CAMbelt age - how risky? - Alfa Romeo Forum
You are currently unregistered, register for more features.    
 3Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
(Post Link) post #1 of 35 Old 13-06-16 Thread Starter
Status: -
AO Member
 
Mighty-147's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: United Kingdom
County: Devon
Posts: 308
Well Happy CAMbelt age - how risky?

Hello so I'm in a dilemma about my CAM belt/ Timing belt and also Balance Belt....

I had both Belts, Tensioners, Pulleys, Variator, Waterpump and therefore Coolant all done at about 79K...

Previous belt change previous owner about 59K...

I've now hit 90K, but have only done 11K on those belts.

I know the intervals changed from 72K / 5 years to 36K/ 3 years.

The thing is the belts etc were done April 2009 so yep 7 years on!

Also I was abroad for 4.5 years with my 147 in a neighbour's garage and the car 'turned over' periodically...


So my question is- just how crucial is changing those belts? is every 3 years necessary?
Does it depend on conditions? (English weather not Italian)

I don't have many funds but a broken belt on my 2001 car and it's pretty much goodbye car!!!

Should I risk til 96K service? I don't do many miles to be honest so that might be a while..

If I have a mechanic check out the condition of the belt by the time he's taken off the covers may e just as well get on and change even just the rubber belts themselves?

Any advice or suggestions welcome please!!
Mighty-147 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Status: Sticking up for MGs everywhere!
AO Silver Member
 
David WB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: United Kingdom
County: Lancaster
Posts: 3,375

Member car:

147 & GQV

The problem is more the tensioner than the belt.

I absolutely would not risk even starting the car at that point, let alone putting it under any load (this is typically more the point the system fails, rather than idling).

Get it changed ASAP. It's really not worth the risk considering the possible outcome.

My car will only do at most 15,000km in the next three years and I shall certainly not risk the belts on such a weak engine. They will be changed anyway.
David WB is offline  
Status: Planning summer upgrades
AO Member
 
AussieAlex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Aussie in Sweden
County: Stockholm
Posts: 780
Images: 12
Garage
Don't forget that rubber also degrades over time and 4 years is pretty much the limit for the TS belt before you start getting into real dangerous territory. This website does a fantastic explanation;

Alfa Romeo Timing Belts Explained - Alfa Men

So get that belt and tensioners changed!
AussieAlex is offline  
 
Status: V6 Inside
AO Silver Member
 
ransoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: United Kingdom
County: Aberdeenshire
Posts: 4,785
Images: 1
Good link.

Rather than speculating, remove the timing belt cover and have a good look. Make sure the pullies are all in good shape and not making any odd noises and most importantly, check the condition of the rubber. If it is cracked or the top surface is heavily worn then replace immediately. If it isn't you have a little time.

I replaced the belt on my Giulietta at 5 years and the old belt looked brand new. My GTV's belt is 4 years old (only done 15k miles) and looks new still (but will be changed soon). and my GT's belt is 7 years old (again, looks brand new, has only done 20k but will be changed soon).

If you are not using the car then you are not subjecting the belt to cold-hot cycles. Of course the belt will still age but not as dramatically as you think.

Alfa GT 3.2 V6 - Daily Driver.
Alfa 145 QV ph1 in green (Death by rust project) For Sale.
Alfa GTV TS ph2 in blue
ransoman is offline  
(Post Link) post #5 of 35 Old 13-06-16 Thread Starter
Status: -
AO Member
 
Mighty-147's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: United Kingdom
County: Devon
Posts: 308
Help

Quote:
Originally Posted by David WB View Post
The problem is more the tensioner than the belt.
.
Thanks David - I'm not sure what you mean by Tensioner?
Is this the metal adjustable cog?
The metal cog in the attached picture?

Because I got everything done 11,000 miles ago would just the two rubber belts alone be sufficient to change?
I know it can come as a kit but I might just get just the belts alone changed if the Tensioner Cog is fine?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Timing Belt Kit Shop4parts.jpg (37.7 KB, 12 views)
Mighty-147 is offline  
(Post Link) post #6 of 35 Old 13-06-16 Thread Starter
Status: -
AO Member
 
Mighty-147's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: United Kingdom
County: Devon
Posts: 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by David WB View Post
My car will only do at most 15,000km in the next three years and I shall certainly not risk the belts on such a weak engine. They will be changed anyway.
A weak engine?
Mighty-147 is offline  
(Post Link) post #7 of 35 Old 13-06-16 Thread Starter
Status: -
AO Member
 
Mighty-147's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: United Kingdom
County: Devon
Posts: 308
Hmmm

Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieAlex View Post
Don't forget that rubber also degrades over time and 4 years is pretty much the limit for the TS belt before you start getting into real dangerous territory. This website does a fantastic explanation;

Alfa Romeo Timing Belts Explained - Alfa Men

So get that belt and tensioners changed!
Fantastic link thank you!!!

Just to be clear - the Tensioners - are these the cogs in the kit?

If they've only done 11,000 miles I wonder if I could just get the two rubber belts changed as everything was changed last time?

I know that obviously if it all comes in a kit then change it all but I'm pretty sure I have the option of just having the belts alone themselves done

I'll probably change the coolant myself at some point...
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Timing Belt Kit Shop4parts.jpg (37.7 KB, 8 views)
Mighty-147 is offline  
Status: New quiet lifters
AO Silver Member
 
halftone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: United Kingdom
County: Greater London
Posts: 1,326
Garage

Member car:

147 Sport Q2

The toothed cog is the tensioner, the plain roller is the idler. You can buy belts by themselves but my attitude is just do it properly and know you have reset the clock on things catastrophically going bang. In 7 years lubricant in the bearings of those parts will have dried out to an unknowable extent, there may be corrosion, for the sake of 50 it doesn't seem worth it (and I understand 'skint' very thoroughly).

Edit: and yes, 7 year old coolant is a bad idea - the antifreeze, lubricant and anti-corrosion properties will have largely disappeared.

Edit #2: I do hope the sump oil isn't 7 years old too...

Last edited by halftone; 13-06-16 at 11:43.
halftone is offline  
Status: Sticking up for MGs everywhere!
AO Silver Member
 
David WB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: United Kingdom
County: Lancaster
Posts: 3,375

Member car:

147 & GQV

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mighty-147 View Post
A weak engine?
This is entirely my own opinion really. In the early 2000s, I think the TS was borderline acceptable in terms of its maintenance requirements. By the facelift, and more concisely, the year of car I have, these stupid timing problems were not sorted and there remained several severely under-developed weaknesses in the engine that remained unchanged.

While I do own one, there is no excuse for the offset between the TwinSpark engine and competitors by ~2007/8. Even the... *gulp* Proton CamPro(!) engine was edging the TS in terms of ability and outstripped it for torque.

The fact they were still flogging the TS engine in the 147 and GT when they probably should have just given up the ghost and used the T-Jet engine. One could argue these cars were just too old to justify the architecture change, but the TBI got a 159 platform launch with that thought in mind, *shrug*.

Anyway that's another discussion I can get flamed in.
David WB is offline  
Status: V6 Inside
AO Silver Member
 
ransoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: United Kingdom
County: Aberdeenshire
Posts: 4,785
Images: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by David WB View Post
This is entirely my own opinion really. In the early 2000s, I think the TS was borderline acceptable in terms of its maintenance requirements. By the facelift, and more concisely, the year of car I have, these stupid timing problems were not sorted and there remained several severely under-developed weaknesses in the engine that remained unchanged.

While I do own one, there is no excuse for the offset between the TwinSpark engine and competitors by ~2007/8. Even the... *gulp* Proton CamPro(!) engine was edging the TS in terms of ability and outstripped it for torque.

The fact they were still flogging the TS engine in the 147 and GT when they probably should have just given up the ghost and used the T-Jet engine. One could argue these cars were just too old to justify the architecture change, but the TBI got a 159 platform launch with that thought in mind, *shrug*.

Anyway that's another discussion I can get flamed in.
??

I have, to this day, still not found a 4 cylinder engine I like more than the TS. The 1.4 MA, fantastic engine though it is, still isn't better than the 2.0 tspark it replaced.
ransoman is offline  
Status: -
AO Silver Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Denmark
County: North Sealand-
Posts: 1,312
I wouldn't risk a broken belt or tension wheel and a broken engine.
Erik Loye is offline  
Status: Sticking up for MGs everywhere!
AO Silver Member
 
David WB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: United Kingdom
County: Lancaster
Posts: 3,375

Member car:

147 & GQV

Quote:
Originally Posted by ransoman View Post
??

I have, to this day, still not found a 4 cylinder engine I like more than the TS. The 1.4 MA, fantastic engine though it is, still isn't better than the 2.0 tspark it replaced.
I absolutely love my TS, but I must say even my old 1.25 Zetec engine felt far better built and hardy than the TS.

The problem is that it is entirely subjective. It's always down to personal experience. I just have felt that my old Zetec engine, my other half's old 1.1 Peugeot engine, the Swift Sports 1.6 VVT engine and various other engines I have experienced/worked on to be far more hardy.

That said, so far the 1750 TBi is absolutely fabulous. There is no contest with the old TS next to the TBi. I gladly sacrifice the noise the TS makes and its character for an engine that is fundamentally better (so far) built and just more grown up.

It depends what you want really. Honestly, I chose the 1.6 TS based on how practical it seemed to be, but I really should have just plumped for the 2.5 V6 in the 156 given the rebuild that mine needed. It's bad luck really that I experienced, but I still stand by that by 2007 the TS was entirely inappropriate and lacklustre in hardiness, if not character, compared to most other equivalent engines that I have experienced.

If someone asked me if they should have a 2.0 TS or a 2.5 V6, I am seriously borderline as to if the 2.5 is a better long term engine and doesn't need cam belt changes every two seconds. Three year intervals is shocking considering the time they had to fettle it.

*shrug* You're more experienced at this than I am.
David WB is offline  
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: United Kingdom
County: Cambridgeshire
Posts: 436
Images: 2
As said above rubber degrades over time, especially when subject to temperature and moisture changes. this affects Cam belts badly as they are in an area that is routinely subjected to exactly these conditions. The other things. you have to remember however that the aftermarket timing belts ( and the OE ones for that matter ) are made by companies that supply cambelts for many other engines, some of which have cambelt change intervals of 100,000 miles. the construction of these belts and the materials that go into them are the same as those that go into the TS belts. so why do TS belts fail sooner than most other engines. the route of the belt and the tensioning system are the answer. Many TS belts fail due to the idler or tensioner failing rather than the actual belt. the belt will have snapped but due to the intense friction caused by it passing over a static idler or the teeth being torn off by a seized tensioner or it being thrown off by a wobbling or eccentric bearing in either of the above in many instances. a low mileage regularly used but low mileage car car will be subject to the same atmostpheric stress, a few less start stop shocks maybe and significanlty less constant bearing wear.
A stored car will be subject to none of any of these just the rubbers ability to become brittle over time. This is the same however for all cambelts even those scheduled to be changed at 8 year intervals. So my own opinion is that take away the TS engine ( which is what you do if you don't run the car ) and your cam belt will last as long as any other belt and really should be good for Seven or eight years. Your situation will be somewhere in between these two extremes which means you should have longer than three years reliable use but how much will depend on the use the car has had and your knowledge of it
Mighty-147 likes this.
Yorkshirekeith is offline  
Status: Alfa gone, for a 3200gt
AO Member
 
macaroni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: United Kingdom
County: Kent
Posts: 210
Garage
My TS belt was unchanged in 9 years! When it was changed, it was found to be very degraded and the balancer shaft belt had snapped.
I was lucky...get yours changed!
Mighty-147 likes this.
macaroni is offline  
Status: V6 Inside
AO Silver Member
 
ransoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: United Kingdom
County: Aberdeenshire
Posts: 4,785
Images: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by David WB View Post
I absolutely love my TS, but I must say even my old 1.25 Zetec engine felt far better built and hardy than the TS.

The problem is that it is entirely subjective. It's always down to personal experience. I just have felt that my old Zetec engine, my other half's old 1.1 Peugeot engine, the Swift Sports 1.6 VVT engine and various other engines I have experienced/worked on to be far more hardy.

That said, so far the 1750 TBi is absolutely fabulous. There is no contest with the old TS next to the TBi. I gladly sacrifice the noise the TS makes and its character for an engine that is fundamentally better (so far) built and just more grown up.

It depends what you want really. Honestly, I chose the 1.6 TS based on how practical it seemed to be, but I really should have just plumped for the 2.5 V6 in the 156 given the rebuild that mine needed. It's bad luck really that I experienced, but I still stand by that by 2007 the TS was entirely inappropriate and lacklustre in hardiness, if not character, compared to most other equivalent engines that I have experienced.

If someone asked me if they should have a 2.0 TS or a 2.5 V6, I am seriously borderline as to if the 2.5 is a better long term engine and doesn't need cam belt changes every two seconds. Three year intervals is shocking considering the time they had to fettle it.

*shrug* You're more experienced at this than I am.
That is why our opinions differ so much then. To me what makes a good engine is how characterfull they are. It gives the whole car personality. That is why I love the Tspark and V6's.

I had a loan of a ford puma with the famous 1.7 zetec and hated it. No low end grunt, linear power delivery and it sounded like a sewing machine.

Every japanese and korean engine I have had the "Pleasure" of using was.... just awefull....

The ts and V6 are hardy engines but you have to look after them and service them properly. unfortunately you have to be "in the know" already to half the published service intervals. Long service intervals have never been a selling point for me.

To me, describing an engine as "Grown up" is a guarantee'd turn off.
ransoman is offline  
Status: One foot in, one foot out!
AO Platinum Member
 
zulu ferret's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: wgc
County: herts
Posts: 42,266
Images: 2
X4's

Quote:
Originally Posted by ransoman View Post
??

I have, to this day, still not found a 4 cylinder engine I like more than the TS. The 1.4 MA, fantastic engine though it is, still isn't better than the 2.0 tspark it replaced.
Had both a 4cyl twin spark 2.0 litre, and that magnificient 4cylinder Lancia 16V Turbo,

Guess which scored top of the fourpots in my book?
zulu ferret is offline  
Status: Sticking up for MGs everywhere!
AO Silver Member
 
David WB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: United Kingdom
County: Lancaster
Posts: 3,375

Member car:

147 & GQV

Quote:
Originally Posted by ransoman View Post
That is why our opinions differ so much then. To me what makes a good engine is how characterfull they are. It gives the whole car personality. That is why I love the Tspark and V6's.

I had a loan of a ford puma with the famous 1.7 zetec and hated it. No low end grunt, linear power delivery and it sounded like a sewing machine.

Every japanese and korean engine I have had the "Pleasure" of using was.... just awefull....

The ts and V6 are hardy engines but you have to look after them and service them properly. unfortunately you have to be "in the know" already to half the published service intervals. Long service intervals have never been a selling point for me.

To me, describing an engine as "Grown up" is a guarantee'd turn off.
I have had plenty of enjoyment from my TS, but there are many frustrating instances. It bothers me that it just can't deal with even small inclines without just becoming flat and unresponsive.

The 1.6 VVT Suzuki engine of the same year as mine is just completely different and better in every way. The way the torque is delivered was masterful and it would even go up hills. The exhaust system was set up really well and the engine was (like the TS) free revving and had a lovely noise to it.

It was very strange when I went up a very steep gradient in my 1.25 Zetec-SE Fiesta and it complained, but it was aright. Same hill in the Alfa and we were seriously wondering if I could even change up to second.

I think what I more object to is the remarkable laziness of Alfa not to bother at least updating the 16v TS during the facelift. Simply putting more cats in the system is not an update. I think I am used to companies making at least some effort to improve their engines to be more appropriate. Every time (at least in my experience) a manufacturer like Ford, BMW, Vauxhall or such decide to facelift their cars, they actually bother to at least tweak the engine spec.

Flogging the same engine when they knew that the torque delivery was reportedly quite poor compared to others for over 6-7 years after the knowledge is available is simply lazy to me. Even FIAT decided that the Punto engines should be updated. It'd be like Fiat having no other engine than their original FIRE engine all the way through until 2010. Even the TBi has already been updated twice since launch. 16v TS? Nothing, not a sausage over ten years to improve the spec it seemed.

I can imaging the conversations at FIAT HQ...

"Your MA units keep exploding and the TBi has a weak turbo setup" - Okay, we'll update those.
"Your TS units have no low down torque and the maintenance intervals are crap" - Okay, have fun with that. We can't be bothered making the JTS engine available.

Last edited by David WB; 14-06-16 at 08:57.
David WB is offline  
Status: Planning summer upgrades
AO Member
 
AussieAlex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Aussie in Sweden
County: Stockholm
Posts: 780
Images: 12
Garage
I would take the TS over the JTS any day of the week. If you think the TS is unreliable have you truly researched the JTS? Yea you get a bit more power and torque but a load more issues.

My Alfa specialist back in Aus had an absolute rant one day when I went to pick up my GTV TS only to find it wasn't ready because another customer's JTS 156 had decided it didn't want to play nicely all day and resulted in them having to postpone the work to my car. He had a solid 30 minute rant with me about how much he hated (and I mean genuinely hated) the JTS engine and how he would NEVER recommend anyone to get a JTS powered car......and he is a life member of the Alfa Owners Club South Australia and races various makes and engine variants and has been an Alfa specialist for over 30 years.

So I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at? You seem to be about the only person out there that would want a JTS over the TS?

I do agree to some extent that the TS desperately needed to be re-worked and probably should have been turbo charged some time in the early-mid 2000's to stay competitive with what was coming out from other manufacturers. But to actually want a JTS over a TS.....I have never heard of that before

Current
2000 Alfa 156 Sportwagon 2.0 TS CF3

Previous
2002 Alfa GTV 2.0 TS CF3
1983 Porsche 944
AussieAlex is offline  
Status: Sticking up for MGs everywhere!
AO Silver Member
 
David WB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: United Kingdom
County: Lancaster
Posts: 3,375

Member car:

147 & GQV

Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieAlex View Post
I would take the TS over the JTS any day of the week. If you think the TS is unreliable have you truly researched the JTS? Yea you get a bit more power and torque but a load more issues.

My Alfa specialist back in Aus had an absolute rant one day when I went to pick up my GTV TS only to find it wasn't ready because another customer's JTS 156 had decided it didn't want to play nicely all day and resulted in them having to postpone the work to my car. He had a solid 30 minute rant with me about how much he hated (and I mean genuinely hated) the JTS engine and how he would NEVER recommend anyone to get a JTS powered car......and he is a life member of the Alfa Owners Club South Australia and races various makes and engine variants and has been an Alfa specialist for over 30 years.

So I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at? You seem to be about the only person out there that would want a JTS over the TS?

I do agree to some extent that the TS desperately needed to be re-worked and probably should have been turbo charged some time in the early-mid 2000's to stay competitive with what was coming out from other manufacturers. But to actually want a JTS over a TS.....I have never heard of that before
I didn't want a JTS. Personally, had I had the choice again I'd have skipped the TS and gone for the 2.5 V6 for the amount the TS has cost me.

Perhaps the point I should have made is that they should have just improved the TS. Your last point hit the nail on the head really. It should have been at least supercharged with some addition of power in order to power the supercharger.

To be fair, wanting a JTS over a TS isn't wrong. There have been a few people that I have seen here that do prefer the JTS. Beating people over the head with experience shouldn't invalidate other peoples' opinions. Alfa racing specialist or not, it all comes down to personal choice at the end of it.

With the TS, JTS, TBi and V6 all up for grabs, I'd choose the V6, followed by the TBi, followed by the TS.
David WB is offline  
Status: V6 Inside
AO Silver Member
 
ransoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: United Kingdom
County: Aberdeenshire
Posts: 4,785
Images: 1
Not sure where the perceived lack of torque on the TS is coming from though? I have had 3, all 2.0's, 2 CF2's and 1 CF3's. They have never struggled on hills or inclines of any sort. The overtaking punch at 70 is strong too. They can do 90 to 110 quicker than the 170 MA too.

I do drive in quite a lazy style, changing up well before 3000rpm and the TS always delivers.
ransoman is offline  
Status: Sticking up for MGs everywhere!
AO Silver Member
 
David WB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: United Kingdom
County: Lancaster
Posts: 3,375

Member car:

147 & GQV

Quote:
Originally Posted by ransoman View Post
Not sure where the perceived lack of torque on the TS is coming from though? I have had 3, all 2.0's, 2 CF2's and 1 CF3's. They have never struggled on hills or inclines of any sort. The overtaking punch at 70 is strong too. They can do 90 to 110 quicker than the 170 MA too.

I do drive in quite a lazy style, changing up well before 3000rpm and the TS always delivers.
*shrug*

Beats me. I can only go off my experience. The fact I have to drop my gear to 4th to get out of the Ribble valley on the M6 is not something I have had to do with any other car. The Suzuki flew up the incline with ease for example compared to the TS. In theory the torque is the same for the 1.6 engines in the Suzuki and the TS, but the delivery seems much poorer from the TS, even taking into account the extra weight.

I'd happily concede that this is not a view held by the masses.
David WB is offline  
Status: V6 Inside
AO Silver Member
 
ransoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: United Kingdom
County: Aberdeenshire
Posts: 4,785
Images: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by David WB View Post
*shrug*

Beats me. I can only go off my experience. The fact I have to drop my gear to 4th to get out of the Ribble valley on the M6 is not something I have had to do with any other car. The Suzuki flew up the incline with ease for example compared to the TS. In theory the torque is the same for the 1.6 engines in the Suzuki and the TS, but the delivery seems much poorer from the TS, even taking into account the extra weight.

I'd happily concede that this is not a view held by the masses.

My experiences are of the 2.0 only and yours seem to be from the 1.6 only so the 1.6 may be a different kettle of fish. What car is your experience based on?
ransoman is offline  
Status: Sticking up for MGs everywhere!
AO Silver Member
 
David WB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: United Kingdom
County: Lancaster
Posts: 3,375

Member car:

147 & GQV

Quote:
Originally Posted by ransoman View Post
My experiences are of the 2.0 only and yours seem to be from the 1.6 only so the 1.6 may be a different kettle of fish. What car is your experience based on?
Only my 2007 1.6 TS 147. The 2.0 is probably much better to have in the 147, though it wasn't available for late models for whatever ridiculous reason. By this time however the JTD engine was probably far more popular and yet again, the laziness of Alfa to not improve the economy of the TS in the medium term likely led to its short and sharp downfall.

Actually, I'd imagine that the Ducati Corse JTD engine solves most of the problems with the sluggish response, but that would mean having a diesel; an unacceptable state of affairs.
David WB is offline  
Status: -
AO Silver Member
 
scottyf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: United Kingdom
County: West Midlands
Posts: 5,229
Images: 26
Garage

Member car:

Alfa 166

The 147 is quite a heavy car for the 1.6. Coupled with short gear ratio's meant it felt lacking lower in the rev range.

By comparison the 2.0 only made 150hp. Not much at all. But torque thanks to the long throw crank went up massively. Also peak torque delivered far lower down the rev range. Circa 3k. Making it a far more relaxed drive.

On the flip side it wouldn't rev as hard and needed a balance shaft to tune out the secondary harmonics.
scottyf is offline  
Status: -
AO Silver Member
 
scottyf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: United Kingdom
County: West Midlands
Posts: 5,229
Images: 26
Garage

Member car:

Alfa 166

By far the best TS was the 1.8 in my opinion.

But as all NA engines. Weight affects it massively. Same with gearing.
scottyf is offline  
Reply

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

Tags
balance , belt or service , cambelt , shaft or belt , timingbelt

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



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

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