ALFAGTV6.COM

[Duk]

Patzo_3l, car manufacturers of this day and age are a lot more interested in maintaining an image of quality and reliability. If they see/hear/smell a problem, it's better to nip it in the butt with a product recall/factory mod, than to let their image go down the toilet.
I remember reading an article somewhere about the Maserati BiTurbo. It was mentioned that the factory just wanted to get the cars out and let the dealers deal with the quallity issues that came back to them (or something to that effect).
Standing on both sides of the fence (Japanese and Italian), I'd have to say that most standard performance orientated Japanese engines are better built (strength) and have more potential (cylinder head flow) than a standard Alfa V6.
I'll admit that this is based mainly on reading, but after taking my inlet manifold and runners off my 3ltr, I was dissapointed to say the least.
I have not seen this level of poor quality control/design on similar age Japanese performance engines.
1 thing I learned when I was an apprentice (fitter/machinist) "If you can't do the simple things well, who is going to trust you with doing the complicated things well?"
Greg Gordon makes good mention of the limit of the factory conrods on his website. These limits (conrods are the limit of most factory performance engines) are low in comparison to most of the Japanese performance orientated factory engine rods.
Just for the record, despite my apparent Alfa bashing, I realy enjoy my Alfa. It's individuality and challenge of improvement (I refuse to use the term 'character' to describe an Alfa) make it a joy to own.
My 2 cents worth .

[Mats]

Or you can say that they built it as cost efficient as possible for the target power level.

Sounds to me like the Jap cars are over engineered, why is that a good thing for the average customer?

[patzo_3l]

2 different opinions i guess. i normally tend to doubt what i read and go by what i see and learn for myself in real life however. i stick by my theory that a manufacturer will build to a budget and only make things adequate for the job and not over engineer. most of the time of course. i mean thinking logicall why would a car company make an engine that prodeuces for example 150kw at the engine, put in rods and port the head and so on that could handle twice that power. it just doenst make economic sense in my book. a perfect example of my point can be seen when looking at standard injecter sand fuel pump sizes. from my experience for example if that same engine makes 15okw the manufacturer normally matches things like injecters and pumps for that power with small allowances of cource. another notable point is the fact for example is the fact that most of the time the manufacturer needs to keep the rest of the car up to the task so for example making better ports or something like that may mean more hp and a better transmission, driveshafts etc etc. i mean it would have been easier for alfa to make a 3.0l in a 75 with more power, but making the rest of the car last wouldve come down to more dollars. and then we come down to the fact of reaching end of product lifespan and so on and we can no longer compare a 87 alfa engine with that of say for example a nissan one.it comes down to budget budget budget and in these competitve times unfortunately thats the way it is. i think that makes my 3 cents now lol

[Duk]

Interesting theory patzo, but I'll attempt to temper that.
Just for the sake of example, lets say someone blows up a Toyota 2JZGTE engine, for what ever reason (ran it lean, too much ignition advance, shite fuel etc.) at a relatively low power output. There are those that will claim that, that engine is piss week.
But if someone then gives example(s) of high and reliable power outputs from the same type of engine (well tuned aftermarket computer, big injectors/fuel pump, well specified turbo, intercooler, exhaust etc.) then those examples are often met with distrust/disbelieve.
It seams to be human nature to be suspicious and/or dismissive of examples of success but we all tend to point the finger at examples of failure, even if we don't know the full story.
Incidently, alot of the Japanese produced engines of the late '80s upto the late '90s were built with factory endorced competition in mind. The Skyline GTR and JZA80 Supra's are obvious examples.

Mats, I guess that you don't have access to Japanese type 'tuning' (aftermarket) magazines in Sweden? Reading what filters (quite a lot actually) into Australian aftermarket magazines, the Japanese 'tuning' industry is absolutely huge I believe manufacurer's like Toyota, Nissan and Mitsubishi in particular catered for this and the production car racing industry with great enthusiasm. The Japanese seem to be (in my opinion) some of the most dedicated to vehicle enhancements. The dollar to improvement ratio for power, suspension, wheels/tyres and braking is huge compared to european stuff.
4 cents.....

PS my 75 is a 1990 model.

[MALDI]

One small point: sometimes things are "over engineered" because the engineers do not have the resources to get it down to the right level (e.g. size, weight, material selection, etc). They make it a bit extra just in case. This means manufacturing costs are higher but that's not part of the engineer's budget so the problems are passed along to manufacturing. This is the sign of a poorly run organization or one with too few resources (largely the same thing).

Think of something highly engineered with a big budget (like an F1 car) everything is optimized to be just as large, heavy, etc as it needs to be and no more. I would say modern Alfas are too heavy because the budget was not there to make them lighter (i.e. CAD/CAM personnel to make the unibody lighter bit still rigid).

On the other hand the Japanese companies have had the engineering budget (and pay careful attention to design) so what I have said does not explain why their engines are "over engineered".

Just food for thought...

[Duk]

A curious way to look at it I suppose. But there is 1 problem.
Weight doesn't always equal strength.
Just because something is heavy doesn't make it strong. And just because something is light, doesn't make it weak.

[MALDI]

Weight doesn't always equal strength.
Just because something is heavy doesn't make it strong. And just because something is light, doesn't make it weak.

True, but finding the optimal solution always takes money!

[Mats]

One small point: sometimes things are "over engineered" because the engineers do not have the resources to get it down to the right level (e.g. size, weight, material selection, etc). They make it a bit extra just in case. This means manufacturing costs are higher but that's not part of the engineer's budget so the problems are passed along to manufacturing. This is the sign of a poorly run organization or one with too few resources (largely the same thing).

Think of something highly engineered with a big budget (like an F1 car) everything is optimized to be just as large, heavy, etc as it needs to be and no more. I would say modern Alfas are too heavy because the budget was not there to make them lighter (i.e. CAD/CAM personnel to make the unibody lighter bit still rigid).

On the other hand the Japanese companies have had the engineering budget (and pay careful attention to design) so what I have said does not explain why their engines are "over engineered".

Just food for thought...

It doesn't work like that, the only driver in the design process is cost and if there ever were a car manufacturer that had engineers that worked like you describe it they are long gone now. There is no way in h3ll any project manager would accept a higher manufacturing cost just because "engineering is too expensive". If he did he would be out the door at the next engineering gate, probably would have difficulty to find another job position too.

GM pulled out of the joint venture with Fiat/Alfa platform development due to the fact that it was too heavy and expensive, it was actually developed here in Gothenburg. Saabs design center. This is the 159 platform.

[MALDI]

Well Mats, I maintain that automobiles today are rife with poor design largely as a result of limited budgets (time and money) for engineering/design/prototype testing. Toyota engine sludge, GM/Texaco Dexcool, Ford cruise-control fires, GM plastic value covers all could have been prevented with better design and testing. We know these are engineering/design flaws because they pertain to specific model cars and are not endemic to all cars. I believe your counterpoint is that these flaws are due to trying to design to a price ("the only driver in the design process is cost"). Perhaps we are saying the same thing: the company can pay up front with engineering dollars, or it can pay later with warranty repair dollars and lost customers. What say you?

On another point, can you shed light on why the 159 is so heavy compared to its competitors, both literally, what in particular weighs more, and figuratively, why it wasn't designed to be lighter?

[Mats]

Yep, same thing. If you look at parts outside the engine though it is usually made up from parts that is already available from suppliers or carry over parts and then it's really only down to picking the right parts and that's where the piece price come into play.

I wasn't involved with the platform so I don't know why the result is what it is.
Probably they wanted it to suit a very wide range of cars tohugh and then you can't optimize the design for a specific car = more features and more weight. Probably doesn't have any expensive alloys in it either, high strength that is.

[PietereQ]

Don't forget that 159 is buffed with all the safety features and stuff... 7 airbags standard or something? It's the first alfa to score 5 stars in EURO Ncap tests. Safety weights... I'm currently test driving a 159 1,9JtdM (150hp) And I must say that I'm DELIGHTED with handling. I'd even dare to say that's it's the best handling car in it's class. I recall watching somewhere it owned the new 3 series beemer in some suspension/handling tests.
BTW the 2008 159 will be 50kgs lighter if that consoles anybody, and the GTA is supposed to be 100 kg lighter than the M (don't recall really if it was the M3 or M5)

[Alfettish]

I drove my sister's 1995 3 series BMW around for 8 months while she was overseas, and I can say that it handled like a sack of shit. I'm not sure about the new ones but if that one was anything to go by outhandling a 3 series is nothing!

[75evo]

The E90 is a very nice car. Looks a little malformed from the front, but overall looks ok. Handling is great.

[MD]

it handled like a sack of shit.

Hey Alfettish -don't hold back son. Let it rip....

....ah, just had to have a chuckle.

Have to say my experience with Bimmers of the same vintage is much the same. Comparing BMW & Alfa handling for the same period is like chalk and cheese..

..unfortunately, I think they have fixed that issue .

[Rookie ROX]

Not only do they handle poorly, you also pay twice the price you would for an Alfa simply because you get that badge squashed onto the car

On the positive side, it keeps the posers out of Alfas

I've driven the turbo diesel 159 as well and it was a very nice car indeed. Handling and brakes were excellent, engine would take me a while to get used to with the 5500rpm red line (or where ever it was in the 5k zone), little bit different to pulling 7000rpm normally!

The Brera was brilliant as well. I've drove the 3.2L V6 (Qtronic auto) and it was excellent, a hoot to drive. 0-100km/h a little disappointing because of the weight, but it still pulled hard. Despite the whole talk of the GM engine (block), it still sounded like our auto 2.5L 75 does.

ROCK ON
R~R