i dont disagree totally with you pud, the fuse analogy is good, ha ha! i like that!
and agreed, the clutch, like a fuse, is the cushion between more expensive components, but i don't ever advocate mapping and tuning too close to the excess tolerance of these components anyway.
bloomin awkward fuse repalcement though!!!
If the gearbox, diff, shafts etc were bombproof, would you then conceed the clutch is poor and advocate an upgraded version?
When I last spoke to Nigel from Angel Tuning (about 3 years ago) he said the gearbox in the 2.4 was good for about 325lbft before it started experiencing problems. Now this is the same box as in the 1.9 16v essentially, apart from the lack of 6th. With a good remap, its easy to get more than 325lbft out of the engine. But, the key part is that the map is smooth, the throttle is mapped to be linear, as if the torque is applied harshly it will increase the likelihood of damage, if the torque builds up smoothly, you'll get away with it.
If I could pick my torque curve I'd keep it capped at about 300lbft, maintained as long as possible to get a high power figure high up in the rev range. But in real life this is not easy to map, most non-Alfa tuners just increase the boost requested by a % factor over the whole rev range and give a similar amount of extra fuel. This gives you extra torque where you don't need it and where the gearbox & clutch can't take it. So you have to drive around it.
would you buy/own a car that if loaded up (not ridiculously) would promote minor slip, but if driven like you stole it, bit the friction plate just fine?
just trying to guage how other folk feel about this known issue.
Paulie, the reason i asked wether yours is a six speed (like my SW), is that the more revvy nature of the 1.9 16v and the actual gear ratios lend themselves better to using the revs and the stick anyway, which is why i feel the clutch and gearbox don't seem to suffer the same fate as the five speed 2.4's so much.
They climb the revs quickly, and lack the full force of the 2.4's top gear stomp which is what poeple get used to using and destroys the clutch. Whereas i find the 1.9 isn't happy for 5th until 50mph +, and 6th almost at motorway speeds, at which it doesn't have a lot of acceleration so using the stick again for a fruity pass is the safest option all round with the 16v stuff. I think this design begs for revs for a spirited drive, and that manages to save the drivetrain considerably over the 2.4 arrangement.
would you agree with any of that pud?
I would agree with most of that, but don't discount the clutch wear on a 1.9 16v. It gets the torque of a 2.4 by using more boost, so the difference in torque output off boost to on boost is greater (which makes it feel like it has faster pickup), this lack of smoothness will do the clutch in.
You really have to drive ANY jtd carefully before 2,500rpm unless you want to accept 50-60k clutch changes. Half that value if the car is remapped.