Thinking of buying a 159 oil burner, what does the group think of this motor
and how significant are the differences between the the 1.9 and the 2.4?
TonyB

"TonyB" <hatt.j.bennett (AT) tesco (DOT) net> wrote

~500cc


--
Dave
ex Motorcycle Maintenance Workshop
http://tinyurl.com/4mhaw

Dave Emerson <Dave_dot_Emerson (AT) LineOne (DOT) net> wrote:

and 1 cylinder.
--
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
Alfa 156 TSpark Sportwagon Veloce Selespeed - Alfa 75 TSpark Lusso -
Ducati 750SS - BMW R100RT - Toyota Prius T-Spirit

SteveH wrote:
And nothing much else apart from a nicer sound and heavier fuel bill.

I MUCH prefer the 2.4 5 cylinder from a sensory point of view but, as
the vast majority of the time that is of little importance, I would (and
did) go for the 1.9. But, try them both and make up your own mind?? You
may not be as tight fisted as me!!

"TonyB" <hatt.j.bennett (AT) tesco (DOT) net> wrote

I've had a 2.2 JTS for about 5 weeks and get 25 mpg out of it, so getting a
diesel makes sense there, but I didn't get one as I was afraid of the wrong
fuel going in.


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

"Simon Mason" <simon (AT) simonmason (DOT) karoo.co.uk> wrote

ouch!

2.0JTS = average of 37mpg.

"TonyB" <hatt.j.bennett (AT) tesco (DOT) net> wrote

I was driving 1.9 for about 1/2 hour and was pretty
impressed. I could say I don't need better than that.
But now it happened that I have 159 2.4 210 HP.
It is my 7th AR, first diesel and I can only say:
this is fantastic motor. Really fantastic!
I can't tell much about differences because 1/2 hour
with 1.9 is not enough and, to be honest, I don't
remember details. In my opinion 2.4 is class above.
After all it depends of your own needs and preferences.
And money, of course.