Alfa Romeo Forum banner

1 - 20 of 66 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,226 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So whats the difference and which is best quickest etc
How and where do i get the same map
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,067 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,226 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
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
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
929 Posts
For you, I'd suggest alfatune :) (member here (alfa tuner) or Gus, can't remember pricing, but his work is second to none :thumbs:
Yes, Gus is your man...I've seen several beautiful 3.2GTV's there on my visits... :thumbs:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,226 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
thanks lads
seen him on here
To do list in new year
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
45,777 Posts
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.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
45,777 Posts
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.
 
A

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,226 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
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
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
19,119 Posts
Are they, really ?
What kind of suspension does the 156 have on the rear, do you know ?
Yeah, he knows as he's had a couple 156s :lol:

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
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
19,119 Posts
A

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Yeah, he knows as he's had a couple 156s :lol:

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.
 
C

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
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]
 
1 - 20 of 66 Posts
Top