Why does a 164 feel faster then a Milano Verde?

[jontg428]

Yeah, that is definately excessive, even by alfa standards

[Grant]

My mechanic believes the discrepency between the 164/Milano and GTV-6 oil consumption rates is caused by the hotter under hood temps of the 164 engine. The engine is also covered by the intake manifold and is more tightly enclosed by other objects in the engine bay than the Milano/GTV6. He noticed the valves stem seals were ALWAYS (for him atleast) in worse shape on the 164's with similar mileage when compared to an odler v6 that he tore down. He thinks the rubber material was of the same quality, it's just the heat that does them in.

I know for sure the 164S has piston squirters, which might cause more oil (blow by? I don't know if that's the right term) consumption. Whether the 164B and L do or not, I don't know. But my father's 164L used a ton of oil too.

[Grant]

Quote:

Originally Posted by slyalfa I think the timing is a biggy I am still playing with it but that seems to have made a big change to me. when I first put in the S in my car I did notice a lot more low-end but after playing with a lot of different timmings the best seems to be a very small ramp but starting out at like 20° then it started to come alive. the stock timming seems to be way retared for the low to mid RPMs and that kills the low end. even with the tall gears if I am in 1st going along and just punch it I will smoke the tires now.

[jontg428]

Yes, stiffening up the rear end will make for less understeer. If you look at the design of the first generation VW rabbit/scirocco's, you will notice how VW put in lots of roll stiffness into the rear of the car to make it more balanced. The 164 has a totally different suspension design then those cars, but the principle remains the same, more rear roll stiffness = less understeer. Also, playing with tire preassures can make a difference as well. I tend to run higher tire preassure in the front to try to keep that auger under the bonnet from pushing it off the road!

[Grant]

Adding a bit of camber to the front wheels will help front end grip. Whether I'd do this to a FWD car, I dunno...tire wear is a problem at the front already!

You guys should look at this same thread topic in the milano forum...the beginnign of it atleast...

[slyalfa]

L-jet is my base I do not know what the Motronic timming map looks like.

but I think the map needs low timming say 4° at idle to pass smog and ramp up to like 20° right away just off idle and then advance to the max at the max RPM more or less linear

easy to do in a prorgramable map but harder to do with a spring.
BTW if you have the Motronic timming map post it.

[joecautela]

Interesting comments here. My 3.0 is a strong running motor that seems to be v. tight, consuming a qt of 10-60 Agip synthetic per 2K mi. In terms of performance the engine is sweet, plenty of low end grunt for on/off ramps and low spd work in 3rd gear and still plenty of punch on top end. My real gripe w/ this driveline is just that. The driveline. I don't like it. Spinning a driveshaft at engine spd to a somewhat lame clutch in the back and quite possibly one of the slowest shifting linkages annd gearboxes of all time. Alfa shoud have had the clutch and trans up front w/ any kind of rear in the back. But I guess it is what it is. And yeah the shaft is balanced and all the donuts are new and the clutch is new too. Rebuilt the shift linkage and it's still a slow affair. But hey, It's not really a race car, it's a sport sedan so on those terms I'll live with it, Joe

[JoeCab]

Quote:

Originally Posted by joecautela My real gripe w/ this driveline is just that. The driveline. I don't like it. Spinning a driveshaft at engine spd to a somewhat lame clutch in the back and quite possibly one of the slowest shifting linkages annd gearboxes of all time. Alfa shoud have had the clutch and trans up front w/ any kind of rear in the back.

[elite38868]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jontg428 He, I think the oil burning problem afflicts most of the 12V motors! Mine drinks its castrol gtx at the rate of a quart every thousand miles or so, and this is considered normal! The 24V motors, on the otherhand, hardly burn any oil, and make more power to boot.

[DonBeeson]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeCab The rear transaxle layout is both the strong point of this chassis and it's biggest weakness. I think without it you would simply have a great motor in a less than inspiring chassis. The benefits to weight distribution are worth the negatives, IMHO. Joe

[jontg428]

I am a Castrol man! I notice after I change my oil, consumption drops for a while, maybe its because the oil is thicker when its fresh. As for Penzoil, always heard bad things from back in the day when it was paraphine based, and was rumored to clog stuff up. It could be different now, but Castrol has always served me well.

[Grant]

The weight isn't 50:50 on these cars. There's quite a bit more up front.

[DonBeeson]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grant The weight isn't 50:50 on these cars. There's quite a bit more up front.

[JoeCab]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonBeeson Its kind a bummer that a lot of us seemed to think they were pretty good on the weight distribution, but they are at what...53 to the front?