new and not-so-new

[taffioch]

Kevin and I were having a few words about how much better the current range of Alfas is compared with some of the stuff they were flogging ten or twenty years ago. Take the 33 16v as a start point. Not too good in a crash, unlike a Mito or a Giulietta. But not too heavy on fuel, considering it's a naturally aspirated engine with 137 bhp from 1712ccs. I used to get 36 mpg from mine, and the forums suggest that anyone with a recent petrol engined Alfa would be happy with that. The 33 goes really well, too.
Not to mention some of the recent diesels (ok a bit better maybe)
I know I'm sounding like the pub bore, but Alfa do seem to have lost sight of the aim, unless the aim is now to build family cars that are almost as good as the competition.
Emissions regs killed off the Busso v6, but I can get more than 30 mpg out of the cat equipped 24v in the 164, and it goes really well.
Why would the 1750 159 appeal if owners are struggling to get 30 mpg out of it? I know, it's an Alfa, and a good looking thing. But why do the makers think that will have to do?
A test pilot mate at Warton used to tell me that the best engineered components on Tornado and Typhoon (both joint European projects) were Italian, and he had no axe to grind. They can do it, so why don't they try a bit harder? I'm sticking with the old stuff because it's actually better, I reckon. Sorry, pub bore again. Oh, and I'm not a conservative, I just like good engineering that i can afford.

[KevJTD]

a nice post, food for thought.
we are both on the same wavelength here and have discussed it in detail, not at all sad depsite what you think!

but after having a ride out in the 33 the other night we both agreed that it feels so alive compared to modern cars. you can feel the lack of weight through the bends, hardly any body roll to speak of and that's not created by fancy anti-roll bars and stiff springs, just the fact that there isn't a huge body mass trying to tip the car over or become a pendulum. the car just seems to read your thoughts.

real world mpg i would guess is as good as anything, certainly better than a 147 1.6 would be and easily trouncing a 156 ts

just comes down to modern comforts like air-con vs fun and thrift

[Sud 145]

Interesting thoughts guys. Sud v 145 - the 145 was my daily driver until a year ago,full leather interior and a/con. Now I don't need to drive to work and last year she only covered 2500 mls. I did more miles than that in the Sud purely for pleasure. Why-the skinnier tyres,lack of power steering and the fact that the seats support me better than sliding about on leather makes the whole driving experience more enjoyable. Would I sell the 145-maybe? the Sud NOT A CHANCE.

[Johnboy]

Great topic

33 vs gtv ts
I've has my 33 for 15 years now , I keep trying to move on to newer cars , the first attempt was the gtv ts I bought as damaged car , got it back on the road and straight away all I kept thinking is my 33 would destroy this ??
It's always been a love hate relationship with this car. Looks wise I think it gorgeous and very snug inside the gt ! BUT. The seats red leather momo's are crap. As another guy said I like to sit in , not on! Where as the 33 with recaro's from a p4 are so huggie !
The other downside with the gt like all modern cars it's so god damn heavy.
Cornering in the gt was ok but I never felt as confident as I did in the 33. Needless to say I give the gt to the wife and the 33 sleeps in the garage awaiting resurrection as shrew knows the plans with that
My daily drive is now a 156 jtdsw 2.4 great engine very practical for my jetsking needs
Long May the boxer keep fighting

[PETROLHEAD]

100% agree with everything in this post so far, unsurprisingly for those that know me at least.


Now this will turn into a right old rant, so buckle up dudes, crack open a bottle, and let me sound off for a mo!


So, to further Johns initial point, and put my own slant on it (yes i know i've harped on all about this before!) i blame the hairy legged women and bearded greenie liberalist of this world!

their dreams to get us back onto horse and cart are far fetched even by their deluded imagination, so second best for them is to have us all suffer the consequence of short sighted poorly designed cars and components, namely all coming under the umbrella of emission control and european directives on vehicle construction.

the effects of this could be felt as early as in the 90's, with the advent and arrival of "the Cat" in August 1992, and i'll use my own previous history of none alfa cars (there was such a time!) to demonstrate.

My old Cavalier SRi, 2.0litre, 4 cylinder, went like the clappers and still did decent MPG if driven with that in mind. The Cat arrived, along with allsorts of new emission restrictions we were sold as necessary for "older, dirtier, and in efficient" engines, and overnight ruined the Vauxhall SOHC and particularly the DOHC engines.

We were left with the 2.0 Ecotec motor, which on paper, should have still outperformed my old SRi, NOT a Cat in hells chance! as a so engined Calibra soon proved (my sisters!) it was diabolical!

So to get comparable performance to the old 2.0 4 cyl SRi, the new cavaliers, needed a 2.5 V6 to get anywhere near it, and so you can see where this is heading eh?

It was far heavier, almost only just as quick as my SRi, but the MPG was terrible.


So did the greenies win anything with their successful lobbying for this kind of "improvement" to the internal combustion engine? NO

Should they have shut the hell up and let manufacturers take a naturalistic line of development towards competition amongst themselves? YES

Are we the car buying/using consumers treated like mushrooms? (kept in the dark and fed poo!) YES, most definitely


and i'll give you another example of this too.

i was and still am a big japanese rice burner fan, cant get away from it, they all make bloody good reliable cars, but its their performance stuff i was into a while back, and got involved with importing and modifying a fair few too.

one of my favourites, having been through the whole range of Z cars with my dad, was the Z32 300ZX twin Turbo. A car that was actually outlawed from official import into the uk in conjunction with the Catalytic Converters arrival (August 92) and new emission laws, along with its fellow Supra, Mitsubishi 3000GT, Mazda RX7 etc etc but also signified the end of production very soon for our our Cosworth powered stuff too.

Now, pretty odd that, seeing as the japanese were way ahead of us with the install of Cats, the use of unleaded, and such like, but they (the UK Government and European associates) reasoned their argument claiming that a 3.0 V6 Twin Turbo, resulting in 280-300hp is simply too inefficient, and its exhaust gas and toxins were spawning freaks of nature such as hairy legged moustached ladies with dungarees, dodgy hair cuts and doc martens sporting plackards with messages of doom regarding your choice of mobility!


Some years later, whilst importing precisely these sorts of cars directly from Japan, i bought, and subsequently modified my own Oct 92, 300zx TT, starting with throwing away the Cats, AIV valves, recirc circuits etc , and anything else i could remotely relate to the strangulation of the motors natural abilities. Stock motor, freeflow everything in and out, Double the boost levels, Injectors, and Hard Chip, and we were at the saturation point of T2.5 turbos, running about 400bhp on 98ron fuel.

Ironically, over a period of 5+years of ownership, it mot'd each time with absolute ease. The last time i had it in for ticket, the mot inspector tested is against the latest emission targets, updated 2012, and guess what, an easy pass.

That car, tuned purely for performance, ran clean as a whistle, yet did 400bhp and 25 to the gallon on a run, and passed emission testing limits 20 years the cars junior!


Have we moved forward any? Not at all then it would seem eh, in fact, i think we've gone every bit backwards. Cars are heavier, engines have grown, and to top it all as the ultimate insult to the "greenies" design of the world, they are all throw away cars. They won't be recycled, they won't become appreciated classics, hell you can't even change a set of rear brake pads without a manufacturers computer and software to reset the handbrake! and the car industry itself would rather you give your car in for crushing


To bring that all back into relative to Alfa's, we were told that the boxer engines would be last seen in the 145/146 because Fiat weren't willing to blow budgets trying to get it to conform to new EU emission regulation, and the same applied to the Busso based V6.

In my opinion, that was UTTER TOSH! and subsequently we are missing 2 fantastic pieces of Italian Engineering at its best, and the result is also that Alfa Romeo is a weaker brand today for it too.


The subsequent replacements for those power units, i.e. the twin sparks, which if you have one later than CF1 version, are pretty soul'less, underperforming, and greedy, and the GM/Holden version of the V6 to replace the 24v Alfa Unit, is essentially the old Senator Omega engine, which can't hold a candle to the busso in any guise.

Alfa and Fiat should have concentrated on power to weight ratio, and the pursuit of performance would have brought greater cylinder efficiency etc anyway, and we could all be running a Sud like Giulietta today with a 2.0 TBA Boxer engine, with an easy 250bhp and 40mpg, or a 3.2 V6 Brera with 400 straining Busso ponies.

8c and 4c wouldn't be exotica, they would be the norm!


Sorry for the lengthy rant, but this subject, along with Liberal Greenies who know jack about cars, really does bloomin annoy me



Next installment, Unleaded Fuel - Its a Killer!

[PETROLHEAD]

Bump!



have my mad rantings finsihed this thread off?


i was just getting warmed up! ha ha!!

[taffioch]

Surely not, Shrew. We are all interested in the older cars, by definition, but it does seem that Fiat/Alfa have moved the goalposts, rather as Jaguar did after the E-Type. You are now required to have a lot of cash if you want to get into a sporty, as distinct from sporty-looking, Alfa. Perhaps the MX5/Spider will make up for all the grief. Hope so.

[PETROLHEAD]

Oh thank goodness!

Hi John, how the devil is yer!

quite right, lost sight is about right.

is it worth saying that on that premise, its therefore unsurprising that the emergence of the greatly successful Korean brands, have matured recently as they have grown up according to what people have wanted?


their market share is threefold in as many years i read! and like it or not, it is deservedly so i reckon.



quickly back to your "italian engineering" comment John.

I did an exercise last year of coming up with a lightened flywheel and complete balanced bottom end for our little boxer engines. the guy i had do the final balancing stated as i dropped them off that being Alfa/Italian they will likely be very good even as stock, and didn't think he'd have much work to do.

Coming from a bloke who builds 1000's of hp drag engines from lumps of old yank tanks, and upon my returning, he confirmed that although he checks to a final tolerance far far greater than any factory or most his competitors for that matter, the crank was spot on, the rods were almost perfect, and my own flywheel was almost a hat trick!

the final complete bottom end assembly was balanced to perfection by losing little more than a dusting from the components, and he reported that exactly as he'd expected being an alfa boxer!

nice to know we enjoyed better times in other peoples opinions, once!

[Spacenut]

I agree with all of the above, but would add another design factor that is common to all moderns - they are designed exclusively for the comfort and convenience of the passengers, not the drivers. The rot started with Mr Macpherson, although some enlightened souls, such as Colin Chapman (Lotus Elite FWE) and our own Alfasud made the inherently poor geometry work. Then it was transverse engines, offering torque-steer, understeer, lifeless power steering. All in the name of a few more cubic feet of space.

Lauren

[rcollie]

I think they are coming around addressing the weight issue now. Compare curb weights of 145/146, 147 and Giulietta and I think you will find that like for like the Giulietta is a smidging lighter despite having a lot more stuff in it and being considerably safer. I think the 159/Brera models were an aberration for Alfa.

I'm not a fan of the small capacity turbo engine trend though, I think they drive a bit like diesels.

[ALFAMACK]

I loved the fact that you could rev the boxer engine and it just seemed to sound better, maybe it is rose tinted specs but I doubt bouncing a modern engine off the rev limiter going through the tunnels on the m4 in Newport sounds anything like the noise from my pretty bog standard s3 16v. Even when I had the civic type-r, that didnt sound great, but it did love to rev which i did a lot

[Markgq4]

just a quick point in agreement to Italian engine quality .. my pal has a 105 gtv stripped down and i know they were (and are again!) expensive but the stock engine is almost a race engine with huge valves and a fantastically elaborate sump design on it steel crank twin 40s etc .. I used to have mk1/2 escorts and the guilia comes with all the stuff you used to pay fortunes to get added to your ford lol. . . I doubt you could say that about any of the current models... apart from 8c!

[PETROLHEAD]

just a quick point in agreement to Italian engine quality------- I doubt you could say that about any of the current models... apart from 8c!

too right Mark,

how bad have things got that Alfa don't produce the mighty V6 anymore, and use essentially an old Senator/Omega left over, essentially an old budget shrunken version of Aussie GM Holden cars i believe, with modern heads etc.


so why if GM could improve the old Holden lump to euro 4 regulation etc, why couldn't we still have the Busso? the GM lump was a dinosaur in comparison, at its best probably in the Carlton GSI 3000 for an NA comparison, but the Busso at 24v was already leagues and lightyears ahead.

[Markgq4]

i dont really understand either why they dropped the boxer motor and went with the belt munching t spark engine ... subaru have clearly shown the potential that it has ... and across a full model range also ...

:s

[Spacenut]

i dont really understand either why they dropped the boxer motor and went with the belt munching t spark engine ...

In my business we call it NIH - "Not Invented Here". When Fiat acquired Alfa Romeo they phased out the boxer in favour of their own small engine.

I remember at the time there was a lot of talk about the boxer being a "rough" engine, I don't know where that came from - anything that can rev to 7500 straight out of the box can't have much out of balance now, can it?

It's such a shame they never built a flat-6, that would have been a power plant to rival the Busso...

Lauren

[Alfasixnut]

just a quick point in agreement to Italian engine quality .. my pal has a 105 gtv stripped down and i know they were (and are again!) expensive but the stock engine is almost a race engine with huge valves and a fantastically elaborate sump design on it steel crank twin 40s etc .. I used to have mk1/2 escorts and the guilia comes with all the stuff you used to pay fortunes to get added to your ford lol. . . I doubt you could say that about any of the current models... apart from 8c!

That was also true for the 2600 engine - the finned and winged aluminium sump had flap valves inside to keep the oil round the pick up, duplex timing chain, DOHC big valve hemi head with straight ports and beefy con rods that had the sides smoothed and big rod bolts, steel crank and triple twin choke (progressive though) Solex PHH carbs ....all as standard.

[taffioch]

Couldn't resist returning to my original aircraft theme. I believe that the high tensile pin upon which the Tornado wings 'swing' was always made in Italy, wherever final assembly took place. The manufacturing tolerances were/are eye-watering. For installation, the agency of liquid nitrogen was used to minutely shrink the pin at very low temperature before pressing it into the wing bushes. The recent twin spark 16v was just to show that nobody's perfect, I guess.

[PETROLHEAD]

The recent twin spark 16v was just to show that nobody's perfect, I guess.

agreed, although it was more of a fiat motor initially than alfa i'm led to believe, so we can hide behind that just a little bit!

[Bluesuit]

Amused your comment Taffioch, that the best bits of Tornado were Italian, that didn't extend to the wing panels they made, there were corrosion issues arising from surface protection problems at manufacture - so at least they are consistent with their cars!

I always loved the looks and styling and handling of the Sud and Sprint but hated the build quality and poor corrosion protection of the body which hid so many rust traps, I owned my S3 Ti for 13 years, but ended up doing about 3 re sprays and major repairs to it in that time, in the I had it so good, I couldn't bear to see it deteriorate again, so reluctantly sold it. But I was well pleased when I moved up to a 164 3.0 V6 - excellent build quality, cracking engine, style and luxury. 30 MPG was also very good going to, we had that one for 5 years, before swapping to Land Rover Discos, when we moved to a more rural location.

After a 10 year sabbatical I came back to Alfas with a phase 1 916 GTV 2.0TS, it reminded me of my early Alfas, only better! It was cheap £900, it looked great in black, is was quick and had great handling reminding me of the Sud, but best of all, it did not dissolve before my eyes, but did like to keep you on your toes with odd little snags.

I then thought, why not trade the Mrs Fabia VRS and the GTV for a newer GT 1.9JTDm, thinking it would be more reliable, stylish and economical.......

Well it is more stylish - love its looks, but probably the most unreliable car I've had in ages despite only having 70k on the clock, it's an 06 - it's needed a new steering rack, full clutch including master and slave cylinders, both door handles broke and have been replaced, and recently I've had ASR faults, all apparently due to some mis alignment of the brake pedal switch???. As for fuel economy, at 45 mpg, it's 5 Mpg worse than my Skoda Octavia daily driver, which has been trouble free over its 100k miles to date, only needing tyres & wipers.

I still like the GT, but it's unreliability is frustrating as is the plummeting value, by contrast my latest GTV phase 2 project is much like my previous Phase 1, but at £400 with Tax and MOT, great value, and being a project I don't mind tinkering, the only snag is its Red, and Alfa can't do red paint without it peeling, so I've got to save for a respray, which probably means I'll make make a bit of a loss, unless I hang on to it for a while.

In conclusion, there is no logic to Alfa ownership, other than make sure you also have something else reliable!

Piccies of my 2 are below

Any chance of a Forum for 916 GTVs?

Cheers

Ian

[KevJTD]

Any chance of a Forum for 916 GTVs?

Cheers

Ian

afraid not, not for a good few years at least anyway.

it's very much a concious decision.

we set up this forum to cater for the classic alfa owner which mostly caters for people who know a bit about cars.

on the other forums where the 156 type cars are in abundance they get bogged down by people coming in because they've bought an alfa because it was £30 cheaper than the mondeo they went to look at, then wanted to know why they couldn't get good mpg or it would use a litre of oil every 1,000 miles.
not alfa people.


so the cut off point was decided to be at the cars where people would chose an alfa because it was an alfa.

the 916 era isn't quite there yet, but given time.....

[Bluesuit]

Kev,

Thanks for explaining your rationale, I see where you are coming from; I too look forward to the day that folk begin to recognise the 916 GTV as a worthy classic. I guess it is about at the same place as the Sud was when I parted company with mine in 1999 after 20 years of Boxer ownership. They, along with 33s, were fairly common and tatty ones could be got for £100, good ones were just beginning to appreciate. About 10-12 years ago, Suds & 33s were plentiful at National Alfa Day, when I rejoined AROC a couple of years back, I was staggered how few there were, so it's great you guys are doing your best to preserve those that remain.

Maybe I should think of my GTV as a long term prospect, rather than just a project....

Ian

[KevJTD]

Kev,

Thanks for explaining your rationale, I see where you are coming from; I too look forward to the day that folk begin to recognise the 916 GTV as a worthy classic. I guess it is about at the same place as the Sud was when I parted company with mine in 1999 after 20 years of Boxer ownership. They, along with 33s, were fairly common and tatty ones could be got for £100, good ones were just beginning to appreciate. About 10-12 years ago, Suds & 33s were plentiful at National Alfa Day, when I rejoined AROC a couple of years back, I was staggered how few there were, so it's great you guys are doing your best to preserve those that remain.

Maybe I should think of my GTV as a long term prospect, rather than just a project....

Ian

that's the spirit mate, look at the 916 GTV as very much a future classic. can't see them becoming anything less than that. especially the V6 ones.
it's not that long ago that suds and sprints were frowned upon by the alfa groups but as time goes by things change.
can't see the 156 becoming much of a classic though, save for maybe the GTA ones.
the GTV though, that will be given its' own space in time to come

[Bluesuit]

Know what you mean Kev, the Suds always got the duff parking at National Alfa Day, I recall entering my S3 in the concours, we were put next to the dirt track, so after careful cleaning and polishing I got to have it continually covered in dust from passing cars, only compensation was a highly commended at the end of the day, not sure if that was just a sympathy vote though!

[Spacenut]

Suds always got the duff parking at National Alfa Day

You're not wrong there - I remember NAD at Newby Hall a few years back, Alfasuds were supposed to have pride of place (an anniversary, but I can't remember which one), I thought they would be lined up either side of the drive leading to the main house, but no - shoved out on the margins of the site, nowhere near the concours or entrance so nobody would see them coming in. I was very disappointed, after driving non-stop for 4 hours on the way up and more than 6 hours on the way back!

The poor 'Sud had to endure years of this treatment as owners of "proper" Alfas looked down their noses at the little FWD upstart. Now the newer Alfas get the same treatment "oh it's just a re-bodied Fiat". Trouble is, the Alfasud has never had the chance to enjoy its rehabilitation

Lauren

[KevJTD]

Suds always got the duff parking at National Alfa Day

You're not wrong there - I remember NAD at Newby Hall a few years back, Alfasuds were supposed to have pride of place (an anniversary, but I can't remember which one), I thought they would be lined up either side of the drive leading to the main house, but no - shoved out on the margins of the site, nowhere near the concours or entrance so nobody would see them coming in. I was very disappointed, after driving non-stop for 4 hours on the way up and more than 6 hours on the way back!

The poor 'Sud had to endure years of this treatment as owners of "proper" Alfas looked down their noses at the little FWD upstart. Now the newer Alfas get the same treatment "oh it's just a re-bodied Fiat". Trouble is, the Alfasud has never had the chance to enjoy its rehabilitation

Lauren

that was 2009 lauren, my first trip out in vjm.

[PETROLHEAD]

sad but true eh lauren,

I spoke to Ted at length previously about Suds in racing, regarding past and present times, and they still don't get the recognition they deserve, and never did.

However, we agree that an awful lot of that snobbery, is from both a financial and competitive angle.

Histoically, and to this day, many organisers would rather the grid be thinner, but made up of elitist GTAm/reps and the like, which i love by the way, but because they cost thousands and thousands to buy or build (their choice!) they dare not share a grid with those quirky cheap little front wheel drives, because as they have from the start, prove themselves to be Giant Slayers!

Oh no, that would just not be acceptable in their eyes, but what a shame, and how to miss a trick in my opinion.

I'm sure that capability is a huge part of why i, and Ted, and so many others agree so much on the reasons for our affection for the Suds, Sprints and 33's, and talk to Ted long enough, i guarantee you'll here the phrase "Alfasuds, the best post war Alfa Romeo built to this day" and i for one wholeheartedly agree.


So at least we're an appreciative bunch in here, bogger the rest, we know the score!

[Bluesuit]

Funny that Alfa Nord and Alfa Sud rivalry should persist, when today's products are Fiats at best, and Chevy at worst. All genuine Alfas, especially technological ground breaking ones like the Sud, which did so much to define the shape of the modern car and the hatch back, should be celebrated as part of the genuine original Alfa DNA. The VW Golf gets all the plaudits for being the first Hot Hatch, but the Sud (albeit without a hatch then) had been around for 3 years and did much to influence modern styling. I conveniently ignore the mini and Austin 1100, that probably really broke the mould for front wheel drive packaging.

Mind you I think the Sud is beginning to have the last laugh, as their rarity means they stand out more against a sea of 105s and the like.

[PETROLHEAD]

Bang on!

[Johnboy]

Morning
That's a very good point about the golf gets the love. yet the Sud gets Sud all lol
And with the styling as you say most modern hot hatch have come from . The Astra gte just looked like a new Sud. Well we I all know we've got great boxers . Maybe the respect is starting to be shone

[taffioch]

It's only fair to remember Rudolf Hruska, the man who designed the Sud on a clean sheet of paper. Previous employer was?