Alfa Romeo Forum banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
269 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
This is something I have always thought of. I love Alfas, I love the Busso. The chances Alfa is ever giving us another GTV with RWD or any RWD sports car is very slim. If or when we have an Alfa sports car it will probably be electic.

So after much research, I'm starting a 916 GTV RWD/AWD project. I have already located donor parts sources and am about to start looking for a 916 for the project. I just need to decide a few things first.

Like do I get a V6 or do I get a TS and swap in a V6? With the prices of V6, it would probably be cheaper to swap a TS. Once can buy a TS for peanuts and then by a 166 3.2 V6 for peanuts as well. Since the cars are older and both are Alfa, I'm not think they will be CAN-BUS? And so not anticipating problems with the electronics transplant?

I would also like to run a few ideas through people first, before I jump into this money pit. :)

The 3 biggest challenges for a 916 sending power to the rear are:

1.Normally front engine cars which send power to the rear wheels have the engine mounted longitudinally.

2. Space for the prop shaft.

3. Rear suspension and orientation of the engine.

Solutions:

1. By my calculations the Busso probably won't fit in the 916 in a longitudinal position. Not without much cutting, which I want to avoid as much as possible. So the best solution for this would be to use one of the AWD systems which had the Busso in the same position as in the 916. So this is the path I'm taking. I have already found donor parts sources. So I'm fine here. If a miracle happens when I buy the 916 and I find I can turn the Busso around when I start working, then I might change it. As longitudinal is better. But not likely that it will be possible. I'm thinking the biggest problem would be fitting the gear box behind the engine. For sure no space without cutting.

2. By looking at the underfloor of a 916, I always had the impression the tunnel used for the exhaust pipe was big enough for a prop shaft. So I had been looking for photos of the GTV 916 floor plan. I finally found some and it seems my suspicion was right. To me it looks like the tunnel in the middle is big enough for a prop shaft without any cutting:

932314


Or is there any major component which runs through there besides the exhaust?

3. I always knew the 916 rear suspension set up was massive. This is the main reason the GTV has such a small trunk. So I always thought one would have enough space for a suspension with a diff in there. Looking at this photo I think I might be right. What do you think?

932315


Now I know the exhaust would have to probably be re-routed. I think the fuel tank could stay, if a rear suspension is to be fitted without any cutting. As far as rear suspension, there are a few options. But there is also the possibility of going full custom and making a subframe which bolts to the same ports as the original 916 subframe bolts to.

As for RWD or AWD, I would prefer RWD. But keeping the Busso as it is, mounted sideways, and using Q4 parts, it might not be possible to have RWD without a lot of fuzz. So I would also be OK with AWD.

This is what I would like to run though people and bounce some ideas before pulling the trigger to get the car and parts. :)

If my ideas are sound so far, next steep is getting a car., strip it and see it in the flesh.

So please feel free to jump in and participate. I want to keep this thread as a sort of build diary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
229 Posts
Look at the photos in the Cybox exhaust thread, Cybox Exhaust Modification!
The exhaust, either single cat or twin cat fills the tunnel, along with gearshift and hand brake cable.
The ground clearance is not enough to route an exhaust big enough for a V6 under the floorpan.
The tunnel would need enlarging to accommodate a prop shaft as well, or the ride high needs increasing, which defeats the idea of RWD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
I guess a side exit exhaust would solve that problem and would be pretty cool too!

What are you planning to use the car for? Will you need some sort of engineer approval to use it on the public road?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
Very interesting project, I think that considering the weight distribution of the 916 a rwd Is not a good option, so better the awd with q4 parts. Another approach could be mount the 2.0 turbo from 155 q4 (adopet either on the delta and dedra integrale) in order ti save weight from the front axel, even of as a v6 owner I love the Busso. Good luck and thanks for sharing your next steps.

This the YouTube link to a project of building a Lamborghini countach kit car with a 2.0 V6 turbo from a 166 Costruzione Countach Replica Turbo V6 Busso - Davide Cironi drive experience - YouTube


Inviato dal mio SM-G970F utilizzando Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
562 Posts
found someone who has done a 155Q4 swap into a GTV.


Alfa Romeo Gtv 2.0 TB 16V Q4 - Viva 916 Gtv esemplare unico
Basis: Gtv 2.0 TS 16V - EZ 07/1996 - approx. 225,000km - nero met. & Alfa Romeo 155 Q4 - approx.165,000km
No comfort functions, no radio, no loudspeakers ... but nobody needs on gravel and / or snow in this car anyway :))
Theoretically salable, if the offer is right ... everything else only on personal request by appointment and inspection on site!



2.0 liter 16V TB engine from the AR 155 with approx. 220PS, largely standard from the AR 155; Clutch, 5-speed gearbox and all-wheel system from the AR 155 Q4 (comes from the Lancia Delta HF Integrale Evo) with torque distribution 53% at the rear and 47% at the front, Torsen differential at the rear; original turbocharger and manifold; FMIC (Front mounted intercooler) with 2 additional, pushing fans that provide more air at the charge air cooler from approx. 0.45 bar charge pressure (continuous operation also possible) at low vehicle speeds; Blow-off piston valve; Custom-made exhaust system with 60mm diameter, metal Rennkat 200cpi and 2 small absorption silencers;


K-Sport Unibal cathedral bearing in front; KW coilover, height adjustable at the front and rear; 4 piston Brembo brake calipers from the Alfa 166 V6 front, acting on 305mm x 28mm 4-hole brake discs; Dual-circuit brake system with front / rear division, no ABS, braking force for HA can be set manually, steel braided brake hoses all around, brake lines routed largely inside, mud flaps on the underbody for additional protection of the steel braided brake hoses; more direct power steering (2.2 turns from stop to stop) from the GTV with cooling loop for the servo oil; Bolt circle 4x98, steel rims 16 "Alfa Mito or 17" Fiat aluminum rims; Winter tires; Wheel spacers 32mm at the front, 70mm at the rear; Specially made air ducts for oil coolers and open air filters (also for protection against water);


In addition to the tachometer, speedometer, fuel gauge, water temperature and clock, there is also a boost pressure display, as well as an oil pressure display and oil temperature display, all integrated into the dashboard of the GTV; Heating box rebuilt - air distribution only possible on windshield or footwell; Fan for water cooler can also be switched to continuous operation; Ignition switch, button to start, no ignition lock; no airbags; MOMO steering wheel with spacer

932422




932423

932425
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
269 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Interesting! Thanks for posting this. Curious choice the 155 Q4. It doesn't share the same platform as the 916 to make things any easier and is not really that much more common or any cheaper than the 164 Q4. Maybe the guy just had a donor 155 Q4 lying around? Because if going for something which doesn't share a platform, I guess a 156 Q4 is much cheaper and more readily available. I know it's diesel only. But I'm sure it could be made to work with the Alfa 4 cyl petrols. So begs the question. Why a 155 Q4?

Not too many images. But the front wheel shot with the 4 bolts seems to indicate this was a full transplant? It seems engine, gearbox and full suspension went in. Makes sense as the rear suspension would have to be replaced in any solution sending power to the rear. Maybe the original 916 front shafts didn't fit the 155 engine and he had to replace the whole front set up too.

Regardless, this proves a few of my concepts right.

1. it can be done!

2. the exhaust tunnel in the middle is definitely big enough for a prop shaft. I never really doubted it.

3. there is enough space at the rear for a new suspension as well a differential.

With all that, it is really just a matter of finding the correct donor and do some fabrication. ;) It should work.

But if going through all the work, I would want a Busso in there!

I have to re-study the whole thing. Maybe turning the Busso around, cutting through the firewall to place the Busso plus gearbox would still be easier and yield better results than trying to fit the 164 Q4 drive train. At least that way I could have it RWD, which is what I really want. Maybe finding a GTV 116 shell, cutting off the middle firewall and transmission vault, and professionally welding it to the back of the 916 firewall would be a cheap and easy way of doing it. That part shouldn't be rusty. It would be already all bent into shape, the correct gauge and manufacturer standard welding. And it shouldn't be hard to find a shell in a junk yard considering how much the GTV 116 rust and have been raced.

If not that, then it has to be the 164 Q4 way. I don't see myself going through all this trouble, unless it's a Busso. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
269 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Look at the photos in the Cybox exhaust thread, Cybox Exhaust Modification!
The exhaust, either single cat or twin cat fills the tunnel, along with gearshift and hand brake cable.
The ground clearance is not enough to route an exhaust big enough for a V6 under the floorpan.
The tunnel would need enlarging to accommodate a prop shaft as well, or the ride high needs increasing, which defeats the idea of RWD.
As you see, it seems to be possible to use that exhaust tunnel for a prop shaft. I always thought it would be wide and deep enough. But as I said, you can also have a considerably thinner prop shaft made out of carbon fiber. But as it looks, probably not needed if a 155 Q4 shaft fit. ;)

As for the re-reouting of the exhaust, Stuka hit it on the head. A side exhaust is exactly what I had in mind, at least as a back up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
269 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I guess a side exit exhaust would solve that problem and would be pretty cool too!

What are you planning to use the car for? Will you need some sort of engineer approval to use it on the public road?
Yes, side exhaust could definitely be a good solution. :)

It will be a weekend blaster. Meaning not a daily driver. I will of course try to enjoy it as much as I can. As for approval for the road, specially if keeping the same engine and not doing any re-cutting, I don't think any would be needed. It's just a bit more extreme than a brake upgrade or coilover upgrade, sort of speaking. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
269 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Very interesting project, I think that considering the weight distribution of the 916 a rwd Is not a good option, so better the awd with q4 parts. Another approach could be mount the 2.0 turbo from 155 q4 (adopet either on the delta and dedra integrale) in order ti save weight from the front axel, even of as a v6 owner I love the Busso. Good luck and thanks for sharing your next steps.

This the YouTube link to a project of building a Lamborghini countach kit car with a 2.0 V6 turbo from a 166 Costruzione Countach Replica Turbo V6 Busso - Davide Cironi drive experience - YouTube


Inviato dal mio SM-G970F utilizzando Tapatalk
There are just so many ways of dealing with more weight to the back to aid traction, that this does not worry me.

The fact that Alfa has the engine stupidly hanging in front of the front axle is more bothersome. That's some idiotic design you would expect from Audi but not Alfa. If it would not be too much trouble I would push the engine more backwards. If I end up having to turn the Busso around, this is exactly what I will do.

But if the 164 Q4 system really works, I will probably go with that as it will be much simpler. Then I can't change the pendulum effect, I know. But just shifting more weight to the rear to aid traction is not something that worries me. Totally doable. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
229 Posts
If you are making a track car and ignoring all construction and use regulations you are ok, otherwise where will you fit a catalyst. None was visible on the 155 Q4 transplant. Side exhausts would not be legal for a road car based on a 1995 shell in the UK.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Great project idea. Please push forward with it! As the owner of a 3.0L GTV l have often thought 'how great would this car be if the Busso power could produce a nice power drift'. I love my car, but RWD over FWD any day. I think finding a suitable Q4 donor car will be your biggest hurdle. Will be following with great interest. Please provide lots of pictures as things progress.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,437 Posts
Side exhausts would not be legal for a road car based on a 1995 shell in the UK.
Why not?....nothing in the MOT rules about it. In fact the only legislation I can find relating to this is in relation to MOT where it states the exhaust gasses must exit behind the front wheels. A few recent cars have side exit exhausts from the factory...Mercedes SLR for example.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
269 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Great project idea. Please push forward with it! As the owner of a 3.0L GTV l have often thought 'how great would this car be if the Busso power could produce a nice power drift'. I love my car, but RWD over FWD any day. I think finding a suitable Q4 donor car will be your biggest hurdle. Will be following with great interest. Please provide lots of pictures as things progress.
Thanks for the encouragement. Sometimes I think this is not a very popular idea among GTV owners. So any support is encouraging. :)

A few things have changed since I started the thread. I have had a Busso out and hanging on top of a 2.0 GTV 916 with the hood off, as a fitting test. As well as taking measurements. My suspicious that the Busso will not fit in a longitudinal position was confirmed. No way to turn the Busso 90° unless you want to hack the chassis and do a lot of cutting. Also, I think it would be a totally different car then. Because so much would have to be changed. New front sub frame so new front suspension. New rear suspension anyways of course etc. It would be basically a GTV body only. So it would be easier and cheaper to get a RWD car and somehow stick the GTV body panels on it. LOL :D This has been said before and now I see it too. It just wouldn't be a GTV 916 anymore.

But in all seriousness, even if I had very deep pockets and was very, very adventurous, to do a good job you would have to push the Busso more backwards in the chassis. Because as is, the Busso already hangs off the nose of the GTV enough. It's bad enough for the weight balance. This is why the 4 cylinder cars handle better. If you turn it around it would hang even more off the nose. The design is stupid as it is. Because it was made to be FWD and have as short of a front end as it can. We don't need to make it worse by pushing even more weight forward from the front axle. So to do it right the Busso would need to be pushed back. It would never be front mid engine, which is the correct and optimal set up for a front engine RWD performance car. But even to get at least the same weight balance as is now, it would still mean pushing the Busso a bit into the cabin and firewall. It would be just a mess.

So I think Q4 is the only way forward. The engine can stay in the transversal position. So no new front sub frame or new front suspension. Because you would now be sending power to the back , weight distribution and balance would be improved over the FWD car. And you can have a rear biased AWD system, which all the Alfas Q4 seem to be anyway. It would still be a 916. Just an improved one. It is also a much easier task to execute than going RWD.

So this is where I'm putting my focus and effort now. Converting it to a Busso AWD. Either the GTV or a GT. I would prefer the GTV and I suspect if a GT Busso could be converted to Q4 so could the GTV and vice versa.

I will update the thread as I make progress. I'm determined, to a point. I will not spend enough money that I could buy an Aston martin V8 Vantage or Dodge Viper. Meaning not spend enough that I could just buy a RWD supercar already. But I'm determined. And I have to be. Because as much as I love the Busso, it will still cost a lot. Probably enough to buy some great affordable RWD sports cars. And in the end it will still be just a 250bhp car. Unless I want to spend another fortune on an Autodelta Busso with 350bhp. With 250bhp the Q4 will be slower than the FWD on the straights. But will leave it behind on the curves. And the feeling will be much improved as will the handling I suspect. But I'm sure the price will be enough or more to buy something like a BMW Z4 coupe or similar. But that's fine. .

I'm determined to do it because I love the Busso. If it can be done for a reasonable amount I will. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
269 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Why not?....nothing in the MOT rules about it. In fact the only legislation I can find relating to this is in relation to MOT where it states the exhaust gasses must exit behind the front wheels. A few recent cars have side exit exhausts from the factory...Mercedes SLR for example.

I think this will end up being the best solution. I also think there won't be any legal problems.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Hey Nico, love you're enthusiasm. And you will definitely need that passion to get you thru this project. I completely agree, keeping the engine transverse a going to a Q4 setup is the only logical way forward. Maybe there is a clever way that you could disengage the front driveshafts (maybe an electromagnetic clutch arrangement) for a bit of RWD only fun.
Alfa 164 Q4s seem to be hard to come by these days. Have you considered a 156 Crosswagon as a possible donor vehicle? Or even a 159 Q4. I guess the problem with these other vehicles is the bell-housing is not matched to the Busso block, so more work with adapter plates and the like.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top