Daughter wants to buy Alfa GT JTS. Does anyone wish to pass on any pros and cons about this model. It will help us both before she signs on the dotted line and hands over cash.

I agree with the choice of a GT (I've had a Blackline for the last two years), but why is your daughter looking at the JTS? Do a Google search for "Alfa JTS engine problems"

Its not a well-regarded engine - not particularly powerful, not particularly reliable, not particularly efficient.

I would recommend your daughter drives a diesel before going for the JTS - the Cloverleaf especially

The diesel is punchy, especially when remapped (170bhp readily achievable) and quite economical (I get high 40s on my commute and mid 50s on a run) The diesel isn't particularly refined though, especially from cold, but the sound insulation is good, so at anything much above tickover, its more than bearable

Note that the diesels don't have a DPF, so there's far less worry about using them round town a lot. The EGR is a pain though, so well worth having it blanked and then mapped out.

Big plus points for me are - reliable (mines done 190+k), stylish, VERY practical (I had a full-size executive office chair in the back at the weekend) - its also a bit different - a welcome variation from the thousands of German rep-mobiles

negatives?

All GTs eat suspension wishbones. Rust can be a problem on some early ones (floorpan mainly). There's wind noise around the (frame-less) windows. Tracking is critical to avoid rear tyre wear. Its nowhere near as refined as the Brera, although its notably lighter (and thus more economical)

Of course, what she really wants (but doesn't know it yet) is the 3.2V6 - the last car with the famed Busso engine - can only go up in value now

PS - good buyers guides on the Alfaowner forum

if she can afford the petrol...

Thanks Nigel very helpful.

Told her a diesel version would be better, I'll pass on your comments hopefully she will take your advice.

To push her in the right direction I'll look around for a Cloverleaf and take her to test drive it. Fingers crossed it works.

We did look at a 3.2V6, returned following day for a test drive to be told it had just been sold.

+1 for Nigels post for the Cloverleaf, mines mapped to around 195bhp with a boat load of torque.

Might be worth checking for clutch and flywheel jobs ifs its a high miler, don't suppose your daughter wants a £1100 bill for those two

I bought a genuine Alfa clutch and dual-mass flywheel for about £350 earlier this year, so they aren't as pricey as they used to be

Still a very good bargaining tool if its done more than 100k on its original clutch though....

Also consider the turbo - life seems to be around 100k - 150k - another strong bargaining point, or a huge plus if its been done recently

She has now started to look at the Brera, which leads to a different question; which engine would be the best one to pick?

The Brera is a lump and needs either the 20v diesel or 3.2 petrol to get going really - again, avoid the JTS.

The 3.2 in the Brera also isn't the Busso lump, it's a fairly middle of the road GM unit...

Totally different kettle of fish too maintenance wise - the sub frames are prone to rotting through, like the 159, so check those carefully.

Lot more refined than the GT but nowhere near as good to drive - I drove a load of each and settled for the 1.9 diesel GT. Best combo of sporty handling (not something the Brera can do with Prodrives help) power and economy.

Yup - GT and Brera are very different animals

The Brera suffers from having a Diesel particulate filter. On the 1.9 and 2.4 versions it can be troublesome as it is located quite a way back from the turbo and doesn't get enough heat to passively regenerate. It tends to clog up because of this. the 2.0 versions are close coupled (basically bolted directly to the turbo) and this is a far better and more reliable system as they run hotter in normal use.
It is a shame as the 2.4 engine is a belter. You can of course hollow out the DPF, but that isn't legal, and with a remap the 2.4 can make 250bhp plus easily. The JTS engines are all pretty rubbish IMO. The 2.0 was based on the old TS, but is worse in terms of just about everything. The 2.2 and 3.2 are based on GM blocks. The 2.2 is a bit unremarkeable and sufferes cam chain issues regularly, the 3.2 is a good engine but is thirsty and not as charismatic as the old Busso. It tends not to suffer as many cam chain issues as the 2.2 but when it does it is seriously expensive to fix.

I am currently running a 2.0 170bhp Diesel Giulietta, and it drives much more like a 147/156/GT than a 159. It isn't faultless but is a great car. Fastish, economical, looks good and was cheaper to buy than the mainstream porridge.

Thanks to everyone this has been very helpful.

We're planning to see a GT 1.9 diesel later day. Let's hope it a good one.

If it's anything like our 16v jtd 147 inspect the oil cooler and pipes as ours dumped all its oil outside Mayzons parents house and are more expensive than a 20vts to replace.

How did you get on, Serg? Did you both like it? What did it drive like?

Another thing to watch on the GT Diesels is the gearbox. They are not the strongest, and can develop grumbles and whines, especially if the car has been remapped.

Drove 11.7 miles to view the GT which took 1 3/4 hours, one down side of living in London.

At first glance it looked good even though they hadn't washed it, under the dirt you could see it was metallic black. Inside did look very good and clean with red leather everywhere, we both loved that part.

Cleaned an area on the rear wing to see what condition the paintwork was in, then decided it looked better covered in dirt. Paintwork did look very sorry for it's self.

Loved the seats, very comfitable and supportive, would they fit in a coupe?

Thought all three peddles were a little too small, that's just me.

Engine and gearbox seemed to be in good condition. Under the bonnet all looked good and very clean for 90,000.

Test drive was fine other than the brakes, I suppose you might call them brakes, they decided when they wanted to work.

Clutch peddle was very heavy, driving in traffic was a killer on my left leg. Are they all heavy?

Noticed the milage indicator flashed all the time. What's that all about?

Bad points; all 4 Calipers and discs badly corroded and would need replacing very soon.

Exhaust past it's day and wouldn't last through next winter or it's next MOT, it would need a complete new system.

All four tyres needed replacing.

Never seen wheels so badly corroded, more corrosion than not. All the dealer had done purchased can of silver and sprayed over the corrosion.

Both Alfa badges had faded or various parts of the colourwork had chipped off.

Various sizes of light scratches and few small but deep bents to most panels, some in odd places like the roof.

Both bumpers and sills had cracks in.

Repair job to the rear wing above the wheel was the worse repair I have ever seem, they had filled the area but not sanded down just sprayed straight over in some areas the filler extended 3-4mm out from the wing. They also used this technique on the lower door.

Car was only 8 years old and priced at 3995.00.

So the search goes on!

Well done for walking away, although hopefully, driving the oil-burner will have proved that they are a better bet than the JTS - find a good one (Cloverleaf, preferably, or remapped Blackline) and you'll be much more impressed

Heavy clutch pedal is a well know sign of a dying clutch - £800+ job to sort out. Looking at the other issues, I'd say it needs £2k - £3k spending on it to get it sorted

Badges always fade - bloody annoying - mine are almost chrome now...

A few years back I thought about a GT and looked at several cars for sale at Traders and one private sale.

To me it seemed that the GT was either a poor quality car or they are just commonly subject to having their mileage adjusted. I had never seen so many sub 60,000 mile cars in such poor condition

I gave up on the GT and picked up a really cheap and newer 156, with the horrible JTS lump. The 156 at least looked like a car that had covered the indicated 60K miles.

At 110K it still looks better than the GT's I viewed, and for £3,500 under budget too.

I guess the GT appeals to a younger person who parks it on the urban street so it gets the parking scrapes, kerbing etc. you'd expect.

I'm loving the computer - only just found it the other day and currently trying for 800 miles on a tank of diesel. Got an entire Jamie Cullum's Jazz hour as I drifted home behind a DHL lorry this evening.

That would be impressive - my best is 724 giving 55mpg for the tank.

I reckon 800 is possible, but would involve a very gentle cruise on the motorway for the vast majority of it. I can get the trip computer into the high 60s / low 70s if I slipstream a suitable truck - would give a theoretical 900 miles on a tank

Wow that's great mpg. If my daughter ever finds a GT that's worth buying she will not be filling up that often.

It takes effort to get it that high....

I did Midlands to Amersham and back on Monday - cruised at an indicated 85 and got stuck in several traffic jams on the way down - averaged 51mpg.

When I worked in central Birmingham, the average was nearer 45mpg

I think it would be difficult to get it below 40 for any journey over 10 miles and impossible to get it below 35

Commuting to the new office in West London I'm stationary on the M25 for half the journey, and still making 48 or more.

On the other hand, six hundred miles to Skye with a quarter of a tank left...

I'm about 270 miles in now.

National Express coaches today Probably time to download The Divine Comedy's "National Express" to complete the experience.

Average MPG is 58.1, remaining range is about 550 miles but it jumps around a bit so it might or might not be on.

Barnacle - your 48 MPG seems similar to my experiences - as the traffic slows down and becomes more closely grouped the economy improves. I thought the speeding up and slowing down would mess it up but it doesn't.

Anyway lots of hassle for an extra 10MPG - I think I'll do this once and then return to the normal enthusiastic style.

To clarify - I don't have the GT, but I have the same engine in a Bravo JDT.

The trip to Skye - including 200 miles of A-roads and 400 miles of motorway - ended up at 57mpg and an average over the whole trip of 57mph.

That's really good going - quite a good average speed too.

Quite - I don't think we went above 80 anywhere, even with Mrs 'Stirling Moss' Barnacle driving; at the end of the M74 the meter was showing 64mpg.

Alfas with GM engines. It breaks my heart!

Well, the other way around, sort of - the JTD was a largely Fiat product that GM acquired in the merger, before they unmerged later. The same engine is in diesel Saabs, too.

I think the comment may be more related to the v6 GM lumps in Breras et al in stead of a proper Busso.

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