GTAm

[alfatwincam]

To say that the nord engine in the 50,s was an ok engine and in the 70,s was a joke does not ring true.
Remember that its no exaggeration to say that alfa virtually invented the sporting saloon with the introduction of the 1900 saloon in 1950.ITS FOUR CYLINDER ENGINE CONTINUED THE COMPANY'S TWIN-CAM TRADITION.The output rated at 90 and 115bhp.The 1900 was advertised under the slogan "The family car that wins races" based on the successes in events as diverse as the tour de france , Targa florio , Stella Alpina , Coupe' des alpes and the Carrera Messicana.
The 1900 drivetrain also powered some of alfas sports cars of the same era like the 1900 sports spider of 1954.
Then alfa moved onto the 101/102/105 series cars. Forget about the combustion camber shape for the moment and please tell me what other manufacturer offered such gorgeous looking cars that offered the same power in "STANDARD" production form??
The case about Lotus engines is right on but when my 1972 2000gtv coupe was introduced are you telling me I should have bought a ford of the same era thats such an inferior car to the 105 coupe? I may have considered the lotus but it had a fibre glass body and I would rather have the protection of a steel monocoque.

Also it was in the 80,s that ford introduced a MASS produced twincam engine and alfa were doing that from the 50,s! On fords of that era you had to pay extra for a rev counter!
Your point is taken about lotus design heads and its true to say that alfa engineers should have thought more about the head design but they done extremely well on the competition engines ala AUTODELTA , ALFA CORSE etc and have won just about every race that there is! More than can be said for porche, mercedes and even ferrari!
The Alfa gta,s and ford BDA,s did not race often enough together due to rule changes but I think it would have been a very close match and It always brings a smile to my face when the "SMALLER" capacity Alfas be it gta/gtam trounce the LARGER capacity cars in competition.

[Bruce Colby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSk .... I do wonder how that (modern TS) head would work with a single plug? ... Pete

[Jim K.]

These are the reasons we're stuck with Alfas in the first place-correct! If it weren't for their battles with BMW,Ford,Porsche etc and the fact they offerred a TC engine, 5-speed and 4 disk brakes, we wouldn't have made the...acquaintance!
Regarding the Ford BDA's, they're part of the reason AR left racing in '72. The 2000cc Escort MK1's were showing 240-260hp and the 1300GTA barely managed to clinch the title, with the protection of 2 GTAm ''bodyguards'' bumping off the Fords in the last race!! It was not something to repeat, so why not quit while on top? That was the end of AR domination for the era in the specific championship. Nevertheless, history was made and apparently affected (or better...infected?) a lot of us!
To go back to their engineering, I find it sad to compare the AR 24v 3liter V6 to the M3 3liter 6cyl engine. 230hp (at best) against 286 (real!). I realize the different customer base aim of the 164Q4 and the M3, but when you are fitting a 3liter into a sporting top-of-the-line saloon weighing 1683kg (!!!) you HAVE to give it more power, more so, since you officially call it your production ''flagship'' as they did!! And technically, it would be very easy to fit that version with 290-300hp- I'm sure the factory knows how! We could have a real winner there, making lots of publicity noise, instead of another quick sedan-and its a shame, as the Q4 is a technological jewel deserving much more recognition and acclaim. Then again, isn't the same true for the SZ/RZ?? Performance-wise they were lost! I think it was IMPERATIVE to give these cars over 250hp-after all they were special and few-why not stuff the 24v in them, like they did with the Proteo show-car? Sorry, but they made many dumb moves, one after another, in rapid succession (an inter company contest of some kind?) But, as said before me, hindsight is always 20/20 (but in the above cases, there were people screaming for the right choices, also).
Jim K.
Jim K.

[BigSwede]

Can't live on old merits, evolve or die...

[alfatwincam]

Its a shame the alfa V6 is not taken out more in the PRODUCTION mould but left to the after market tuners like Autodelta in uk, NOVETEC in germany etc as they offer many tuning options up to 3.7 Litres.(328bhp)
The new Alfa GT is a lovely looking coupe and the 147/156/166 all have the V6 engine but why stop at 250bhp when the potential is there for more power with this unit?? (No bad combustion chamber design there!)
The market is clearly there to sell such a beast as a flagship model just like BMW do with their M series line. The Re-Introduction of the GTA name again to the alfa models I mentioned above should be used to its full potential and gone for the 300bhp target which is no sweat for the Alfa V6.
I read about a guy in the uk who had the 3.7 litre convertion done on his 156 and was promised 175 mph top end and 0- 60 in 5.3 seconds....He took the car back to the tuner and said he was disapointed as he only got 170mph!!
I think the catch phrase there is something like " Drive like you stole it!"
The standard 250 bhp cars are quick make no mistake about that but are still behind other marques.
Lack of foresight again I hear you shout :

[PSk]

Jim,

Great comments and yes I 100% agree. Like a lot of Italian things, Alfa Romeo's are a mixture of brilliance and complete unbelievable stupidity ... but when I am behind the steering wheel, drifting into a corner all seems very right, and well and truly worth the dramas.

I will not go into the Italian work ethics ... as I actually think working is against their religion , and quality does not tear at their morals either ... witness the extremely poorly assembled Ducatis and yet the very next one is perfectly assembled. Oops ... couldn't stop myself.

In the end the perfect car would be designed and built by Germans with passion injected from Italians.

Pete

[alfatwincam]

Getting back on the GTAm theme does anyone know if it was the 16v ford BDA that was the cause for concern running against the GTAm 8v engines or was the ford also an 8v?
I have some pictures of a ford bda 16v head and it looks very much like the 116 alfetta 16v head. It would have been some interesting battles with fords and alfas 16v engines running together.
I have heard that the private tuner Franco Angelini produced strong 16v engines with alot of horse power but I have not seen many records of his race results.
Why did he produce his own heads as opposed to tuning the alfa 16v head at the time?
Alfa had the OLD 1900cc 16v head in 67 so I wonder why that was not used to combat the BDA,s?
Just some thoughts

[PSk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by alfatwincam Getting back on the GTAm theme does anyone know if it was the 16v ford BDA that was the cause for concern running against the GTAm 8v engines or was the ford also an 8v?

[Jim K.]

Yeah Pete, AR designs are Jurassic now and have been for some time. The aluminum block was a good idea BEFORE the thin-wall cast iron block development in the early '70's. Good for seviceability, but not rigidity.
On the bore/stroke issue, the AR 2liter Novamotor F3 engine, has a bore of 87mm and 84mm stroke, and this, for a max rpm of 6300!
As for 16valvers, the Ford BDA 1300 made 192hp at about 9500rpm and so did the AR 16v, 195 at 9500-coincidence? No, there's one way to do it and its no secret, let no one assume that 'these engineers know more than those engineers'.
In the 2liter side of things, Ford had an edge I believe as Pete said, having a 93mm bore and 73mm stroke (if memory serves me right).This 16valver could go way past 8500rpm and make over 270-280hp with Lucas injection. The AR motor, was restricted to 8000 tops, for a reported 230hp with Lucas or Spica (both were used). On top of this, MK1 Escorts were lighter and stiffer, so the Alfetta gtv's didn't have a chance.
Because there seems to be some misconception among some members here, please note the GTAm was a 1985cc 8valve motor only-not 16v, which was never called that-there is no 16v GTAm.
Back to 16v, the ebay 16v, started life as a 1900cc (86borex82stroke) making 225hp at 7200rpm in 1967. Today, many 2liter 105 Nord engines (not TS) in the Dutch AR Challenge series, make 210+hp spinning faster than 8000rpm.And the good part is that if you break it, you can build another one and another one after that, whereas with the 16v....lots of tears! Rare is nice but it has its dangers, unless you're only after a Sunday drive!
Jim K.

[BigSwede]

I think anybody who has driven a FWD car with more then 250Hp knows why AR has not done a monster engine, it is just not very a very modern and sophisticated drive (like you would expect for that price). Since I live in Sweden I have a lot of friends who tune their Volvos and Saabs to high HP numbers. They are absolutely undriveable on anything except straight ahead on very flat roads. It's scary.

On a side note, the new 16v engines and the Fiat/Lancia engines were all very long stroked, seems to work pretty well...

[PSk]

Jim (and others),

What is the biggest bore you could get in to the 105 series block ... lets say the 1962cc (84x88.9) block (as bore centres are wider)?

I guess the 1570cc (78x82) block does not have the same bore centres, but the same as the 1779cc (79.4x88.9)... and the same as the 1290cc (74x75)?.

Thinking about how to make a short stroke 2ltr ...
Thus the 84 bore and 75 stroke makes only 1662cc. No good
Working backwards to get a 2000cc engine with the 1300 crank we need a bore of 92mm which equals 1994cc. I think. This gives us a 1.22 bore stroke ratio compared to the Fords 1.27 (based on Jim's bore and stroke dimensions) ... so still not as good.

That ofcourse is a huge 8mm bigger and would require special liners and the bottom of the block would have to be bored and thus weakened. And if the 1300cc crank cannot fit in the 2000 block ... then seriously simese (sp?) liners and probably not possible, thus you are left with having to modify the heck out of a block, make liners and ALSO make a crank ... insert $$$ and then you have to make a head breathe! ... gee just buy the Ford Escort

Pete

[Jim K.]

Gee, Pete,
I like your conclusion!Makes sense (hindsight again?).
If you could get hold of an F3 engine, 4-plug or TS, you would have the 87mm bore which is the largest ever for our 4cyl engines. I don't know if you can stuff the 2liter crank in it for a resulting 2104cc. Sounds like too much trouble (counter-revolving cams and all other nonstandard stuff). Back in 1971 or 72 (I don't remember the exact year), the German Auto Motor und Sport magazine, did just that: they went to Koenig (tuner)in a 2liter Spider and stuffed 87mm pistons/liners,45DCOE's,mild street cams and they got 150hp DIN at less than 6000rpm (no bull,that is). They had nothing but praise for the effortless power/torque of the thing.(Where does that leave the factory claim for...131hp! What was the real power these things made?)
Here, I deal with 86mm builds, but have never attempted 87, probably because it never came up. With the availability of steel liners though (I get mine from Gozzoli in Maranello), I think the 87mm bore might work and work well, coupled of course with 46mm intake valves, etc.
Theoretically, you could be in for a nice power hike, if you roughly go for about 95hp/liter (why not, Mats??!!) and gain 13-15 more ponies, besides the fact of being able to use a wilder cam because of the increased displacement and still retain acceptable low end performance...What the hell, dreamin' never hurt nobody-unless they're drivin',heheh!
Jim K.

[BigSwede]

95hp/liter? That won't cut it, not even close.
Ditch the crappy Nord head and go for TS, thats the easiest tuning ever.

Who wants low end performance anyway? The revs drop down to what, 5000 after a shift? Maybe 4000 and up powerband for if you want to be able to not have to shift up in a turn.

Big bore and TS? Hmm, need to offset grind the crank to get under 2000cc, sounds a bit too wild just to get the itsy-bitsy difference in bore/stroke. Head would probably flow better when the cylinder wall is further away (right Jim?) but is it worth it? I'm getting a headache just thinking about sourcing the big end bearings...

[Jim K.]

You got me confused there Mats, is 95hp/lt too much or too little?
Low end performance? I want it with my 1400kg warthog and so should anyone driving a heavy pig in a track with hairpins!
A TS with 87mm bore sounds fine to me. Maybe I should start looking for pistons, they are the hard part, not the liners.
Jim K.