GTA clarification - Page 2 - Alfa Romeo Forum
You are currently unregistered, register for more features.    
 12Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Status: +o-V-o+
AO Silver Member
 
Giorget2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
County: Gauteng
Well, it may be better built - that is certainly possible. My Phase 3 156 Ti didn't have any specific fitment issues though.

I'm talking mainly about the aesthetics of the design. The centre console of the 156, the design of the door cards and the general dashboard and instrument cluster layout just looks so much better to my eye in the 156 Phase 2 than the 147/GT interior.
Giorget2 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Status: biased alfisti
AO Member
 
eivindcl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Norway
County: -
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giorget2 View Post
Well, it may be better built - that is certainly possible. My Phase 3 156 Ti didn't have any specific fitment issues though.

I'm talking mainly about the aesthetics of the design. The centre console of the 156, the design of the door cards and the general dashboard and instrument cluster layout just looks so much better to my eye in the 156 Phase 2 than the 147/GT interior.
agreed, especially the center console in the gt is not up to the 156 aesthetically
Giorget2 likes this.
eivindcl is offline  
jwq
Status: Thinking about giulia veloce
Club Member
 
jwq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Netherlands
County: Zuid Holland
Images: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giorget2 View Post
..... The centre console of the 156, the design of the door cards and the general dashboard and instrument cluster layout just looks so much better to my eye in the 156 Phase 2 than the 147/GT interior.
Which is a personal thing, I guess ....
jwq is offline  
 
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: United Kingdom
County: Suffolk
Well Happy

Quote:
Originally Posted by warniegt View Post
I was under the impression that the 3.2GT chassis was made 15% stiffer than the earlier made 156gta saloon (doesn't the GT use the 156 sportwagon chassis?), anyway because of this they were able to fit a slightly smaller rear anti-roll bar to make it ride better.

Didn't know about the throttle map? does this make the GTA's seem more urgent, like the sports button on some cars that sharpen up the throttle response?
Guess so. Good analogy.
sizewell is offline  
Status: Race cars in progress
Club Member
 
Gertie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: South Africa
County: Gauteng
Images: 6
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giorget2 View Post
Well, on EPER the part numbers for the ARBs for the 156 GTA and the GT 3.2 are exactly the same. Also for the smaller-engined GTs and the smaller-engined 156es.

I also doubt the stiffer chassis claim. Not stiffer than the 156 SW anyway. Happy to be shown proof to the contrary.

The 159 chassis is a LOT stiffer than the 156/147/GT series cars - probably explains some of the significant weight increase.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giorget2 View Post
Ah yes, that would make sense, as the GTA is also stiffer than the regular 156, mainly because of the two braces underneath the car, shared with the GT.
I think you have answered your own question, of the lot, the SW is the least torsionally stiff. The facelift SW came with the extra bolt in support beam that was not there in even the facelift interior SW:
FIAT ePER
Item 2

Car Body Torsional Rigidity - A Comprehensive List (Updated: Apr. 29, 2016) - YouWheel.com - Car News and Review
Somewhere in OA someone posted more figures on this topic
Gertie is offline  
Status: -
AO Silver Member
 
Chris155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: United Kingdom
County: Cheshire
Confirmed the anti roll bar on my 147gta is 16mm diameter.
Chris155 is offline  
Status: -
AO Silver Member
 
scottyf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: United Kingdom
County: West Midlands
Images: 26
Garage
The gt probably does have a stiffer chassis. But doesn't always translate to better handling.
Just to throw a spanner in the works.

I spec the GT 3.2 in the same boat as a GTA. But it doesn't come with the other little trick bits they spec'd those car's with.

But those in the know virtually get the same car without the shouty body kit and seats.


The GTA's will be worth more though because of this.
scottyf is offline  
Status: Bring on the Giulia
AO Platinum Member
 
OperationAlfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: United Kingdom
County: Essex
Garage
Having had all three I have to say the GT is a very lovely and practical coupe. However, it just never felt as special as my 147 GTA's or 156 GTA.
OperationAlfa is offline  
Status: -
AO Silver Member
 
Chris155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: United Kingdom
County: Cheshire
I loved my GT. especially the pillar less doors. It did feel cumbersome relative to the the 147 though. I wouldn't say there's anything special about the GTAs in comparison - it's the engine that's the really good bit and they have that in common.
Chris155 is offline  
Status: Bring on the Giulia
AO Platinum Member
 
OperationAlfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: United Kingdom
County: Essex
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris155 View Post
I loved my GT. especially the pillar less doors. It did feel cumbersome relative to the the 147 though. I wouldn't say there's anything special about the GTAs in comparison - it's the engine that's the really good bit and they have that in common.
Don't get me wrong. I loved my GT. I even spent more on it than any of my GTA's. Mechanically there's nothing in it as you know, but I found the standard GT suspension awful even compared to the GTA's.

Also I would pull up next to a 1.9 JTD and you really can't see any significant differences. I really wish Alfa revised the bumpers or something to make the car look different.

Park a 156 GTA or a 147 GTA next to a regular 156 or 147 and the different is massive. The skirts, the huge arches. Its the rear of the 147 GTA that I really love though, those massive rear arches make the car look so wide and squat on the ground. the skirts on the 147 look much better than those on the 156 too in my opinion. The 156 can look a bit aftermarket where the 147 definitely looks factory.



www.supercarsourcing.com

Past cars - Mito QV - GT 3.2 V6 - 147 GTA x 2 - GTV 2.0 - 166 Super - 147 2.0 - 156 GTA - 156 1.8.
OperationAlfa is offline  
Status: Back on the road...
AO Member
 
Muskie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: I would rather not say
County: -
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris155 View Post
it's the engine that's the really good bit and they have that in common.
This is the nub of it. As long as it has that engine. The rest is just how you dress it up and it's nice to have a bit of choice: "sensible" SW, "family" saloon or 2 different 3 door hatches.
Muskie is offline  
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: United Kingdom
County: Suffolk
Well Happy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muskie View Post
This is the nub of it. As long as it has that engine. The rest is just how you dress it up and it's nice to have a bit of choice: "sensible" SW, "family" saloon or 2 different 3 door hatches.
This is not a criticism, just an observation. To use the term GTA is to imply there is a connection to that which was a "Bertie GTA". There is none. So with regard to the 3.2 GT, it at least has "Integrity" as it is not pretending to be something it isn't. I can accept the 156 and 147 as GTA's but recognize it was a commercial ploy used by Alfa. That they are both great cars is not in dispute. But people should not be so snooty as to condemn the 3.2 GT with faint praise. If anyone was to apply the same mods to the GT and given it already starts with a stiffer chassis, it would wipe the floor with both variants of the "Modern Personification of the term GTA"
sizewell is offline  
Status: +o-V-o+
AO Silver Member
 
Giorget2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
County: Gauteng
Quote:
Originally Posted by OperationAlfa View Post
Don't get me wrong. I loved my GT. I even spent more on it than any of my GTA's. Mechanically there's nothing in it as you know, but I found the standard GT suspension awful even compared to the GTA's.
Is there any difference in the suspension between the 3.2 GT and the 147 GTA?
Or is the difference in apparent feeling simply down to the larger wheels and lower tyre sidewalls on the GT?
Giorget2 is online now  
Status: -
AO Silver Member
 
AnthonyJohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: United Kingdom
County: Dorset
Images: 4
As sizewell rightly observes, this is/was a commercial ploy to evoke the 'spirit' of the original designation. The irony being that the modern GTA's are actually a good deal heavier than their standard road going versions which makes a bit of a nonsense of the letter 'A'
sizewell likes this.
AnthonyJohn is offline  
Status: Bring on the Giulia
AO Platinum Member
 
OperationAlfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: United Kingdom
County: Essex
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giorget2 View Post
Is there any difference in the suspension between the 3.2 GT and the 147 GTA?
Or is the difference in apparent feeling simply down to the larger wheels and lower tyre sidewalls on the GT?
Shocks and springs are different on the GT to the 147 GTA. Different spring rates but the same fitments.

Rear ARB is different on the GT.
OperationAlfa is offline  
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: United Kingdom
County: Suffolk
Well Happy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giorget2 View Post
Is there any difference in the suspension between the 3.2 GT and the 147 GTA?
Or is the difference in apparent feeling simply down to the larger wheels and lower tyre sidewalls on the GT?
I suspect there is, simply due to the Suffix "A". If Alfa wanted maintain the "Value" of the designation "GTA" they would want to make something more of a distinction between a standard 147/156 than just a better dress. Cosmetics would not be enough for those who cherish the term.
sizewell is offline  
Status: -
AO Silver Member
 
Chris155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: United Kingdom
County: Cheshire
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris155 View Post
Iirc, the gt uses a smaller diameter rear anti roll bar than the gta's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OperationAlfa View Post
Shocks and springs are different on the GT to the 147 GTA. Different spring rates but the same fitments.

Rear ARB is different on the GT.

I thought so too, but everyone's been saying otherwise. Any ida what the dia is?
Chris155 is offline  
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Slovenia
County: -
I believe rear diameter is 17mm as opposed to GTA's 16mm
Binji is offline  
Reply

Go Back   Alfa Romeo Forum > Supported Alfa Romeo Models > Technical & Vehicle Assistance > Alfa 147, 156 & GT

Tags
clarification , gta

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome