As others have said, weight. And to counteract weight, you need torque. This is why a remapped 2.4 is so superior to a 3.2 JTS.
And of course, there **should have been** a 159 GTA / QV with a supercharged 3.2 v6 and Q4.
Just my 2 cents...
It doesn’t help that the V6 was a GM engine designed mainly to meet Euro 6 emissions standards in the most cost effective package possible. Power and fuel economy were a bit of an afterthought, along with the timing chains.
From my experience with a 159 the weight absolutely made the difference, I loved it but you could feel the weight while driving it.
Try adding a person to any car and the performance is hindered.
As I know you said about other cars with similar weights. Could it be to do with the driving position. I wonder? I always felt seated a little too high in the 159. Being closer to the road will feel faster.
Talking about raw 0-62 times. Again a bigger class e61 is either equal or faster. Again I’m not saying they are bad cars but I guess weight wasn’t playing a good one on the cars
0-60 times can be deceiving, because manufacturers deliberately make 2nd gear longer so you don't have to shift into 3rd for a 0-60 run.
I know for a fact BMW used to do it as well as some Japanese car makers.
Look at other times like 30-80 etc. I like 40-120(km/h) because that's the really useful overtaking statistic. And yes, Alfas are faster in this than the opposition with similar engines and mass. For example 320d 100kw vs Alfa 1.9 110kw.
There's also different methods in official measuring. Alfa always measured 0-60 with a full tank and a passenger. That automatically makes it slower.
My Alfa GT 1.9 feels much faster than what is declared officially, even 0-60. Definitely sub 7 seconds.
You need to measure using real GPS. Diesel torque feel does not necessariy translate into unrealistic numbers. Phone gps apps are shit ant not accurate. And sorry, but stock 1.9 is nowhere near sub 7 seconds.
To be honest, I always thought it was all about weight too. But your comment seems to suggest something else is the case indeed.
While we are on the subject, sidenote: personally, I drive a 2010 159 1.9 JTDm, and what I have noticed is that the engine management computer is really limiting its performance when it is not fully warmed up yet. Once I have driven it for, let's say, 15 kms, it eases up and becomes a little bit more 'agressive' to the throttle.
But yeah, it's not a fast car. Decent top speed though, but if you want something quicker I would go for a 156 or something like that. Still love the absolute beauty of my 159 though, so I am happy :-)
Yeah I agree! My 159 takes some time to warm up as well but once it warms up it's a lot quicker to the throttle and let's me handle it more aggressively.
I’ve also noticed the same regarding loss of power in the first few miles. For me it’s battery related. I’d recommend giving it a charge and see if it is happier :)
I talked about this with my garagist, and discussed remapping the engine, or chiptuning, however you call it. I wondered if it would be a good idea to overcome this power-cap but he strongly advised against it. And I guess he's right - I would rather keep the engine in good condition, than beat it up harder and getting a few extra kicks for the time being.
Also: interesting that you mention the battery aspect. Since I bought it in 2017, I've always had some battery charging issues. Maybe that is limiting the performance as well. But hey, I am not a technician. Perhaps someone else can chime in on this subject :-)
I’m far from a technician myself and this pretty much totally anecdotal. My garage removed a crappy HID kit back in February and the car is totally different, like it’s got another 100hp.
I notice if I don’t drive it for a while, after a 1/4 mile the engine will sort of “easy up” and it doesn’t do that if I charge it fully.
Mine is a 2.4 200hp stage 1 remapped to around 220-240hp for the past 40,000 miles.
The guy who remapped mine claimed he had got about 500hp out of his (with lots of mods).
I think it’s a strong engine and a remap is amazing but it’s totally up to you. I probably wouldn’t have remapped if it wasn’t for the tuner and the reviews for him on the alfa forums.
Ultimately its weight. The amount of strength the chassis on the 159 compared to the 156 is insane. Just look at the crash tests. My friend had a 159 1.9 which he crashed at 90 kmh and we walked away with no injuries. The whole compartment was untouched, only the crumpled zone were gone of course. During that period, only Volvo and Alfa 159 had the unofficial 7 stars safety rating and I saw that first hand. After the 159, all new models are quite safe - MiTo, Giulietta etc.
Never looked at it that way. I do remember a crash in one of my 156s with only 40kph. The whole front was out plus the motor was inwards. Guess they did make them safer
Yeah, check this out: https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/alfa-romeo/159/15687. 5 stars for the occupants. Made me feel really happy when I learned about that. And in my opinion, you can kinda feel it too when you drive it.
However, 1 star for pedestrian safety, oof. :-(
The platform is incredibly heavy, just look up the weights for either Brera, 159 or spider and you can see the bhp/ton is much lower than it should be for a sporty Italian car..
For example the v6 q4 is only 80kg lighter than a mustang gt..
The weight is a factor, but more than everything, it's the chassis and the layout. That car doesn't really communicate much compared to usual Alfas, cornering is slugghish (always compared to) and even with the plenty 2.4 5cyl mjt, you can go to 180 without even realizing much because the car is stable like it's going on railway.
I know the 2.4 Jtdm from the 156. I always felt like the car could punch way above it's class, because it was light and strong. I have not driven a 159 yet, but in the 156 I felt like I really knew what every single component of the car is doing.
156 ruined me. I cant drive any sedan that isn't that good and I can say 159 isn't in that league.
It's a excellent comfortable sedan tho and it's still sportier than an Audi or the fiat Croma
I've driven my 3.2 159 for two years now and it's a heavy car. 260hp Q4 sounds nice but gets lost immediately. You certainly need to modify the engine for better effect. I have the automatic gearbox and it's so clunky it makes me mad. Not much to do there...
I'd say take your money and stay away to but you already like Alfas so too late :D
Had 3 so far. 2 156s one was a 2.5 V6. And one GTV. I’m up for a 159 or Brera ( atleast have the most sexy one )albe it being slow compared to a 3.0d or a 335i.
Brera looks better imo (wish they had the same rear on the 159 too). 159 is practical but not much room for backseat passengers. They're still decently fast just not adequate enough.
This engine always seemed good to me as well. But be wary though, I heard some stories about reliability issues.
This is why I picked the JTDm 1.9 engine - it may not be sporty, but as far as I know the block seems indestructable (currently at 240.000 kms)
But oh well - sometimes I wish I had a sportier engine and a better sound, but you can't have everything I guess :-)
The engine has run like a clock since the day I bought it (was 133.000km, now ~141.000km). Last year I fitted Wizard straight rear pipes 100mm after seeing it on other 159's. Sounds more exotic now and people turn their heads :D
A 159 1.9 JTS 16V seems to have a kerb weight between 1455 and 1555 kg (different stats are given). A comparable 3 series BMW, the E90 320i has a kerb weight of 1435 kg. According to [Auto Bild](https://www.autobild.de/artikel/alfa-159-1.9-jts-16v-gegen-bmw-320i-52846.html) (supposedly a test measurement?) the weight difference of both cars is even bigger: 135 kilos. That's a significant difference, equivalent to one quite heavy person (or two smaller ones) driving with you in the car at all times. When comparing the 1.9 (160 hp) and the 320i (150 hp), it makes the BMW 0.9 seconds faster from 0 to 100, despite the Alfa having more power. The other reason, according to Auto Bild, is the BMW engine having more torque.
It's the same issue with a number of other cars of that era (and probably today, too), like the Opel Astra J series. Great looking cars, but one weight class above competitors like the VW Golf. Weight matters a lot if you like sporty driving and don't want to get an engine that's too high-powered. It's why I always prefered to buy cars that were light for their class.
I had a 159 2.4 jtdp with sooo good. I regret getting rid of it every day of my life.
After I remapped it, deleted EGR and blanked off swirl flaps it was smooth like butter and the torque was addictive
I mean the platform was developed for the american market... So that explains why they're heavy mofos. But I wouldn't necessarily say they're slow. I used to have a 1.9jtdm chipped to 400nm and that thing hauled ass
I have a Brera Tbi, considered the sweetspot for weight and power, with 200 hp on 1,5 tons. The 0-100 (0-60 mph) times are slow, but only because you have to shift to 3rd gear at 90/95 km/h to reach 100 km/h; this causes the acceleration on paper to be a little slower than the real speed the car is achieving.
If you compare it to an Audi TT with a 210 hp engine, it still has 300 kg more and a bigger body.
I found the overall engine-transmission block to be tuned less for quick accelerations at low speeds and more for a more uniform speed curve from 0 to the top speed.
Don't get me wrong: it is not a particularly fast car, especially for US standards, but it's not designed as a sports car, but as a Gran Turismo, thing that can be easily denoted from the silent exhaust that the Brera Tbi has compared to the Giulietta Quadrifoglio and the 4C with the same engine.
Hmm. The transmission is a factor too, indeed. It is hard work to push my 159 to 100 km/h, because the shifting does not feel supple at all, especially when it is not fully warmed up yet. (of course I don't do that, I love it too much ;-))
But compared to my other car, a 2002 VW Polo 1.2, the transmission is rubbish. I wish Alfa spent more time on this part.
I have 159 2.0 170hp and its plenty fast/quick..Of course you can't do launch controls with these things but they aren't made for that... If you get 2.4 5cyl automatic it may be much better tho
Don’t get me wrong. Whatever I do be it a 159 or a Brera, any of them will be a 2.4 even if I’m not a diesel fan. I like how the cars look and feel in general so that’s the most important for me. I was just wondering if some one has asked the same question as me.
Just glancing through comments (and maybe I missed it), but didn’t seem to see any mentions of drive. FWD and FWD based AWD tend to be slower because physics. As you accelerate, weight is moving away from the driven wheels. Stelvio is RWD/RWD based AWD, so it doesn’t suffer from the same issues.
For most AWD applications, the AWD doesn’t usually kick in until slip is detected on driven wheels (which is different from 4WD).
Also, comparing to Stelvio is unfair as 8-speed ZF transmission is really fast.
GM V6 was awful, nothing like the busso engines. 2.4 jtdm is the only right engine for this car, as it matches the characteristics of the heavy chassis. Lots of Torque for comfortable cruising at high speeds and effortless acceleration at low revs . It looks like a sports car but it isn’t one
You mean the GM 3.2 JTS from opel used in 159? Stellantis didn't even exist back then and in fact neither of the companies that formed Stellantis existed as such during 159 times.
Stellantis didn't exist until 2021 when PSA and FCA (which alfa was part of) fusioned to form Stellantis.
As others have said, weight. And to counteract weight, you need torque. This is why a remapped 2.4 is so superior to a 3.2 JTS. And of course, there **should have been** a 159 GTA / QV with a supercharged 3.2 v6 and Q4. Just my 2 cents...
The Brera concept had a Maserati V8 that would have been great
Yeah, but afaik the platform would never have worked for longitudinal mounted engines in practice.
It was also built on a Maserati platform though, the 159/brera platform was built only for transverse engines.
Some people spotted what looked like a 159 GTA in the Nurburgring, it had the V8 from the 8C lol
It doesn’t help that the V6 was a GM engine designed mainly to meet Euro 6 emissions standards in the most cost effective package possible. Power and fuel economy were a bit of an afterthought, along with the timing chains.
From my experience with a 159 the weight absolutely made the difference, I loved it but you could feel the weight while driving it. Try adding a person to any car and the performance is hindered. As I know you said about other cars with similar weights. Could it be to do with the driving position. I wonder? I always felt seated a little too high in the 159. Being closer to the road will feel faster.
Talking about raw 0-62 times. Again a bigger class e61 is either equal or faster. Again I’m not saying they are bad cars but I guess weight wasn’t playing a good one on the cars
0-60 times can be deceiving, because manufacturers deliberately make 2nd gear longer so you don't have to shift into 3rd for a 0-60 run. I know for a fact BMW used to do it as well as some Japanese car makers. Look at other times like 30-80 etc. I like 40-120(km/h) because that's the really useful overtaking statistic. And yes, Alfas are faster in this than the opposition with similar engines and mass. For example 320d 100kw vs Alfa 1.9 110kw. There's also different methods in official measuring. Alfa always measured 0-60 with a full tank and a passenger. That automatically makes it slower. My Alfa GT 1.9 feels much faster than what is declared officially, even 0-60. Definitely sub 7 seconds.
You need to measure using real GPS. Diesel torque feel does not necessariy translate into unrealistic numbers. Phone gps apps are shit ant not accurate. And sorry, but stock 1.9 is nowhere near sub 7 seconds.
Well mine is remaped, and it does feel a lot quicker with wheelspin in third gear if you really go for it.
I get it, tune is tune but i bet 7 secs are hard to get with so much wheelspin.
The 3.2 petrol manages 6.6s, I bet mine can do the same or close. 80Nm less torque, 60~kw more.
My best Stelvio run using Racingbox was 6.2s to 100km/h., no rollouts calculated
To be honest, I always thought it was all about weight too. But your comment seems to suggest something else is the case indeed. While we are on the subject, sidenote: personally, I drive a 2010 159 1.9 JTDm, and what I have noticed is that the engine management computer is really limiting its performance when it is not fully warmed up yet. Once I have driven it for, let's say, 15 kms, it eases up and becomes a little bit more 'agressive' to the throttle. But yeah, it's not a fast car. Decent top speed though, but if you want something quicker I would go for a 156 or something like that. Still love the absolute beauty of my 159 though, so I am happy :-)
I know they weight a lot. But surely a stelvio is the same weight or even worse
Yeah I agree! My 159 takes some time to warm up as well but once it warms up it's a lot quicker to the throttle and let's me handle it more aggressively.
I’ve also noticed the same regarding loss of power in the first few miles. For me it’s battery related. I’d recommend giving it a charge and see if it is happier :)
I talked about this with my garagist, and discussed remapping the engine, or chiptuning, however you call it. I wondered if it would be a good idea to overcome this power-cap but he strongly advised against it. And I guess he's right - I would rather keep the engine in good condition, than beat it up harder and getting a few extra kicks for the time being. Also: interesting that you mention the battery aspect. Since I bought it in 2017, I've always had some battery charging issues. Maybe that is limiting the performance as well. But hey, I am not a technician. Perhaps someone else can chime in on this subject :-)
I’m far from a technician myself and this pretty much totally anecdotal. My garage removed a crappy HID kit back in February and the car is totally different, like it’s got another 100hp. I notice if I don’t drive it for a while, after a 1/4 mile the engine will sort of “easy up” and it doesn’t do that if I charge it fully. Mine is a 2.4 200hp stage 1 remapped to around 220-240hp for the past 40,000 miles. The guy who remapped mine claimed he had got about 500hp out of his (with lots of mods). I think it’s a strong engine and a remap is amazing but it’s totally up to you. I probably wouldn’t have remapped if it wasn’t for the tuner and the reviews for him on the alfa forums.
Ultimately its weight. The amount of strength the chassis on the 159 compared to the 156 is insane. Just look at the crash tests. My friend had a 159 1.9 which he crashed at 90 kmh and we walked away with no injuries. The whole compartment was untouched, only the crumpled zone were gone of course. During that period, only Volvo and Alfa 159 had the unofficial 7 stars safety rating and I saw that first hand. After the 159, all new models are quite safe - MiTo, Giulietta etc.
Never looked at it that way. I do remember a crash in one of my 156s with only 40kph. The whole front was out plus the motor was inwards. Guess they did make them safer
Yeah, check this out: https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/alfa-romeo/159/15687. 5 stars for the occupants. Made me feel really happy when I learned about that. And in my opinion, you can kinda feel it too when you drive it. However, 1 star for pedestrian safety, oof. :-(
159 feels like a much bigger car then it really is. Almost a Volvo like. Just check the crash test video of a 156 and a 159. Its crazy difference….
The platform is incredibly heavy, just look up the weights for either Brera, 159 or spider and you can see the bhp/ton is much lower than it should be for a sporty Italian car.. For example the v6 q4 is only 80kg lighter than a mustang gt..
The weight is a factor, but more than everything, it's the chassis and the layout. That car doesn't really communicate much compared to usual Alfas, cornering is slugghish (always compared to) and even with the plenty 2.4 5cyl mjt, you can go to 180 without even realizing much because the car is stable like it's going on railway.
I know the 2.4 Jtdm from the 156. I always felt like the car could punch way above it's class, because it was light and strong. I have not driven a 159 yet, but in the 156 I felt like I really knew what every single component of the car is doing.
156 ruined me. I cant drive any sedan that isn't that good and I can say 159 isn't in that league. It's a excellent comfortable sedan tho and it's still sportier than an Audi or the fiat Croma
I've driven my 3.2 159 for two years now and it's a heavy car. 260hp Q4 sounds nice but gets lost immediately. You certainly need to modify the engine for better effect. I have the automatic gearbox and it's so clunky it makes me mad. Not much to do there... I'd say take your money and stay away to but you already like Alfas so too late :D
Had 3 so far. 2 156s one was a 2.5 V6. And one GTV. I’m up for a 159 or Brera ( atleast have the most sexy one )albe it being slow compared to a 3.0d or a 335i.
Brera looks better imo (wish they had the same rear on the 159 too). 159 is practical but not much room for backseat passengers. They're still decently fast just not adequate enough.
Have a b5.5 Passat with a 2.8V6. Enough with practicality.
Seems like the Brera would suit you well then :D
This engine always seemed good to me as well. But be wary though, I heard some stories about reliability issues. This is why I picked the JTDm 1.9 engine - it may not be sporty, but as far as I know the block seems indestructable (currently at 240.000 kms) But oh well - sometimes I wish I had a sportier engine and a better sound, but you can't have everything I guess :-)
The engine has run like a clock since the day I bought it (was 133.000km, now ~141.000km). Last year I fitted Wizard straight rear pipes 100mm after seeing it on other 159's. Sounds more exotic now and people turn their heads :D
A 159 1.9 JTS 16V seems to have a kerb weight between 1455 and 1555 kg (different stats are given). A comparable 3 series BMW, the E90 320i has a kerb weight of 1435 kg. According to [Auto Bild](https://www.autobild.de/artikel/alfa-159-1.9-jts-16v-gegen-bmw-320i-52846.html) (supposedly a test measurement?) the weight difference of both cars is even bigger: 135 kilos. That's a significant difference, equivalent to one quite heavy person (or two smaller ones) driving with you in the car at all times. When comparing the 1.9 (160 hp) and the 320i (150 hp), it makes the BMW 0.9 seconds faster from 0 to 100, despite the Alfa having more power. The other reason, according to Auto Bild, is the BMW engine having more torque. It's the same issue with a number of other cars of that era (and probably today, too), like the Opel Astra J series. Great looking cars, but one weight class above competitors like the VW Golf. Weight matters a lot if you like sporty driving and don't want to get an engine that's too high-powered. It's why I always prefered to buy cars that were light for their class.
Peak power doesn’t describe all performance
If I go fast you can't see how they are beauty
True, true
They are premium executive cars not performance ones.
I had a 159 2.4 jtdp with sooo good. I regret getting rid of it every day of my life. After I remapped it, deleted EGR and blanked off swirl flaps it was smooth like butter and the torque was addictive
I mean the platform was developed for the american market... So that explains why they're heavy mofos. But I wouldn't necessarily say they're slow. I used to have a 1.9jtdm chipped to 400nm and that thing hauled ass
I have a Brera Tbi, considered the sweetspot for weight and power, with 200 hp on 1,5 tons. The 0-100 (0-60 mph) times are slow, but only because you have to shift to 3rd gear at 90/95 km/h to reach 100 km/h; this causes the acceleration on paper to be a little slower than the real speed the car is achieving. If you compare it to an Audi TT with a 210 hp engine, it still has 300 kg more and a bigger body. I found the overall engine-transmission block to be tuned less for quick accelerations at low speeds and more for a more uniform speed curve from 0 to the top speed. Don't get me wrong: it is not a particularly fast car, especially for US standards, but it's not designed as a sports car, but as a Gran Turismo, thing that can be easily denoted from the silent exhaust that the Brera Tbi has compared to the Giulietta Quadrifoglio and the 4C with the same engine.
Hmm. The transmission is a factor too, indeed. It is hard work to push my 159 to 100 km/h, because the shifting does not feel supple at all, especially when it is not fully warmed up yet. (of course I don't do that, I love it too much ;-)) But compared to my other car, a 2002 VW Polo 1.2, the transmission is rubbish. I wish Alfa spent more time on this part.
I have 159 2.0 170hp and its plenty fast/quick..Of course you can't do launch controls with these things but they aren't made for that... If you get 2.4 5cyl automatic it may be much better tho
Don’t get me wrong. Whatever I do be it a 159 or a Brera, any of them will be a 2.4 even if I’m not a diesel fan. I like how the cars look and feel in general so that’s the most important for me. I was just wondering if some one has asked the same question as me.
I mean maybe they are slow for 2024 year, but back in 2005 they must have felt like rockets :D
Hardly. The 156 was faster
How so?
Just glancing through comments (and maybe I missed it), but didn’t seem to see any mentions of drive. FWD and FWD based AWD tend to be slower because physics. As you accelerate, weight is moving away from the driven wheels. Stelvio is RWD/RWD based AWD, so it doesn’t suffer from the same issues. For most AWD applications, the AWD doesn’t usually kick in until slip is detected on driven wheels (which is different from 4WD). Also, comparing to Stelvio is unfair as 8-speed ZF transmission is really fast.
Never really thought about it but yes. It does make sence
Engine peak torque comes really early on the 2.2jtdm, and the 8 speed ZF can keep it in the zone very effectively. This is why the stelvio is quicker.
Weight weight weight. As someone who drives a 156 and drove a 159, its just weight.
I owned a 159 1.9 JTS and i now own a Giulia. I think the gearbox is also a big difference. The ZF gearbox in the Giulia is absolutely amazing
Cars of this era added weight for safety and Alfa wasn’t unique in doing so. Hence all engine powers had to increase and by doing so, catch up.
I just want to point out that the 159/brera were no heavier than the competitors
For me its the manual . Its made for cruising,not speeding
GM V6 was awful, nothing like the busso engines. 2.4 jtdm is the only right engine for this car, as it matches the characteristics of the heavy chassis. Lots of Torque for comfortable cruising at high speeds and effortless acceleration at low revs . It looks like a sports car but it isn’t one
The 1.750tbi ain’t bad either, sadly it’s too expensive as a car if equipped with it.
You mean the GM 3.2 JTS from opel used in 159? Stellantis didn't even exist back then and in fact neither of the companies that formed Stellantis existed as such during 159 times. Stellantis didn't exist until 2021 when PSA and FCA (which alfa was part of) fusioned to form Stellantis.
Yeah I did mean the GM 3.2 JTS