Alfa Romeo Forum banner

161 - 180 of 204 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,034 Posts
LOL. I read it on my phone and in a hurry and read nineties rear diff when you actually said noughties rear diff. Sorry.

I think the 164 Q4 gearbox was developed in the 90s.

Not that it would matter. I don't think it makes any difference as it's mechanical. Look at the T56 gearbox, which was developed around the same time as the 164 Q4 and was used in sports cars such as the Corvette and Aston Martins all the way up to the late 2000s. A manual gearbox is a manual gearbox. ;)

As far as I understand, the 164 Q4 transferbox is off to the side of the gearbox. If by transfer case you mean the power take off port for the prop shaft.

Instead of a mid diff, it uses a viscous coupling system, which is electronically controlled. So it's better to replace that with something mechanical to control the split anyway, like what the 156 Q4 has. And the viscous coupling is at the rear with the torsen rear diff.

So as far as where to put the a mid diff, what about in the middle? I think a better question is, which mid diff to use. :)
Yes I meant power take off for the rear.

The 164 Q4 came out in 93 so it was probably being developed in the 80s and 90s although as its a getrag box, it had been around before. And as it was used in other cars there may be more modern version of it, if you can get a 164 transfer box to use with it.

But will the 164 transfer box line up with the 156 Q4 diff ? I guess it doesnt matter as youre gonna need a different prop or at least mod the original anway - youve got to divide it add a centre diff, which hopefully wont need any of the body cutting away to make it fit in the centre tunnel.

Youd deffo have to replace it no one uses viscous couplings anymore plus it electronically controlled and youd have to add those 90s electronics to the car.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,808 Posts
Why not use the Q4 box from the 159/Brera 3.2?

The F40 is as strong as an OX and the Torsten Double C brilliant?

I’m not sure I wouldn’t prefer to see a Busso fitted to a Q4 Brera or 159.

But there again, with the 156/147 being lighter, perhaps a 3.2 JTS, complete with the Q4 set up, could be more than a one - off project.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,034 Posts
Cos its a horrid box - GM boxes are awful. Plus there are other reasons already discussed, see above, previous page.

The problem with the 159/Brera is that although it looks good, its not good to drive cos it uses a Saab engineered GM platform and like gearboxes, GM cant make decent front drive cars. The only things Italian about the 159/Brera is the styling and the diesel engines. I guess you could try and make it more Italian, maybe transplant the entire fron suspension/engine/steering from a 147/156/GT, but that would be a lot of work. Might be worth it though, to have a 159/Brera that drives well, assuming that it worked.

A 3.2 JTS in an Alfa - so bin the Italian engine and put in an American engine with Italian heads ? Sounds awful to me personally and I think the whole purpose of this thread was for a 4x4 Busso.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,808 Posts
Cos its a horrid box - GM boxes are awful. Plus there are other reasons already discussed, see above, previous page.

The problem with the 159/Brera is that although it looks good, its not good to drive cos it uses a Saab engineered GM platform and like gearboxes, GM cant make decent front drive cars. The only things Italian about the 159/Brera is the styling and the diesel engines. I guess you could try and make it more Italian, my be transplant the entire fron suspension/engine/steering from a 147/156/GT, but that would be a lot of work. Might be worth it though, to have a 159/Brera that drives well, assuming that it worked.

A 3.2 JTS in an Alfa - so bin the Italian engine and pout in an American engine with Italian heads ? Sounds awful to me personally and I think the whole purpose of this thread was for a 4x4 Busso.
The F40 is not a GM Box. It was Fiat that bore the development costs, GM played no part in its development, according to my research.

It is not fast, particularly because of the triple comes on 1st & 2nd. Double on 3rd & 4th.

However, what is proposed isn’t Authentic Italian either, so what’s the difference?

And what is proposed is to use a platform that flexes like plastic. Apart from the fact that very few parts will be available.

The Brera/159 platform is superb although heavy. But what is being proposed will also be heavy.

So it’s not going to be fast either and certainly won’t handle like a Q4 Brera or 159, as poor as they are!

The only thing left of ALFA, although no longer produced, is the Busso. I have long been an advocate and owner of Bussos.

But, they are history and the 3.2 JTS is a good engine, with the usual ALFA Flaws.

You can’t blame that on Holden. It was Alfa that failed to develop it properly. But it can become a great engine with a little effort. Certainly a lot less than butchering a Busso.

Do that, and it is no longer an authentic Alfa/Italian Engine.

I would have thought this a brilliant engineering opportunity/exercise. But I‘m not so sure that is the intention.

But good luck with it. I love it when folks step out of their comfort zone. Projects become fascinating then.

PS. It’s the Alfa heads which are a problem for the JTS.

The Holden Block and crankshaft are superb. Both are incredibly strong. The crank isn’t fitted to the block, it is embedded in it!!!! Bend the crank and it can be straightened.

Bussos genius lay as much with the crankshaft. But he was not responsible for its manufacturing. I know of many that snapped over the years, given I go back to 1973 with them.

However, I love his engine. But, I love my 3.2 JTS - Now. It’s fantastic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,034 Posts
The F40 is a GM design, whatever, the change is not as good as the C630, not itself a paragon, but much better than the F40.

The Busso is Italian, the 147/156/GT platform is 100% Italian, so youre incorrect when you say "what is proposed isn’t Authentic Italian either".

There are literally 1000s of parts available for this platform, so wrong there too.

The 159/Brera platform is is not actually that heavy nowadays (indeed with a TBi powering it it wasnt even that heavy 10 years ago despite what they said), it is very stiff, but as I stated earlier, it, in my opinion (and indeed that of many road testers) does not drive well at all, so "superb" is not a word I d use. The 147/156/GT platform is not as stiff as the newer 159/Brera platform, but it does not "flex like pastic" and even if it did, its wouldnt be hard to strengthen it.

A Q4 Busso, will be around the same weight as a Q4 JTD, no heavier, it will have a slioght rearwards bias to the torque distribution and therefore a slight bias towards oversteer handing wise, one of the reasons its has been proposed. It will be a little slower than a 2wd 156 Busso, but everyone knows that the case when comparing 2wd and 4wd versions of the same car.

I m afraid that the 3.2 is not an "authentic Alfa engine" and never will beI m glad you love yours but this thread is about making a Busso Q4, so talk of using a GM engines is not really relevant and not likely to go down well with Busso lovers.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,808 Posts
The F40 is a GM design, whatever, the change is not as good as the C630, not itself a paragon, but much better than the F40.

The Busso is Italian, the 147/156/GT platform is 100% Italian, so youre incorrect when you say "what is proposed isn’t Authentic Italian either".

There are literally 1000s of parts available for this platform, so wrong there too.

The 159/Brera platform is is not actually that heavy nowadays (indeed with a TBi powering it it wasnt even that heavy 10 years ago despite what they said), it is very stiff, but as I stated earlier, it, in my opinion (and indeed that of many road testers) does not drive well at all, so "superb" is not a word I d use. The 147/156/GT platform is not as stiff as the newer 159/Brera platform, but it does not "flex like pastic" and even if it did, its wouldnt be hard to strengthen it.

A Q4 Busso, will be around the same weight as a Q4 JTD, no heavier, it will have a slioght rearwards bias to the torque distribution and therefore a slight bias towards oversteer handing wise, one of the reasons its has been proposed. It will be a little slower than a 2wd 156 Busso, but everyone knows that the case when comparing 2wd and 4wd versions of the same car.

I m afraid that the 3.2 is not an "authentic Alfa engine" and never will beI m glad you love yours but this thread is about making a Busso Q4, so talk of using a GM engines is not really relevant and not likely to go down well with Busso lovers.
I am not taking anything away from the Busso or their owners. I have a 3.0 GTV 916, 1998 with 30 thousand on the clock.

However, we do not live in bubbles. It is an Alfa Forum and misconceptions don’t help. The F40 “Is” wholly a Fiat Development.

The 159 platform was a Joint venture which SAAB pulled out of, and GM gave to Fiat, in part settlement, along with 2 billion to get out of their agreement. It was a joint collaboration and not solely designed by GM.

I have balanced and rebuilt my 2.5 Alfetta GTV., having previously balanced and rebuilt other Busso’s - the twin cam in the Bertie’s are also down to him and many other great engines.

He was uncomfortable about the quad cam and indeed won’t have appreciated the cats on the manifolds.

The Q2 diff came about because the Gearbox’s exploded - great. The block, which is posted on this thread - has been butchered - not re - engineered - and will suffer badly due to lack of torsional rigidity. And for what?

Furthermore, I have recently stripped, balanced and rebuilt my 3.2 JTS, fitted a set of Autodelta cat-less manifolds, fitted a set of Colombo Bariani Camshafts - you know from the company which has extensive history with Busso and Chiti.

I have overhauled the phasors, redesigned the sump, VVT system, improved the oil pressure and relieved block restrictions. Unlike the Busso, tension is entirely down to oil pressure as too is the accuracy of the valve timing.

So not only is the JTS capable of being better than the Busso, in my case, it is vastly superior.

And the F40 hasn’t broken, the diff hasn’t exploded. I also have the advantage of a/b comparisons, having owned my GTV virtually from new.

It was, imho, a crime of historical importance, that the Busso was ever fitted to a front wheel drive FIAT Boggo chassis.

And a butchered Busso is not an Original Italian engine anymore. It is an engine, that once was originally Italian.

But I wish the project well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,034 Posts
We ll have to disagree about the the F40 - even its designation follows GM nomenclature.

GM may indeed have pulled out of the Premium platform joint venture (159/Brera), but Saab under the "guidance" of GM (ie really GM Sweden) developed it almost in its entirety, Alfa simply put a body and interior on it. We all know, if we re not living in "bubbles", that its not really an Alfa, its a GM car.

Its great that youve balanced and rebuilt a 2.5 Busso and indeed that youve fitted some Italian cams to your GM engine with its Italian heads, I m less pleased to hear that youve illegally removed the cats and are now unecessarily pumping more cr*p into the air that weve all gotta breath in the misguided belief that you ll get more power (its not 1993 anymore). Great that youve made other modifications to your engine too, Uncle Sam would be pleased, but I fail to see the relevance of any of that to this thread.

Few people would agree with your opinions of Busso v 3.2 JTS, I prefer diesels but even I recognise that the Busso is widely acknowledged to be one of the finest engines in the world.

Acab is building a V6 Busso for a customer, against despite thinking it not a good idea - read the thread. Time will tell if the block holds up or not.

Sure the C630 could explode when fitted to engines with higher power and sometimes higher torque outputs, but the Q2 sorted that, quelled understeer and increased traction too, so win, win, you can level as much venom you like at the C630, but its just a nicer gearbox to use than the F40.

The 147/156/GT is not a "boggo Fiat Chassis" - it was entirely Alfa specific with unique to Alfa suspension, itshared only a small piece of metal in the floorplan with the Fiat Tipo platform on which it was based, if this is what youre referring to and not the Busso's other uses (mark 1 Fiat Croma, Lancia Thema, Lancia Thesis etc). These cars needed a V6, Alfa had one so they used it.

Rotating an engine 90deg is not in anyone's book "buchering" it, it also does not in anyones book mean that the engine suddenly becomes "not an origainl Italian engine" simply cos it sits transversely instead of longitudinally.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
269 Posts
Honestly, I think this whole Alfa 159 and Brera are not real Alfas thing is childish. The 156, 147 etc are a Fiat. Not a real Alfa either.

The Busso is probably the greatest V6 ever made. This is why it is worth all the trouble to try to make a Busso Q4. I would never go through the trouble of dropping a 3.2 JTS in a Busso car. It has nothing to do with it being partly GM. Fiat components are also not great. GM is probably more reliable anyway. The reason I wouldn't swap a 3.2 JTS in a Busso car is it doesn't make that much more power if at all, it doesn't sound as good as a Busso, it is not as nice and it will never be as special. Busso is a legend.

But having said that.at least the 159 and Brera got a proper V6 gasoline model which was not FWD. The 156 GTA and 147 GTA should have been a Q4 instead of a cheap FWD box. If Alfa had done their job right we would not be here trying to fix that. Instead they gave us an AWD DIESEL tractor with the 156 Q4 crosswagon. Is there anything less Alfa than that?

So let's please stop derailing the thread. Let's focus on the topic at hand. ;)

A 3.2 JTS in a 156 makes no sense when you can have a factory Busso 156.

If the F40 gearbox fits the Busso and makes the path to a Q4 Busso easier, there is no real reason not to use. It being GM is not an excuse. Who are we kidding? Alfas have been Fiat part bin specials since the 75 left the line. Fiat is not better or more reliable than GM. The problem is that it seems the F40 won't work. This is the real problem. I couldn't care less if it is GM. It doesn't shift any worse than most Fiat boxes either and the boxes in the 156, 147 etc are nothing to write home about either.

So back to the topic and let's forget personal wars please. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,034 Posts
As I ve said, the 147/156/GT are BESPOKE Alfas sitting on BESPOKE platform that shares only a very small piece of floorpan with a Fiat Tipo mark 1, so it very much is a real Alfa, at least with a Busso. I personally like the styling of the 159, but it doesnt drive like an Alfa, probably cos it isnt as has been discussed, you can call it childish but its my opinion, others obviously disagree.

Front wheel drive is not "cheap", there are many good fwd cars, just as there are many good rwd cars and 4wd cars.

Alfa has been making diesels since the 1950s, theres nothing unAlfa about diesels - Alfa also used to make vans, trucks and coaches, but some people like to forget these inconvenient facts.

As youve said it again I will repeat - the 147/156/GT uses a BESPOKE platform that NO OTHER car, including any Fiat uses !

I agree though, the thread has digressed somewhat, lets get back on track.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,808 Posts
I not caning the 630C, simply pointing out the F40 is a good gearbox. Compact and much stronger than that of my 156 or GTV.

I am not saying turning a Busso through 90 degrees is butchering it - the Alfetta GTV was longitudinal. I’m saying, hacking great chunks off it means it is no longer original.

No none does anything with the 3.2 JTS, because it is an expensive exercise and there is little understanding of its intricacies. Doubt you would understand it being a diesel enthusiast.

However, the Busso is a really simple engine in modern times. Heavens it had carbs fitted to it originally. But the JTS is much more sophisticated and with it more expensive to maintain. But that does not make it inferior.

The variable valve timing ensures it is more powerful at any point on its rev range than the Busso.


The prejudice really stems from the weight of these cars, Brera and 159 - they need 300 HP. But you can get that from this engine much easier and more reliably than you can from the 3.2 Busso. We are talking here N/A, not turbo or Supercharged. And more to the point, it is much more tractable.

Autodelta predict 8 bhp recovered losses with no manifold cats, which is reasonable. In conjunction with the Cams, which radically change the valve timing, I expect it to be better. Still hoping to be comfortably over 300 bhp. Possibly 310 - 315.

As for polluting the environment, speak to Pud about that. There are those that have also taken cats off the Busso. Not least because they crucify the engine, just as they do on the Brera and 159.

PS. You have never blanked off your EGR?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
269 Posts
Yes I meant power take off for the rear.

The 164 Q4 came out in 93 so it was probably being developed in the 80s and 90s although as its a getrag box, it had been around before. And as it was used in other cars there may be more modern version of it, if you can get a 164 transfer box to use with it.

But will the 164 transfer box line up with the 156 Q4 diff ? I guess it doesnt matter as youre gonna need a different prop or at least mod the original anway - youve got to divide it add a centre diff, which hopefully wont need any of the body cutting away to make it fit in the centre tunnel.

Youd deffo have to replace it no one uses viscous couplings anymore plus it electronically controlled and youd have to add those 90s electronics to the car.

Like I said, the age of the gearbox shouldn't play any role here. Again the T56 is from the same time and was in big name sports cars till the late 2000s. ;)

I think the focus here, if this is to be done, is to focus on the easiest and most doable path. From where I'm standing anything which doesn't call for cutting off the engine and patching it up should be given priority. The 164 seems to be so far the closest to a bolt on job. So I think it deserves to be investigated in detail.

I don't understand the issue with the 164 transfer box lining up with the 156 Q4 diff. I'm not sure where you are foreseeing a problem there? Maybe I'm missing something. :)

The problem with the tunnel being wide or deep enough for a mid diff is real. But even if need cutting, if cutting such a small part to make it deeper just for the diff is not as structural damaging as cutting a new tunnel. :)

First thing would be to identify a suitable mid diff. Have any of the Audi Quattros had a separated mechanical Torsen in the midele to split the torque, as opposed to integrated into the gearbox or rear diff? That would probably be the best place to start. Audis.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
269 Posts
As I ve said, the 147/156/GT are BESPOKE Alfas sitting on BESPOKE platform that shares only a very small piece of floorpan with a Fiat Tipo mark 1, so it very much is a real Alfa, at least with a Busso. I personally like the styling of the 159, but it doesnt drive like an Alfa, probably cos it isnt as has been discussed, you can call it childish but its my opinion, others obviously disagree.

Front wheel drive is not "cheap", there are many good fwd cars, just as there are many good rwd cars and 4wd cars.

Alfa has been making diesels since the 1950s, theres nothing unAlfa about diesels - Alfa also used to make vans, trucks and coaches, but some people like to forget these inconvenient facts.

As youve said it again I will repeat - the 147/156/GT uses a BESPOKE platform that NO OTHER car, including any Fiat uses !

I agree though, the thread has digressed somewhat, lets get back on track.
What's the point of this? The 156, 147 etc IS a Fiat in drag. You are just distorting things to fit your agenda. By your reasoning the 159 is also a real Alfa. Because there is also no other car besides the Brera which uses the same platform. Not a Fiat no nothing.

Real Alfas are RWD. They should have never switched to FWD. They did because Fiat cheaped out. But real Alfas should not be FWD. Is this not why we are here? Trying to get a Busso which is not FWD?

Why do you think they switched to RWD and AWD with the Giulia and Stelvio? Because Alfa wants to be premium and there is nothing premium about FWD. This is why the Mercedes A is the butt of jokes among real Mercedes fans.

And Alfa is a performance brand. Has always been. A lifted up diesel wagon is hardly a sporty car. At last the 156 crosswagon wasn't. Yes, they made trucks etc but this is not a truck. Totally different.

So I don't know what is the point of insisting in derailing the thread to talk about that.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,808 Posts
I loved my Alfetta much more than I could ever love my 916, GTV 3.0. Not because is better appointed, the tan leather in my 916 is beautiful and the interior is really classy.

But My Alfetta 2.5 GTV had a Busso, longitudinally mounted and a rear mounted clutch, flywheel, gearbox and in board discs. De Dion rear suspension and torsion bar front suspension.

Gear changes were like stirring porridge.

But “It was an ALFA”.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,808 Posts
Like I said, the age of the gearbox shouldn't play any role here. Again the T56 is from the same time and was in big name sports cars till the late 2000s. ;)

I think the focus here, if this is to be done, is to focus on the easiest and most doable path. From where I'm standing anything which doesn't call for cutting off the engine and patching it up should be given priority. The 164 seems to be so far the closest to a bolt on job. So I think it deserves to be investigated in detail.

I don't understand the issue with the 164 transfer box lining up with the 156 Q4 diff. I'm not sure where you are foreseeing a problem there? Maybe I'm missing something. :)

The problem with the tunnel being wide or deep enough for a mid diff is real. But even if need cutting, if cutting such a small part to make it deeper just for the diff is not as structural damaging as cutting a new tunnel. :)

First thing would be to identify a suitable mid diff. Have any of the Audi Quattros had a separated mechanical Torsen in the midele to split the torque, as opposed to integrated into the gearbox or rear diff? That would probably be the best place to start. Audis.
If I took this project on, I would explore using the F40 from a Q4. It is compact and has the benefit of the double C Torsten and the continuously varying torque split. That would leave a clear path for the prop shaft, which may or may not need some chassis work to accommodate it. But it would be very straight forward and could be done to give the car a better backbone.

But I’m not. But it sounds interesting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
269 Posts
If I took this project on, I would explore using the F40 from a Q4. It is compact and has the benefit of the double C Torsten and the continuously varying torque split. That would leave a clear path for the prop shaft, which may or may not need some chassis work to accommodate it. But it would be very straight forward and could be done to give the car a better backbone.

But I’m not. But it sounds interesting.
According to the info posted in this thread though, the F40 will not work.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,808 Posts
What is the particular problem? It’s pretty compact but the transfer box is bolted to the sump. So it would need a bespoke sump. Manifolds may be a problem but I suppose it all depends if the block and Bell Housing can marry - up.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,808 Posts
Like I said, the age of the gearbox shouldn't play any role here. Again the T56 is from the same time and was in big name sports cars till the late 2000s. ;)

I think the focus here, if this is to be done, is to focus on the easiest and most doable path. From where I'm standing anything which doesn't call for cutting off the engine and patching it up should be given priority. The 164 seems to be so far the closest to a bolt on job. So I think it deserves to be investigated in detail.

I don't understand the issue with the 164 transfer box lining up with the 156 Q4 diff. I'm not sure where you are foreseeing a problem there? Maybe I'm missing something. :)

The problem with the tunnel being wide or deep enough for a mid diff is real. But even if need cutting, if cutting such a small part to make it deeper just for the diff is not as structural damaging as cutting a new tunnel. :)

First thing would be to identify a suitable mid diff. Have any of the Audi Quattros had a separated mechanical Torsen in the midele to split the torque, as opposed to integrated into the gearbox or rear diff? That would probably be the best place to start. Audis.
Original Quattro only I believe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,034 Posts
I not caning the 630C, simply pointing out the F40 is a good gearbox. Compact and much stronger than that of my 156 or GTV.

I am not saying turning a Busso through 90 degrees is butchering it - the Alfetta GTV was longitudinal. I’m saying, hacking great chunks off it means it is no longer original.

No none does anything with the 3.2 JTS, because it is an expensive exercise and there is little understanding of its intricacies. Doubt you would understand it being a diesel enthusiast.

However, the Busso is a really simple engine in modern times. Heavens it had carbs fitted to it originally. But the JTS is much more sophisticated and with it more expensive to maintain. But that does not make it inferior.

The variable valve timing ensures it is more powerful at any point on its rev range than the Busso.

The prejudice really stems from the weight of these cars, Brera and 159 - they need 300 HP. But you can get that from this engine much easier and more reliably than you can from the 3.2 Busso. We are talking here N/A, not turbo or Supercharged. And more to the point, it is much more tractable.

Autodelta predict 8 bhp recovered losses with no manifold cats, which is reasonable. In conjunction with the Cams, which radically change the valve timing, I expect it to be better. Still hoping to be comfortably over 300 bhp. Possibly 310 - 315.

As for polluting the environment, speak to Pud about that. There are those that have also taken cats off the Busso. Not least because they crucify the engine, just as they do on the Brera and 159.

PS. You have never blanked off your EGR?
I thought the F40 and C630 had the same 295 lbs/ft max torque rating.

Even if chunks have been hacked off the Busso, its still a Busso and its still Italian.

I can still appreciate the "intricacies" of a petrol engine, despite preferring diesel, but my criticisms of the 3.2 are that its actually a GM engine as we ve already discussed, not that its more expensive to maintain. Of course you can get more power from it more easily, its design is 30 years newer !

As we ve already discussed my "prejudice" of the 159 stems from the fact that, good looking as it is, its a GM/Saab wearing an Alfa badge and therefore drives like a big Vauxhall no feedback, nothing to do with the weight, which is actually a bit of a myth - they werent actually that heavy - a 159 1.8TBi weighs less than a 156 2.4 for instance.

No I havent removed my EGR, I dont remove emissions equipment. Bit of a myth about cats "crucifying" engines, particularly modern ones, makes no sense pumping out more cr*p into the air so you can have 8 more horse power. Sure, loads of car guys take off cats, doesnt make it right or clever.

Like I said, the age of the gearbox shouldn't play any role here. Again the T56 is from the same time and was in big name sports cars till the late 2000s. ;)

I think the focus here, if this is to be done, is to focus on the easiest and most doable path. From where I'm standing anything which doesn't call for cutting off the engine and patching it up should be given priority. The 164 seems to be so far the closest to a bolt on job. So I think it deserves to be investigated in detail.

I don't understand the issue with the 164 transfer box lining up with the 156 Q4 diff. I'm not sure where you are foreseeing a problem there? Maybe I'm missing something. :)

The problem with the tunnel being wide or deep enough for a mid diff is real. But even if need cutting, if cutting such a small part to make it deeper just for the diff is not as structural damaging as cutting a new tunnel. :)

First thing would be to identify a suitable mid diff. Have any of the Audi Quattros had a separated mechanical Torsen in the midele to split the torque, as opposed to integrated into the gearbox or rear diff? That would probably be the best place to start. Audis.
The gearbox used in the 164 Q4 is an older design, granted it doesnt matter about its age, but I dont think it is a better route to a Q4 Busso for reasons we ve already discussed.

Re: the 164 transfer box lining up, I cant understand why you cant see the potential problem - are you 100% certain that if bolted onto a Busso in a 156, that the 164 Q4 box would align its output shaft directly at the rear diff on a 156 Q4 ?

As I ve said I reckon modding the 156 Q4 set, like adding a spacer would be the best route to go, I m no engineer and I d be happy to be proved wrong.

I guess you better get researching centre diffs !

What's the point of this? The 156, 147 etc IS a Fiat in drag. You are just distorting things to fit your agenda. By your reasoning the 159 is also a real Alfa. Because there is also no other car besides the Brera which uses the same platform. Not a Fiat no nothing.

Real Alfas are RWD. They should have never switched to FWD. They did because Fiat cheaped out. But real Alfas should not be FWD. Is this not why we are here? Trying to get a Busso which is not FWD?

Why do you think they switched to RWD and AWD with the Giulia and Stelvio? Because Alfa wants to be premium and there is nothing premium about FWD. This is why the Mercedes A is the butt of jokes among real Mercedes fans.

And Alfa is a performance brand. Has always been. A lifted up diesel wagon is hardly a sporty car. At last the 156 crosswagon wasn't. Yes, they made trucks etc but this is not a truck. Totally different.

So I don't know what is the point of insisting in derailing the thread to talk about that.
Whats the point of this ? Well you appear not to know the basic facts about the 147/156/GT platform - it doesnt matter how many times you say "its just a Fiat", you are 100% wrong - 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". Sure non Busso ones used Fiat Pratola Serra based engines, (at least theyre Italian) but Busso engined ones are pure Alfa. Denying this over and over again does not mean you are right. You can legitametley say a Mito is a Fiat - itsPunto with a different body, you could legitemately say the 145, 146 and 155 were Fiat Tipos with different bodies (the boxers at least had Alfa engines), but if you say that the 147/156/GT are all Fiats, youd be totally wrong, beacsue teh platform was developed by Alfa and used in nothing else. As we ve discussed, the 159/Brera were developed by Saab under GM, all Alfa did was a calibrate the spring and damper rates.

So, the Alfasud, one of the most revered Alfas in history was not a "real Alfa" ? Nonsense. You speak as if there is some doctrine written somewhere about what a "real" Alfa is, there is nothing, its all in your head. I think it simply has to be a car designed by Alfa. Personally I like fwd, rwd and 4wd cars, I dont favour any particular type and Alfa has built good cars with all 3 driveline types. You like rwd, well great, but its complete and utter nonsense to say Alfas have to be rwd - there is NOTHING in its history that says this, just like theres nothing saying they cant build diesels or buses, coaches, trucks and vans (all of which theyve built). Basically its you projecting your desires onto Alfa.

We are here cos Ned suggested over 10 years ago he d like to try and build a Busso Q4, converting that to RWD would entail horrendous transmission losses, so Q4 with a rear bias is what we re theoretically discussing (whilst acab, against his better judgement actually gets off his a*se tries to build one).

Ok, so "theres nothing premium about fwd", please tell me why the 2 leading "premium" manufacturers have always (in the case of Mercedes) built their "premium" C segment cars fwd and recently switched to fwd (BMW) ? You dont even understand the reasoning behind why people like rwd - its not about "premium", thats more nonsense, its about the fact that rwd is supposed to be the most fun/better handling way to build a car. And as for "real Mercedes fans" WTF ? - so people who like the A class are fake ? The last 2 A Classes got some great reviews from car mags, the first one didnt drive that well from an enthusiast point of view, but boy there was a lot of extremely clever engineering behind it.

Sure I didnt like the Crosswagon, I preferred the non jacked up Sportwagon Q4, but then I dont like SUVs. And the idea that a diesel car isnt "Sporty" is also total nonsense - diesels won Le Mans (ie a motorSPORT race) 10 times in 10 years ! Winning races is pretty sporting, in fact its the definition of "sporting".

Threads are allowed a bit of off topic stuff and sizewell bought made some points and I replied to them.

I loved my Alfetta much more than I could ever love my 916, GTV 3.0. Not because is better appointed, the tan leather in my 916 is beautiful and the interior is really classy.

But My Alfetta 2.5 GTV had a Busso, longitudinally mounted and a rear mounted clutch, flywheel, gearbox and in board discs. De Dion rear suspension and torsion bar front suspension.

Gear changes were like stirring porridge.

But “It was an ALFA”.
Yes they were good cars, great balance due to the rear transaxle.

But a 156 GTA is every bit as much an Alfa as the GTV. You could legitmately argue its not a real GTA cos its no lighter than a regular 156 (its the heavest of the lot !), but its deffo an ALFA.

Nowhere, anywhere does it say that Alfas have to be rwd.

What is the particular problem? It’s pretty compact but the transfer box is bolted to the sump. So it would need a bespoke sump. Manifolds may be a problem but I suppose it all depends if the block and Bell Housing can marry - up.
Read the thread and see then we wont have to type it all out again.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,808 Posts
I thought the F40 and C630 had the same 295 lbs/ft max torque rating.

Even if chunks have been hacked off the Busso, its still a Busso and its still Italian.

I can still appreciate the "intricacies" of a petrol engine, despite preferring diesel, but my criticisms of the 3.2 are that its actually a GM engine as we ve already discussed, not that its more expensive to maintain. Of course you can get more power from it more easily, its design is 30 years newer !

As we ve already discussed my "prejudice" of the 159 stems from the fact that, good looking as it is, its a GM/Saab wearing an Alfa badge and therefore drives like a big Vauxhall no feedback, nothing to do with the weight, which is actually a bit of a myth - they werent actually that heavy - a 159 1.8TBi weighs less than a 156 2.4 for instance.

No I havent removed my EGR, I dont remove emissions equipment. Bit of a myth about cats "crucifying" engines, particularly modern ones, makes no sense pumping out more cr*p into the air so you can have 8 more horse power. Sure, loads of car guys take off cats, doesnt make it right or clever.



The gearbox used in the 164 Q4 is an older design, granted it doesnt matter about its age, but I dont think it is a better route to a Q4 Busso for reasons we ve already discussed.

Re: the 164 transfer box lining up, I cant understand why you cant see the potential problem - are you 100% certain that if bolted onto a Busso in a 156, that the 164 Q4 box would align its output shaft directly at the rear diff on a 156 Q4 ?

As I ve said I reckon modding the 156 Q4 set, like adding a spacer would be the best route to go, I m no engineer and I d be happy to be proved wrong.

I guess you better get researching centre diffs !



Whats the point of this ? Well you appear not to know the basic facts about the 147/156/GT platform - it doesnt matter how many times you say "its just a Fiat", you are 100% wrong - 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". Sure non Busso ones used Fiat Pratola Serra based engines, (at least theyre Italian) but Busso engined ones are pure Alfa. Denying this over and over again does not mean you are right. You can legitametley say a Mito is a Fiat - itsPunto with a different body, you could legitemately say the 145, 146 and 155 were Fiat Tipos with different bodies (the boxers at least had Alfa engines), but if you say that the 147/156/GT are all Fiats, youd be totally wrong, beacsue teh platform was developed by Alfa and used in nothing else. As we ve discussed, the 159/Brera were developed by Saab under GM, all Alfa did was a calibrate the spring and damper rates.

So, the Alfasud, one of the most revered Alfas in history was not a "real Alfa" ? Nonsense. You speak as if there is some doctrine written somewhere about what a "real" Alfa is, there is nothing, its all in your head. I think it simply has to be a car designed by Alfa. Personally I like fwd, rwd and 4wd cars, I dont favour any particular type and Alfa has built good cars with all 3 driveline types. You like rwd, well great, but its complete and utter nonsense to say Alfas have to be rwd - there is NOTHING in its history that says this, just like theres nothing saying they cant build diesels or buses, coaches, trucks and vans (all of which theyve built). Basically its you projecting your desires onto Alfa.

We are here cos Ned suggested over 10 years ago he d like to try and build a Busso Q4, converting that to RWD would entail horrendous transmission losses, so Q4 with a rear bias is what we re theoretically discussing (whilst acab, against his better judgement actually gets off his a*se tries to build one).

Ok, so "theres nothing premium about fwd", please tell me why the 2 leading "premium" manufacturers have always (in the case of Mercedes) built their "premium" C segment cars fwd and recently switched to fwd (BMW) ? You dont even understand the reasoning behind why people like rwd - its not about "premium", thats more nonsense, its about the fact that rwd is supposed to be the most fun/better handling way to build a car. And as for "real Mercedes fans" WTF ? - so people who like the A class are fake ? The last 2 A Classes got some great reviews from car mags, the first one didnt drive that well from an enthusiast point of view, but boy there was a lot of extremely clever engineering behind it.

Sure I didnt like the Crosswagon, I preferred the non jacked up Sportwagon Q4, but then I dont like SUVs. And the idea that a diesel car isnt "Sporty" is also total nonsense - diesels won Le Mans (ie a motorSPORT race) 10 times in 10 years ! Winning races is pretty sporting, in fact its the definition of "sporting".

Threads are allowed a bit of off topic stuff and sizewell bought made some points and I replied to them.



Yes they were good cars, great balance due to the rear transaxle.

But a 156 GTA is every bit as much an Alfa as the GTV. You could legitmately argue its not a real GTA cos its no lighter than a regular 156 (its the heavest of the lot !), but its deffo an ALFA.

Nowhere, anywhere does it say that Alfas have to be rwd.



Read the thread and see then we wont have to type it all out again.
Fair enough, but I don’t see why you can’t breifly touch on it, you have repeated yourself several times so far!

The Alfasud was not revered when it came out. Despised actually. Designed by an Austrian I believe and put together by unemployed labourers near Naples. It rusted before customers took delivery.
But it was a little go cart.

But, it wasn’t a Giulia, a Berlina , a Spider or a Bertie. Or Montreal’s.

They appeal as there are so few around. The trouble was, Alfa made front wheel drive work well. Which is all well and good for low centre of gravity cars that the boxer engine powered. And they were low powered.

Then some twit thought it a great idea for their flagship models??????

Not so and never will be. True, they made a good fist of them. But they are never going to get Alfa into the premier league.

When the Q4 Brera and 159 were dropped, they should have made it Rear Wheel Drive. Everything was there to do it.

But no, they made the same mistake as with the 156 and 166. I think I can forgive them the 147 a little. But from the 75 onwards they have been moving backwards. Checked by the Q4 Brera’s And 159’s for a while.

But they are back on the right track now with the Giulia and the Stelvio.

The F40 is 400 Nm.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,808 Posts
It’s not a 159 thread. However, the 8hp is incidental. The point of the exercise was to get engine temperatures down.
 
161 - 180 of 204 Posts
Top