Less than a week with my 159 TI 2.0 JTDM and it really feels like it has a lack of oomph below 2500rpm and no real push from the turbo above that (I am coming from a 1.9PD VW 140bhp and a 159 1.9 Ti before that).
It wasn't something I particularly noticed when test driving, but I'm wondering - does this sound like a fault? It had a new intercooler shortly before I bought it and I'm thinking that although the Turbo boost gauge shows it spooling up, I wonder if its not actually doing very much...?
Any suggestions (other than take it to a garage...!)
The 2.0 doesn't do much below 2500, especially when cold. There isn't much throttle response in first and second either. It should pull well in third once you get above 2500 or so, and pull well up to 4500.( It isn't a fast car by any means. )I find you have to drive it like a petrol to get the best out of it. It revs quite readily. It cruises at motorway speeds very well, but it just doesn't like pulling away at junctions.
Something is wrong if you have to rev it past 2500 before you get an oomph...as you put it. Max torque (360 nm as standard) on the 2.0 is at just 1750 rpm on these and mine pulls like a train from just off idle (even with the tuning box switched off). A club members car was gutless below about 2500...although he thought it was normal before he drove mine.....turned out the EGR valve was not closing fully. After a replacement (used one) was fitted normal service was resumed. Just a suggestion.
Can confirm what Alfaitalia is saying, something must be amiss here. Even in stock disguise it's reasonably fast from 1,700rpm. It's the everything but smooth shifting gears that slows a bit down.
Only times when I find having to rev it
more than I'd prefer, due to too little power from idle, is when pulling off uphill with a very steep incline.
Sounds pretty standard to me.
These old 159 dervs are heavy and not very agile compared to modern cars.
My company once had a small fleet of these 2.0 jtdms, and they all felt a little dead.
Strange...torque is what you feel when you put your foot down....and the 2.0 has 360nm at just 1750 revs....putting that into perspective the 3.2 only kicks out 322nm at a highish 3800 rpm. As said a remap (or tuning box) will sort it....I'm up to a dyno proven 218 horses and a huge 459nm of torque. All on stock boost levels. We tried going a little higher....but visible smoke started to appear due to lack of air (oxygen)....don't want that. My man said that 250 horses and 500nm should be possible with more boost.....but then things start to get expensive and you start pushing the clutch, dmf and driveshaft limits. I'll stick were I am for that reason. Still spins the fronts changing from 2nd to 3rd in the dry if you push hard and 3rd to 4th in the rain. But my box is a remote control one so easy to turn of off if I'm not in the mood...or the wife is at the helm!
In physics, power is defined as the rate at which something does work. For cars, horsepower translates into speed. So if you want to go faster, and get up to speed quicker, you need more horsepower.
Torque, on the other hand, is the expression of a rotational or twisting force. In vehicles, the engines rotate around an axis, thus creating torque. Torque can be viewed as the “strength” of a vehicle. It is the force that rockets a sports car from 0-60 in seconds and pushes you back in the seat.
Hp is what you need for a car to feel fast - not torque.
Focus on torque, if you plan on hauling trailers, and focus on horsepower if you’re looking for speed.
It's basic knowledge..
So a technical answer to the question of, “What makes acceleration: torque or horsepower?”, is torque.
But torque at the wheels—not at the engine.
And becauase acceleration is torque at the wheels, the real answer is horsepower, because horsepower encompasses not only the engine’s torque but the total torque that gets delivered to the wheels.
My 2.0 Jtdm is supposedly remapped to 200bhp by previous owner. It is strong in the mid range but still pretty gutless pulling away. I suspect EGR might need a clean then I’ll remap it with a specialist as I have my reservations about the current one. (Exhaust pipes soot up badly) but I still don’t reckon it’ll be particularly quick off the line.
Wife have a 170MA TCT - it's not exactly fast, but its not slow either.
Try drive a 159 3.2 with 260hp / 322Nm and then jump into a 159 2.0 JTDM 170hp/360Nm and you know that hp is what count for how fast a car is. You just need to use gears a little more.
Even a (optimistically) piggyback mapped 2.0 JTDM @ 218hp / 459 Nm will be slower, even it has way more torque than a stock 3.2 (and I highly doubt a 2.0 JTDM with stock parts (turbo) could ever reach 250hp/500Nm)
Worst is how badly all these remapped dervs smell and smoke
Hp is king...
Exhaust tips normally stay clean with a properly working DPF...
Would be worth to investigate if they turn black from soot; perhaps an early indication the filter is on its way out (blow-by gasses?)
And as far as I can compare my 2.0 versus a TBI from a friend of mine, not much difference to tell actually.
Yet, mine is tweaked a bit. Still I don’t recall having it found slow, not in any way when it was stock for the first 20,000 km I owned it. Only thing what I got rid off, noticeably after the 3rd remap (a.o. dyno’d at 199 hp / 430 Nm, while at the hottest day of 2015), is that feeling that was there around 1,700 rpm as if it was chain-driven with some slack. When it was still stock (170 hp confirmed on the dyno as a grid test).
I've had a 1.9JTDm in stock form and mapped up to 190HP
and currently drive a 2.0JTDm mapped up to 210HP
Neither are slow unless something goes wrong, the 1.9 (and 2.4) both had regular issues with EGR valve which sound exactly like what the OP is mentioning.
even the newest 2.0 159 is going to be 7 years old (or very close to that) so EGR would be my first port of call, take it off clean it up, have it mapped shut and disabled.
Consider replacing pressure converter (solenoid valve), part id 51884840. It is fairly cheap and easily replaced, and over time its response can deteriorate. On my 2.0 it made noticeable difference in low and midrange response. Also, 2.0 has a somewhat lazy throttle pedal map in ECU, and it can be made (remapped) much more aggressive, so the engine feels more responsive.
I have a 2.0jtdm2 guilietta and a 2.2 jtdm Giulia, totally standard cars 170 bhp vs 180 bhp but, 320nm vs 450nm and first one with a manual box and the Giulia with the auto box. The Giulia feels so much quicker than the guilietta, despite such a similar BHP, the torque is obviously related to engine capacity and turbo boost pressure. I think to be a proper quick car you actually need a bit of both horsepower and torque, they are not mutually exclusive. Think about motorbikes, BMW S1000rr has 200 bhp and only 100 nm of torque, power to weight ratio is probably the most important factor to consider, and now you are talking!
Ok, for me torque and hp was just translated into overall power. @ivo_red - it’s in a different thread..
Quaife LSD, K04 turbo, Ragazzon downpipe and exhaust, Novitec mufflers, custom remap by tuner and important 100 Oct petrol
Stock M32 box and clutch. No issues what so ever. Yep like sound of petrol better than diesel.
The TBi tunes to more torque tnan the GQV due its higher compression - so when boost is upped on a remap, high octan fuel is needed to prevent knocking.
On the opposite, the GQV tunes to more HP than the TBi due harder valve springs, piston shape (and maybe other) and this gives a higher rev limit then the TBi could get.
Yes Hp and torque is both needed.
Now take the MC example with a 200 hp / 100 Nm Yamaha and compare it to some 100 hp /200 Nm bike.
It's hp at the wheels that makes a vehicle move - not engine torque.
That's what the gearbox is for...
The 100 hp/ 200nm bike will cruise and overtake effortless in high gear even uphill, but not much happens when you downshift. The 200hp/100nm bike will need a lot more shifting, and will fly away when you shift down.
Good example...but the 200/100 bike will need a lot more revving (and gear shifting) and you will only gain the advantage on the track or at high speed (horsepower only really dictates the top speed of a vehicle)...whereas the 100/200 bike will be far nicer on the road at lower revs where you usually ride. Put them both in high gear side by side from say 50 and the 100/200 bike will walk away until you get fast enough to use the extra power...in the same way my 2.0 derv will walk away from the 2.2 petrol on any of the top three gears (from the same speed) even though the 2.2 is slightly more powerful.....but it has low torque...even at high revs. I too would prefer a turbo petrol or better still a V6 (sounds way better than the 4 pot)....but until I can buy a 200 plus horse one that does over 40 mpg ALL the time I will be sticking with my diesel!
.. you will only gain the advantage on the track or at high speed (horsepower only really dictates the top speed of a vehicle)...whereas the 100/200 bike will be far nicer on the road at lower revs where you usually ride.
Oh no.
Go jump on a 200hp/100 nm bike and it will EAT any 100 hp /200 nm bike under all conditions - you just gear down.
Yes the 200 Nm bike will feel more comfortable and "easy riding" but it will be a lot slower..
You seem confused by engine torque and hp at the wheels.
Exactly....you have to use the box a lot more and high revs ....which is only nice on the track...on the road you need a nice effortless torque and as said in high gears the high torque bike will walk all over the low torque in the same way my 2.0 derv (even in stock form) crushes a 2.2 at normal revs and high gears. Who wants to be chasing the revs down the box to get the power all the time. Before i road litre bikes I used to ride 600s.....horrible revvy things....you had to be a 10k most of the time to get anywhere....not nice on the road. HP is only the rate at which torque is made....nothing more....
From a text book on the subject...
"Both torque and horsepower can be felt when accelerating. In very simple terms, torque is the force you feel pushing you back in your seat on acceleration, horsepower is the speed achieved at the end of that acceleration."
Anyway...we are way off topic now.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Alfa Romeo Forum
7.1M posts
216.5K members
Since 2001
The friendly Alfa Romeo Club - If you are looking to buy or you are already an Alfa Romeo owner, join alfaowner.com today to get the most from your ownership