ALFAGTV6.COM

[Maurizio]

Back on topic TS...
http://www.motorsport2000.de/index.php4 ... start_mm=0

On the dutch forum there are some 155 experts:
155 D2 motor stage 2, is a NA 2.0 16V motor 285 pk.
Such an engine needs a fresh rebuilt every 20 race hours.....
So dream on

[kterkkila]

Almost forgot that we're on twin spark topic. So should we keep talking only Nord TS, 16V TS, and 24V V6 TS engines? The last would be ultimate, but they're so rare though.

[damtech]

Hi guys,
I know this thread is quite old but you're great (I found you after buying Jim's 4-cyl book) and I have a 1991 75 T.S. with 160000km on the clock.
I also have 2 engines, one from another 75TS (I have to open it because an injector oring was missing and the engine was under rain...) and another from a 90000km 164 (FL92) which is an AR64103 (distributorless) 1995c (built in 1997)...

Starting a performance project which block and head do you suggest to use?

The head will be ported but I was thinking of retaining stock valve size. Can I ask you some suggestions about bore size? It's worth switching from 84 to 85mm (I was thinking of forged pistons)?

On intake side I had an idea regarding variable intake lenght together with 45mm ITBs...

I'm going to use custom made intake manifold (so different layout of 164 head isn't a problem, even for coolant passages) and I'm going to keep using (for the moment) the 164 M1.7 ECU (which is already installed and running on the 1962cc)..
Maybe for thermostat to radiator hose routing it's better to use a 75 ported head on 164 block?

TIA and sorry for my poor English,
Diego

[Mats]

Your english is excellent, welcome to the forum.

To answer your questions we need some more info, what is the use for this engine? Road, road/track, race or even rally? Which car, Alfetta based (RWD)?

I would probably use the 164 head on a 75 block, easier to fit in the alfetta (164 block is slightly shorter) and the 164 head is cleaner and easier to seal due to the lack of the distributor and cam variator.

[damtech]

Hi Mats!

The car will be used for road and sometime track and it will be another 75TS

Some pages before I read that porting on 155head is difficult due to oil "return" gallery and that you achieve better result when porting 75 head... is this true? i thought that 155/164 heads are better and so they were used in F3 engines... (I'm already running distributorless and soon I'll run timed injection on my daily driver 75 photos on the gallery: viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3591)

why did they make 164 block shorter, in your opinion? i know 164block has different spare code from 155 2.0 block (see below)... what is required to fit 164 shorter block to Alfetta/75?

anybody knows if 164 block has pistons oil jets like 155 block?

ps: next week I'm going to take home also a 155 2.0 engine

many thanks!
Diego


some eper spare codes:
155 2.0 ts 8v
block: 96411718/96411760 (2 litres)
head: 60567584 (1.7/1.8/2.0)

164 2.0 ts 8v FL92 [my engine has all the "upgrades" reported as it is one of the last 8v built ]
bvlock: 96412388
head: 60567584, 60628175 (after inox steel exhaust headers)
liners: 60507072/3/4 (3 classes)
liners and pistons: 60777607/533/608 (3 classes), 60778832 (lightened pistons, 1 class??)
rods: 60568604, 5895316 (set of rods, "equally balanced?" i mean that all of them weight the same...)

75 2.0 ts 8v
liners: 60507072
pistons and liners: 60778504
rod: 60513266

[Mats]

I guess they did it to fit the engine/gearbox transverse in between the chassis frame boxes. The issue is that when you fit that block in a 75 the 75 starter motor will not align with the ring gear on the flywheel.

I haven't done any work on the heads myself so you need to understand that what I'm writing is just what I've picked up in conversations and on the net.
Never heard that the return galleries are different on the later/FWD heads but I guess they are mounted slightly leaned over and maybe they changed the galleries for draining purposes. The return from under the lifters/tappets on the intake is the problem, it's easy to make a hole in to the inlet tracts if you are not careful...

[kterkkila]

Update from last spring. Some more tuning and it looks like this:
http://jakita.com/pics/Tehokuva-09.jpg

[MD]

Kimmo,

Care to explain the figures in english please?
At the moment I can't work out whether this is a strong engine or a shitty narrow band useless one.

[kterkkila]

Why not in Finnish?

If I shift up from 3 to 4 at 6500rpm, the engine speed drops to 5000rpm. The 6500 is still easy driving shift point at track. If trying to go fast, the shift will be done around 7000rpm, which means it drops to ca. 5400rpm. Now if looking those graphs, the engine is 190Nm@4100 and 200Nm@4500. It will stay over 200Nm until 5500 rpm and then starts to drop.

It's really easy to drive at track, too easy I'd say. There's no peaky feeling at all, and the corners can be driven with relatively high gear. That's good for fuel consumption on endurance races.

Last summer we didn't drove any races with this car for some stupid reasons. But we had three test sessions at Alastaro Circuit race track for shake downs and chassis setups. It's quite funny that we didn't need more than two gears on that track, only 3 and 4. Third gear on slowest corners and fourth on faster corners and straights. Even then I was happy to results we got. The best lap time was only ca. 2.6s behind of the lap record of our endurance class.

It would be nice if the engine could keep 200Nm longer after 5500rpm without dropping that much, but it's a little bit challenging with stock intake and exhaust.. I think 200hp should come easy if could change them..

[Micke]

The figures shouldn't be that difficult to understand.
Power [hp] and torque [Nm]

Lowest is stock. Then 3 mods from different years.

To comment the results the power band is OK.
Reason why the level is not higher than that is regulations stipulating stock intake and exhaust manifolds.
Other point is fuel consumption which may not be too high for good race results. Hence not higher rpm than that.

[MD]

Thank you gentlemen. Very interesting.

With respect to the green run, is your graph telling me that around 5500 to 6500 this engine makes ~165hp and 285nm of torque?

If that is so, how the hell do you do it?

[kterkkila]

The torque is straight Nm values on right hand axis. Slotted green line stays below 200Nm.

[Mats]

Thank you gentlemen. Very interesting.

With respect to the green run, is your graph telling me that around 5500 to 6500 this engine makes ~165hp and 285nm of torque?

If that is so, how the hell do you do it?

You du realize that the flat dotted curves are torque, right?

[MD]

OK
NOW the penny has dropped. Tx.

[kterkkila]

I've found out that my rear exhaust setup is loosing a quite much torque and power between 3500 and 5000 rpm. From 5000 to 7000 it seems to work just fine. With open collectors the power at 4000 was something like 10kW higher.. Is it so that 60mm OD exhaust pipe and 63mm muflers are already getting too restrictive on this power level, or is there something else going on? Because this was mainly a mid rpm range issue, I thought that the reason could be some sort of bad resonance on mid pipe after collector and rear silencer. Then I made a terminator box after the collector and everything look good, but again after attaching the rear part, the mid torgue was gone.. The rules limit the noise to 98db, so using open system doesn't work.. Any ideas? 3" rear tubing?? Sound crazy for these power levels and noise problem is getting even worse.