FS: Alfa 156 TSpark

It's some bizarre sun and planet system that will balance petrol, electric, driving the wheels and charging the batteries.

I've never seen a modern alfa to have recorded half a million miles...

There are many 164s rack up that kind of mileage.

"There are many 164s" is a lie in itself without bothering reading any further ;-)

Nor yet the dictionary entry under "hyperbole".

I'd love another 164.

Having said that, I'd actually quite like a nice spec 156, but it would have to have MOMO leather.

Cumulatively, maybe.

is that an overarm technique?

Another 164 what?

As used by that Indian boler.

And a V6. None of this "Ah the 2.0 has balance and blah blah". That may be true, however, it doesn't have the Alfa V6 sound - which is one of the finest sounds not just in the motoring world but in the world full stop. More importantly as well, the V6 has more power, and more torque and if you end up with a GTA then you'd get respectable performance figures as well :-) But the 147 GTA is better...

The V6 is great, right up until the first bend.

The V6 sounds glorious, but the TSpark is one of the nicest sounding inline 4s you can buy, too. And yes, the TSpark is definitely the better car to drive when you're pressing on.

According to parkers, the V6 is 50kg heavier at the same spec. The "Balance" isn't going to be ruined by 50kg up front, what they mean is that the already comprimised handling inflicted by being front drive and based on a Fiat hatchback is bollocksed completely by giving it 192bhp and no way of controlling it.

GTA is the way forward, 3.2l and LSD (you'll need it to get through the repair bills).

Yes, it is. Because the Sportwagon, with more weight at the rear, is a better balanced car than the Saloon in both 4 and 6 pot forms.

Utter s**te. The only link between a 156 and any Fiat is the middle pressings of the floor and engine blocks.

The 156 had double wishbone front and multi-link rear suspension way before Ford decided it was worth screaming from the rooftops that they'd given one of their cars properly designed suspension.....

GTA with Q2 is definitely the way to do it. Q2 can be done for about 500 quid - unfortunately you can't fit Q2 to Sillyspeeds, though.

that's the one

Which is the point. It's like saying the E200 is better than the E63 - the reality is that you approach the bend faster and have to slow down more to make it round. If money and running costs aren't an option I don't understand why anyone buys the small engine variants.

Always strikes me as people make an excuse for the smaller engine to be better - it's not, not in any car I can think of can the lower power variants be better than the higher ones.

It's a front engine, front drive, front gearbox car based on a fiat shopping trolley, no getting away from the fact that it's no more than a dressed up

155 (not a bad thing) with fancy suspension - the engine is still in the same place. Unless you move the cab backwards and shift the engine back it's never gonna have the right balance, for that you need a proper car, like a C class, or a 3 series, and no one ever claims they're better with the smallest engines in them.

Where's the battery out of interest? if it's up front would moving it to the rear help?