Classic Alfa Forums

Has anyone ever done this ? I know there would be a certain amount of engineering to consider, but it could maybe make a great basis for a Sud Racecar, even with a standard(ish) engine.......

Cheers

Mark B

I hear what you're saying, but i dont think the gains are worth the engineering personally.

The twin spark claims around 150bhp, whereas the 16v boxer claims around 135bhp but can drop straight in, and retains the handling characteristics of the low centre of gravity afforded by boxer engines.

To make a twinnie handle well enough to catch a boxer engined sud with just 15bhp less would indeed be a pretty large exercise in my opinion.

But i do like the twin cam and twin spark (cf1) engines, they can be a potent unit.

Perhaps turbo it, mid mounted and rear wheel drive, yes please, but it stopped being a sud long ago! Lol!

Would it even fit in the limited engine bay height and length!?

anything will fit if you're prepared to lose a few bits

one day i'll do my own mad idea...

petrolhead wrote:I hear what you're saying, but i dont think the gains are worth the engineering personally.

The twin spark claims around 150bhp, whereas the 16v boxer claims around 135bhp but can drop straight in, and retains the handling characteristics of the low centre of gravity afforded by boxer engines.

To make a twinnie handle well enough to catch a boxer engined sud with just 15bhp less would indeed be a pretty large exercise in my opinion.

But i do like the twin cam and twin spark (cf1) engines, they can be a potent unit.

Perhaps turbo it, mid mounted and rear wheel drive, yes please, but it stopped being a sud long ago! Lol!

And you lose the flat four rasp

I was comparing it with a 1.5 boxer (105bhp) that's in the car, so I'm working with a 45bhp gain, but you are probably right, being the law 'n all !

So, I guess no one has done it then..... I was looking at the cost of upgrading to a 16v, but being 1712cc you end up in the 1600 -2000 class. If my mad idea was do-able, I'd end up with the max cc's to start with in that same class ! The racing rules here are a little looser.......


[quote="petrolhead"]I hear what you're saying, but i dont think the gains are worth the engineering personally.

The twin spark claims around 150bhp, whereas the 16v boxer claims around 135bhp but can drop straight in, and retains the handling characteristics of the low centre of gravity afforded by boxer engines.

To make a twinnie handle well enough to catch a boxer engined sud with just 15bhp less would indeed be a pretty large exercise in my opinion.

But i do like the twin cam and twin spark (cf1) engines, they can be a potent unit.

Perhaps turbo it, mid mounted and rear wheel drive, yes please, but it stopped being a sud long ago! Lol!

I see where you're heading, but if your race rules allow for such a radical stray from the original car build, i would probably still look at an oversized 16v first, or something entirely different.

The Euro 164 came with an option of 2.0v6 turbo,

Could you sneak that in?

What about a RWD set up using an 8 valve twin spark engine out of a 75.
The 2 litre put out 150 bhp IIRC.
Dave

My logic was purely based on bhp/$, with the high cost of seriously developing a 1.7 16v boxer unit - and I was looking at substituting a 150bhp 2.0 twinspark for the existing 105bhp 1.5 boxer. I just wondered if anyone has made it fit, as being the first to do something like this is always expensive !

I thought if the twinspark was too tall for the engine bay, dry sumping could be the way forward ?

Thoughts ?

Morning

A 16v boxer with one of shrews manifolds and a remap should easily get you 150 plus bhp . That shouldn't break the bank

trouble is with using a twin spark is what gearbox would you use?
mating it to the sud gearbox is a no no, the length of a TS engine would have the cam belt sticking out through the grille!
using the TS gearbox would be a heap of engineering getting a subframe made up to fit the car as it fits east west instead of north south with regard to crank line, blending the twinnes' driveshafts/gearchange/cooling system/wiring/exhaust system etc plus i'd suspect the bonnet line would be too low...


if you have a reasonably free hand at mods i'd suggest some form of forced induction, either supercharged or turbocharged. but then you get into the realms of twisting the gearbox to pieces with the torque gained...

no simple/cheap solution is better than a stock 16V (cams are hideously expensive, and of course you need 4....) with a better flowing exhaust and either a programmable ecu or carbs


and if you want to keep in within the 1600 class there was a 145/6 16V 1600......

mbakermarco wrote:My logic was purely based on bhp/$, with the high cost of seriously developing a 1.7 16v boxer unit - and I was looking at substituting a 150bhp 2.0 twinspark for the existing 105bhp 1.5 boxer. I just wondered if anyone has made it fit, as being the first to do something like this is always expensive !

I thought if the twinspark was too tall for the engine bay, dry sumping could be the way forward ?

Thoughts ?

If BHP/$ is the criterion, then could you get a 147GTA V6 engine and gearbox into the front of a Sud? (And of course we know you could get it in the back!! )

How many remember seeing this?

Re the V8 Sud
On the "Other" Forum Eddie posted on my 6C thread
"Yeh will be on the road this year after 2 years off, new engine (3rd) floor dropped by 4 inch's, new fuel system, brembo brakes, wheels, paint and two stage nitrous kit, yes been busy, see the 6c is still going , will be at the first RWYB at North Weald on May 8th.

Do you or any of the guys on here have a Sud TI rear spoiler?

That was in March 2016.