Alfa Romeo 156 GTA Sportwagon Selespeed

It was 1997 when the Frankfurt Motor Show unveiled one of the most beautiful cars of its era to the public—the new Alfa Romeo 156. Penned at Centro Stile Alfa under the direction of Walter de Silva, the car captured immense attention from the very first moment, and for good reason. The vehicle was the absolute embodiment of the Italian berlina concept, brilliantly capturing the spirit of the legendary Giulia from the late 1960s and early 1970s. It featured an elegant, perfectly tailored compact saloon body, with proportions flawlessly balanced in every dimension. The front end could hardly have been more original; a prominent, chrome-plated scudetto dominated the fascia, flowing seamlessly into a sweeping V-shape that extended across the entire bonnet, bringing a breath of fresh air to automotive design. The car was such a triumph that it won the European Car of the Year award the following year, in 1998, leaving no doubt that the accolade was well-deserved.

In 2000, the estate variant, dubbed the Sportwagon, made its debut. While the designers had managed to create a perfectly balanced package with the saloon, with the Sportwagon they achieved the seemingly impossible. Estate versions derived from pre-existing saloon bodies are typically akin to a backpack grafted onto the original concept. Customers favor them for the practicality that a saloon cannot provide. However, utility almost always comes at the expense of aesthetics, making the estate a purely pragmatic choice. In the case of the 156, the impossible became reality, and many—myself proudly included—consider the Alfa 156 Sportwagon to be one of the most beautiful estate cars ever built. In fact, with a bit of boldness, I would venture to call it a shooting brake—a design study where styling and originality take center stage, while practicality remains secondary. Only a handful of designers possess the courage to tread on such thin ice. Thanks to the cleverly concealed rear door handle—a feature that already commands attention on the saloon—the Sportwagon truly becomes a pure, elegant embodiment of Italian taste.

The engine lineup that found its home under the bonnet of the 156 was truly diverse. The entry-level petrol engine was the 1.6 Twin Spark producing 76 kW, followed by the 1.8 TS and the 2.0 TS, which put out a solid 110 kW. At the top of the range stood none other than "Signor Busso" in the form of the 2.5-litre 24V V6, which developed exactly 140 kW and propelled the Alfa to a top speed of 230 km/h. The combination of graceful lines and a velvety-smooth V6 resulted in an exceptionally accomplished car.

The petrol range was complemented by an equally varied selection of diesel powerplants. Buyers could choose between the 1.9-litre four-cylinder units, badged JTD (Jet Turbo Diesel) and later M-JET (multijet), or the 2.4-litre five-cylinder engines, which featured either 2 or 4 valves per cylinder. The most powerful 2.4 JTD-M delivered 129 kW, but more importantly, a mammoth 385 Nm of torque. It is worth noting that the Alfa 156 was the first production car in the world to feature revolutionary common-rail direct injection, as early as 1997!

And then it happened. Four years after the debut, once again in Frankfurt: the Alfa Romeo 156 bearing the revered GTA badge. A car that brand enthusiasts had been waiting for for over 30 years! If the design of the standard Alfa 156 could previously have been described as elegant, the arrival of the GTA created something that rightfully became a new legend for us petrolheads. The Italians achieved the impossible yet again; onto a car that had already been roaming European roads for four years, they managed to graft an aggressive body kit that brilliantly bridged two difficult-to-combine worlds—elegance and sportiness. The entire car sat lower to the ground and widened its stance. This testosterone-fueled transformation added the final touch required for perfection. In fact, only the doors and the bonnet were carried over from the original 156; the rest underwent a complete overhaul. The front was now dominated by a deeper bumper with massive air intakes, essential for cooling the upgraded engine. There were also widened wings, beefy side skirts featuring a faux but striking vent behind the front wheels, and a massive rear bumper with an integrated diffuser. Tucked beneath the flared wheel arches were new 17-inch alloy wheels wrapped in 225/45 tyres. These wheels were available in two designs: the newly created "teledials," derived from the 16-inch "baroque" or "dial" rims, and a multi-spoke design. These multi-spoke wheels were unique to the GTA and featured 14 slender spokes. They are frequently confused with a very similar-looking design, which, however, features 15 spokes!

While the GTA saloon looked aggressive, the Sportwagon took visual impact to a whole new level. It effectively split the fanbase into two equally sized camps—those who adore the saloon, and those who swear by the Sportwagon. I firmly belong to the latter. I can spend minutes just walking around the rear of the car; from virtually every angle, this estate is absolutely balanced. There is not a single centimeter of redundant sheet metal; every dimension is perfectly judged. Atop the roof sits a subtle aerodynamic spoiler integrated into the boot lid. If only opening it were as flawless... :-). The rear end is so perfectly smoothed over that there is simply nothing to grab onto when opening or closing the boot. Made in Italy, indeed! :-).

The exterior styling is successfully complemented by changes inside. The dashboard from the facelifted version is exceptionally well-crafted; even after 25 years on the road, nothing rattles, squeaks, or cracks. Its surface is very pleasant to the touch, and the fine texture effectively eliminates glare. The center console is elegant, featuring simple yet tastefully executed climate controls. The overall build quality of the interior reflected the massive strides Alfa Romeo had made over the previous decade. Thanks to this, surviving examples remain in good condition even today. However, the interior is not without three common ailments: many cars suffer from a passenger airbag cover slightly warped by heat, frayed stitching on the bolster of the driver's seat from ingress/egress is common, and finally, that typical millennial Italian car tradition—sticky plastics on the seat adjustment dial and door handle switchgear.

The two main instrument dials remained deeply recessed in individual cowlings. The speedometer was calibrated up to 300 km/h, while retaining its sporty red backlighting. The seats were entirely unique to the GTA, featuring integrated headrests and four available leather upholstery shades. Is there anything to criticize about the cabin? You bet. As much as I have a soft spot for the GTA, if there is one element that can be described as a total misstep, it is the rear legroom. I am 186 cm tall, and once I adjust the driver's seat to my liking, an adult simply cannot sit behind me—the price paid for those beautiful sports seats and the car's balanced proportions. The rear is missing about 5 to 10 cm of legroom, which can certainly dampen the enthusiasm.

But let us leave aesthetics aside and head where we must logically end up sooner or later—under the bonnet. As mentioned earlier, the Alfa 156 received a six-cylinder engine even before the arrival of the GTA. However, the unit that found its home here is in a different league altogether. Although they look almost identical at first glance, the crucial changes took place internally. The engine displacement was increased to a safe maximum of 3.2 liters (aftermarket tuners later offered 3.5- to 3.9-liter conversions as the absolute ceiling; the company OKTech managed to extract nearly 500 horsepower from a 3.9-liter displacement—I highly recommend watching this engine in action on YouTube!). Up to a displacement of 3.5 liters, you can get by with the stock crankshaft. Modifications exceeding this capacity already require radical engineering changes, and their price tags reflect that. However, you receive something truly exceptional in return. And that always comes at a price.

But let us return to the 3.2-liter displacement. This unit evolved from the 3.0-liter version found under the bonnets of the Alfa GTV and Alfa 166. However, it was not a mere displacement increase. While the bore remained at 93 mm, the stroke was altered from 72.6 to 78 mm. Consequently, the engine featured a different crankshaft, connecting rods, and modified pistons. The most crucial change, however, was a new camshaft profile, which gave the engine its unique character. The power unit revs to 7,000 rpm with absolute nonchalance; it loves doing so, and you will love pushing it there too—provided you have a petrol station along your planned route... Once you start demanding the engine to do what it does best—namely, soaring through the entire rev range accompanied by an absolutely addictive exhaust note—it will demand its dues. Forget about 95-octane fuel; do not settle for anything below 98. And pack a jerrycan with you! :-).

The Alfa Romeo 156 was a highly successful model that did wonders for the brand's reputation. When you consider that its smaller sibling, the 147, achieved a similarly impressive milestone by winning Car of the Year in 2001, this new design wave, backed by engaging engines, managed to put Alfa Romeo right back where it belongs. Approximately 680,000 units of the 156 were produced, while the 147 surpassed 650,000. These stand as some of the most successful models in the entire history of the marque. Now, let us look at some production figures for the GTA versions. The 156 GTA was built in just 4,651 units (compared to 5,029 examples of the 147 GTA). Out of those, 2,026 were Sportwagons, and a mere 348 were Sportwagons equipped with the Selespeed gearbox (while the manual Sportwagon saw 351 units produced).

The car we have on test today is therefore one of only 348 vehicles in this exact specification on the entire planet. To put that into perspective, the Ferrari 360 produced during that era saw around 17,000 examples, as did its successor, the Ferrari F430. Given these figures, there is no need to emphasize that spotting any GTA on the road today is a truly special occasion.

Selespeed

As previously mentioned, the car on test is equipped with the much-maligned transmission known as Selespeed. Let us take a closer look and analyze why it fell out of favor. At the time, Alfa offered both the 156 and 147 GTA with a 6-speed manual, which is virtually faultless. It functions as it should, neither outstanding nor flawed. Simply a manual. Selespeed was a hot novelty back then, fitted to vehicles for a hefty premium. It was supplied by Magneti Marelli—both to Alfa and to the aforementioned Ferrari 360, where it bore the 'F1' designation. In the Alfa, it was engineered on a somewhat tighter budget with lower production costs, which is taking its toll after all these years.

And where did that 'F1' moniker originate? Magneti Marelli initially developed this type of transmission specifically for Formula 1 single-seaters. It made its debut in 1989 in the Ferrari 640, the car Nigel Mansell drove to victory at the Brazilian Grand Prix. The company then modified the transmission for roadgoing applications, supplying various iterations not only to Ferrari and Alfa but also to Maserati, where it was labeled 'Cambiocorsa.' It is from this very transmission that our Selespeed is directly derived. It is also worth noting that not all Selespeed systems are created equal. The unit fitted to the GTA differed from those mated to lesser powerplants like the Twin Spark or JTD. However, the first road car to bring this robotized manual into production was the Ferrari F355 F1. Naturally, the electronics in the Ferrari were calibrated for much faster shifts than in the Alfa—specifically, a gear change in the Ferrari took just 150 milliseconds.

In all the aforementioned cases, we are talking about a robotized manual transmission. And that is the root of all the criticism. If it is in good running order, it is nowhere near as bad as the motoring press made it out to be. Customer dissatisfaction often stemmed from a fundamental misunderstanding of how it operates. This is not a torque-converter automatic or a dual-clutch transmission. It is an identical 6-speed manual with an electro-hydraulic actuator sitting on top, operating the clutch and shifting gears on behalf of the driver. It was often criticized for jerkiness and shift lag. However, it is primarily about how you treat it. If you lift off the throttle just as you would when changing gears with a conventional manual—leaving the clutching and shifting duties to the robot—you will quickly find a rhythm, and the gearbox actually becomes quite engaging. Conversely, if you make the mistake of keeping your foot pinned to the floor during shifts, you will not be satisfied. The Maserati counterpart, named Cambiocorsa, operates on the exact same principle, as covered in our Maserati Coupé review.

The Selespeed system utilizes an electric hydraulic pump (the so-called Denso pump) which pressurizes the system to approximately 45–50 bar. This pump primes as soon as the driver's door is opened and runs periodically while driving. It has a massive current draw. If the car is fitted with an aging battery, the voltage drop caused by the Selespeed pump pulling current will fall below a critical threshold, confusing the control unit and preventing gear engagement. Upon opening the bonnet, you will hear it priming and clicking, but it will fail to select a gear. Battery health is therefore absolutely critical for this transmission (speaking from personal experience... :-). Once the engine has been running for a short while, the alternator replenishes the battery, the voltage stabilizes, and the system resumes normal operation as if nothing happened. On the 156 GTA, the main earth strap between the battery, chassis, and gearbox is also prone to corrosion. A poor ground connection plays the exact same havoc with voltage as a dead battery. Another culprit can be the main Selespeed relay housed in the plastic box next to the battery. A faulty hydraulic accumulator might also be to blame. The pump should ideally prime for about 5–8 seconds after opening the driver's door; if it buzzes for longer, the accumulator is defective. While the pump triggers and runs, it cannot maintain the correct system pressure, which should ideally stay above 45 bar. For safety reasons, the Selespeed drops into neutral or refuses to engage a gear if pressure falls below 42 bar.

So, how should one treat the Selespeed to ensure trouble-free operation? Simply treat it like a highly specific manual, not an automatic. For instance, when it comes to parking and selecting neutral, it requires a completely different approach compared to conventional automatics. If you are stationary at a red light with a gear engaged—unless it is a very brief stop—I strongly recommend shifting into neutral. This preserves the clutch and relieves stress from the mechanism. At an intersection with a manual, you would also shift into neutral rather than standing on the clutch with first gear engaged (most of us, anyway...). Selespeed does not feature a 'P' (Park) position common in automatics. When you stop the car and wish to exit, you must leave it with either 1st or Reverse engaged before turning off the ignition, just like a manual. Because there is no 'P' position—which mechanically locks the transmission via a parking pawl in automatics—there is no such safety catch here. The transmission is either in gear or out of gear (in the 'N' position). It comes back to the same principle: when parking a manual car, you usually do not rely solely on the handbrake; you leave it in first gear or reverse. When you return to the car and start the engine, the robot automatically selects neutral first, preventing you from starting the car in gear. It is all incredibly straightforward and logical, which is why I believe not all the criticism is justified.

Granted, after all these years, the question remains: why choose a GTA with a Selespeed in the first place? Remaining objective, I cannot give a definitive answer. It is a philosophical question akin to ordering a cappuccino after lunch. Devout Italians will not have one past noon, but do not look for any deep logic in that. If you fancy a cappuccino in the evening, have one—it will taste just as good as it did in the morning. So, if you are drawn to the option of rapid gear changes via steering-wheel-mounted paddles, accompanied by beautifully executed throttle blips on downshifts managed by the electronics, go for it. Just give the Selespeed a bit of time so you can get accustomed to each other. Give it a bit of care and treat it with a touch more mechanical sympathy than a standard manual. Personally, it neither bothers nor offends me. Every coin has two sides.

And if we have raised the question of why it should not be dismissed, production figures present another compelling argument. Significantly fewer 156 GTAs were built with the Selespeed than with the manual—a grand total of 866 units (505 Sportwagons and 361 saloons). For the 147 GTA, the discrepancy is even more striking: 1,004 vs. 4,025 units. Perhaps its rarity adds to the appeal. Many cars are no longer around; many are in very poor condition with high mileage. If half of them survive, it is already quite a rare sight. And surely, that carries some weight. After all, a GTA has long ceased to be a car you use for commuting to work in the winter and through the road salt, wouldn't you agree?

For its time, the Alfa 156 featured a highly sophisticated chassis. It was shared across all versions, from the Twin Sparks to the 2.5 V6. Structurally, the GTA shares the same design, but it has been reinforced and modified in numerous areas. The geometry is also set up differently, utilizing more aggressive camber and toe values to maximize mechanical grip in corners. Up front, it features a double-wishbone suspension layout (high wishbone). The lower aluminum wishbones are reinforced, and as mentioned, the geometry features increased negative camber to suppress understeer and improve power delivery to the tarmac. The GTA also utilizes completely unique front steering knuckles with distinct geometry.

The rear axle layout is equally intriguing, structurally designed as a multi-link suspension setup. Unlike most cars where a MacPherson strut is utilized for the front axle, Alfa Romeo ingeniously adapted this solution for the rear wheels of the 156, allowing the axle to actively assist with steering the vehicle. The two transverse lower arms are made of pressed steel and differ in length, which is the key to this unique geometry. Longitudinal forces are then stabilized by a single, beefy trailing arm. The final component is a rear anti-roll bar, here beefed up from 14 to 16 mm. The most peculiar feature of this suspension is its so-called elastokinematics. Due to the differing lengths of the transverse arms and the precisely calibrated stiffness of the rubber bushings, the axle slightly steers (by fractions of a degree) under centrifugal force when cornering. In fast bends, the rear wheels steer in the same direction as the fronts, which stabilizes the car. Conversely, under hard braking, the axle automatically generates toe-in, stabilizing the rear end.

This rear elastokinetic suspension is an evolution of a system designed in the 1970s by Italian engineer Sergio Camuffo (originally for the Lancia Beta). Therefore, in automotive history, this specific layout is nicknamed the 'Camuffo suspension'.

Much like the 147 GTA, the 156 GTA features a quicker rack-and-pinion steering ratio, reduced from the standard 2.2 turns lock-to-lock to just 1.7. While this makes parking and U-turns more difficult, it provides superb responsiveness to the slightest input at the wheel. Consequently, despite the increased front-axle load due to the V6 layout, the car turns in very sharply and changes direction with great agility. The anti-roll bars were also beefed up, from 22 to 23 mm at the front, and from 14 to 16 mm at the rear, as noted above. From the factory, the 156 GTA sits 25 mm lower than the lesser-engined variants. The dampers (originally supplied by Sachs) feature completely different damping characteristics, and the springs are significantly stiffer to handle a more aggressive driving style and the heavier V6 power unit.

The brakes also received a substantial upgrade compared to the 2.5 V6; instead of single-pot calipers, the GTA was equipped with four-piston Brembo units, and the front discs grew from 281 mm to 305 mm—and subsequently to 330 mm from the turn of 2003/2004. The early 305 mm discs had a tendency to warp.

So, how does the 156 GTA stack up after all these years? At the time of its launch, it generated immense attention and high expectations. However, as is often the case, those with great expectations are frequently bound for disappointment. And that is exactly what happened. Everyone expected the true GTA effect—meaning Alleggerita (lightened)—but instead, they received an overweight supermodel. The GTA gained between 55 and 90 kg compared to the 2.5 V6 version. Thus, no weight-saving regimen took place. The second criticism was directed at the heavy engine in the front and the resulting understeer. More precisely, it was the inability to effectively transfer and utilize the engine's superb power and character on the road. Here, I believe the Italians should have intervened sooner and made a few adjustments, at least as optional equipment. You probably know what I am getting at... The car should have featured a limited-slip differential and the larger brakes right from the outset. Many owners retrofitted their cars with an LSD later on, either by sourcing a Q2 unit from the Alfa 147 / GT 1.9 JTDM 16V (110 kW) or by installing a Quaife differential. The transformation in handling was remarkable. Combined with high-quality rubber, the Alfa began to behave like a completely different machine. Consequently, when it entered the stage, it did not receive as much critical acclaim compared to its rivals as it perhaps deserved. However, it always depends on which competitors you invite to the test and what entry criteria you take into account.

Placing the Mercedes-Benz C32 AMG alongside the Alfa would not be a fair comparison, given that the supercharged Merc was rear-wheel drive and boasted an extra 100 horsepower. The engine of the legendary BMW M3 (E46) was naturally aspirated and peerless in terms of performance—it completely outclassed the GTA by a yawning 93 horsepower from the same 3.2-liter capacity, utilizing individual throttle bodies and a Double VANOS system, but it was once again a pure rear-wheel-drive car. Furthermore, its straight-six was longitudinally mounted and pushed slightly rearward relative to the front axle, whereas the GTA featured a transversely mounted V6, leaving no room to redistribute weight. Conceptually, these were two entirely different cars. In this duel, the M3 naturally had the upper hand as a pure sports instrument, but it carried a price tag significantly higher than the Alfa.

However, if we look for competitors with a saloon/estate body style, a V6 engine, and front-wheel drive to keep the comparison fair, we would target cars like the Ford Mondeo ST220 or Opel Vectra GTS. And in this company, the GTA was, and still is, absolutely peerless. It is all about establishing the correct parameters for comparison, wouldn't you agree? Besides, the Alfa offered a completely unique design, a muscular body kit, an unrivaled soundtrack, and a distinct character to boot.

So...? :-)

Foto: Filip Hron 2026