600 quid and 2 years on.

leigh_boy said:
i remember them being fairly good cars, heavey but drive well i did like them with the high rise spoiler.
Click to expand...


They can be, but they seem to be either very good or absolute sheds. This is my third 156 so I like to think I know what I am looking for.

There are however loads of very poorly maintained wrecks out there for under 1500 quid.

They require careful maintenance and the Twin sparks need cam belts every 36k, which is often missed. They can also use a fair bit of oil and if that has been neglected a whole host of problems can arise. Front suspensions also wear quite quickly but are very cheap to repair now.

The V6's are the best by miles but the fuel economy is shocking. 6 speed manual V6's like mine are increasingly rare, not many cars had 6 speed in it's day. The steptronic or Q-system was very popular but it badly saps power and MPG can be as low as 15mpg.

They can be great value for a cheap bit of thrash about fun.
 
B@Th*nG said:
Piddle
B@
Click to expand...

SO you have compared all of the bottom of the range, hubcap models of the competition to the top of the range Alfa? Fair comparison then? In your line of thinking; all of the other top of the range models must be superior to the 156!
 
Whilst I wouldn't call it "disgusting", in my eyes it's nothing special and it isn't any different to all the other 90s saloons/large hatchbacks. But then Alfas have never really done anything for me.
 
Howard said:
Whilst I wouldn't call it "disgusting", in my eyes it's nothing special and it isn't any different to all the other 90s saloons/large hatchbacks. But then Alfas have never really done anything for me.
Click to expand...

I call them Marmite cars. I wouldn't try to persuade anyone who doesn't like them to like them.

They have a good following already.
 
Last edited:
Gorgeous cars that still look good today, love those speed dial alloys aswell, classic, such a shame they didn't do these RWD.

Also would ignore comment from people who think bland dated Audi's are good designs, such people don't have any taste or sense of style.
 
86JR said:
SO you have compared all of the bottom of the range, hubcap models of the competition to the top of the range Alfa? Fair comparison then? In your line of thinking; all of the other top of the range models must be superior to the 156!
Click to expand...

top of the range alfa? lol! They're fairly standard units, nothing special about either of them.

I'll adjust the images so the mondeo and vectra etc... have alloys because that's about the only difference. all I did was type the year and model in, apologies if the images are crap but they were just standard examples

B@
 
Last edited:
B@Th*nG said:
top of the range alfa? lol! They're fairly standard units, nothing special about either of them.

I'll adjust the images so the mondeo and vectra etc... have alloys because that's about the only difference. all I did was type the year and model in, apologies if the images are crap but they were just standard examples

B@
Click to expand...

You have posted a bottom of the range 316i in comparison to the top of the range 156, along with bottom of the range everything else. Of course in this scenario it will look better.

But then compare it to this:

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l14/m_nettleship/DSC03538-2.jpg

Suddenly it doesn't look so good does it?
 
lol why does it matter if the cars are low spec, mid spec or high spec? The design is the same and you are comparing the base design, the style of the car, the 156 is far more stylish than anything from its era, that Beemer is the same design as the one posted on the first page, still the same boxy shoebox shape, designed by a committee, having bigger alloys and some skirts doesn't transform it into artform, it's like saying an ugly women looks pretty cos she has (fake) bigger breasts.
 
86JR said:
Which is also ugly in pre-facelift form.
Click to expand...

You don't like Alfa's we get it, don't get your knickers in a twist about it we read you loud and clear. :D

No seriously, fair play to you they are not to everyone's taste and I respect your opinion.

The 156 was just a saloon car, nothing exceptional. The point of the thread is it is a £600 Italian car that made it into a parade of cars worth a hell of a lot more.

I am proud of it, but I understand those who think it shouldn't have or was not really good enough.

I was just chuffed, and new wheels are now on order ;)
 
No, I do. I love the 147. If I had to buy a sub £1k car I would buy a 3 door 147 2.0 Twinspark. Great cars especially for the price they cost. I also love the new Guilleta I was following one yesturday and loved the way it looked.

The 156 however looks all over the place, atleast the "box" (bmw) looks clearly thought out!
 
86JR said:
You have posted a bottom of the range 316i in comparison to the top of the range 156, along with bottom of the range everything else. Of course in this scenario it will look better.

But then compare it to this:

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l14/m_nettleship/DSC03538-2.jpg

Suddenly it doesn't look so good does it?
Click to expand...
that bmw looks no better than the one i posted - a box.

both 156s are pretty much standard, you don't know what you're talking about

Top of the range pre-face:
156_5-L.jpg


Top of the range facelift:
156gtaam06_w800.jpg


I'll give you time to knock one out before you come back with a response ;)

B@
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom