Alfa Romeo Forums banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
It's often noted that as the 164 was developed through facelifts, QV versions, 24v versions, etc, Alfa improved the suspension geometry to reduce torque steer. Does anyone know what specifically was done?

I have a 1989 164 3 litre manual, and it has its fair share of torque steer. I know a breaker's yard with a 1994 24v that broke a timing belt. I'm seriously considering pirating the front suspension components for my car, to reduce torque steer. But, which ones?

Regards,
Anthoyn White
Wellington, NZ
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
27,174 Posts
I think the only real difference is height of rear motor mount. I think it is lower so angle of axles is less. Subframe is different in later models and maybe more rigid not sure if it helps reduce axle angle, too.

Anybody else got any info chime in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
460 Posts
The engine was lowered about 10 mm so the does the entire subframe. On laters cars, you will noticed there are 10 mm metal spacers on all subframe mounting points, two at front and two at the rear and another two for the radiator mount so that while subframe is lowered 10 mm, radiator support is raised again 10mm in relation to subframe so the original radiator position is maintained.
Lowering the engine changed the driveshaft angle. I believe front strut is also changed as they have different part number and not compatible (even the Koni has different kit for early (-89) and late (90->) cars)

But beaware that torque steer is not all eliminated on later cars. Even the 24v cars still has noticeable amount of torque steer common to any high powered fwd cars.

Hope that helps.

TJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,459 Posts
Is it possible to lower the engine on earlier cars without a lot of modification?

Thanks for the info :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
460 Posts
I would think the modification isn't that hard as long as you have necessary parts including spacers and front struts. But realize that if you are thinking about doing it to your car, I believe yours already has the change as other US models. Alfa made the change before starting the exporting the US models in 1991.

tj
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,459 Posts
Thanks, tj. I thought you were talking about the difference between the 12v and 24v cars or is that only in the tranny?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,147 Posts
I did hear that the newer US 164's 94-95 had some kind of change to reduce torque steer as well. Its not so bad on an L with its tall gearing, but noticable on an S. Mine only acts up if I hit a slippery patch of pavement, then the wheel wants to take control.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
460 Posts
The major change I mentioned was made around 1990 and all S/QV models with 12v engine already received the change from the start. All US model received these changes from the start as well.

I also did here that they did something to 24v models but details are unknown and I am not even convinced that they did anything.

tj
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,804 Posts
The major change I mentioned was made around 1990 and all S/QV models with 12v engine already received the change from the start. All US model received these changes from the start as well.

I also did here that they did something to 24v models but details are unknown and I am not even convinced that they did anything.

tj
Upper torque rod mount is about 20-25mm higher than the 12V as well. That could have been one way to battle the torque steer as well as damage to the small mount. Also not all us cars had the spacers. Mine is a 1991 with no spacers. Never had them. The 24V's for sure have them. I have a subframe with the spacers right in front of me.

Not sure the subframe is any stronger than the 12V. I have been looking into building an upper and lower strut bar that may reduce the torque steer, but that may be some time away.
Sure will help handling though.

I think the Steering rack with the damper may add to the torque steer as well. When I installed the Q rack I had more torque steer. None damper rack is better anyway, especially at high speed, you really do not want a fast steer, heavy heavy is what I prefer. Easy enough I could just remove the damper if I really wanted to! Nothing but a spring!
Equal lenght driveshafts is really the only way to get rid of it.

I will take some pictures of the spacers, then those with 1989 0r 90-93 check to see if you have them. I do not remember any of the ones I have seen with them. I don't have them on mine which could mean that sub-fram was removed and the spacers not put back which is not good!

Spacer for rear : 60597961/60597967 L/B (mm?)
Spacer for front: 60563617 24V (~25mm thick) N/A/60562966 B/L/S (~mm??)
1987-1997 all seem to have them.

Anyone with a 91, takes some pic's of your subframe mounting points. I am curious if I am missing these?

Here is why Alfa decided to lower the motor.

The drive shafts are connected via inner joints in an engine and transmission as we all know. The height of the inner joints is set 5-20 mm lower (20mm for the 24V at least) than the height of the outer joints, thus forming tilt angles between the left/right drive shafts and the center axis through the left/right wheels and the outerjoint. As acceleration of the vehicle increases, the engine moves upward, thus causing the inner joints to move as well.

This upward movement of the inner joints causes the tilt angle formed by the drive shafts to decrease. The specific placement of the inner joints is selected so that the left/right tilt angles reach zero at a predetermined rate of acceleration, which may be the vehicles maximum rate of acceleration.

Here is a little something about the Nissam Altima:

"Nissan made its goal clear, seeking to create the best-performing, front-drive sedan in world. Lower engine mounting is meant to reduce "torque steer" to near-zero, and body rigidity has improved. Dropping the engine means half-shafts are more parellel to the ground, which is said to help cut torque steer even with a V-6 engine."


J
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Thanks for all the information.

In that case, lowering the front of the car would have the same effect on torque steer, wouldn't it. That is, by lowering the front of the car, the inner ends of the driveshafts are lowered relative to the outer ends.

Is my thinking correct here?

Regards,
Anthony White
Wellington
New Zealand
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
For that matter, is anyone able to tell me, in specific terms, the difference in suspension between the base V6 and the QV or S models?
I think I'm mainly looking for spring rates and roll-bar sizes, but also any other geometry changes that exist.

regards,
Anthony White
Wellington, New Zealand
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,804 Posts
Thanks for all the information.

In that case, lowering the front of the car would have the same effect on torque steer, wouldn't it. That is, by lowering the front of the car, the inner ends of the driveshafts are lowered relative to the outer ends.

Is my thinking correct here?

Regards,
Anthony White
Wellington
New Zealand
Yes. I have lowered mine and the drive shafts are level with the pavement. That is a good thing. But I counter acted that by using larger tires so I still have a bit of TS but the handling and ride is 100 times better which is fine by me, would I rather have better handling yes a little TS from that is ok in my book.

The only difference between suspension is QV/S has electronic struts with high rate front springs, same as on Automatic base/L and Super models.

Thats it. All the rest is the same. 24V QV has a larger rear sway bar. Same rate springs as 12V QV/S

Jason
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top