The 1.9 Diesel is 100% Fiat and nothing to do with GM. It was used pretty much unchanged in many of their vehicles.

The 2.0 GM diesel currently in use in many GM cars is a GM development of the 1.9, and is not the same as the 2.0 JTDm2 in the Alfa Giulietta and 159. They were developed from the 1.9 independently by Fiat and have a lot of developments to improve the reliability and performance.

There was a twin turbo version of the 1.9 fitted to Lancias and Saabs, it is a shame Alfa didn't use it as it was 190bhp

I'm now within 5 miles of the magic 800 miles on a tank in the GT. The car could do high 60s if it weren't for the heavy traffic around the Heathrow spur. Range is bouncing around - it dropped from >100 to 45 miles in about 15 minutes / 3 miles so possible fuel light bingo fun tomorrow.

Mine's good for 70-100 miles once the light comes on...

Looks like your Stilo would edge it. 800.0 as I entered the filling station. 37 miles left in the range thing and plummeting fast. I might see what the Coupe can do again - I think 400 was my previous best 15 years ago.

My little Clio 1.2 turbo has over 800 mile range even driving urban in rush hour traffic only!

I estimate I could cover over 1200 miles doing 60-65mph on the motorway.

meh if the computer is still estimating a range your not trying hard enough. Mine gives up after a while but then i get about 300 miles from a tank....

My range/fuel guage virtually always reads zero because the pony guage only updates when you put petrol in and then guesses how much fuel is left based on injector flow rates and duty cycle.

As I constantly run on LPG it always thinks I've no fuel left.

800 miles is impressive - will be interesting to hear how the actual mpg works out (computer-generated mpg figure is known to be optimistic, at least until its had a remap)

It over estimates mpg by about 5% but I put that down to the lower density of LPG compared with petrol. Never run it on petrol apart from briefly after cold starts (automatically switches over) so don't know how accurate it would be if I did.

Hi Nigel,
It looks like the tank holds 63 litres or 13.86 gallons.
835 / 13.86 = 60.2 MPG actual MPG
So the computer is about 3% optimistic if you believe the final 35 mile range estimate.

Only Italian - I must have missed the LPGing of your car.
Is it a vis? Which brain do you use? What MPG do you get out of it?

It's the clio running on LPG. Get about 40mpg on the run to work now the schools are back but was getting 44mpg in the summer. I've had 57mpg on a long run on the motorway.

Oh, and I don't use my brain very often.

I can easily see 60+ when cruising on the motorway and sometimes into the low 70s when I'm extra careful and trundle along in the slipstream of a suitable truck. However, as soon as I'm off the motorway and onto the A roads, the average slips down - my best for my 40 mile commute is about 65

You must have been "driving Miss Daisy" for those 800 miles....

The new commute is 25 miles versus 65 - but where I used to get ten trips - 650 miles - regularly, the M25 and west London ensures I rarely see nine trips - 450 miles. Usually around 46mpg which is a tad annoying - as is the average speed: 23mph.

As soon as you're not in 6th, the mpg plummets

I've just done Middlesbrough and back - 320 miles - cruised at 80-ish for the majority of the trip, with a few stops in traffic jams - just over 52mpg, which is decent given the speeds (I find 55-ish to be the most efficient)

55ish makes sense. If you've error ridden an un-faired motorbike you'd know as soon as you hit about 60 you really feel the difference in wind resistance which goes from almost nothing to significant in about 5mph.

But I hate doing less than 60/65mph on the motorway. Prefer to be travelling slightly faster than the trucks.

That Clio conversion sounds good OnlyItalian - I had a couple of LPGers - costs were low but so was MPG - probably only seeing high 20s.

It was a little like Driving Miss Daisy but this is the M4 at rush hour so nothing moves very fast. Average speed was only down by 5 mph.

Anyway - one down side of the GT is the enormous / fragile alloys. Just cracked one and it is £400 + VAT to buy new so I've dropped it off to have it professionally ground back and TIG welded. The £99 that'll cost will consume all of the savings I've made on this economy drive.

Yeah it's a decent setup. Feeds in just enough valve saver fluid and switches to petrol automatically when injector duty cycle reaches a certain level. Glad I didn't pay for it, must have been expensive. Got the car for £1300 which is very cheap for any 57 plate Clio.

Mind you, did take me over a year of searching to find a small engined LPGer in the price range I wanted to pay.

I was reading a copy of Autocar in WH Smith in my lunch time today, and James Ruppert recommends a GT JTS as an investment, being only £2k for a good one at the moment.
Knowing the lack of enthusiasm for the JTS engine, I let out an involuntary guffaw, which surprised the other non-paying readers around me

Are they really that bad, the JTS engines? I don't do many miles, and the GT is a fine looking car.

The JTS in my 156 was rubbish. Seriously underpowered and no real torque. I suspect my injectors were shot which is an expensive fix. I was looking forward to owning a four cylinder Alfa but it was one of the worst modern four pots I've driven. I was recently given a Jetta courtesy car with 160,000 on the clock and it went like a rocket. Same age as my old Alfa and on paper similar power too but it made the Alfa feel so slow.

The engine is good fun in a GTV or 147 but under powered for the GT.

Alfa also skimped on the electrical connections which come loose then throw up engine faults as they spent a lot on the development. This is also present on most Alfas of that period. The coops simple electrics are a massive improvement on most Alfas that says it all!

Also the common problem that bugs a lot(most) direct injection engines from any manufacturer that can rear its head is the fact that carbon deposits build up in the engine due to the fuel being sprayed straight into the cylinders and not washing round.....this effects most modern engines and they develop problems......in fact i think its a ticking time bomb on modern cars. Google wallnutshell blasting which many developers use to try to remove the carbon without damaging.

Alfa mapped the early cars like many other Alfas very badly which adds many problems too.

Get a diesel or 3.2, the 3.2 will appreciate but good ones are already getting pricey.

My GT turned 199,000 miles last weekend, so they're not as bad as many people make out

The only electrical maladies have been an appetite for sidelight bulbs and a habit of telling me the number plate lights are out when they're still lit - hardly a huge failing

The 3.2 looks tempting but the £505 Tax every year on the later models would sting a bit

Hate to say it but the Diesel would probably be the best bet, especially if you can get the MPG anywhere near what Nigel is getting