3.2 gtv = 3.2 gta - Alfa Romeo Forum
You are currently unregistered, register for more features.    
Tuning & Upgrades Discuss performance enhancements for your Alfa Romeo

Reply
 
Thread Tools
(Post Link) post #1 of 66 Old 12-12-11 Thread Starter
Status: got his new 3.2
AO Silver Member
 
fetta head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
County: West Yorkshire
Posts: 1,226
3.2 gtv = 3.2 gta

So whats the difference and which is best quickest etc
How and where do i get the same map
fetta head is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Status: Meh.
AO Platinum Member
 
NineOneSix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: United Kingdom
County: Hertfordshire
Posts: 30,067
Garage

Member car:

GTV V6 3.0

Same engine, same ECU, different map. the GTV is 10hp less then the GTA, but the GTA is heavier though, GTV will be faster and quicker though.

you'll see a better gain in the GTV with a remap as it's detuned, but they will get to about the same hp roughly.
NineOneSix is offline  
(Post Link) post #3 of 66 Old 12-12-11 Thread Starter
Status: got his new 3.2
AO Silver Member
 
fetta head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
County: West Yorkshire
Posts: 1,226
How much is a remap and wheres the best place to get one Dont get me wrong the car is already quick the engine is as smooth as silk but we all like a bit more and if it doesnt do any harm then why not
fetta head is offline  
Status: Meh.
AO Platinum Member
 
NineOneSix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: United Kingdom
County: Hertfordshire
Posts: 30,067
Garage

Member car:

GTV V6 3.0

For you, I'd suggest alfatune (member here (alfa tuner) or Gus, can't remember pricing, but his work is second to none
NineOneSix is offline  
Status: Skunk'd...
Club Member
Membro Medio
 
Clogz's Avatar
 
Club Member Number: 1405
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: United Kingdom
County: West Yorkshire
Posts: 929
Quote:
Originally Posted by NineOneSix View Post
For you, I'd suggest alfatune (member here (alfa tuner) or Gus, can't remember pricing, but his work is second to none
Yes, Gus is your man...I've seen several beautiful 3.2GTV's there on my visits...
Clogz is offline  
(Post Link) post #6 of 66 Old 12-12-11 Thread Starter
Status: got his new 3.2
AO Silver Member
 
fetta head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
County: West Yorkshire
Posts: 1,226
thanks lads
seen him on here
To do list in new year
fetta head is offline  
Status: Busy busy busy!
Club Member
Membro Premio
 
Pud237's Avatar
 
Club Member Number: 71
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: United Kingdom
County: Cumbria
Posts: 44,814
I've driven plenty examples of both and I reckon the 240bhp vs 250bhp is all rubbish, they feel the same to me. Same with the GT 3.2.

I think the only one that may have a much different ECU map is the 166.
Pud237 is offline  
Status: Busy busy busy!
Club Member
Membro Premio
 
Pud237's Avatar
 
Club Member Number: 71
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: United Kingdom
County: Cumbria
Posts: 44,814
By the way, Alfas figures for kerb weights are:

GTV 3.2 1445kg
147 GTA 1360kg
156 GTA saloon 1410kg
156 GTA wagon 1460kg

This is all Euro factory spec, with no options ticked. The 147 GTA being much cheaper than the rest will probably explain why it is so light, by the time you get it to Alfa UK spec with leather, Bose, winterpack, comfort pack etc then it will probably be up there with the 156 GTA saloon.
Pud237 is offline  
Alexandrus
Status: - Update
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Obviously, the GTV is NOT lighter than the 156 GTA saloon, as some claim
But the weigth difference is negligible, same as the power difference. Yet, the far more advanced suspension of the 156/147 will give it a slight advantage.
 
Status: playing kill by numbers
AO Gold Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Belgium
County: Down in the Park
Posts: 8,786
you mean the more advanced front suspension?

the tables are turned at the rear...
Cuore_Sportivo_155 is offline  
(Post Link) post #11 of 66 Old 14-12-11 Thread Starter
Status: got his new 3.2
AO Silver Member
 
fetta head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
County: West Yorkshire
Posts: 1,226
Id like to try a gta to compare
to be totally honest im happy as a pig in the proverbial with my gtv, its rare its stylish and its fast but docile around town
but id hate to be out done by one of its sisters who are saloons and hatchbacks and some how it doesnt seem right if there quicker
no offence to the gta but the gtv looks as though it should be faster
fetta head is offline  
Alexandrus
Status: - Update
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuore_Sportivo_155 View Post
you mean the more advanced front suspension?

the tables are turned at the rear...
Are they, really ?
What kind of suspension does the 156 have on the rear, do you know ?
 
Status: Meh.
AO Platinum Member
 
NineOneSix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: United Kingdom
County: Hertfordshire
Posts: 30,067
Garage

Member car:

GTV V6 3.0

Yeah, he knows as he's had a couple 156s

I thought the rear design was superior on the back of the gtv also tbh. With its double wishbone and multilink design.

While the 156 is basically a macphearson strut setup.
NineOneSix is offline  
Status: GTA facelift + engine rebuild. In progress
Club Member
Membro Premio
 
Joss's Avatar
 
Club Member Number: 1014
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: United Kingdom
County: Dorset
Posts: 19,113
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexandrus View Post
Are they, really ?
What kind of suspension does the 156 have on the rear, do you know ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NineOneSix View Post
Yeah, he knows as he's had a couple 156s

I thought the rear design was superior on the back of the gtv also tbh. With its double wishbone and multilink design.

While the 156 is basically a macphearson strut setup.
I never understood why they swaped it round? Why not just do double wishbones front and rear and accept the slightly higher cost
Joss is offline  
Chris155
Status: - Update
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pud237 View Post
I've driven plenty examples of both and I reckon the 240bhp vs 250bhp is all rubbish, they feel the same to me. Same with the GT 3.2.
 
Chris155
Status: - Update
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joss View Post
I never understood why they swaped it round? Why not just do double wishbones front and rear and accept the slightly higher cost
packaging?
 
Status: GTA facelift + engine rebuild. In progress
Club Member
Membro Premio
 
Joss's Avatar
 
Club Member Number: 1014
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: United Kingdom
County: Dorset
Posts: 19,113
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris155 View Post
packaging?
If honda can do it on a civic Nice to see you changed your name back
Joss is offline  
Status: Meh.
AO Platinum Member
 
NineOneSix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: United Kingdom
County: Hertfordshire
Posts: 30,067
Garage

Member car:

GTV V6 3.0

I think Alfa were still developing it, remember the gtv came out in 96 while the 156 was in 98.
NineOneSix is offline  
Alexandrus
Status: - Update
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by NineOneSix View Post
Yeah, he knows as he's had a couple 156s

I thought the rear design was superior on the back of the gtv also tbh. With its double wishbone and multilink design.

While the 156 is basically a macphearson strut setup.
No, it's actually not. It's a multilink design, based on an adaptation of the Chapman strut for the non-driven axle.
On the other hand, the 916 rear multilink design is more primitive, with only 2 large links.
Not trying to bash the 916, as I love the car, but objectively speaking, the 156 is better, suspension wise, at least.
 
Chris155
Status: - Update
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
From Wikipedia;

The Chapman strut is often confused with the MacPherson strut, as both use a near-vertical upper strut, The distinction is that the MacPherson strut always requires a lower track control arm[note 1][5] where the Chapman uses the drive shaft and a light radius rod.
As it requires a drive shaft, the Chapman strut can only be used at the driven end of the vehicle. For the Lotus designs to which it was applied, this was their rear. MacPherson struts are most commonly used for front suspension and the strut axis forms the kingpin bearing, for steering movement. There is little reason why a Chapman strut could not be used similarly, although there is no record of this being tried on a front-wheel or four-wheel drive car. Both designs are struts, where the strut base is rigidly attached to the hub carrier.
Chapman did use MacPherson struts for the front suspension of the Lotus 17.[13] These were unsuccessful, owing to the stiction problems that Chapman had worked to avoid with the sliding drive shaft joint. A wishbone conversion kit was later developed by ex-Lotus engineer Len Terry.[14]
 
Alexandrus
Status: - Update
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I know what a Chapman strust is and can read Wikipedia (and even write on it from time to time). Wikipedia also states that the 156 does not have MacPherson strut on the back.
 
Chris155
Status: - Update
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
"the Chapman strut can only be used at the driven end of the vehicle."
 
Status: Meh.
AO Platinum Member
 
NineOneSix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: United Kingdom
County: Hertfordshire
Posts: 30,067
Garage

Member car:

GTV V6 3.0

Soo your saying it doesn't have a chapman strut setup on the 156 then Chris?
NineOneSix is offline  
Chris155
Status: - Update
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by NineOneSix View Post
While the 156 is basically a macphearson strut setup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexandrus View Post
No, it's actually not. It's a multilink design, based on an adaptation of the Chapman strut for the non-driven axle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NineOneSix View Post
Soo your saying it doesn't have a chapman strut setup on the 156 then Chris?
Nope, at least, I'm not...

Last edited by Chris155; 14-12-11 at 23:48.
 
Chris155
Status: - Update
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexandrus View Post
I know what a Chapman strust is and can read Wikipedia (and even write on it from time to time). Wikipedia also states that the 156 does not have MacPherson strut on the back.
Strust?

Wikipedia in relation to the 156 states;

The 156 uses a platform derived from the Alfa Romeo 155, which in turn was derived from the Fiat Group's "Tipo" platform. However it is sufficiently different from the original "Tipo" one to be seen as a new platform.[16][17] The 156 is a highly-developed front-wheel drive car; (the Cross/Sportwagon Q4 offered four-wheel drive in left-hand drive markets) with a double high wishbone front suspension and all independent multi-link rear suspension,[1][18] which consists of a telescopic vertical strut with coaxial spring and two transverse links of different lengths and a longitudinal strut. This structure means that the rear wheels have a small passive steering ability

It makes no reference to the macphearson strut nor a modified chapman strut (for the non driven axle )

As for "I can read Wikipedia (and even write on it from time to time)"

Well done. You must be so proud of yourself...
 
Reply

Go Back   Alfa Romeo Forum > Supported Alfa Romeo Models > Technical & Vehicle Assistance > Tuning & Upgrades

Tags
gta , gtv

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



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
So how many and where are the GTA's ??? 156GTASW Alfa GTA 608 27-10-11 09:11

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 On
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