Alfa 166's

[wuvvum]

Further to several recent comments on here regarding how little ten-year-old cars are worth. I'm still struggling to work out why these Alfas don't make more money. Yes they have occasional problems with the electrics, but then so do most cars after a few years. I've had far more electrical issues with Scorpios and Omegas than with the 166, and so far everything that's gone wrong on it I've managed to fix, which given that I'm not exactly the world's best auto electrician must mean they ain't that complicated. And they're superb to drive, and incredibly agile for such a big car. I've just bought another one:

 

 

It's a 3.0 V6 with a Tiptronic auto, and pretty much every option except leather (which I don't particularly like anyway). 137K miles, tested till October and taxed till the end of August. It was £760. Which is less than half what a contemporary 528i or E300 would make, and less even than contemporary Omega MV6's are making. And everything works on it, apart from one headlight bulb (HID, so not going to be cheap to replace unless I replace it with one of those blue-tinted halogen bulbs) and the little green indicator warning lights on the dash. The dash did flicker briefly when I turned the headlights on, but it turned out that that was just because the battery earth lead had come off so everything was running off the alternator. Most modern cars would either cut out or go completely haywire if that sort of thing happened (my old 820i used to randomly wind its electric windows up and down, for example). It's also chuffing brilliant to drive (although I'm still not 100% convinced about the Tiptronic thing) and not even particularly thirsty. I really can't fathom why it didn't make four figures at least. The problem is that although it's great I got it so cheap, I'm shortly going to be selling the red one, which is not as clean and is a much more basic spec, albeit slightly newer and lower mileage, and it also has no tax. So what am I looking at? £500? I'd almost be better off cutting off the cats, taking the wheels off and weighing it in. It's ridiculous...

[Volksy]

Bargainus! In Mafioso black too FTW!I do have a liking for 166s, and may well replace the Saab with one of these, given the price they seem to be going for, and my annual mileage is soon to drop from about 10k to, well about 1k due to house move etc. I was looking at a GTV that was temptingly cheap, but I much prefere a big saloon. hmmm you have me thinking now..

[MrRegieRitmo]

Nice appropriate number plate too, surely adding alot of value to the car! My sister's b/f reckons the plate on his car is probably worth more than the car itself to the right person! V306 ELHif you didn't guess his car is a 99 Pug 306

[r.welfare]

Belter! And "thassalottacarferdamoney", as Mike Brewer might say.Your comment on the 820i electric windows brings back horrible memories of jabbing the door panel switches, hoping something would happen...Leather trim is a curate's egg. I've only had one car with it (the Omega Elite), and I only owned that during winter/spring so didn't burn my legs on it, but did slide about in hard cornering. I very much appreciated the heaters in them though...however, as an expectant father, I can see it is more practical for messy/vomiting kiddiwinks and have only given up on the idea of retrofitting it into Mrs W's future Accord because that model only had leather with an electric driver's seat, which is just too much hassle to get hooked up.You may find the smaller engine/lower spec of your existing one actually mkaes it more saleable, bizarrely enough.

[carlo]

Used to really dislike leather but I must confess having had it for three years now I'm just starting to prefer it and would actively seek it out now over cloth (and that's even Peugeot's crappy leather.)I reckon the most positive benefit is that the nice leather smell seems to overide even the worst of other interior car smells, plus of course the cabin feels a bit more up-market. Bloody cold in the winter, though.

[wuvvum]

The main reason I dislike leather seats is because of their lack of lateral support during hard cornering. The leather seats in the Cadillac are great, but that's only 'cos the Cadillac doesn't do hard cornering. The Volvo 164's the same. I've had several leather-upholstered Saab 9000 Turbos in the past, and they're a bit of a bugger on twisty roads. The Maserati was a pain too, although the leather in that was quite rough so gave a bit more grip. The worst was the Daimler Conquest Century - it handled surprisingly well and encouraged enthusiastic driving, but the combination of shiny leather, a bench front seat and no seatbelts meant hanging on to the steering wheel for dear life...

[MrRegieRitmo]

I think the answer might lie in half leather sports seats. Dad has them in his current 407 (the last one was full leather) & previously in his 9-5. All the style & appeal of having leather outer edges mixed with the comfort & practicality of having cloth centres for your posterior. Being that they're called sport seats, I think the idea genuinely is for the mentioned purpose of not sliding around when driving hard but without losing out on the luxury of leather.

[AnthonyG]

If you mean by Tiptronic you mean Selespeed,then certainly that is the kiss of death for a 156's value - every magazine you read, including Car Mechanics advise avoiding these cars.

[wuvvum]

Nope, it's not Selespeed - there aren't any buttons on the steering wheel. It's a normal auto shifter with PRND positions, but then you can move the lever over to the left which allows you to biff up and down the gears manually. I don't think it uses the same hardware or software as Selespeed - I think it's a torque converter auto rather than a robotised manual.

[wuvvum]

And everything works on it, apart from one headlight bulb (HID, so not going to be cheap to replace unless I replace it with one of those blue-tinted halogen bulbs) and the little green indicator warning lights on the dash.

And the fuel light.