Alfa Romeo Forum banner

101 - 120 of 162 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,417 Posts
Discussion Starter #101
Id swap a little interior and boot space (and it is a small difference if anything in most cars...even 159s were engineered for 4WD so the interior space is the same and you can bet your life the floor pan of next One Series will be engineered ready to be the basis for the next X1 4WD) for a nice throttle adjustable, more over-steer prone, balanced RW drive car any day. My 159 is the first FWD car I've owned in about 30 cars since I passed my test in a Fiesta in 1985!...oh except a Mk2 Golf....forgot that one. Its the only thing I don't really like about my 159 and I'm glad to see they realised the error of their ways with the Giulia!....but I cant afford one ....and its not as pretty as the 159 IMO.

“Its the only thing I don't really like about my 159 and I'm glad to see they realised the error of their ways with the Giulia!....but I cant afford one ....and its not as pretty as the 159 IMO.”

Agreed! Front wheel drive, is for me great for small cars. In saying that, Alfa were on their uppers when Fiat took over and there was not a lot of money. So all credit to them for the 156’s and their ilk. And we got to keep the Busso for a few more years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,491 Posts
Id swap a little interior and boot space (and it is a small difference if anything in most cars...even 159s were engineered for 4WD so the interior space is the same and you can bet your life the floor pan of next One Series will be engineered ready to be the basis for the next X1 4WD) for a nice throttle adjustable, more over-steer prone, balanced RW drive car any day. My 159 is the first FWD car I've owned in about 30 cars since I passed my test in a Fiesta in 1985!...oh except a Mk2 Golf....forgot that one. Its the only thing I don't really like about my 159 and I'm glad to see they realised the error of their ways with the Giulia!....but I cant afford one ....and its not as pretty as the 159 IMO.
Rear wheel drive is too much of a 'compromise' (until you get up to large saloons). The packaging is a nightmare. You start with the problem of how to get weight on the rear axle to stop it spinning out of control. So the first thing is to push the engine as far back as you can to get it nearer the rear wheels. That means putting the bulkhead further back together with the front seats. To help even more you push the rear axle forward to get it closer to the engine. Now you have to figure out what to do with the rear seats. If you make them full width they have to be in front of the rear wheel arches. Now you've got very little space left for legs as they bang against the front seats. Or you put the rear bench between the arches and hope nobody notices that you have reduced it down from 5 seats to 4 seats.

Then you try help the weight distribution by pushing the front axle as far forward as you can. If you can get it away from the engine it weighs less on the front and more on the rear. Now you find you've run out of space for components in the engine bay. Sticking the battery in the boot helps. But you have to find room for the steering rack. Remember, you've put the engine against the bulkhead so it can't be there. So you put it in front of the engine with a long shaft and engineer how the shaft is prevented form being a spear in a major accident. Other components can live with the steering rack but don't tell owners how much it costs to change a water pump.

Now you have the steering rack in front of the engine, the tie rods must operate on the front of the wheel hubs. So the brake calipers will have to live behind the hubs and need a bit of extra help to get cooling air.

At the end of this (in true 1984 prose) you can tell your customers that all these compromises are a BENEFIT because you have nearly obtained 50/50 weight distribution. This is the BMW way but you can see it in the latest Alfa, The 159 had long front overhangs and a short rear. All reversed on the rear wheel drive package but Alfa can say it's a BENEFIT just to follow BMW
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,896 Posts
It clearly is a benefit...all the best handling cars are RWD imo...and the faster/more powerful the car the bigger the advantage. Many car designers recon about 350 to 400 horse (yes it's a lot) to be about the practical limit for a front driver that your want to actually be able to corner under power...without lots of fun killing electronics. Front wheel drive is the safer option for untalented driver (overcook it in a FWD car and lift off in a panic and the car will most likely come back in line....do that on a RWD car and the rear will pass the front!...it takes far more finesse on the throttle to ride that drift....although over zealous electronic intervention has largely got around that I guess), its easy to package (as you say). Unfortunately most of your argument falls flats on its arse due to the massive amount of platform sharing that not only means that a platform is shared amongst many models in the same manufacturers range but (due to it being about the most expensive component to develop) is often shared amongst different marques. This inevitably means a platform/shell has to be engineered to work on both front or 4wd configuration...which is pretty much the same engineering/packaging as for RWD....so those rear seats (along with the positioning of most of the other components you list) will be exactly the same size and in the same position.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,491 Posts
You clearly didn't read my comments on how you engineer a rear wheel drive. You can't put the power to the back wheels on a shell packaged for front wheel drive. If you think it's just about fitting the components then you don't understand vehicle dynamics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,896 Posts
You clearly didn't read my comments on how you engineer a rear wheel drive. You can't put the power to the back wheels on a shell packaged for front wheel drive. If you think it's just about fitting the components then you don't understand vehicle dynamics.

You clearly can as it's done all the time. As I said before..shells are expensive..so often when new ones are developed they are often engineered with front, rear and four wheel drives versions of the same shell to be sold in different markets around the World.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,417 Posts
Discussion Starter #107
You clearly can as it's done all the time. As I said before..shells are expensive..so often when new ones are developed they are often engineered with front, rear and four wheel drives versions of the same shell to be sold in different markets around the World.
The 159/Brera designed around AWD, but having a transverse engine must help mitigate some of O - E’s observations. The Berlina, Alfetta, 75 and Giulietta weren’t large saloons but were more than adequate for their class.

The 164/166, although looking the size of a tank - especially with that snooker table bonnet, actually weren’t that much more roomy inside. Certainly, no great advance on the 156 imho.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,417 Posts
Discussion Starter #108
You clearly can as it's done all the time. As I said before..shells are expensive..so often when new ones are developed they are often engineered with front, rear and four wheel drives versions of the same shell to be sold in different markets around the World.
Anyway, back to the subject. Took delivery of a brand new Climate control compressor today. One year guarantee, pucker Fiat unit - 218 - 50 Euro/Pound.

Strange it came from Italy via Australia, and it was labeled as a stainless steel wash hand basin? But who cares?

Car is going to garage on the 28/29th, who took this Brera engine out and replaced with a low mileage replacement. On the basis that they know what they are doing - having done it once before - I am hopeful that the two days they quoted me will result in me driving it away soon after.

I am disappointed with my garage as they gave excuses for not doing the work which had worn thin. I did not ask for a "Cheap Rate", nor have I questioned the VAT element of my bills - despite certain customers getting preferential treatment. I am particularly aggrieved, given I bought the car from them and have spent a lot of money on parts which they advised would be good to change. I had expected better from them.

No matter, I can understand they have contracts with companies that take precedence, but would argue that they had not wanted to be reduced to doing the "Simple Jobs", billing themselves as Alfa Specialists and wanted to maintain their reputation in this area.

In saying this, I cannot think of any work they have done for me, which was not to the highest of standard. Which is paradoxical, given they have not extended their engineering ethics to their business ethic.

Now, I can only hope that the re - installation of my engine goes smoothly, and look forward to being back on the road with the 159 Q4, PDQ.

But before then, I have to find a new clutch - god knows what that will cost. The old one is good, but it makes sense to do it at the same time the engine is changed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,417 Posts
Discussion Starter #109
You clearly can as it's done all the time. As I said before..shells are expensive..so often when new ones are developed they are often engineered with front, rear and four wheel drives versions of the same shell to be sold in different markets around the World.
Sorry for double post - Forgot to attach picture.Note, wallet getting thinner. If anyone seriously wants to maintain these cars; properly, they need deep pockets. Is it worth it - preserved my insanity, which is what counts!
 

Attachments

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
45,065 Posts
But before then, I have to find a new clutch - god knows what that will cost. The old one is good, but it makes sense to do it at the same time the engine is changed.
If you need to change the dual mass flywheel I have a genuine Alfa one in stock, they are hideously expensive though!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,417 Posts
Discussion Starter #111
If you need to change the dual mass flywheel I have a genuine Alfa one in stock, they are hideously expensive though!
I knew you were going to say that:depressed:

For future reference - mine:-
Throttle and Pumping losses - relevance to the 3.2 JTS. Following quote from Quora:-

Ragasruoban S, former Intern at Daimler India Commercial Vehicles (2017-2018)
Answered Feb 22, 2018

Pumping loss in IC engines is the difference in work done to pump out the exhaust gas and the work done to induce the fresh charge(fuel+air mixture) into the intake manifold. Since the exhaust gases must be pumped out against the atmospheric pressure, higher the intake presure, lesser will be the pressure difference between intake and exhaust ports. During half load or partial throttle inputs, the pressure at the intake manifold is lesser than in the case of full load or full throttle. Hence at higher loads, the pressure difference is lower which leads to lesser pumping loss.

"Get the engine right, fit some decat manifolds and a good exhaust system" -correct.

Manifold cats produce enormous restrictions upon evacuating the cylinder burnt gases. So the pressure differential between the inlet manifold and the exhaust manifold is less than it could be part load. One could overcome this to a large extent by either turbo - ing or Blowing the 3.2 JTS. Insignia 2.8 Turbo, Saab and Opel are turbo - er and better than the 3.2 JTS - opinion.

But the simplest way is to reduce the back pressure the manifolds create - by design it has to be said - and replace them with Cat Free manifolds, such as Auto Delta's. By reducing the restriction to gas flow, at the time the inlet valve is opening, the gas flow in the exhaust manifold has reduced the pressure, closer to atmospheric, but preferably created a negative pressure. The pressure differential between the inlet manifold and the exhaust manifold as a result, causes the air flowing in, to be nearer to the ideal Stoichiometric ratio for the engine's velocity. This reduces Pumping Losses, the consequence of which is Better Throttle Response and Improved Economy.

This however is only one part of a complex equation this GM engine creates. Another part is, "Poor Valve Timing Dynamics", which like it or not, is directly related to Oil Flow/Pressure Inadequacy, which can also be blamed for woeful timing chain tension and early failure.

A decent set of camshafts would be the cherry on the cake. But a total waste if Oil Flow/Pressure issues are not addressed. But even without changing the camshafts would put this engine well over 280 BHP. Current power is 260 PS - 256 BHP - pathetic for a 3.2 JTS with VVT and direct injection.

Direct injection should result in almost eliminating "Throttle Losses", which are poor in this engine, as the Valve timing cannot respond fast enough. The ECU is trying to set stoichiometric fuel ratio - right across the rev range, but cannot compensate for ingested air being restricted because the valve timing is incorrect. Eventually it is correct - but the time it takes, reduces the engines dynamic response to throttle changes.

So, The JTS Camshafts cannot be changed without removing timing chains - without removing front engine cover - without taking the engine out as some wags would have it!!!!

And the Rear Bank Position Exhaust Camshaft Sensor doesn't need realigning!

There are some really good engineers in East Anglia. One's who can take what you ask them to do, and do it, without "Talking One To a Standstill", by bringing every minutia into the conversation, to the extent that one gives up in frustration. A bit like Stone Wall Brexiteers.

All three of these devices were produced locally by an engineer that knows no limits, as to what can be done.

Superb workmanship.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Sizewell, you continually claim this engine suffers from oil flow/pressure issues. I dont see a problem with oil pressure on my unit whatsoever. I also doubt any significant drop in pressure/flow throughout the engine.

Graph below
Oil pressure Vs RPM ..engine at operating temperature running 5w 40. Readings taken from factory sensor. Oil and filter changed 2000 km ago.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,651 Posts
Oop North, we refer to it as “ just talking out of his ass “ let him continue Petomet
It’s his money, and his engine..

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,417 Posts
Discussion Starter #115 (Edited)
Sizewell, you continually claim this engine suffers from oil flow/pressure issues. I dont see a problem with oil pressure on my unit whatsoever. I also doubt any significant drop in pressure/flow throughout the engine.

Graph below
Oil pressure Vs RPM ..engine at operating temperature running 5w 40. Readings taken from factory sensor. Oil and filter changed 2000 km ago.
Which oil pressure sensor are you talking about? - location please.

"I also doubt any significant drop in pressure/flow throughout the engine." - you cannot possibly know that! Least of all if you are measuring it at the outlet of the Cooler/Filter Unit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,417 Posts
Discussion Starter #116
Oop North, we refer to it as “ just talking out of his ass “ let him continue Petomet
It’s his money, and his engine..

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Still on the booze I see! Or is it drugs? Whatever it is, it probably accounts for your pleasant disposition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Well as mentioned "from the factory sensor" so yes the heatexchanger/filter locale. To complete the picture for you my speculation of no pressure/flow drop through the enterity of the engine is based on the following.

1) working VVT system -logged, measured vs desired. plus lovely consistent pressed back in the seat feeling in the higher rev range!
2) relative good fuel consumption - qtronic manual mode, driving mostly like a pussy (starting in 2nd ,cruising in 5th, 1500rpm) 14-14.5L/100km average speed approx. 30 -35km/h. Could improve these figures as i do enjoy the occasional "italian tune up".

I have a stock engine with catch cans, no modifications to PCV orifice.

Imo, the only problem the Q4 3.2JTS has is the wild ~30% drivetrain loss. If that was only a 20% loss on these vehicles it would be a different beast!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,417 Posts
Discussion Starter #118
Well as mentioned "from the factory sensor" so yes the heatexchanger/filter locale. To complete the picture for you my speculation of no pressure/flow drop through the enterity of the engine is based on the following.

1) working VVT system -logged, measured vs desired. plus lovely consistent pressed back in the seat feeling in the higher rev range!
2) relative good fuel consumption - qtronic manual mode, driving mostly like a pussy (starting in 2nd ,cruising in 5th, 1500rpm) 14-14.5L/100km average speed approx. 30 -35km/h. Could improve these figures as i do enjoy the occasional "italian tune up".

I have a stock engine with catch cans, no modifications to PCV orifice.

Imo, the only problem the Q4 3.2JTS has is the wild ~30% drivetrain loss. If that was only a 20% loss on these vehicles it would be a different beast!!
So, no evidence at all really! Just you feel you have to contribute - in a negative way. Well good for you. But I prefer to base my findings on something a little more scientific, notably research by leading luminaries in this field. So I am sure you won't mind if I pass on your contribution, thank you none the less!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
It doesn't take a genius to ascertain your views on the inner working of this engine and thats all they are at this juncture. Naturally a contribution was delivered here rather than your rhetoric that has plagued every other thread concerning the 3.2JTS. Remember it quality not quantity.

When you are finally back on the road, please, please provide an unadulterated chart of desired vs measured VVT vs rpm, as at the end of the day, thats all that counts! i'll happily do the same.

Farwell, Sizewell, till then.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,417 Posts
Discussion Starter #120 (Edited)
It doesn't take a genius to ascertain your views on the inner working of this engine and thats all they are at this juncture. Naturally a contribution was delivered here rather than your rhetoric that has plagued every other thread concerning the 3.2JTS. Remember it quality not quantity.

When you are finally back on the road, please, please provide an unadulterated chart of desired vs measured VVT vs rpm, as at the end of the day, thats all that counts! i'll happily do the same.

Farwell, Sizewell, till then.
Do that now! Plot the inlet camshaft position sensor pulses on a storage scope - second trace delayed by 120 degrees, whilst working the throttle. If the vvt’s are responsive, there should be as small a delay as possible between traces. There won’t be - time-wise they will be light years apart.

Then do the same on the exhaust position sensors and they will be even worse. Store the traces and measure the time between the two and that will give you the dynamic response time of the vvt’s, which is atrocious.

Don’t just simply do what Alfa did, which was meant to persuade some - you, that they knew what they were doing. They didn’t, and neither do you.

Easier still for you, because you won’t have to figure it out. Take your car and get it Dynamometer tested. You will find my plot in my thread, which gives the figures for mine at 100k plus and a spanking Brera at 40 - ishK.

Now back to your theory about spark plug temperature rating - I’m still interested to know how you came up with that little pearl!
 
101 - 120 of 162 Posts
Top