Alfa Romeo Forum banner

181 - 200 of 204 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,034 Posts
Who built it and the quality of steel used is not really relevant, it is now revered and many, many front drive cars are also revered today. I can see the appeal of rwd handling, but I can also see the appeal of fwd and 4wd handling too, dont get all this "it has to be rwd" nonsense, its a bit boring and cliched TBH.

The Alfasud was not "low powered" in its day.

The Guilia is highly praised, sadly its the inverse of the 159 - it looks awful but (by all accounts) drives great (I ve not driven one but believe what others say).

Um , not sure where youve been but when the Brera and 159 were dropped they DID "make it rear drive" - the Guilia is the result. Unless you mean make the 159 rwd, which would have been ridiculous - it was designed to be fwd and making it rwd would have made it slow as F (not to mention drink fuel like a fish) due to losses in the transmission.

Sadly I disagree "they are back on track with the Guilia and Stelvio", the styling is awful so derivative, theyve dropped loads of the planned new models (coupes, wagons) which have now dried up, whilst the poor old Guilietta soldiers on leaving a very limited range of cars. And the Toenail is Fiat platform based, sure it does have some nice styling features, but we re back to re-bodied Fiats. And I wouldnt touch ANY SUV Alfa or otherwise with a bargepole. So they ll get no money from me for years and I suspect none from many other enthusiasts. Not waht I d call "back on track".

I said I thought the F40 had the same max torque as the C630, 295 lbs/ft, you said its 400nm . . . which is 295 lbs/ft (or 400nm), so they DO have the same max torque rating, so much for the F40 "being stronger".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,034 Posts
It’s not a 159 thread. However, the 8hp is incidental. The point of the exercise was to get engine temperatures down.
Great F everyones lungs, at least your Yankee engine's temperature is down. Its illegal and rightly so, they should enforce it properly.

I
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
269 Posts
Insane! Typos1, are you retired or something? You got some time to type! Sorry but it was so much nonsense that I had to skip some of it. Way too long of a personal rant to take serious. You contradict yourself and have different standards for your own car (I guess you have a 156?) and the 159. Very convenient.

And the advantage of RWD is not that it is cooler and more fun to drive. It has to do with performance and dynamics. This is why premium cars use RWD. They are not premium because they use RWD. They use RWD because it's better.

I wish we could just go back to discussing the topic at hand and that you would stop being offended because you think somebody attacked your FWD diesel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
269 Posts
But they are back on the right track now with the Giulia and the Stelvio.
It surely looked that way and I was happy. But now with the PSA deal I fear Alfa will go back to building FWD Fiats with Alfa badges and leave RWD for Maserati only. I keep reading news about Maserati future plans but nothing about Alfa.

The Giulia and Stelvio were definitely a step in the right direction. As much as people want to hype the 156, it was never raved be better than the almighty class leader BMW M3. Before the Giulia the reviews were always the same. Looks nice but doesn't drive as good as a BMW. I know Clarkson famously chose the GTV over the BMW in a review in 1998, although I don't think it was a M3. But that always felt more like a publicity stunt and he said later the BMW and even the Nissan RWD were better cars. But he chose the GTV 916 because it was prettier.

But the Giulia Quadrifoglio is raved as being better than the M3 pretty much universally. Definitely a step in the right direction. I think people who own old Alfas might bash it because the Giulia doesn't cost 2000 quid yet and they can't afford it. It is a phenomenal car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,034 Posts
Clearly you have a very short attention span.

It was not a rant, I simply replied to each point made, it was long cos there were lots of points to correct, call me OCD but I hate it when someone types BS as fact.

I didnt make one contradiction in my post and I dont have different standards for my own cars, sadly you dont point out these alleged contradictions.

"Performance and dynamics" is a nother way to say "fun to srive", although there are no performance advantages to rwd, quite the opposite in fact.

As I said its not true to say "premium cars use rwd" cos many "premium" cars dont, they use fwd and 4wd. And there are plenty of rubbish rwd cars, being rwd does not automaitcally make a car "premium", unless of course you regard the Morris Marina as "premium" ?

As for "cooler" thats just down to personal taste, but there are and have been plenty of "cool" hot hatches that are fwd.

Happy to get back to the topic, but if you post stuff that is factually incorrect I will correct it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,034 Posts
It surely looked that way and I was happy. But now with the PSA deal I fear Alfa will go back to building FWD Fiats with Alfa badges and leave RWD for Maserati only. I keep reading news about Maserati future plans but nothing about Alfa.

The Giulia and Stelvio were definitely a step in the right direction. As much as people want to hype the 156, it was never raved be better than the almighty class leader BMW M3. Before the Giulia the reviews were always the same. Looks nice but doesn't drive as good as a BMW. I know Clarkson famously chose the GTV over the BMW in a review in 1998, although I don't think it was a M3. But that always felt more like a publicity stunt and he said later the BMW and even the Nissan RWD were better cars. But he chose the GTV 916 because it was prettier.

But the Giulia Quadrifoglio is raved as being better than the M3 pretty much universally. Definitely a step in the right direction. I think people who own old Alfas might bash it because the Giulia doesn't cost 2000 quid yet and they can't afford it. It is a phenomenal car.
As I said sadly the Toenail is gonna be a rebodied Fiat.

The 156 was never rated as better than a BMW, but as very nearly as good.

As good as the reviews I ve read about the Guila are, many people have said that the Guilia is still not quite as good as a BMW. Personally I d rather have a BMW than, the Guilia much as I love Italian cars I could never own a car as awful looking as the Guilia.

All this talk of "it can only be rwd" is as though the hot hatch had never happened and there hadnt been hundreds of great handling, revered and highly rated fwd cars !

Anyway I thought you wanted to get back on track ?!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
269 Posts
Like I said, insane! :eek::ROFLMAO:

Clearly you have a very short attention span.

It was not a rant, I simply replied to each point made, it was long cos there were lots of points to correct, call me OCD but I hate it when someone types BS as fact.

I didnt make one contradiction in my post and I dont have different standards for my own cars, sadly you dont point out these alleged contradictions.

"Performance and dynamics" is a nother way to say "fun to srive", although there are no performance advantages to rwd, quite the opposite in fact.

As I said its not true to say "premium cars use rwd" cos many "premium" cars dont, they use fwd and 4wd. And there are plenty of rubbish rwd cars, being rwd does not automaitcally make a car "premium", unless of course you regard the Morris Marina as "premium" ?

As for "cooler" thats just down to personal taste, but there are and have been plenty of "cool" hot hatches that are fwd.

Happy to get back to the topic, but if you post stuff that is factually incorrect I will correct it.
You said this:

the 147/156/GT uses a totally bespoke platform and suspension system that NO OTHER CAR uses, it is unique to Alfa Romeo and therefore cannot be called "just a Fiat".
But the 156 use the Type Two platform. It's a revision 3, but it is still derived from the Fiat platform. And no other car uses the 156 platform? Really? Only Alfas? Tell that to the aberration which is the Lancia Lybra. LOL. It uses the exact same Type Two Rev.3 platform as the 156. I know that for some reason you want to deny the Fiat motherhood, but it's pointless.

So, the 156 uses an evolution of the Fiat Bravo platform and the very same platform that the Lancia Lybra uses and the 156 is a real Alfa. But the 159 and Brera sit on a platform never used to build another car, Alfa or not, and they are not real Alfas right? Talk about making up insane rules to serve an agenda. Oh yes, because Fiat is Italian right? Makes it all right.. LOL. 🤣 Fiat has probably the worst reputation in the world. BIG advantage being Italian in this case (sarcasm). Being Italian means what? More rust? More buttons falling off? Your misguided prejudice is on the same level as the ridiculous Italian car stereotypes. Hilarous really. Italian is fine, even if it's Fiat. I'm sorry. But Fiat makes nothing that I would even want if given for free at the moment. Because acording to you, the only half good Fiat is actually a Mazda. The ugly 124. So there are no desirable Fiats now. But I would take a new Camaro or Corvette over any Fiat. GM IS NOT worse than Fiat. Drop your badge prejudice. It's clouding your reasoning.

In any case, I'm done discussing that. It doesn't belong here. OK. The 156 is not a Fiat parts bin special. It shares nothing with a Fiat. It's a 100% bespoke platform not used in any other car, apart from the Lancia of course. It's not an elongated Fiat Bravo platform with new bits added to it. Ok got it! It's an Alfa purosangue.

Back to how to make a Busso into a Q4 since we can't make it into a RWD. Of course, not because AWD or RWD is better than FWD, but because we like to suffer and doing pointless "improvements".

Sorry for the snide man. But you took the whole thing into a personal rant and derailed the whole thread for nothing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,034 Posts
Like I said, insane! :eek::ROFLMAO:



You said this:



But the 156 use the Type Two platform. It's a revision 3, but it is still derived from the Fiat platform. And no other car uses the 156 platform? Really? Only Alfas? Tell that to the aberration which is the Lancia Lybra. LOL. It uses the exact same Type Two Rev.3 platform as the 156. I know that for some reason you want to deny the Fiat motherhood, but it's pointless.

So, the 156 uses an evolution of the Fiat Bravo platform and the very same platform that the Lancia Lybra uses and the 156 is a real Alfa. But the 159 and Brera sit on a platform never used to build another car, Alfa or not, and they are not real Alfas right? Talk about making up insane rules to serve an agenda. Oh yes, because Fiat is Italian right? Makes it all right.. LOL. 🤣 Fiat has probably the worst reputation in the world. BIG advantage being Italian in this case (sarcasm). Being Italian means what? More rust? More buttons falling off? Your misguided prejudice is on the same level as the ridiculous Italian car stereotypes. Hilarous really. Italian is fine, even if it's Fiat. I'm sorry. But Fiat makes nothing that I would even want if given for free at the moment. Because acording to you, the only half good Fiat is actually a Mazda. The ugly 124. So there are no desirable Fiats now. But I would take a new Camaro or Corvette over any Fiat. GM IS NOT worse than Fiat. Drop your badge prejudice. It's clouding your reasoning.

In any case, I'm done discussing that. It doesn't belong here. OK. The 156 is not a Fiat parts bin special. It shares nothing with a Fiat. It's a 100% bespoke platform not used in any other car, apart from the Lancia of course. It's not an elongated Fiat Bravo platform with new bits added to it. Ok got it! It's an Alfa purosangue.

Back to how to make a Busso into a Q4 since we can't make it into a RWD. Of course, not because AWD or RWD is better than FWD, but because we like to suffer and doing pointless "improvements".

Sorry for the snide man. But you took the whole thing into a personal rant and derailed the whole thread for nothing.
Oh dear, youve clearly not read what I wrote before (you did say you "skipped over" it) and you are clearly just reading from Wikipedia with little or no actual knowledge - the 147/156/GT platform shares a very small piece of the floorpan with the mark 1 Fiat Tipo, but apart from this small piece of metal in the floor, the actual platform is not shared with any other car ("platform" = floorpan AND suspension, not just the floorpan), most people would not count a small piece of metal pressing 25cmx25cm as meaning anything in this context. The suspension is entirely bespoke, no other car uses it. The Lybra has different suspension so cannot be considered a variation of the 147/156/GT, it just uses the same floorpan. Whilst the floorpan may have a small effect on the stiffness (the body contributes most to this) it does not contribute in the same way suspension does - the Lybra handles differently, it has struts at the front, unlike the 147/156/GT which has double wishbones, this massively effects handling as struts cause more understeer.

All this re-engineering of the original Tipo platform (leaving only 25x25cm of the original left) to make the 156, was done by Alfa - and it had to be SUBSTANTIALLY re-engineered to take the TOTALLY different front and rear suspension it used compared to the struts/lower wishbone and torsion beam/trailing arms of Tipo and Bravo/a. Which is why it only shares a small piece of metal with the original Tipo floorpan.

This is a totally different kettle of fish to the 155 for example, which is basically a Fiat Tipo with a different body, same suspension, floorpan, same inner door skins, side windows, windscreen. In fact, up to the Guilia the 147/156/GT was the most bespoke mass production Alfa since Fiat took over in 1986.

Whereas ALL the engineering of the 159 was done by Saab for GM, not Alfa or even Fiat.

"Fiat has the worst reputation in the world" what does this even mean, reputation for what exactly ? And amongst who ? Many car enthusiasts love Fiat, admittedly theyve lost it a bit over the last 10 years or so, but this sort of thing happens to many manufacturers.

As for whether there are any desirable Fiats this is down to personal opinion. As is the love or hatred of any manufacturer. But its quite amusing that youre calling me "predujiced" for only liking certain manufacturers, when we re on a manufacturer specific website for fans of one specific manufacturer ! If thats what you think why are you even here ?! Shouldnt you be on some sort of general car website without a marque specific agenda ?

I have not taken anything "personal", I ve simply corrected inaccuracies in your posts. And there is room for this AS WELL as discussion of a Busso Q4.

But I fail to understand if youre into rwd only and you dont particularly like the 156, why you would even bother with all the hassle of this conversion - there are plenty of rwd Busso engined cars from Alfa's past, just buy one of them, it ll be a lot easier for you.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,808 Posts
It surely looked that way and I was happy. But now with the PSA deal I fear Alfa will go back to building FWD Fiats with Alfa badges and leave RWD for Maserati only. I keep reading news about Maserati future plans but nothing about Alfa.

The Giulia and Stelvio were definitely a step in the right direction. As much as people want to hype the 156, it was never raved be better than the almighty class leader BMW M3. Before the Giulia the reviews were always the same. Looks nice but doesn't drive as good as a BMW. I know Clarkson famously chose the GTV over the BMW in a review in 1998, although I don't think it was a M3. But that always felt more like a publicity stunt and he said later the BMW and even the Nissan RWD were better cars. But he chose the GTV 916 because it was prettier.

But the Giulia Quadrifoglio is raved as being better than the M3 pretty much universally. Definitely a step in the right direction. I think people who own old Alfas might bash it because the Giulia doesn't cost 2000 quid yet and they can't afford it. It is a phenomenal car.
I had a 1.8, 156 for many years. A ‘98 plate. Loved because of the power/balance. Good fun, not quick, just good fun. Put 160,000 on her but she was the most expensive ALFA I have ever owned in terms of maintenance cost. Engine - twinnie, delightful m, never let me down. The rest cost a bloody fortune.

Bought a GT 1.9, got 170,000 on her now and has been the cheapest of all in terms of maintenance.

But both cars clattered like chieftain tanks. Bloody awful. The GT with its gorgeous Bertone overcoat. The 156 pretty without any body attachments.

But Oh! How much better they would have been and how much better would the fortunes of ALFA have been if they were rear wheel drive?

For all it’s weight, the 159/Brera are lovely. Screwed together well, no eeks, no rattles.

Perhaps the Front wheel versions are a bit numb on handling, but there are loads of guys who sorted that out - as enthusiasts always have.

However, my Q4 isn’t numb and holds it’s line elike no standard front wheel Alfa can.

Note I said standard, because, aside from the engine work, mine is standard. And with the extra power and flexibility, the brilliant chassis/4 wheel drive can at last be exploited.

Glad you love your 156. I’m just glad they are History. Sad about the Busso, but I can understand why it too is history. But every modern V6 owes so much to that man - Busso.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
269 Posts
I had a 1.8, 156 for many years. A ‘98 plate. Loved because of the power/balance. Good fun, not quick, just good fun. Put 160,000 on her but she was the most expensive ALFA I have ever owned in terms of maintenance cost. Engine - twinnie, delightful m, never let me down. The rest cost a bloody fortune.

Bought a GT 1.9, got 170,000 on her now and has been the cheapest of all in terms of maintenance.

But both cars clattered like chieftain tanks. Bloody awful. The GT with its gorgeous Bertone overcoat. The 156 pretty without any body attachments.

But Oh! How much better they would have been and how much better would the fortunes of ALFA have been if they were rear wheel drive?

For all it’s weight, the 159/Brera are lovely. Screwed together well, no eeks, no rattles.

Perhaps the Front wheel versions are a bit numb on handling, but there are loads of guys who sorted that out - as enthusiasts always have.

However, my Q4 isn’t numb and holds it’s line elike no standard front wheel Alfa can.

Note I said standard, because, aside from the engine work, mine is standard. And with the extra power and flexibility, the brilliant chassis/4 wheel drive can at last be exploited.

Glad you love your 156. I’m just glad they are History. Sad about the Busso, but I can understand why it too is history. But every modern V6 owes so much to that man - Busso.
The GT is a thing of beauty! I can look at it the whole day, along with the GTV 916. I could never warm up to the 156 though. It's nice enough I guess. But I wouldn't buy one. If I was to buy an Alfa saloon and couldn't get a Giulia it would be a 159 Q4. In a saloon I want RWD or AWD. Never cared for the 147 as I'm not a hatchback person.

I absolutely agree Alfa's fortune would be totally different today if their cars were not FWD. The 164 for example was very praised. But every review had to mention it should have been RWD.

Again I agree about the 159 Q4 being the one to get over the FWD. It drives much better than the FWD 159. Sure it is heavier than the 156. But also feels more solid, feels better put together and flex less and for a daily driver would be my choice over a 156. For a daily the 159 Q4 performance is very adequate and the extra solidness is a plus. If I was talking about a sports car for the weekend, sure. But it's not a sports car. It's a 4 door saloon. 4 doors saloons are basically made to be a daily or beater. In that the 159 is great. Never owned one but by most accounts the most reliable Alfa till then. I remember Tiff even saying it felt like an Audi because it was more solid. This is high praise specially for your daily driver. But if you are not happy with the power it seems to be very expensive to squeeze more out of the 3.2 JTS.

Yes, the Busso is a legend but it was time to let it go. Alfa dropped it because they couldn't improve it anymore. It was already old when it was discontinued in 2005. Now it's ancient tech. When you think it is a 3.2 engine and only makes 250bhp in a good day and compare it to modern V6 and straight six engines, which are way cleaner too, you see why it had to go. But it sure is a great engine. Probably my favorite engine of all time. But I'm not sure I would want a Busso in my daily driver. I would want a Busso as a special car, a weekend car. As a daily a more modern engine is more practical.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,808 Posts
Great F everyones lungs, at least your Yankee engine's temperature is down. Its illegal and rightly so, they should enforce it properly.

I
If you want to take the moral high ground then surely you must apply this to all vehicles which do not meet current legislation. The fact that any of them predate the legislation, is irrelevant - they still damage the environment and our health.

So my 3.0 GTV without manifold cats must go. And every other classic car of history - unless they are simply parked up on display. We could then extend this to encompass "Type Approval". In which case every small company that produces the kind of options fans like to fit to their toy, should be banned - regardless of whether they environmentally neutral - wheels - shock absorbers - what ever - if it was not fitted standard to the car when it was type approved - they should be illegal, if we follow your logic to its ultimate conclusion.

And the little project this thread is proposing will never materialize - not that it will in any case. But it would stop those who have very little knowledge of engineering proposing ridiculous schemes which have no material worth than to stave off their boredom.

I fully balanced and rebuilt my 3.2 JTS and part of my research was into emissions and how effectively it can be reduced.

I can assure you my 3.2 JTS more than meets current emissions legislation.

For your information, the manifold cats are not the main emission control devices. They are more "Pre - heaters" to ensure the main cats below the car are maintained at "Light - off" temperature, which is required to facilitated correct conversion of HC's and Nox.

There is no problem when driving at motorway speeds. But at urban speeds and with poor traffic flow, the cats cool very quickly and fail to catalyze pollutants.

The Lambda Probes on the manifolds of my 3.2 JTS remain fitted. And importantly, being wide band, they quickly respond to cylinder discharges which go outside specific limits and the ECU quickly rectifies the problem.

However, Alfa were no fools in what they did with this engine, which of all the cars produced that year was the only one to get top category from the E.U. Emissions Legislators.

They did not solely rely upon catalytic conversion. They designed in a very precise degree of "Internal EGR". This function re - burns, unburnt HC's, which do require higher temperatures for conversion. Whilst, at the same time, the under car cats reduce Nox and other components, which are converted at lower temperatures than HC's.

Research has shown cats placed about two metres from the exhaust manifold work best due to the exhaust pipe attenuating exhaust gas temperatures, to within the optimum range for Nox conversion. (Cambridge University, MIT and others).

Which is about the distance the Alfa Main Cats are!!!!!

Now how they achieve this Internal EGR function, I shall leave you to research - you clearly have a lot of time on your hands. So it would be more productively used if you did that rather than the blithe defence of an obsolete car and the travesty of Front Wheel Drive Alfa Romeo's.

Have fun - it is a fascinating subject, and a fascinating engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,034 Posts
If you want to take the moral high ground then surely you must apply this to all vehicles which do not meet current legislation. The fact that any of them predate the legislation, is irrelevant - they still damage the environment and our health.

So my 3.0 GTV without manifold cats must go. And every other classic car of history - unless they are simply parked up on display. We could then extend this to encompass "Type Approval". In which case every small company that produces the kind of options fans like to fit to their toy, should be banned - regardless of whether they environmentally neutral - wheels - shock absorbers - what ever - if it was not fitted standard to the car when it was type approved - they should be illegal, if we follow your logic to its ultimate conclusion.

And the little project this thread is proposing will never materialize - not that it will in any case. But it would stop those who have very little knowledge of engineering proposing ridiculous schemes which have no material worth than to stave off their boredom.

I fully balanced and rebuilt my 3.2 JTS and part of my research was into emissions and how effectively it can be reduced.

I can assure you my 3.2 JTS more than meets current emissions legislation.

For your information, the manifold cats are not the main emission control devices. They are more "Pre - heaters" to ensure the main cats below the car are maintained at "Light - off" temperature, which is required to facilitated correct conversion of HC's and Nox.

There is no problem when driving at motorway speeds. But at urban speeds and with poor traffic flow, the cats cool very quickly and fail to catalyze pollutants.

The Lambda Probes on the manifolds of my 3.2 JTS remain fitted. And importantly, being wide band, they quickly respond to cylinder discharges which go outside specific limits and the ECU quickly rectifies the problem.

However, Alfa were no fools in what they did with this engine, which of all the cars produced that year was the only one to get top category from the E.U. Emissions Legislators.

They did not solely rely upon catalytic conversion. They designed in a very precise degree of "Internal EGR". This function re - burns, unburnt HC's, which do require higher temperatures for conversion. Whilst, at the same time, the under car cats reduce Nox and other components, which are converted at lower temperatures than HC's.

Research has shown cats placed about two metres from the exhaust manifold work best due to the exhaust pipe attenuating exhaust gas temperatures, to within the optimum range for Nox conversion. (Cambridge University, MIT and others).

Which is about the distance the Alfa Main Cats are!!!!!

Now how they achieve this Internal EGR function, I shall leave you to research - you clearly have a lot of time on your hands. So it would be more productively used if you did that rather than the blithe defence of an obsolete car and the travesty of Front Wheel Drive Alfa Romeo's.

Have fun - it is a fascinating subject, and a fascinating engine.
I dont believe emissions equipment should be removed, thats a rather different thing to then take from that that all cars not meeting the latest emissions controls should be taken off the road.

I do think, though that the government should introduce a scheme to retrofit older vehicles with upgraded emissions equipment rather than scrap them - building a car creates a hell of a lot of pollution and the best thing for the environment is to keep a car for years and do 100,000s of thousands of miles in it, uprating emissions equipment would reduce emissions from older vehicles.

I m aware of the purpose of pre-cats, your car produces, removing them increases emissions before the main cats warm up.

A lot of car enthusiasts have this weird attitude to emissions equipment, probably routed in the 60s and 70s in the US when engines were really strangled and also to the introduction of cats in Europe in the early 90s, nowadays modern engines are effected very little by cats but its become the fashion for car enthusiasts to remove them, its mostly based on nonsense and even when it isnt, its bad for eveyone, especialy as you can tune and modify without removing emissions equipment. Sometimes I think that most car enthusiasts think that they breathe different air to everyone else.

Not sure where you got the idea of cats being best placed 2 metres from the manifold - most cats on modern cars are of the "close coupled" variety - ie they are as near to the manifold as possible to get as much heat as possible as quickly as possible to get to the most efficient working temp as quickly as possible.

You insinuate that because I have posted long replies that I have "lot of time on my hands", if we apply this principle to your replies, then you must have even more time on your hands than youre alleging I do. I just type fast :)

Ned started this thread, he runs Autolusso, the largest Alfa specialist in the country, I m sure hed be glad to hear you refer to him as having "very little knowledge of engineering proposing ridiculous schemes which have no material worth than to stave off their boredom."

Thanks for the advice re my obsolete car, from someone who also has an obsolete car ! I was not "defending" any car, however, I was merely correcting some inaccuraices made by others in previous posts. Like many others, I dont consider fwd Alfas "a travesty", so pardon me if I totally ignore this "advice". I wont bother to research EGR either, mainly cos there are better ways to reduce NOx. :)

Its interesting that you say you researched into emissions and how they can be reduced, this is something we have in common and its rare amongst car enthusiasts - I like to improve the performance of my engine and this includes improving the performance of any emissions equipment it has. I plan to retro fit a DPF, not a stupid one that burns the soot off (ie still emitting it as soot, ridiculous) but one that uses the NOx to oxidise the soot (basically carbon) into CO2.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,808 Posts
“Not sure where you got the idea of cats being best placed 2 metres from the manifold - most cats on modern cars are of the "close coupled" variety - ie they are as near to the manifold as possible to get as much heat as possible as quickly as possible to get to the most efficient working temp as quickly as possible.”

I stated where that research information came from. Cambridge University, Minnesota Institute of Technology and others.

Close coupled cats do not reduce Nox, the temperatures are too high. In fact in some cases they are too high for HC’s and the cats life expectancy is considerably reduced as the coatings can and do melt, blocking the cells.

If emissions tests were conducted in normal operating conditions - it’s not for nothing they don’t - I think you would be shocked with the results and traffic pollution would drop dramatically, given most cars would be off the road.

“I m aware of the purpose of pre-cats, your car produces, removing them increases emissions before the main cats warm up.”

Not so! The 3.2 JTS has Internal EGR. And it functions almost as soon as the engine is started. It uses “Stratified Charge” techniques in combination with lean burn.

And my 159 emissions recorded when last MOT - ed, were as good as before the pre - cats were removed. HC’s and CO well within limits.

My response was addressed to you and your assertions. Do not resort to implying my comments were in anyway directed at Ned.

You also place caveats on your theories/opinions. I am sure the owners of original 158/159, Model “T” Fords, GT40’s, et al will be pleased to hear what you have to say about emissions.

As for diesels, they are best used on agricultural land, as far away from conurbations as possible.

However, science is continuing to prevaricate about pollution and the best way to deal with it.

But I can see no valid argument for taking such a hard nosed attitude to what enthusiasts do or don’t do, yet suggest it is for others to legislate for vehicles which have lower emissions standards. Particularly as you know nothing is going to happen, regardless of what you may think.

So it is just worthless rhetoric.

VVT's benefit to fuel consumption and emission
EGR (Exhaust gas recirculation) is a commonly adopted technique to reduce emission and improve fuel efficiency. However, it is VVT that really exploit the full potential of EGR.

In theory, maximum overlap is needed between intake valves and exhaust valves’ opening whenever the engine is running at high speed. However, when the car is running at medium speed in highway, in other words, the engine is running at light load, maximum overlapping may be useful as a mean to reduce fuel consumption and emission. Since the exhaust valves do not close until the intake valves have been open for a while, some of the exhaust gases are recirculated back into the cylinder at the same time as the new fuel / air mix is injected. As part of the fuel / air mix is replaced by exhaust gases, less fuel is needed. Because the exhaust gas comprise of mostly non-combustible gas, such as CO2, the engine runs properly at the leaner fuel / air mixture without failing to combust.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=16&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwic7vaD4d3nAhWwRBUIHbA7BHEQFjAPegQICBAB&url=https://www.austincc.edu/wkibbe/vvt.htm&usg=AOvVaw06taPyYVNjqfhdi2-PLNsD

The Alfa Romeo 3.2 JTS valve timing at idle/tick - over and off throttle conditions, is designed to trap HC's from the region surrounding the piston ring/cylinder wall region, which are, as research has shown, the highest and the last to be purged into the exhaust system, before they can do so.

At other engine speeds, the VVT system provides optimum valve overlap to reduce emissions, by re - ingesting them. This engine, was awarded the highest category by Legislators when introduced.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,034 Posts
“Not sure where you got the idea of cats being best placed 2 metres from the manifold - most cats on modern cars are of the "close coupled" variety - ie they are as near to the manifold as possible to get as much heat as possible as quickly as possible to get to the most efficient working temp as quickly as possible.”

I stated where that research information came from. Cambridge University, Minnesota Institute of Technology and others.

Close coupled cats do not reduce Nox, the temperatures are too high. In fact in some cases they are too high for HC’s and the cats life expectancy is considerably reduced as the coatings can and do melt, blocking the cells.

If emissions tests were conducted in normal operating conditions - it’s not for nothing they don’t - I think you would be shocked with the results and traffic pollution would drop dramatically, given most cars would be off the road.

“I m aware of the purpose of pre-cats, your car produces, removing them increases emissions before the main cats warm up.”

Not so! The 3.2 JTS has Internal EGR. And it functions almost as soon as the engine is started. It uses “Stratified Charge” techniques in combination with lean burn.

And my 159 emissions recorded when last MOT - ed, were as good as before the pre - cats were removed. HC’s and CO well within limits.

My response was addressed to you and your assertions. Do not resort to implying my comments were in anyway directed at Ned.

You also place caveats on your theories/opinions. I am sure the owners of original 158/159, Model “T” Fords, GT40’s, et al will be pleased to hear what you have to say about emissions.

As for diesels, they are best used on agricultural land, as far away from conurbations as possible.

However, science is continuing to prevaricate about pollution and the best way to deal with it.

But I can see no valid argument for taking such a hard nosed attitude to what enthusiasts do or don’t do, yet suggest it is for others to legislate for vehicles which have lower emissions standards. Particularly as you know nothing is going to happen, regardless of what you may think.

So it is just worthless rhetoric.

VVT's benefit to fuel consumption and emission
EGR (Exhaust gas recirculation) is a commonly adopted technique to reduce emission and improve fuel efficiency. However, it is VVT that really exploit the full potential of EGR.

In theory, maximum overlap is needed between intake valves and exhaust valves’ opening whenever the engine is running at high speed. However, when the car is running at medium speed in highway, in other words, the engine is running at light load, maximum overlapping may be useful as a mean to reduce fuel consumption and emission. Since the exhaust valves do not close until the intake valves have been open for a while, some of the exhaust gases are recirculated back into the cylinder at the same time as the new fuel / air mix is injected. As part of the fuel / air mix is replaced by exhaust gases, less fuel is needed. Because the exhaust gas comprise of mostly non-combustible gas, such as CO2, the engine runs properly at the leaner fuel / air mixture without failing to combust.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=16&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwic7vaD4d3nAhWwRBUIHbA7BHEQFjAPegQICBAB&url=https://www.austincc.edu/wkibbe/vvt.htm&usg=AOvVaw06taPyYVNjqfhdi2-PLNsD

The Alfa Romeo 3.2 JTS valve timing at idle/tick - over and off throttle conditions, is designed to trap HC's from the region surrounding the piston ring/cylinder wall region, which are, as research has shown, the highest and the last to be purged into the exhaust system, before they can do so.

At other engine speeds, the VVT system provides optimum valve overlap to reduce emissions, by re - ingesting them. This engine, was awarded the highest category by Legislators when introduced.
Jesus what a long reply, this must mean you are retired and have a lot of time on your hands ! Yet despite what you say, still most modern cars have close coupled cats.

You have no idea of the effect of removing your pre cats have on emissions - the MOT emissions test is not comprehensive enough and your car was doubtless warm when it was tested, you also did not do before and after tests with them on/removed. They are there for a reason, to reduce emissions during the warm up phase. In order to deduce if they make a difference or not you would have to do comprehensive emissions tests both when warm and when cold. I never suggested that close coupled cats have anything to do with NOx.

You appear to think that your engine having EGR means that it somehow doesnt need pre cats, that is incorrect, for a start EGR only reduces some emissions (mainly NOx and there are many more emissions in petrol exhausts) it does not remove them entirely so the pre cats are still needed.

Jet Thrust Stoichiometric engines can also run lean burn (the opposite of stoichiometric) just like a diesel, but running lean actually INCREASES the likelihood of NOx forming as there is more air and therefore more nitrogen (this is the reason that diesels make more NOx).

"And the little project this thread is proposing will never materialize - not that it will in any case. But it would stop those who have very little knowledge of engineering proposing ridiculous schemes which have no material worth than to stave off their boredom." - you need to be more specific if you are going to insult me (although you need to be mindful of the forums rules) as that comment simply insults everyone in this thread, including acab who has already converted his GT to Q4 and is attempting to convert a friend's Busso to Q4. We ll see whether his project comes to fruition or not, but I m not sure any suggestion that anyone has made in this thread could be described as a "ridiculous scheme" - many people have simply tried to make helpful suggestions on how to do such a conversion and whether it would be possible or not, theres nothing "ridiculous" about such suggestions, its just a group of enthusiasts discussing something. And frankly someone who starts posting in a long running thread in the 147/156 GTA forum, announces he hates those those vehicles and promptly starts slagging them off, has more than a bit of a cheek. I dont post my negative opinions of the 159 in the 159 forum, that would be argumentative, disrespectful and pointless.

I said that I didnt think people should be allowed to remove emissions equipment from their car, I may be unique amongst car enthusiasts in having this opinion, but most non car enthusiasts totally agree with me, including the govt, as its technically illegal, so I m not sure what you mean by "as you know nothing is going to happen" - its already happened, at the moment its not enforced very strictly, but if VOSA pulled you over and the pre cats were found to be missing they do have the power to force you to replace them. Suggesting that I have a "hard nosed attitude to what enthusiasts do or don’t do" is misleading rubbish - my "hard nosed" attitude only applies to the removal of emissions equipment, not to anything else enthusiasts do.

Modern diesels meeting Euro 6d standards have the NOx and particulate concerns sorted and have just as much place on the road as any modern petrol.

Thank you for the write up on the 15 years out of date implementation of VVC and direct injection used in the Alfa heads on your GM engine, but things have moved on, so its not so relevant now - Fiat's much, much more advanced Multi-air (so good it was licensed to Jaguar Land Rover for their new Ingenium engines) has seen to that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
Jesus what a long reply, this must mean you are retired and have a lot of time on your hands ! Yet despite what you say, still most modern cars have close coupled cats.

You have no idea of the effect of removing your pre cats have on emissions - the MOT emissions test is not comprehensive enough and your car was doubtless warm when it was tested, you also did not do before and after tests with them on/removed. They are there for a reason, to reduce emissions during the warm up phase. In order to deduce if they make a difference or not you would have to do comprehensive emissions tests both when warm and when cold. I never suggested that close coupled cats have anything to do with NOx.

You appear to think that your engine having EGR means that it somehow doesnt need pre cats, that is incorrect, for a start EGR only reduces some emissions (mainly NOx and there are many more emissions in petrol exhausts) it does not remove them entirely so the pre cats are still needed.

Jet Thrust Stoichiometric engines can also run lean burn (the opposite of stoichiometric) just like a diesel, but running lean actually INCREASES the likelihood of NOx forming as there is more air and therefore more nitrogen (this is the reason that diesels make more NOx).

"And the little project this thread is proposing will never materialize - not that it will in any case. But it would stop those who have very little knowledge of engineering proposing ridiculous schemes which have no material worth than to stave off their boredom." - you need to be more specific if you are going to insult me (although you need to be mindful of the forums rules) as that comment simply insults everyone in this thread, including acab who has already converted his GT to Q4 and is attempting to convert a friend's Busso to Q4. We ll see whether his project comes to fruition or not, but I m not sure any suggestion that anyone has made in this thread could be described as a "ridiculous scheme" - many people have simply tried to make helpful suggestions on how to do such a conversion and whether it would be possible or not, theres nothing "ridiculous" about such suggestions, its just a group of enthusiasts discussing something. And frankly someone who starts posting in a long running thread in the 147/156/GT forum, announces he hates all three of those vehicles and promptly starts slagging them off, has more than a bit of a cheek. I dont post my negative opinions of the 159 in te 159 forum, that would be argumentative and disrespectful.

I said that I didnt think people should be allowed to remove emissions equipment from their car, I may be unique amongst car enthusiasts in having this opinion, but most non car enthusiasts totally agree with me, including the govt, as its technically illegal, so I m not sure what you mean by "as you know nothing is going to happen" - its already happened, at the moment its not enforced very strictly, but if VOSA pulled you over and the pre cats were found to be missing they do have the power to force you to replace them. Suggesting that I have a "hard nosed attitude to what enthusiasts do or don’t do" is misleading rubbish - my "hard nosed" attitude only applies to the removal of emissions equipment, not to anything else enthusiasts do.

Modern diesels meeting Euro 6d standards have the NOx and particulate concerns sorted and have just as much place on the road as any modern petrol.

Thank you for the write up on the 15 years out of date implementation of VVC and direct injection used in the Alfa heads on your GM engine, but things have moved on, so its not so relevant now - Fiat's much, much more advanced Multi-air (so good it was licensed to Jaguar Land




Jesus what a long reply, this must mean you are retired and have a lot of time on your hands ! Yet despite what you say, still most modern cars have close coupled cats.

You have no idea of the effect of removing your pre cats have on emissions - the MOT emissions test is not comprehensive enough and your car was doubtless warm when it was tested, you also did not do before and after tests with them on/removed. They are there for a reason, to reduce emissions during the warm up phase. In order to deduce if they make a difference or not you would have to do comprehensive emissions tests both when warm and when cold. I never suggested that close coupled cats have anything to do with NOx.

You appear to think that your engine having EGR means that it somehow doesnt need pre cats, that is incorrect, for a start EGR only reduces some emissions (mainly NOx and there are many more emissions in petrol exhausts) it does not remove them entirely so the pre cats are still needed.

Jet Thrust Stoichiometric engines can also run lean burn (the opposite of stoichiometric) just like a diesel, but running lean actually INCREASES the likelihood of NOx forming as there is more air and therefore more nitrogen (this is the reason that diesels make more NOx).

"And the little project this thread is proposing will never materialize - not that it will in any case. But it would stop those who have very little knowledge of engineering proposing ridiculous schemes which have no material worth than to stave off their boredom." - you need to be more specific if you are going to insult me (although you need to be mindful of the forums rules) as that comment simply insults everyone in this thread, including acab who has already converted his GT to Q4 and is attempting to convert a friend's Busso to Q4. We ll see whether his project comes to fruition or not, but I m not sure any suggestion that anyone has made in this thread could be described as a "ridiculous scheme" - many people have simply tried to make helpful suggestions on how to do such a conversion and whether it would be possible or not, theres nothing "ridiculous" about such suggestions, its just a group of enthusiasts discussing something. And frankly someone who starts posting in a long running thread in the 147/156/GT forum, announces he hates all three of those vehicles and promptly starts slagging them off, has more than a bit of a cheek. I dont post my negative opinions of the 159 in te 159 forum, that would be argumentative and disrespectful.

I said that I didnt think people should be allowed to remove emissions equipment from their car, I may be unique amongst car enthusiasts in having this opinion, but most non car enthusiasts totally agree with me, including the govt, as its technically illegal, so I m not sure what you mean by "as you know nothing is going to happen" - its already happened, at the moment its not enforced very strictly, but if VOSA pulled you over and the pre cats were found to be missing they do have the power to force you to replace them. Suggesting that I have a "hard nosed attitude to what enthusiasts do or don’t do" is misleading rubbish - my "hard nosed" attitude only applies to the removal of emissions equipment, not to anything else enthusiasts do.

Modern diesels meeting Euro 6d standards have the NOx and particulate concerns sorted and have just as much place on the road as any modern petrol.

Thank you for the write up on the 15 years out of date implementation of VVC and direct injection used in the Alfa heads on your GM engine, but things have moved on, so its not so relevant now - Fiat's much, much more advanced Multi-air (so good it was licensed to Jaguar Land Rover for their new Ingenium engines) has seen to that.

Its been running for 12 years and 10 pages, I m sure it will reach its potential in the end. :)
oh, the irony.

You call out a forum member regarding their long post and that they have too much time on their hands and then you go on to make a condescending biblical post yourself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,034 Posts
oh, the irony.

You call out a forum member regarding their long post and that they have too much time on their hands and then you go on to make a condescending biblical post yourself.
Oh dear, you clearly havent read the thread properly - two people said that I had too much time on my hands cos I wrote a long reply previously, one of them then wrote a similarly long reply, so I was being ironic when I said that. You need to read stuff properly before commenting.

.

It was very informative until you churned out your long wiinded techno babble. Or are you just trolling🥴😐
I m not trolling at all, I ve been part of the discussion for four years, which youd know if youd bothered to read the thread before commenting. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
Oh dear, you clearly havent read the thread properly - two people said that I had too much time on my hands cos I wrote a long reply previously, one of them then wrote a similarly long reply, so I was being ironic when I said that. You need to read stuff properly before commenting.



I m not trolling at all, I ve been part of the discussion for four years, which youd know if youd bothered to read the thread before commenting. :)
They all say that.” Read the thread before commenting”.
No, you were not being ironic; if you are, it was a shite attempt.
 
181 - 200 of 204 Posts
Top