Real fuel consumption and economy logo

Alfa Romeo 156 1997 fuel consumption

Alfa Romeo 156 from 1997 to 2002 real fuel consumption according to user reports is approximately 5% higher compared to advertised fuel consumption. Starting from 1997 Alfa Romeo 156 average difference between actual owner-reported fuel consumption and stated consumption was slightly above industry average, at 2002 difference between owner-reported and advertised fuel economy became less than industry average. For more details, see the table below.

Year-to-year deviations of actual owner-reported average fuel consumption from advertised values

YearGasoline carsDiesel cars
All carmakersAlfa Romeo 156All carmakersAlfa Romeo 156
1997+3%+7% +3%+10%
Show all years
1998+3%+7% +4%+10%
1999+3%+7% +5%+10%
2000+4%+8% +5%+6%
2001+5%+7% +6%insignificant
2002+6%+7% +7%insignificant

See below for the actual consumption of generations and versions of Alfa Romeo 156.

1997 - 2002

Alfa Romeo 156 1997 sedan fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines25.2 MPG
9.3 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines23.7 MPG
9.9 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *+7%
Average advertised fuel consumption for diesel engines38.2 MPG
6.2 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for diesel engines36.4 MPG
6.5 l/100km
Average real diesel consumption difference *+5%

According to advertised fuel consumption, a Alfa Romeo 156 1997 with automatic transmission consumes on average 0.5 liters per 100 km or 4% more fuel than similar versions with manual gearbox. Based on user-reported real-world fuel consumption, this generation Alfa Romeo 156 with automatic transmission consumes around 0.7 litres per 100 km or 6% more fuel than a version with the same engine but a manual gearbox.

Compared to similar cars of other manufacturers, the Alfa Romeo 156 advertised fuel economy is slightly better than average, but according to available user reports on actual consumption, real fuel economy is slightly worse than average.
The best real fuel economy in its class according to user reviews of all the modifications has modification with 2.4 diesel engine and manual transmission (Alfa Romeo 156 2000 2.4 JTD 140 Hp 140 HP). However, of all modifications the best advertised fuel economy in its class has Alfa Romeo 156 with 1.7 petrol engine and manual transmission (Alfa Romeo 156 1997 1.7 T.Spark 16V 144 HP).

ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
1.6 liter petrol engine
Alfa Romeo 156 1997 1.6 T.Spark 16V 120 HP manual 28.7 MPG
8.2 l/100km
26.1 MPG
9.0 l/100km+10%
1.7 liter petrol engine
Alfa Romeo 156 2000 1.7 1.8 T.Spark 16V 140 HP manual 27.7 MPG
8.5 l/100km
26.7 MPG
8.8 l/100km+4%
Alfa Romeo 156 1997 1.7 T.Spark 16V 144 HP manual 28.7 MPG
8.2 l/100km
25.6 MPG
9.2 l/100km+12%
1.9 liter diesel engine
Alfa Romeo 156 1997 1.9 JTD 105 Hp 105 HP manual 40.6 MPG
5.8 l/100km
35.1 MPG
6.7 l/100km+16%
Alfa Romeo 156 2000 1.9 JTD 110 Hp 110 HP manual 40.6 MPG
5.8 l/100km
39.2 MPG
6.0 l/100km+3%
Alfa Romeo 156 2001 1.9 JTD 115 Hp 115 HP manual 40.6 MPG
5.8 l/100km
39.2 MPG
6.0 l/100km+3%
2.0 liter petrol engine
Alfa Romeo 156 2000 2.0 T.Spark 16V 150 Hp 150 HP manual 27.0 MPG
8.7 l/100km
23.1 MPG
10.2 l/100km+17%
Alfa Romeo 156 1997 2.0 T.Spark 16V 155 Hp 155 HP manual 27.7 MPG
8.5 l/100km
25.6 MPG
9.2 l/100km+8%
2.4 liter diesel engine
Alfa Romeo 156 1997 2.4 JTD 136 Hp 136 HP manual 35.1 MPG
6.7 l/100km
33.6 MPG
7.0 l/100km+4%
Alfa Romeo 156 2000 2.4 JTD 140 Hp 140 HP manual 35.1 MPG
6.7 l/100km
35.6 MPG
6.6 l/100km-1%
2.5 liter petrol engine
Alfa Romeo 156 1997 2.5 V6 24V 190 HP manual 20.6 MPG
11.4 l/100km
21.0 MPG
11.2 l/100km-2%
Alfa Romeo 156 1999 2.5 V6 24V Q-System 190 HP automatic 19.8 MPG
11.9 l/100km
19.8 MPG
11.9 l/100km0%

* - Difference between advertised and user reported fuel economy has been calculated taking into account only those car versions for which information is available both on the fuel consumption specified by the manufacturer and reported by users.

User-reported fuel consumption may not accurately represent all users' experiences due to variables such as driving conditions, driving style, technical condition of the vehicle, and other circumstances. Thus, it should not be relied upon as a representative indicator.