I own a 166 2.5 V6 24v, 1st series, Lusso, remaped to 202 hp on the dyno (from 188hp), 11/2003 REG, full grey leather, silver exterior & with the 17 inch. alfa dial wheels. 330.000 kms since new & maintain her like new! Glorious for high speed cruising, aerodynamic, silent traveler. Never had credibility issues. Busso engine also glorious. I will keep her in my garage forever, next to my 2.2 diesel Giulia I just bought. I think the 166 is already a collector's item.
I picked one up in January and got it straight through an mot and the cat owes me less than £1500. I can't see me selling it anytime soon either! I love the car
V6 petrol engine - 18 lit consumption in the city - catalog claim...in reality probably even more. I know it is nice sounding, good engine...but my pocket can not afford this engine. So my choice is JTD. No 1 for checking when you buy 166 is must checking rear suspension
Actually, it's a false claim about the fuel consumption, I have no idea how Alfa Romeo got this number on official papers....My average with 3.0 V6 is 13 liters and I'm mostly driving in City conditions.
Not an investment opportunity, as much as I would like it to be. Car collectors want a piece of history, which is why I think some of the spicier 155 models will be future classics because of DTM, ITC and other racing. The 166 does not have anything special - sure it is a beautiful luxury sedan that can have the amazing 2.5 or 3.0 busso v6. For a larger sedan that is FWD it handles well. Problem is not that it is a bad car - it most certainly is a good car. Problem is that people buying classic cars at big prices are almost always buying sports cars or coupes. The only reason Alfa sedans from the 60s have gotten so expensive is that they were incredibly sporty and ahead of their time - they are 4 doors that weigh less than a modern porsche cayman. The generation before the 1666 - the 164 - did have a hot version (QV) with 4WD. This never happened with the 166, so any barometer on the 166 will be the 164 prices. These are still relatively low compared to other 80s classics like the Lagonda, even though I would argue the 164 is a far better car. Now you have the RWD gulia QV which is the best car Alfa has made in 3+ decades or more. So I struggle to see how the 166 is going to be a future classic, even if you think Alfa there is the 156 and 147 GTA-s with the 3.2 busso and there is the stunning 916 GTV and Spider from the same period. Much more likely they will be future classics than the 166 - even though I agree it is a beautiful large sedan.
"Problem is that people buying classic cars at big prices are almost always buying sports cars or coupes." That usually depends on the market. There are a lot of popular classic off-roaders and big saloon cars.
Alfa Romeo 166 is my dream!!!
I own a 166 2.5 V6 24v, 1st series, Lusso, remaped to 202 hp on the dyno (from 188hp), 11/2003 REG, full grey leather, silver exterior & with the 17 inch. alfa dial wheels. 330.000 kms since new & maintain her like new! Glorious for high speed cruising, aerodynamic, silent traveler. Never had credibility issues. Busso engine also glorious. I will keep her in my garage forever, next to my 2.2 diesel Giulia I just bought. I think the 166 is already a collector's item.
Was it worth it to remap the 2.5? Is there much difference compared to the original?
Would invest in a 164
I picked one up in January and got it straight through an mot and the cat owes me less than £1500. I can't see me selling it anytime soon either! I love the car
I got a very low mileage pre facelift166 v6 about 4 years ago just for fun and prices have exploded (about 40%) since for similar spec good examples.
Convinced. Almost))
Alfa Romeo 166 looks a little bit strange, especially before facelift.
V6 petrol engine - 18 lit consumption in the city - catalog claim...in reality probably even more. I know it is nice sounding, good engine...but my pocket can not afford this engine.
So my choice is JTD.
No 1 for checking when you buy 166 is must checking rear suspension
Actually, it's a false claim about the fuel consumption, I have no idea how Alfa Romeo got this number on official papers....My average with 3.0 V6 is 13 liters and I'm mostly driving in City conditions.
Not an investment opportunity, as much as I would like it to be. Car collectors want a piece of history, which is why I think some of the spicier 155 models will be future classics because of DTM, ITC and other racing. The 166 does not have anything special - sure it is a beautiful luxury sedan that can have the amazing 2.5 or 3.0 busso v6. For a larger sedan that is FWD it handles well. Problem is not that it is a bad car - it most certainly is a good car. Problem is that people buying classic cars at big prices are almost always buying sports cars or coupes. The only reason Alfa sedans from the 60s have gotten so expensive is that they were incredibly sporty and ahead of their time - they are 4 doors that weigh less than a modern porsche cayman. The generation before the 1666 - the 164 - did have a hot version (QV) with 4WD. This never happened with the 166, so any barometer on the 166 will be the 164 prices. These are still relatively low compared to other 80s classics like the Lagonda, even though I would argue the 164 is a far better car.
Now you have the RWD gulia QV which is the best car Alfa has made in 3+ decades or more. So I struggle to see how the 166 is going to be a future classic, even if you think Alfa there is the 156 and 147 GTA-s with the 3.2 busso and there is the stunning 916 GTV and Spider from the same period. Much more likely they will be future classics than the 166 - even though I agree it is a beautiful large sedan.
"Problem is that people buying classic cars at big prices are almost always buying sports cars or coupes." That usually depends on the market. There are a lot of popular classic off-roaders and big saloon cars.
La 166 come telaio e tenuta di strada e sospensioni e superiore al 164 i collezionisti forse preferisco altre alfa ma alfa 166 e speciale