Alfa Romeo Forum banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi all

I am from Hong Kong. So envy to hear that all of you can enjoy the pleasure from 159, Brera and Spider. In HK, the previous dealer did so bad on marketing Alfa. All the new models are not available in HK. The last imported model was GT.

Could you please compare the GTA engine with the new 3.2l V6 engine so that HK people can make their right choice as we will have a new dealer in late Jan 07.

By the way, I love driving my GTA. I have it for 3 months from the last owner. Alfa is definitely not a perfect car but the happiness it brought out weight all problems. BMW and MB are so common in HK. It is so easy to get the wrong car in public carparks.

Cheers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
I think the new engine would have more power , Have a google regarding alfa 149 gta it might lead you to some more information.

by the way, I don't drive an alfa yet, but test drove a 147 GTA onfriday and loved it ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,179 Posts
Hi 860, welcome to AO :)

Apparently the 3.2 V6 in the 159/Brera is sloightly more powerful, but delivers its power in a more relaxed fashion.

In outright performance terms though the Brera/159 would be significantly slower than the 156/147 GTAs and 3.2v6.
This is beacause the 159 is a bigger car than the 156 and is much heavier.

While ultimately slower, the 4WD drivetrain on the new cars would let you use every ounce of power the car has in all conditions - somehting that couldn't be said for the 3.2 v6 FWD versions.
So as a road car the 159/Brera versions probably make a lot of sense and should be plenty fast enough for most people.

In general I think the Brera etc would be a much more refined car whereas the GTAs and 3.2 GT are a fair bit rawer.

Personally if I already had a GTA, I would take a long test drive in a 159 to see if the different character of the car suited.

Cheers,
TB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,455 Posts
Out of interest

Is the 3.2 "GM" motor heaver than the 3.2 GTA engine? I know the cars themselves are heaver.

I also know that Alfa/Fiat do not want to continue using this engine they got from GM, so maybe they don't like the weight of the engine?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,609 Posts
Engine is

Lighter,
Euro IV compliant
more fuel efficient
more powerful

it's lazier as the gears on the 3.2 159's and breras are a lot longer (2nd adds 10mph for the 3.2 brera versus the 156GTA (62 v's 72mph) - this is because the cars are not GTA's but more relaxed cruisers...

The change in engine will come with the electrohydraulic tappet system being developed (this is unair - unless I'm mistaken) which will fundamentally change the engine as there will now not be a timing belt/chain as it;s all computerised so that part of the block needs to be redesigned...

This gives infinitely variable timing and lift on input and exhaust raising power and economy significantly - 20 - 30% plus.....

SImes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,236 Posts
Simes said:
Engine is

Lighter,
Euro IV compliant
more fuel efficient
more powerful

it's lazier as the gears on the 3.2 159's and breras are a lot longer
SImes.
This is my understanding - the new engine is marginally more powerful and is also lighter and more efficient. It has a very different character to the old one as well, with more torque and lower revs overall, the old one feels like it "comes on cam" in the mid-range and revs forever. Unfortunately the new one also looks like it is made of plastic and is allegedly lacking any sort of character. Hopefully it's better than the VAG 2.8 I used to run, which had absolulutely no character at all bellow 5000 revs them a muted bellow above that (but still wasn't keen to rev).

Unfortunately Alfa have wrecked any performance they might have enjoyed from the new engine by matching it with a very heavy car with long gearing and a 4WD system that swallows 30% of the power. All of these aspects are sad, especially the gearing, which is cheap to get right. The 6-speeder in the GTA's has a fantastic set of closely stacked ratios that help to explain its high speed performance.

An interesting comparison is this - the 159 3.2 with 260bhp is slower to 100 than the 156 2.5 V6 (one of which I used to have) - with 190bhp.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
the 159 chassis is as solid as rock, and from tat u can deduce it can easily take on much more power than currently wat is on offer, especially if its coupled wit 4wd transmission.. but of cos its weight is also as heavy as a huge rock... or boulder... or mountain... :p

agree very much with TB who summed it all up very well from a GTA owners' perspective.

its really weird tat no matter all the inherent flaws the current FF156/147gta has, u might think its very easy to trade in ur gta for another ride within a similar price category... but how wrong i am even though i had been seduced by the MK5 R32, the new TT, the S60R even :rolleyes: and very much so the new S3... all these cars promise so much and does deliver most of it. but compared to the GTA there is still something sorely missing IF u had the fortune (or misfortune for some) to own a GTA..

from the above standpoint, i really cannot wait to see wat Alfa will come up wit in their Next version of a GTA on the new platform...

My wishlist:

- high revving 2.5 litre twin turbo or a highly tuned 3.2 JTS NA tat redlines at 8K rpms...:rolleyes:
- lightened chassis kg<1350kg
- 4WD wit some form of active suspension?\

asking for too much? :D

other than tat i sure got no worries when it comes to Alfa doing ultra sexy interiors or exteriors...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,669 Posts
It seems very likely that the next GTA to appear will be the Brera, fitted with lighter weight Carbon panels (Bonnet & Doors etc ?) and Maserati V8 power :)

The bad news is that it will probably cost at least 48,000 quid in the UK :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
Why wont they make it carbon fibre driveshaft like the one on 350z ? :)
Would save some weights, and ligher driveshafts = less power loss from flywheel to the wheel ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Thanks for everyone's input! This website makes me understand my 156 more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
hey 860, everytime im in HK for work i give a thumbs up whenever i see an alfa... its true.. all them Mercs & BMs are as common as toyotas.. (not tat its wrong.. jus plain boring) In fact if u ask me, a Porsche is also as common as VW in HK... followed by Ferraris... :D

but one rare sight tat made me **** my pants was when a "bulldog" Renault Clio 255 (the facelifted one) in iridescent yellow ambled past while i was in TST... :inlove:

im sure u shld know tat most alfisti in HK get their Alfa mods from Japan? ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Hi Tron
I also want to install Unicorse exhaust pipes but due to language barrier, it is difficult to get one. Supersprint / Ragazzon from Italy are people's choice as well.
 
A

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
dantze said:
Why wont they make it carbon fibre driveshaft like the one on 350z ? :)
Would save some weights, and ligher driveshafts = less power loss from flywheel to the wheel ?
Seriously though, the 350Z has huge loss from engine power to wheel power, higher than the GTA, so that cabon fibre driveshaft is just useless.

Just one question for you guys, how the heck can the 3.2 V6 JTS, be it direct injection technology or not, be more fuel efficient than the 3.2 V6 GTA ?
Just asking, because I really don't get it.
Or better yet, how can the ~1650kg Brera/159 3.2V6 Q4 use less fuel than the 1360/1410kg 147/156 GTA ?
I'm not a tech junkie, so I must be missing something.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
114,703 Posts
Tron said:
hows about me? im not only from the FAR EAST, but the FAR SOUTH EAST... :p :D ;)
Nice one mate, what do you drive? :)

I hop over to Singapore 3 or 4 times a year, maybe we should grab a drink sometime.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,609 Posts
Alexandrus said:
Just one question for you guys, how the heck can the 3.2 V6 JTS, be it direct injection technology or not, be more fuel efficient than the 3.2 V6 GTA ?
Just asking, because I really don't get it.
Or better yet, how can the ~1650kg Brera/159 3.2V6 Q4 use less fuel than the 1360/1410kg 147/156 GTA ?
I'm not a tech junkie, so I must be missing something.
The engine is more efficient ...... and uses less fuel for a given amount of work.

The car is less efficient as it makes the engine work harder as it's pulling the extra weight...

The brera is definately worse on fuel than may 156GTA by a good couple of mpg.

Simes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
890 Posts
JTS engines are more fuel effecient for several reasons. The main ones are:

Firstly, instead of only being able to inject fuel only when the valves are open, you can have more control of the timing of injection, which is why the cars can have a lean burn phase below 1500 rpm. You can basically wait until the valves are closing before you inject the fuel. This also stops the small bit of overlap between the fuel injection, start of the compression stroke and valve closure, which can cause some of the comustable mix to get pushed back out of the cylinder into the manifold.

Secondly, because you inject directly into the combustion chamber instead of into the intake manifold, you don't waste any fuel in what's called "wall wetting", which is basicly some of the fuel sticks to the sides of the manifold, and drips into the chamber as, um, drops, instead of a mist. Those drops don't burn as nicely as mist, so you waste a bit of the power from the fuel and the emissions are worse.

Also, a by-product is that you need to inject the fuel under very high pressure, which gives nice atomisation and a clean burn.

With the older engines, there power output was limited by having to meet emission regulations. Because the new engines burn cleaner, they can also be run with a bit more power for similar emmisions.

But with the wieght penalty of the newest cars, I'd be suprised if the real world (or ever claimed) fuel consuption can match the older (lighter) cars, even though the emissions are cleaner.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,305 Posts
Chrispy said:
Secondly, because you inject directly into the combustion chamber instead of into the intake manifold, you don't waste any fuel in what's called "wall wetting", which is basicly some of the fuel sticks to the sides of the manifold, and drips into the chamber as, um, drops, instead of a mist. Those drops don't burn as nicely as mist, so you waste a bit of the power from the fuel and the emissions are worse.
I'm not too sure about older versions of the Arese V6 such as those fitted to the GTV6 or 164, but I know the GTA lump is just a slightly enlarged version of the 2.5 as used in the 156. On that I know for a fact the injectors do squirt directly into the cylinders, not into the manifold.

The old V6 was a brilliant engine in many ways, but it was designed in the late 70's, therefore fuel consumption and emissions won't be comparable to brand new designs like new new GM/Alfa one. The old V6 had various alterations during its lifetime, but they had probably come to a point where not much more could be done to it.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top