NPoCP?- 1995 Alfa Romeo 164 w/ <26k miles

"sm70- why not Duesenberg?" (sm70-whynotduesenberg) 06/02/2014 at 13:12 • Filed to: None

0

14

It is what it sounds like. This black on black beauty is rocking a 5-speed stick shift and and a 3.0 V6, which from what I know is a lovely engine, when it works. Although that may not be too much of an issue, as this car looks like it just rolled off the showroom floor. But is !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! too much to pay for such a beautiful Alfa?

Jagvar > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/02/2014 at 13:15

4

Even with the low miles, I think the seller needs to cut that asking price in half.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > Jagvar 06/02/2014 at 13:17

0

Really? At half that price, everyone one here would have one! I think ten sounds more reasonable, but $6750? That seems like he'd be giving it away!

505Turbeaux > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/02/2014 at 13:18

2

if it was a 164S or Q I would say NP. Nice car and nice to see a stick, but nah, 6-7 grand is good. And the motors are pretty solid, not inherent issues. It is all the electronics and HVAC that are a bear with these

davedave1111 > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/02/2014 at 13:19

2

Sounds totally crack pipe to me, but then it depends on how rare manual V6s are in the US, and how much it would cost to import another. That is at least the kind of condition you'd expect a car to be in to fetch top whack, I just don't think even the best 164s are worth that much.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > 505Turbeaux 06/02/2014 at 13:19

1

Oh good. For a second I thought you were going to say that this was a reliable car...

505Turbeaux > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/02/2014 at 13:20

2

you know, my Milano is...

JawzX2, Boost Addict. 1.6t, 2.7tt, 4.2t > 505Turbeaux 06/02/2014 at 13:40

0

Those 12-valve 3.0s are tough as nails (as long as you change timing belt regularly) Mine had 430K miles on it when we parted ways. Never been apart except for a head gasket.

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/02/2014 at 13:41

3

Provided reliable means 'will get you from a-b without incident or fright' then yes.

If reliable means 'working fuel gauge, radio, air-con and central locking' then I think it follows the mould of my Jag.

JawzX2, Boost Addict. 1.6t, 2.7tt, 4.2t > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/02/2014 at 13:42

1

My '92 164-S was actually VERY reliable. it spent less time in the shop or being fixed than my buddy's '95 Saab 9000.

505Turbeaux > JawzX2, Boost Addict. 1.6t, 2.7tt, 4.2t 06/02/2014 at 13:47

0

isnt a 95 LS a 24V? I thought all the 94-95 164's in the US market were 4V engines

Bob Loblaw Made Me Make a Phoney Phone Call to Edward Rooney > 505Turbeaux 06/02/2014 at 13:49

0

That comment was a mistake.

JawzX2, Boost Addict. 1.6t, 2.7tt, 4.2t > 505Turbeaux 06/02/2014 at 13:58

1

oh, you're right... I didn't even look at the year in the ad ;) The 24-valve engines are possibly a little more delicate... but still very solid motors. The 12-valve "S" is the one to have, piston-skirt oil squirters on those, plus enlarged oil channels. (lots of Alfa V6 power-builds start on a 12-valve "S" block and then add the 24-valve heads...)

JawzX2, Boost Addict. 1.6t, 2.7tt, 4.2t > davedave1111 06/02/2014 at 14:02

0

Q4. A Q4 would be worth that much. I had a chance to buy a Q4 in 2002 for $18K with about 30K miles. I kick myself for not having been able to chase up the funds.

davedave1111 > JawzX2, Boost Addict. 1.6t, 2.7tt, 4.2t 06/02/2014 at 14:26

0

Yeah, I can kind of see that one.

As far as ones that got away go, I nearly bought a Citroen DS decapotable for about £8k at around the same time, but didn't want to borrow some of the money for it. They're into six figures, these days.