My 159 has arrived

It's arrived! My new 159 - a 1.9 JTS.

So what do I think of it after the first few days driving? Well, the
overall impression is extremely positive. Although it is a very
different car to the 146 I had until now, I very quickly felt at home in
it. The suspension is superb, giving nice flat cornering but also doing
a very good job of absorbing bumps in the road. Obviously I can't say
anything on the performance as I haven't tried pushing it yet - I
believe in running my cars in. This is however quite a difficult car to
run in gently: particularly in the lower gears, just blink and you're at
4500 rpm.

The 159 is pretty well insulated, which makes for comfortable motorway
driving, and means one can listen to the radio better. I like it, though
possibly people who particularly appreciated the roar of a boxer at high
revs might find it a little disappointing. There is still a fair bit of
tyre noise at motorway speeds.

The build feels generally very solid - no rattles or loose panels - but
is slightly spoiled by one piece of trim on the front passenger door
which doesn't align with the corresponding trim on the dash. The
materials seem good apart from the plastic of the control stalks, which
feels a bit cheap.

It is a very complex car compared to any I have driven before, though
perhaps not exceptional in its class. The handbook is 268 pages, and
there's a separate 66-page book on the radio!! One would probably need
to drive the car a few weeks before one can really form an opinion on
how good the ergonomics of all the controls are, but for the present I'm
happy to give it the benefit of the doubt. A few things I was initially
not keen on now seem OK after three days. There are some buttons which
are a little awkward to get at, but I couldn't immediately visualise a
better way of arranging them. (Except for the hazard flashers button,
where I still prefer the Ford placement on top of the steering column.)

(Incidentally someone here complained that the boot release switch was
poorly placed as one could easily open it by mistake while trying to
switch on the interior lights, and would then have to get out to shut it
again. I understand from the handbook however that one can disable this
switch, and just use the button on the ignition "key". This was probably
done in response to other people making this same observation.)

Some minor details they didn't quite get right:
- the rear parcel shelf is a bit too glossy, and hats and scarfs tend to
slide around;
- there is a cubbyhole thoughtfully provided for CDs (i.e. CD
jewel-boxes). But you can't put the CDs in oriented so that you can read
the spine labels!

A bigger gripe is the speedometer, which isn't as clear as some and
overreads by a whopping 7%-8% according to my GPS. Any car with
pretensions to quality ought to have a speedo accurate to a couple of
percent at most.

I ordered just one accessory, namely a parking sensor (rear bumper
only). That was a good decision and I would strongly recommend getting
it. It makes parking a lot easier and protects you against obstacles
which are too low to see through the rear window.

As I said, the overall impression is extremely positive. However the car
does have one really weird fault. On the way home I started to wonder
why I wasn't getting any warm air. Being used to computers I
instinctively turned the heating control the other way - and indeed it
was reversed. Not too serious, and humorously reminiscent of taps in
southern European hotels. Worse however, the knob controlling the
direction of the airflow was also reversed. Worse still: instead of
getting warm air to the feet and cool air to the face, that was reversed
too! Worst of all: the windows misted up badly with normal ventilation
settings.

It gets more bizarre - I had literally just made an appointment with the
garage to get this looked at, when the complete system re-inverted
itself and started working normally in all respects! It is rather
obviously a firmware problem; hopefully there will be a firmware fix
available at some stage. Another call to the garage revealed that there
isn't at present.

Anyway, if this one problem can be fixed, or if it decides to stay away
of its own accord, then I have high hopes that this car is going to be
very enjoyable indeed.

--
Stephen Poley

Stephen Poley wrote:

> It's arrived! My new 159 - a 1.9 JTS.

<snip>

Nice review, cheers

--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3 OMF#22
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
Alfa 116 Giulietta 3.0l (Really) Sprint 1.7 156 TS S2
Triumph Speed Triple: Black with extra black bits
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 22:10:55 +0100, Stephen Poley
>, wrote:

>It's arrived! My new 159 - a 1.9 JTS.
>
>So what do I think of it after the first few days driving? Well, the
>overall impression is extremely positive. Although it is a very
>different car to the 146 I had until now, I very quickly felt at home in
>it. The suspension is superb, giving nice flat cornering but also doing
>a very good job of absorbing bumps in the road. Obviously I can't say
>anything on the performance as I haven't tried pushing it yet - I
>believe in running my cars in. This is however quite a difficult car to
>run in gently: particularly in the lower gears, just blink and you're at
>4500 rpm.
>
>The 159 is pretty well insulated, which makes for comfortable motorway
>driving, and means one can listen to the radio better. I like it, though
>possibly people who particularly appreciated the roar of a boxer at high
>revs might find it a little disappointing. There is still a fair bit of
>tyre noise at motorway speeds.
>
>The build feels generally very solid - no rattles or loose panels - but
>is slightly spoiled by one piece of trim on the front passenger door
>which doesn't align with the corresponding trim on the dash. The
>materials seem good apart from the plastic of the control stalks, which
>feels a bit cheap.
>
>It is a very complex car compared to any I have driven before, though
>perhaps not exceptional in its class. The handbook is 268 pages, and
>there's a separate 66-page book on the radio!! One would probably need
>to drive the car a few weeks before one can really form an opinion on
>how good the ergonomics of all the controls are, but for the present I'm
>happy to give it the benefit of the doubt. A few things I was initially
>not keen on now seem OK after three days. There are some buttons which
>are a little awkward to get at, but I couldn't immediately visualise a
>better way of arranging them. (Except for the hazard flashers button,
>where I still prefer the Ford placement on top of the steering column.)
>
>(Incidentally someone here complained that the boot release switch was
>poorly placed as one could easily open it by mistake while trying to
>switch on the interior lights, and would then have to get out to shut it
>again. I understand from the handbook however that one can disable this
>switch, and just use the button on the ignition "key". This was probably
>done in response to other people making this same observation.)
>
>Some minor details they didn't quite get right:
>- the rear parcel shelf is a bit too glossy, and hats and scarfs tend to
>slide around;
>- there is a cubbyhole thoughtfully provided for CDs (i.e. CD
>jewel-boxes). But you can't put the CDs in oriented so that you can read
>the spine labels!
>
>A bigger gripe is the speedometer, which isn't as clear as some and
>overreads by a whopping 7%-8% according to my GPS. Any car with
>pretensions to quality ought to have a speedo accurate to a couple of
>percent at most.
>
>I ordered just one accessory, namely a parking sensor (rear bumper
>only). That was a good decision and I would strongly recommend getting
>it. It makes parking a lot easier and protects you against obstacles
>which are too low to see through the rear window.
>
>As I said, the overall impression is extremely positive. However the car
>does have one really weird fault. On the way home I started to wonder
>why I wasn't getting any warm air. Being used to computers I
>instinctively turned the heating control the other way - and indeed it
>was reversed. Not too serious, and humorously reminiscent of taps in
>southern European hotels. Worse however, the knob controlling the
>direction of the airflow was also reversed. Worse still: instead of
>getting warm air to the feet and cool air to the face, that was reversed
>too! Worst of all: the windows misted up badly with normal ventilation
>settings.
>
>It gets more bizarre - I had literally just made an appointment with the
>garage to get this looked at, when the complete system re-inverted
>itself and started working normally in all respects! It is rather
>obviously a firmware problem; hopefully there will be a firmware fix
>available at some stage. Another call to the garage revealed that there
>isn't at present.
>
>Anyway, if this one problem can be fixed, or if it decides to stay away
>of its own accord, then I have high hopes that this car is going to be
>very enjoyable indeed.

Wow, 146 to 159. A bit of a jump. Congratulations.
I am worried about the jump from 156 to 159 being too much :-)

>There is still a fair bit of tyre noise at motorway speeds.
What tyres did they fit to your car?
AR seemed to have a mixture policy with the 156 and
I would not be surprised to see this continued.
It would be handy to hear what 159 owners are getting in the way of
rubber, so future buyers can maybe pick a brand to suit them.

I look forward to your future reviews as you become more familiar.


Pete
--
>
156 2.0 TS (2001) - Proteo Rosso

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:18:44 +0000, > wrote:

>>Anyway, if this one problem can be fixed, or if it decides to stay away
>>of its own accord, then I have high hopes that this car is going to be
>>very enjoyable indeed.
>
>Wow, 146 to 159. A bit of a jump. Congratulations.

It did take a bit of work to create enough space to get it in the
garage. :-)

>I am worried about the jump from 156 to 159 being too much :-)
>
>>There is still a fair bit of tyre noise at motorway speeds.
>What tyres did they fit to your car?

Bridgestones (16-inch).

>AR seemed to have a mixture policy with the 156 and
>I would not be surprised to see this continued.
>It would be handy to hear what 159 owners are getting in the way of
>rubber, so future buyers can maybe pick a brand to suit them.
>
>I look forward to your future reviews as you become more familiar.

OK, I'll see what I can do.

--
Stephen Poley

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:18:44 +0000, > wrote:

>I look forward to your future reviews as you become more familiar.

Well, three weeks on and 2200 km on the clock (more than I normally
drive but work requires it just at the moment).

And it's all good news. The car is a delight to drive. Good steering,
good suspension, nice positive gearbox (still just a little stiff at
present, but improving). I haven't noticed the pedals really, which
means they must be pretty well spot on.

The 1.9 is obviously not quite as vigorous as Clarkson's 2.2 (anyone
here who hasn't already read his article at
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/art...101920,00.html should
do so, while ignoring his comments on the cruise control) but it doesn't
feel underpowered.

I've already done one long drive. I wasn't intending to do one so soon,
but a couple of drivers dropped out of a day out with a group of
friends. I was a little concerned as I've had a slight muscle problem
recently that made it somewhat uncomfortable to sit still for a long
time, even on a good office chair or a sofa. According to the trip
computer I spent over 7 hours behind the wheel that day. And when I got
out I had exactly zero stiffness or backache. These seats are superb.
(With the small caveat that a rather short colleague found the seat too
long and it pressed against the back of his calves; but my son is
shorter and thinks it fine, so I guess my colleague just suffers from
Ernie Wise legs.)

The stereo is well up to the requirements of classical music (and
completely wasted on top-20 rubbish).

No detectable oil consumption yet. Fuel consumption is higher than
indicated by Alfa, but I understand it's normal for it to be a bit
higher during running in.

Just a few minor irritations:

- the inaccurate speedo, which I mentioned before;

- the airco comes on every time one switches the ignition on and so has
to be switched off again. I suppose this was designed by someone from
southern Italy. Airco is great 10% of the time, but the other 90% (in
northern Europe anyway) it just wastes fuel.

- I've managed to accidentally open the boot three or four times with
the ignition key. The boot-release button on the key needs to be a
little stiffer and/or recessed.

- Nowhere really to rest ones foot while the cruise-control is engaged.
A half-inch ledge would probably have been enough. (But I don't use the
cruise-control much anyway.)

And if that's the worst one can find in a car ... Mind you, I haven't
tried to change a light-bulb yet!

I was prepared to be annoyed - indeed expected to be annoyed - by the
trip computer. These sorts of things always seem to be designed by
someone who has only half understood the concepts of user-interface
design. For example the Philips DVD recorder I bought recently has some
nicely thought-out parts to the interface, some mediocre bits, and
several crass blunders. But the Alfa 159 trip computer is nicely thought
out and I'm not too sure how I could improve it. Well, apart from the
translation of "Autonomia" as "Autonomy" instead of "Range". But I've
now got the language set to Italian anyway. It matches the wording on
the dials.

And for the rest there are plenty of nice touches, such as interior
lights that come on gradually instead of flashing on, and hinged handles
that swing gently back into place instead of springing with a thud
(particularly handy when one has small children who like playing with
such things). It does have one of those nannying alarms that bleats
about you not having your seat belt on, but at least it gives you a
grace period long enough to put the car away in the garage.

So I'm looking forward to the next few thousand kilometres.

--
Stephen Poley

Stephen Poley wrote:
<snip>
> So I'm looking forward to the next few thousand kilometres.

<jealous>

--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
Alfa 116 Giulietta 3.0l (Really) Sprint 1.7 75 TS 156 TS S2
Triumph Speed Triple: Black with extra black bits
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

Stephen Poley wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:18:44 +0000, > wrote:
>
>> I look forward to your future reviews as you become more familiar.
>
> Well, three weeks on and 2200 km on the clock (more than I normally
> drive but work requires it just at the moment).
>
> And it's all good news. The car is a delight to drive. Good steering,
> good suspension, nice positive gearbox (still just a little stiff at
> present, but improving). I haven't noticed the pedals really, which
> means they must be pretty well spot on.
<SNIP>

Nice - keep us updated!

(thinking about upgrading soon!)

On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 07:52:30 +0200, Stephen Poley
>, wrote:

>>I look forward to your future reviews as you become more familiar.
>
>Well, three weeks on and 2200 km on the clock (more than I normally
>drive but work requires it just at the moment).
>
>And it's all good news. The car is a delight to drive. Good steering,
>good suspension, nice positive gearbox (still just a little stiff at
>present, but improving). I haven't noticed the pedals really, which
>means they must be pretty well spot on.
>
>The 1.9 is obviously not quite as vigorous as Clarkson's 2.2 (anyone
>here who hasn't already read his article at
>http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/art...101920,00.html should
>do so, while ignoring his comments on the cruise control) but it doesn't
>feel underpowered.
>
>I've already done one long drive. I wasn't intending to do one so soon,
>but a couple of drivers dropped out of a day out with a group of
>friends. I was a little concerned as I've had a slight muscle problem
>recently that made it somewhat uncomfortable to sit still for a long
>time, even on a good office chair or a sofa. According to the trip
>computer I spent over 7 hours behind the wheel that day. And when I got
>out I had exactly zero stiffness or backache. These seats are superb.
>(With the small caveat that a rather short colleague found the seat too
>long and it pressed against the back of his calves; but my son is
>shorter and thinks it fine, so I guess my colleague just suffers from
>Ernie Wise legs.)
>
>The stereo is well up to the requirements of classical music (and
>completely wasted on top-20 rubbish).
>
>No detectable oil consumption yet. Fuel consumption is higher than
>indicated by Alfa, but I understand it's normal for it to be a bit
>higher during running in.
>
>Just a few minor irritations:
>
>- the inaccurate speedo, which I mentioned before;
>
>- the airco comes on every time one switches the ignition on and so has
>to be switched off again. I suppose this was designed by someone from
>southern Italy. Airco is great 10% of the time, but the other 90% (in
>northern Europe anyway) it just wastes fuel.
>
>- I've managed to accidentally open the boot three or four times with
>the ignition key. The boot-release button on the key needs to be a
>little stiffer and/or recessed.
>
>- Nowhere really to rest ones foot while the cruise-control is engaged.
>A half-inch ledge would probably have been enough. (But I don't use the
>cruise-control much anyway.)
>
>And if that's the worst one can find in a car ... Mind you, I haven't
>tried to change a light-bulb yet!
>
>I was prepared to be annoyed - indeed expected to be annoyed - by the
>trip computer. These sorts of things always seem to be designed by
>someone who has only half understood the concepts of user-interface
>design. For example the Philips DVD recorder I bought recently has some
>nicely thought-out parts to the interface, some mediocre bits, and
>several crass blunders. But the Alfa 159 trip computer is nicely thought
>out and I'm not too sure how I could improve it. Well, apart from the
>translation of "Autonomia" as "Autonomy" instead of "Range". But I've
>now got the language set to Italian anyway. It matches the wording on
>the dials.
>
>And for the rest there are plenty of nice touches, such as interior
>lights that come on gradually instead of flashing on, and hinged handles
>that swing gently back into place instead of springing with a thud
>(particularly handy when one has small children who like playing with
>such things). It does have one of those nannying alarms that bleats
>about you not having your seat belt on, but at least it gives you a
>grace period long enough to put the car away in the garage.
>
>So I'm looking forward to the next few thousand kilometres.

Thank you for your running reports on the Alfa 159.
I am sure that there will be an increasing number of
grateful readers over the next year or more.

Just look at the number of people who have been
swotting up on the old 156 reviews over the years.
8 years after the launch there are still people
dropping by looking for views & tips on buying one.

Enjoy.

Pete
--
>
156 2.0 TS (2001) - Proteo Rosso

"Stephen Poley" > schreef in bericht
...
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:18:44 +0000, > wrote:
>
>
> - the airco comes on every time one switches the ignition on and so has
> to be switched off again. I suppose this was designed by someone from
> southern Italy. Airco is great 10% of the time, but the other 90% (in
> northern Europe anyway) it just wastes fuel.
>

I guess you can change the setting like in my GT to have it switched off all
the time as well.
Just read the manual.
On the other hand, I ALWAYS have the airco switched on (live in Holland)
which is very comfortable.
No damp windows in winter.
And, forget about that myth on excess fuel consumption
When standing still with the engine running idle, it is measurable, but in
regular driving conditions the 2-3 HP it takes are the (small) price you pay
for comfort.
2-3 HP on a 150HP engine is 1½-2% higher fuel consumption. Hardly
measurable!
--
Ciao from The Netherlands
alfistagj (aka Gert-Jan)
GT 2.0 JTS (2005)
Montreal 2.6V8 (1428700 - 1973/4)

On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 19:32:36 +0200, "alfistagj"
> wrote:

>"Stephen Poley" > schreef in bericht
.. .
>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:18:44 +0000, > wrote:
>>
>> - the airco comes on every time one switches the ignition on and so has
>> to be switched off again. I suppose this was designed by someone from
>> southern Italy. Airco is great 10% of the time, but the other 90% (in
>> northern Europe anyway) it just wastes fuel.

>I guess you can change the setting like in my GT to have it switched off all
>the time as well.
>Just read the manual.

I've rechecked, but I can't find any sign of it. Maybe it's possible
with the multi-zone climate control, but that would have cost several
hundred euros extra, so I didn't take it.

>On the other hand, I ALWAYS have the airco switched on (live in Holland)
>which is very comfortable.

Question of taste I suppose. Except when it's either quite warm or
decidedly damp I actually find it more comfortable to have the airco
off. Maybe 10% is a bit low, but I certainly use it less than 20% of the
time. (But when I do use it, I'm extremely glad to have it.)

>No damp windows in winter.
>And, forget about that myth on excess fuel consumption
>When standing still with the engine running idle, it is measurable, but in
>regular driving conditions the 2-3 HP it takes are the (small) price you pay
>for comfort.
>2-3 HP on a 150HP engine is 1½-2% higher fuel consumption. Hardly
>measurable!

Come off it! How much time does a 150HP car engine spend generating
150HP? 0.5%? 0.2%? I expect the average power output of a 150HP
engine in "regular driving conditions" is about 30HP, and then 2-3 HP
extra is a significant difference.

The usually quoted figure for fuel consumption increase with
air-conditioning is 10%, though obviously it can vary quite a lot. This
is an entirely believable figure. Even if a little on the high side, it
is certainly no myth.

--
Stephen Poley