Alfa Romeo Forum banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
120 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So on my adventures at work today, I wandered into my local breakers to look for a few bits.
Found a 2.4 jtd 156 with the intake staring me in the face, so I took it off and gave the man 5 euro (roughly £3.50)

This evening I put it in.
This is not a difficult job by any means.
For starters. Remove the long plastic cover along the wing/ behind the headlamp. Its just held in by two screws.
You will then see the resonator box.
It is only held in by 1 10mm bolt which you will see when the cover is removed.
Then jack the car up and remove the undertray if you have one.
I also unbolted the airbox and moved it as far left as I could to give more prying room for the resonator box.
The resonator has 2 clips into the airbox. Push them in with a big flathead and pry the resonator away from the airbox. It then drops out with a bit of a twist.
There is an o-ring on the resonator that wasnt on my v6 intake so I swapped it over.
Its then just a matter of putting it all back together.
The v6 intake does not bolt back into where the resonator bolt went. There is a hole hidden on the chassis leg you will feel it with your finger where the hole on the v6 intake lines up.
Make sure to remove the clip that goes into the chassis leg from the donor car and push it into your car.
Simples

It really is all self explanitory when you do it.

As for what difference it makes....
Dont be expecting the car to sound different, there really isnt much in it. Maybe just over 5k rpm it sound slightly more throaty for a second and pulling in 3rd gear at 2k it also sound marginaly different but thats it.
The car does seem a little more responsive though especially in first gear. But again, just a small bit.

I suppose it was worth the 5 euro and 1 hour of my time anyway.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
38,284 Posts
I did a similar thing to my first 156 2.0 TS.

The resonator box was removed and I replaced it with a plain pipe from a GTA.

I couldn't really tell any difference. I suppose a bit of weight was saved so that couldn't be a bad thing though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
120 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I was looking at them on ebay.
They were working out at £30 inc. postage to Ireland. Im glad I didnt buy one I would have felt like I was robbed. But it was worth the fiver I spent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,306 Posts
I did my TS a few years ago with the V6 pipe .. I thought it might be more responsive, but to check asked SHMBO to drive it and she said it definitely felt quicker ... I didn't tell her what I had done (I'd replaced the suspension arms so used that as an excuse)

I guess that could also be down to the new air filter that went in at the same time.

But now, several years on, and with a Powerflow filter, the pickup is definitely better .. maybe at 206K the TS is just run-in properly! :biglaugh:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,374 Posts
Does the 2.5v6 have the same intake as the GTA?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
413 Posts
No, GTA intake is different. I'm sure someone will be along to correct me, but think the 2.5 V6 intake is the same as the 2.0 JTS. The exhaust on the JTS and V6 is the same bore, i.e. bigger than 2.0 ts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,171 Posts
I'm sure someone will be along to correct me, but think the 2.5 V6 intake is the same as the 2.0 JTS.
The 2.5 V6 uses the same pipe as 1.9JTD & 2.4JTD. The indent in the pipe is to clear the intercooler.


Non EU TS (and Italian Police) used a similar but longer pipe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,390 Posts
I replaced the standard air snorkel with a GTA item on my 2.5 V6 and it sounds a little throatier. Also I feel that the mid range to top end pickup is slightly quicker, presumably due to wider pipe = more airflow at higher rpm? I’m planning some other engine upgrades to match, otherwise wouldnt have bothered!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,374 Posts
I replaced the standard air snorkel with a GTA item on my 2.5 V6 and it sounds a little throatier. Also I feel that the mid range to top end pickup is slightly quicker, presumably due to wider pipe = more airflow at higher rpm? I’m planning some other engine upgrades to match, otherwise wouldnt have bothered!
So the 2.5v6 doesn't have the odd looking resonator found on TS's? But still worth upgrading the induction pipe?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,306 Posts
It's slightly wider at the opening and hasn't have the bump so it might be a slightly better flow, but I don't think the 2.5 was that bad anyway. The TS had the resonator to keep intake noise down but that also strangled the air flow a bit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,390 Posts
It's slightly wider at the opening and hasn't have the bump so it might be a slightly better flow, but I don't think the 2.5 was that bad anyway. The TS had the resonator to keep intake noise down but that also strangled the air flow a bit.
No resonator on my 2.5.
The GTA snorkel is significantly wider and is a uniform diameter all the way from the wider bellmouth opening to the airbox. The difference is very obvious when a GTA item is put beside a standard 2.5 and TS snorkel.
Bolts onto the same point on the chassis leg and fits the airbox aperture fine though. (Bit of a struggle to get it into the airbox opening when you are lying on your back with your arm up inside the wing!:cheeky:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
307 Posts
I fitted the GTA pipe on my V6, image shows the difference. The V6 has no resonator fitted and has the same airbox and identical top bit as the 2.4, but the 2.4 has a reducer fitted in the top bit because the MAF sensor and pipe to throttle is a smaller diameter than the V6. The GTA again has the same box, but a different top bit for an even wider MAF and pipe.

I used to track my V6 and experimented with different setups. On dry days I would remove the snorkel completely and found the cheap 'crossflow' paper type air filters to be the best (image shows restrictive pink one my car came with).





 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,390 Posts
Ever tried foam filters Dave? I’m currently using a Pipercross oiled foam but a bit worried about it getting oil on the maf.
I might switch to the dry foam filters that Autodelta sell?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
307 Posts
Ever tried foam filters Dave? I’m currently using a Pipercross oiled foam but a bit worried about it getting oil on the maf.
I might switch to the dry foam filters that Autodelta sell?
The maf is very close to the filter, Ive not tried them all on the 156 but did on my clio 172, they are ok but soon get clogged as all the dust sticks. K&Ns are ok but once they are dirty they are a right pain to clean, I had a ITG foam filter for a while, again ok for first year or so then becomes a pain to clean, and once cleaned once or twice they are not as free flowing. The £4 crossflow ones from eurocarparts work a treat, are free flowing and go in the bin at then end of each year and swapped for a new one. On the 156 if its getting cool air with no snorkel fitted I found this the best setup, but dont run without the snorkel in normal day to day use.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top