| Archive for The Motor Forum talking cars since 2006 |
| Gurney |
No more V8's?Not if you are as daft as Alfa.
http://www.carsales.com.au/news/2...in-the-works-for-alfa-romeo-16992 Make mine a Giulia GTA V8 please. Providing it's true of course.... |
||||||
| Dr. Hfuhruhurr |
Small V8? Yes please! | ||||||
| Gurney |
Always liked the idea of small V8's - never driven one so not based on anything.
Just WANT one. Think Yamaha had a real tiddler concept once, 1.6 or 1.8 I think. Hang on, been in a Montreal which is only a 2.6, maybe that's where I got infected. |
||||||
| Blarno |
Surely a small V8 won't be much, if any, more powerful than a similar sized engine with less cylinders? It'll just be smoother and make a better noise.
Knowing the Italians, it'll be a high-revving screamer with a flat plane crank and won't sound like a V8 at all. Shame. 
|
||||||
| JohnC |
That's exactly correct and due to the number of small cylinders it is unlikely to possess much in the way of low down torque - I suppose that's where the turbos come in. |
||||||
| Gurney |
No flat plane cranks please. I'll put up with the lack of Torque (sans turbo) for the noise alone.
I did used to have a Type R, so know what it's like to have the pulling power of a spotty nerd below 6500rpm. |
||||||
| Dr. Hfuhruhurr |
+1. It'll be lovely. |
||||||
| TimR |
+2. In fact I'll have 2, just make one of them a turbo. |
||||||
| Gurney |
Now that's just being greedy. But I like your thinking... |
||||||
| the other ct |
Probably deserves a separate topic but looks like the industry is planning to use turbos more an more. No doubt at the expense of engines like that proposed by Alfa.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8266975.stm |
||||||
| TimR |
I'm not sure that's really news.
There's been a rash of 1.4 turbos which seem to be replacing 2.0NAs. |
||||||
| Blarno |
I have no problem with turbocharged engines. In fact, I quite like them. I love the shove. | ||||||
| maz |
I wonder if Fiat would let Ferrari use Multiair
technology to one of their engines and what it would be like ? |
||||||
| ALF |
A small-capacity V8 would be lovely!
On another matter Gurney, have you seen any power/torque/mpg/CO2 figures for the new 1.8 turbo engine as used in the 159? It's not listed on alfa's website yet... PS - obviously I'm talking petrol. This is me, after all... |
||||||
| Martin |
Never say never, ALF! You have a 4 pot turbo as your daily drive now, it could be the start of a slippery slope to derv land
|
||||||
| Gurney |
Yep, getting good reviews. Surprised they haven't MultiAire'd it from the off but suppose they can only do so much. New diesels too with a nice 170bhp jobbie  still can't quite stomach the thought of Derv power.
|
||||||
| Frank Bullitt |
197bhp @ 5000rpm 236lb/ft @ 2000rpm (sounds like a diesel...) 189g/km 147mph 0-60 7.7s 34.9mpg combined |
||||||
| Guitar Zero |
Gets thumped up the jubs by the 2.4jtd | ||||||
| TimR |
A mate has just ordered a 159 1750TBi to replace his 147 1.6Ti.
He was specifically waiting for this engine to try out before getting a 159. He reckons ts pretty fantastic. |
||||||
| Gurney |
Don't blame him I would have done the same. Rumours abound of an absurdly clean and economical V6 diesel from Alfa (or rather FPT) but so far nothing official to replace the 2.4JTD, which as Peet points out still gives the new TBi a stuffing. |
||||||
| TimR |
Isn't the 2.4 JTD a bit thirstier than everyone expects and still prone to the odd bout of breaking down? | ||||||
| Gurney |
The latest version seems to be reliable by all accounts - but is still a tad thirsty for a diseasil. They sound ok though, I had a drive in an early Brera 2.4 (not the latest 2.4 motor) found it a bit of an all or nothing jobbie, not for me. |
||||||
| Gurney |
I see Alfa have denied they are developing a V8.
'We will not make anything bigger than a V6' Shame, but can't say as I am surprised. |
||||||
| maz |
you see, Alfa are not that daft | ||||||
| Dr. Hfuhruhurr |
They said no FWD or 4WD Alfa will have a V8: didn't say anything about RWD ones ... | ||||||
| Gurney |
Cunning.
166 RWD V8 still on the cards then. |
||||||
| Dr. Hfuhruhurr |
Hope so!
|
||||||
| ALF |
I know they've mildly tweaked it since but the first 159 2.4jtd's were barely quicker on a long acceleration run than the 1.9jtd or 2.2 petrol. Having driven each of those quite a bit, neither is remotely quick enough to be genuinely fun in my book, though (odd ECU mapping in traffic aside) the 2.2 is an enjoyable engine. Good but not stellar figures for the new motor then. CO2 is about the same and mpg a couple down on my 4 year old Audi, which is the same size/class of car. I guess the 159's porkiness still let's it down even in facelifted trim... |
||||||
| maz |
more likely a Chrysler V6 engine with Multiair |
||||||
| TimR |
Isn't the 2.2 getting canned now anyway? My mate said he wasn't impressed with it and the 1750TBi engine hammers it for performance and economy. |
||||||
| Martin |
Obviously I have no idea what it's like but the stats are hardly impressive unless you're comparing it to the 2.2 of course, but that was awful. 189 carbons in the saloon and 194 in the estate. That compares to 175 in a 330i saloon and 177 in the estate. The MPG is slightly better, but so it should be! The latest A4 2.0T puts out 149 co2 and the 3.2 Auto is only at 194. I know co2 and mpg isn't the particularly important to most people, but surely you have to be able to compete and without a decent set of figures, sales aren't going to pick up to anywhere near 156 levels. |