Alfa Romeo GT...your thoughts?

They look absolutely fantastic. A teacher at college has one in black with cream leather and it looks gorgeous (it is surrounded by peugeot 206's and family cars though which I'm sure helps haha).
 
Sorry missed this thread but thought I could at least add to it as I have a GT 1.9JTDm sitting on the drive.

I commute 100 miles a day in my GT and did a 2 month mpg test which showed 41.7mpg for 2456 miles.

Main dealer servicing is quite expensive being between 250 - 350 per service, mine needs doing every 6 months as it's a fixed 12k mile interval.

The car once gave an error which caused it to go into limp home mode. I took it to the dealers and the EGR valve needed to be replaced.

Last week the car had its 3 year birthday and it's MOT before the warranty ran out. 2 advisories on the MOT, one for worn suspension top arms which where replaced under warranty and the fact that the discs where "worn" so would you be after 72k miles!

The car is going into an Alfa specialist in Sandbach on Tuesday for the 72k service and cambelt at a total cost of £313 which isn't too bad.

My car has the optional 18's which cost around £120 a corner for Pirelli Pzero Rosso's that where fitted from the factory but I'm currently running some Falken FK452's which are £60 a corner.

I won't post pictures of my car as there are many threads on here where I have! www.alfaowner.com is a great community for any questions you may have!

In closing the car has been fantastic and is a pleasure to do my daily trek in. People notice the car everywhere I go an it generates lots of unsollicited praise!
 
KevMarks said:
Heard bad things about the selespeed ones. Stick to manual.
Click to expand...

Yes, the Selespeed can be fun, but there is no getting round the cost if it goes wrong.

Father just bought a late Mk1 156, ~50k, silver and not a mark on it, tan leather interior which looks new, broken selespeed, £100. :D

Can't even sell it if it goes wrong.
 
BigglesPiP said:
Yes, the Selespeed can be fun, but there is no getting round the cost if it goes wrong.

Father just bought a late Mk1 156, ~50k, silver and not a mark on it, tan leather interior which looks new, broken selespeed, £100. :D

Can't even sell it if it goes wrong.
Click to expand...

Usually its the pump and not the actuator, i had 2 pumps go in 40k miles.
 
As long as you can get a good fit on the high pressure side its not to tricky.It's a bit fiddly to get to being tucked in the wing though.
 
Just a quick necro of this thread :)

After spending too mcuh time last year thinking about what cars to try out/look to buy i spent a few months off it and gave up on the thought, but took at Alfa GT Coupe 2.0 out yesterday, was an 06, 27K on it for about £8999 (a bit pricey really, but what do you expect from a walk in and test at a car supermarket!)

The 2.0 felt pretty ok, handling was nice, although it did seem to be a bit of all show and no go, didn't accelerate very fast, and no matter what revs didn't seem to climb at great speed at all, the interior was nice enough, the seats were so damn comfortable, and felt very welcoming :)

Only gripes were the obvious rear visibility, not sure how easy tight parking would be (driving in or reversing) and the seeming lack of punch from the 2.0, I guess its not a very light car and the 2.0 isn't really enough for it.

Will call the local Alfa dealer who have a few used 3.2's and 19JTDs in, to see what they feel like in comparison. I guess the 3.2 could be doable, I commute 100 miles a week, 38 weeks a year, so only 3.8K commuiting plus maybe 2-3K on top, still makes me a very low mileage driver, really! Hmm...
 
Most of the petrol range sux. They use the outdated Alfa engine which is based on the old Fiat twin cam engine in all but the 3.2 form. Great in its day but doesn't cut the mustard in 2010.

Shame really they look nice and are of better build quality than previous GTV models.
 
You may find the 3.2 a bit nose heavy for FWD.

The 2.0 in them is the JTS, they can accumulate a serious amount of **** on the back of the valves if they're groggled. Dad has seen one after a belt failure which had almost enough carbon to just block the ports, valves must have weighed twice as much. Anyway, anecdote aside, that can make a 2.0 seem VERY flat.


Third Opinion said:
Most of the petrol range sux. They use the outdated Alfa engine which is based on the old Fiat twin cam engine in all but the 3.2 form. Great in its day but doesn't cut the mustard in 2010.
Click to expand...

The TS has used the FIAT twin cam block casting since the move to 16V and a cam belt in the mid 90s. The heads have always been bespoke to Alfa, and the 2.0 is a direct injection head 1st seen in 2002. The 2.2 (not available in the GT) is not the FIAT twin cam block casting.

Every major manufacturer operates like this, you simply can't keep the same exact engine for a long time due to the European emissions regs. But everyone keeps the same basic block in service for a long time; if it suits automated manufacturing well and it fits your crank and liners, why change it?
 
Last edited:
Provided you've got rear parking sensors then you are laughing. I've never had an issue reversing or parking mine so I think you'll be fine. All I do is use the wing mirrors to ensure side to side positioning and then reverse in using the sensors to tell me how close I am.
 
Domi said:
I am far from convinced that modern alfas are really any more prone to serious faults than any other major make.
...
Click to expand...

Is that so?
Warranty Direct would seemingly dissagree with you, check this link:
http://www.reliabilityindex.co.uk/search_results.html?apc=3128339010848601

WD give the 156 (03-06) an index of 201, which is pretty lousy. Whilst trawling around for cars to buy, I don't remember seeing anything as bad as that, even from Vauxhaul.
For reference, the E46 has an index in the 80s (lower is better) and an Accord is around 30.

Don't get me wrong, there's something about Alfas that really makes me love one. However, I wouldn't trust one with bargepole. Ooodles of style, average ability and shabby reliability.

I'm unaware of this type of stats being available from anywhere else on the web, but if you'd like to provide something to confirm that they're actually better than warranty direct suggest, then I'm listening.
 
The GT is a 156 underneath, so it'll kill suspension bushes and ball joints about as quickly, the motors might be better, there only being one older TS motor (the 1.8). The interior and such stands a greater potential to be better, still quite un-proven.

I think the 159 could prove to be reliable, it stands the most potential, but it's still un-proven. Production was shut down a while back for a long time to work on the line, just after that fella from Audi took over production.
 
BigglesPiP said:
You may find the 3.2 a bit nose heavy for FWD.

The 2.0 in them is the JTS, they can accumulate a serious amount of **** on the back of the valves if they're groggled. Dad has seen one after a belt failure which had almost enough carbon to just block the ports, valves must have weighed twice as much. Anyway, anecdote aside, that can make a 2.0 seem VERY flat.
Click to expand...

The Carbon build up was usually caused by a **** up in the factory involving poor cam profile on the exhaust valve cam along with poor software in the ECU.

The heavy carbon build up was a sign of it. These units sometimes only produced as little as 120bhp as opposed to the 160-165BHP. Alfa never recalled them or admitted the problem but it is well documented.

Unfortuantely the GT came out just before they switched to the GM based units which would have made it a far better car.
 
Third Opinion said:
The Carbon build up was usually caused by a **** up in the factory involving poor cam profile on the exhaust valve cam along with poor software in the ECU.
Click to expand...

I'll dispute that on the grounds that the cam-locks fitted perfectly, as always.

Edit: And that it's not well documented.
 
Last edited:
BigglesPiP said:
I'll dispute that on the grounds that the cam-locks fitted perfectly, as always.

Edit: And that it's not well documented.
Click to expand...

I will have to agree to disagree with you there. Having returned my ex wifes 6 month old 2003 156 Sportwagon with a poor performance our dealer immediately admitted the problem and replaced the entire engine.

Also if you search the dedicatted Alfa forums you will find lots of cases including the engine numbers it affected.
 
Third Opinion said:
I will have to agree to disagree with you there. Having returned my ex wifes 6 month old 2003 156 Sportwagon with a poor performance our dealer immediately admitted the problem and replaced the entire engine.

Also if you search the dedicatted Alfa forums you will find lots of cases including the engine numbers it affected.
Click to expand...

There's definitely potential for the MAP to cause it, especially in non Italian climates, and especially with the direct injection. But FIAT Group are usually on the ball when it comes to issuing re-maps, half the time a car is in for servicing there's a new map available.

Until I can find a thread including a cam which doesn't fit the cam-locks or match the check-able dimensions in the workshop manual; I'm not convinced the cam profile theory is anything other than someone's theory.


Edit:

I've found one instance of what you describe, a dealer in Croatia replaced and ECU and intake cam on a 156, claiming that the cam had the correct profiles machined on the camshaft at the wrong angle. I'm not sure how this is even a problem - given the timing method with the variator it would be cancelled out, unless the problem was that some lobes were correct and others were not. Or that the engine had been timed incorrectly (without the camlocks maybe) at a service.

They replaced the ECU because they can't afford the examiner (going on £10k) to apply a new map. So this is a dealer in Croatia who can't afford the computer. I have more faith in Alfa than that, it will be a problem with the map applied to early models which *should* be cured at service, but most UK Alfa dealers are ****.
 
Last edited:
Mr_Sukebe said:
Sorry, WD didn't have the stats for those, but do you really believe that they'd be massively better?
Click to expand...

Interestingly there's a big difference between the 147 and 156 WD figures.

I'd hazard that both are somewhat skewed by models with selespeed boxes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom