Alfa Romeo Forum banner
1 - 20 of 57 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
151 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just thinking stock a 3.2 has around 176kw, the Brera and 159 around 190kw with the GM derived V6. The GTA had more kw than the 3.2 as found in the GT. Is it possible to get 200kw from a Busso without turbo charging ? No particular reason, just a nice round figure and I was wondering :) I guess it would cost lots but sometimes I feel this motor can handle alot more power as it feels understressed ? Front wheels might battle though :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,929 Posts
As far as I know it is possible to get 205kw from somebfancy head work on the Busso and keeping everything else stock except mapping. But I also know Alfa had up to 220kw from prototype busso engines when they were experimenting with the GTA concept. One of those engines was used in the Diva prototype.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,035 Posts
Just thinking stock a 3.2 has around 176kw, the Brera and 159 around 190kw with the GM derived V6. The GTA had more kw than the 3.2 as found in the GT. Is it possible to get 200kw from a Busso without turbo charging ? No particular reason, just a nice round figure and I was wondering :) I guess it would cost lots but sometimes I feel this motor can handle alot more power as it feels understressed ? Front wheels might battle though :)
I think i was quite close with my 3.0 V6 GTV :) And on a check engine light!
3.2 should get to 200kw with just minor mods.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,532 Posts
I should be seeing 205kw if not more from mine with the current mods...dyno run on Thursday will confirm :)

Once winter is here I'm aiming for 230KWs :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,514 Posts
Just thinking stock a 3.2 has around 176kw, the Brera and 159 around 190kw with the GM derived V6. The GTA had more kw than the 3.2 as found in the GT. Is it possible to get 200kw from a Busso without turbo charging ? No particular reason, just a nice round figure and I was wondering :) I guess it would cost lots but sometimes I feel this motor can handle alot more power as it feels understressed ? Front wheels might battle though :)
You quote sea level factory crank figures that we can not measure. Crank figures from a rolling road dyno with the best calculations are still a unsubstantiated figure. That said with 200whp on the reef you will close or over 200kW on the crank and that definitely possible without to much work.
 
G

·
My GTA made 202.5bhp on the wheels.. (Stock bone standard).. So thats close to 200kw at the crank.

I am sure most 3.2l Busso's can make close to 200kw without to much money thrown after it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,004 Posts
Henry from ARCSA has a 193wkw 3.7 Busso which is roughly 257ckw (using Corries whp = ckw) AND he has a 165wkw = 220 ckw 3.2 Busso.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,514 Posts
My GTA made 202.5bhp on the wheels.. (Stock bone standard).. So that is close to 200kw at the crank.
I can't say I was that lucky power wise.

My 3.2 needed 11:1 CR, GTA cams, Unichip, K+N cone filter, an open exhaust and a 2.5 flywheel, to get to 193whp.

Then GTA 2/1 cams and a K+N insert in the std filter raised it to 202whp.

Maybe the towbar is keep the GTV back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,047 Posts
My GTA made 202.5bhp on the wheels.. (Stock bone standard).. So thats close to 200kw at the crank.

I am sure most 3.2l Busso's can make close to 200kw without to much money thrown after it.
I you get magical cars and you have one of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,004 Posts
The first part of this question needs to state sea level or highveld.
Many Dyno's compensate for that... It is supposed to do so, that one can compare apples with apples. The last 2 ARCSA Dyno runs (Dutch Auto and FR&R) were environment compensated - you could even see the compensation factor change as the day went on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,694 Posts
Many Dyno's compensate for that... It is supposed to do so, that one can compare apples with apples. The last 2 ARCSA Dyno runs (Dutch Auto and FR&R) were environment compensated - you could even see the compensation factor change as the day went on.
Right okay.
And are they all flywheel compensated too, or showning wkw with only environmental compenstion?

And what sort of numbers are 3.2 bussos posting on them on the highveld?

I've only dyno'd my GT once, in durban, on a wkw dyno with no compenstion factors, which has a repuation as a conservative dyno.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,694 Posts
The GTA had more kw than the 3.2 as found in the GT. /QUOTE]

Has anyone got a difinitive answer on what makes the difference between a 177kw GT motor and a 186kw GTA motor?

Obviously this fluctuates from car to car...and you may find a 180kw GTA and a 182kw GT.

I now believe the cams are identical? And cant imagine other mechanical differences so they are like for like?

Is it just software and exhaust?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,929 Posts
The differences between the engines are virtually nil. The GT, GTV and GTA has seperate unique engine codes with the GTV's getting a different water pump and routing of pipework. The GTA engines are all 932A000; GT engines are 936A000 and GTV engines are 936A600 indicating that the GT and GTV engines may be slightly different.

Exhaust routing is different, with GTA's getting different cats and longer downpipes than the GT and GTV. GTA engine components were also closer to spec (not quite blueprinted, but close) than the other engines. Saying this, it could happen that by fluke a GT walked out of the factory with an engine in GTA spec or better, and producing better power.

Car Magazine tested the GT and compared results to the GTA they tested earlier. The GT was faster by all accounts, in accaleration as well as top speed. Also, their 147 GTA tested was slower than the 156 GTA they tested, where throughout the rest of the world the opposite was true.

Mapping on these engines differ very slightly due to different ECU's. The GTV engines do feel very much more torquey low down than the GT and GTA engines despite the GTV being about 100kg heavier in each case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,694 Posts
Okay so essentially there is no definitive answer as there is no definitave difference and they are all six of one or half a dozen of the other.

Perhaps what should be done is set up a thread which doesnt have a whole lot of discussion and comment, but lists dyno results. Maybe a sticky?

eg:

Model: 156 V6
Year: 2003
Mileage: 150 000km
Dyno: XXX
kW: 120
at: Wheels
Corrected: Yes/No/For altutude etc
Modifications: Nil
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,471 Posts
I read an article a few years back (Think it was in Auto Italia) where it was stated the the 3.2 Motor was supposed to make around 225kw and was detuned with cams, heads and the intake to get it down to under 185kw due to the car being front wheel drive.
I really hate this sort of reverse engineering.
Just imagine the Gta's making 225kw with a Q2 diff and proper hard core suspension.

The 156 Gta's test by Car magazine in SA was utter nonsense. They show the BMW 330i (E46) out gunning the 156 Gta by quite some margin.
Now I easily outrun E46 330i's with a Gtv 3.0 which is significantly slower than a 156 Gta.
Somebody at Car surely got a nice present from BMW it seems ... ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,004 Posts
Right okay.
And are they all flywheel compensated too, or showning wkw with only environmental compenstion?

And what sort of numbers are 3.2 bussos posting on them on the highveld?

I've only dyno'd my GT once, in durban, on a wkw dyno with no compenstion factors, which has a repuation as a conservative dyno.
We ask for environment compensated + wkw - here is why:

Environmental compensation is easy as you take barometric pressure, temperature and humidity readings and plonk it into an equation - pure natural physics - so there should be little BS. There is 1% correction difference between 25C and 30C - all else being equal.

Drive-train compensation (to get ckw) still seem like black-magic to me - Some Dyno's correction factors are close to 30% but the average of the internet references I came across: FWD is supposed to loose (only) 12%, RWD 15% and AWD 20%. There seems to be a lot of BS in that - so we asked for wkw and it is best to stay with that for now

3.0 Busso's are anything from 110 to high 130 wkw. 3.2 Busso figures are in the 140's wkw some as strong as 146wkw with mild mods, others lost a bit, dipping below 140. Look for the ARCSA dyno run threads here is the result sheets:
http://www.arcsa.co.za/dyno_day_2012_results.html
http://www.alfaowner.com/Forum/atta...h-fr-and-r-arcsa-dyno-run-16th-march-2013.jpg
 
1 - 20 of 57 Posts
Top