't go anywhere in a hurry. A bit pointless so.

It's not that sluggish in fairness, but will be as thirsty as a 1.8 or 2.0 on a long run. Absolutely fine around town, even if you have to rev it a good bit.

siralfalot

the diesel, no question at all

but, try to get a 01-03 car, they will be either 140 or 150bhp and use a different and more reliable turbo setup to the 00 136bhp car

this is a fantastic car

unkel

eoin_s wrote: »

It's not that sluggish in fairness

You're right. The 316 of the same age only has 105BHP. I didn't realise it was that bad. It's pretty crap for a 1.9l. The Alfa has 120BHP and is a bit lighter too

Eoin

unkel wrote: »

You're right. The 316 of the same age only has 105BHP. I didn't realise it was that bad. It's pretty crap for a 1.9l. The Alfa has 120BHP and is a bit lighter too

The 1.9 316 only has 105BHP? That's pretty miserable - I was comparing it to the 1.6 316.

siralfalot wrote: »

this is a fantastic car

Wow, €5,750 + VRT of 2K, and the price is negotiable. The mods look a little "Halfords" for me though.

king_of_inismac

Despite the advice here, I'm leaning towards the petrol just because its two years younger :P

I wonder what kind of mpg I should get from the 1.6 driving across the country?

Barr

I'd go with the petrol , factor in its 2 years newer , 35 thousand miles less, the diference in tax and insurance between a 1.6 and 2.4 is considerable.

You'd want to be doing husge milage to justify the diesel , specially now with diesel prices so high .

VH

1.6 motor tax = €428
2.4 motor tax = €861

quarryman

VH wrote: »

1.6 motor tax = €428
2.4 motor tax = €861

ffs, that's about €35 per month for a FAR FAR FAR better car.

People who penny pinch and buy themselves tiny engines to save on tax should really just drive mopeds because they aren't fans of cars.

Truck

The diesel would be more fun !

quarryman

quarryman wrote: »

ffs, that's about €35 per month for a FAR FAR FAR better car.

People who penny pinch and buy themselves tiny engines to save on tax should really just drive mopeds because they aren't fans of cars.

the diesel is only 136bhp which isnt great for a displacement of 2.4 litres!
Whats the petrol bhp 120?

ok the diesel will have more torque but big difference in tax, 35 per month is fine but when its a lump sum its different.

Barr

anybody know what the official fuel consuption figures between the two ?

Eoin

www.parkers.co.uk should have the figures. I think I was getting early to mid 30s on my 2000 1.6. My friend has a 1.6 from 2003 or so. I don't know if they changed the engine since mine, but he reports better mpg.

quarryman

Barr wrote: »

anybody know what the official fuel consuption figures between the two ?

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/Summary.aspx?model=6&page=3

the diesel is only 136bhp which isnt great for a displacement of 2.4 litres!

ah in that case there might not be much in bar reliability. But the 2.4JTDs go up to 170bhp, thought it might be one of those.

Eoin

After my 1.6 Alfa, I got a 136BHP diesel car and even if the BHP was only a little more, it was considerably quicker.

ok the diesel will have more torque

That's a key thing to look out for though. I just can't imagine there only being a marginal difference between the two cars.

quarryman

quarryman wrote: »

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/Summary.aspx?model=6&page=3



ah in that case there might not be much in bar reliability. But the 2.4JTDs go up to 170bhp, thought it might be one of those.

yeah there are a few bhp outputs for the 2.4 based on what year it is.
The 2000 one the OP is talking about is 136 but goes up to 168bhp
the petrol goes up to 132bhp remapped.

So if it were me I would only consider the diesel if I were gonna remap it!