RE: Shed of the Week: Alfa Romeo GT
Discussion
Olivera said:
Very good question. Aside from the polished inlet manifold and the fact it's in an alfa, they really are no better than the numerous V6s found in a Plethora of other 90s cars that are now 50p scrappers.
Nicely put, but why is a V6 so special (had plenty of Ford ones in the 80s)?
I much prefer a straight 6 these days!
Mr Tidy said:
Test driver said:
The busso and vw vr6 engines are far superior in character to a dreary 4 pot turbo. Shame they don’t make this sort of engine anymore.
Yes, it is a shame nobody makes engines like these any more. But also a shame that the 3.2 litre Busso only produced 237 bhp - my BMW Z4 Coupe has a 3 litre straight 6 that produces 265 bhp!
But if you are in a hurry the M version with the 3.2 litre S54 engine has 343 bhp - why is the Busso so revered?
It's an old engine design, so to make Eu 3 , they just stuck on a set of pre-cats which really restricted the output.
Removal of these combined with a good exhaust and re-map easily took you up to 270/280.
Mr Tidy said:
why is the Busso so revered?
Perhaps partially because in Italian circles, it is pretty much the best/nicest engine this side of a ferrari V8? (perhaps some maseratis?).Personally i dont really care for BMWs, they could put an engine in there which runs on water and sounds like a Mig on afterburner and i still wouldnt really care.
Mr Tidy said:
Olivera said:
Very good question. Aside from the polished inlet manifold and the fact it's in an alfa, they really are no better than the numerous V6s found in a Plethora of other 90s cars that are now 50p scrappers.
Nicely put, but why is a V6 so special (had plenty of Ford ones in the 80s)?
I much prefer a straight 6 these days!
Mr Tidy said:
Yes, it is a shame nobody makes engines like these any more.
But also a shame that the 3.2 litre Busso only produced 237 bhp - my BMW Z4 Coupe has a 3 litre straight 6 that produces 265 bhp!
But if you are in a hurry the M version with the 3.2 litre S54 engine has 343 bhp - why is the Busso so revered?
I've had both the 3.0 V6 Busso & BMW's 3.0 N52, the N52 easily wins from a top trumps point of view, but the Busso sounded way better at the top of the rev range, and felt more eager to revBut also a shame that the 3.2 litre Busso only produced 237 bhp - my BMW Z4 Coupe has a 3 litre straight 6 that produces 265 bhp!
But if you are in a hurry the M version with the 3.2 litre S54 engine has 343 bhp - why is the Busso so revered?
Bert Cheese said:
The GT was a 2004 car with around 150,000 miles on when I gave up on it.
My previous 156 seen below was a much better example overall, I had 2 virtually trouble free years from it and was remarkably rust free even underneath.
Unfortunately as can be seen someone drove into the back at quite a speed...and that was the end of that, for me at least
Out of interest, can anyone who has owned a GT and a 156 comment on whether their handling is similar?My previous 156 seen below was a much better example overall, I had 2 virtually trouble free years from it and was remarkably rust free even underneath.
Unfortunately as can be seen someone drove into the back at quite a speed...and that was the end of that, for me at least
My 1.6 156 had excellent handling (imo) and I'm wondering if the GT managed to retain this? Though I realise the heavier engines did make handling suffer.
The 156 saloon was too impractical for what I needed but I think the three door hatch would probably have been better.
Ian
Ian Geary said:
Out of interest, can anyone who has owned a GT and a 156 comment on whether their handling is similar?
My 1.6 156 had excellent handling (imo) and I'm wondering if the GT managed to retain this? Though I realise the heavier engines did make handling suffer.
The 156 saloon was too impractical for what I needed but I think the three door hatch would probably have been better.
Ian
The GT supposedly has the best variation of the chassis shared by similar 147/156 models.My 1.6 156 had excellent handling (imo) and I'm wondering if the GT managed to retain this? Though I realise the heavier engines did make handling suffer.
The 156 saloon was too impractical for what I needed but I think the three door hatch would probably have been better.
Ian
Going from 156 TS to GT JTD I initially found the main difference was the front end inevitably washed out sooner when turning in at speed, a bit more brake to hopefully push the front end down would usually help but could be tricky in the wet...probably not recommended?
Obviously cars vary but another difference I quickly noticed was how much better the GT's brakes were, my only real gripe with my 156 were the fade prone brakes, the discs and pads were barely worn so we changed the brake fluid a couple of times with no real improvement which did slightly spoil my enjoyment of an otherwise well handling (for me at least) car.
Ian Geary said:
Out of interest, can anyone who has owned a GT and a 156 comment on whether their handling is similar?
My 1.6 156 had excellent handling (imo) and I'm wondering if the GT managed to retain this? Though I realise the heavier engines did make handling suffer.
The 156 saloon was too impractical for what I needed but I think the three door hatch would probably have been better.
Ian
Havent driven a 156, but ive owned a 147, now own a GTMy 1.6 156 had excellent handling (imo) and I'm wondering if the GT managed to retain this? Though I realise the heavier engines did make handling suffer.
The 156 saloon was too impractical for what I needed but I think the three door hatch would probably have been better.
Ian
The 147 handled very well, loads of fun to drive, and quite confident through the corners. The GT is the same, it is just a bit less dramatic about it (i chalk it up to slightly longer wheelbase + more sound insulation), from my experience it holds the same corner speeds
All three have the same design double wishbone front suspension, and the same rear mcpherson struts, there are off course variations in wheelbase, and depending on engine/trim the springs/shocks might be different as well, as will the amount of weight over the front axle. Dont expect a diesel GT to have the same nimbleness as a TS 156, there is a good deal more weight in front after all
Itsallicanafford said:
Owned one from new in this colour, but the diesel with tan leather interior...it looked absolutely fantastic in the show room and swayed me to go for it over an E46 coupe.
I have to omit, I owned it for 3 years and absolutely loved it. It looked abit special and different. It wasn’t the sharpest tool in the box but the engine gave a useful bit of shove.
You’ve got to be careful if the cills as if the car is not jacked in the correct position they can fail, which happened to me twice, once at an Alfa dealer.
Fun fact, you have to take the front bumper off to change the headlights...
My one snapped its cam belt just inside warranty so at 70k moved on to a manual BMW E92 330d coupe which was a better car in just about every respect but for the money I would definitely have this one! Apart from the near catastrophic engine failure at 60k, I cannot remember anything else going wrong with it all...
You've had two edits and still not corrected "I have to omit"I have to omit, I owned it for 3 years and absolutely loved it. It looked abit special and different. It wasn’t the sharpest tool in the box but the engine gave a useful bit of shove.
You’ve got to be careful if the cills as if the car is not jacked in the correct position they can fail, which happened to me twice, once at an Alfa dealer.
Fun fact, you have to take the front bumper off to change the headlights...
My one snapped its cam belt just inside warranty so at 70k moved on to a manual BMW E92 330d coupe which was a better car in just about every respect but for the money I would definitely have this one! Apart from the near catastrophic engine failure at 60k, I cannot remember anything else going wrong with it all...
Edited by Itsallicanafford on Friday 17th August 06:38
Edited by Itsallicanafford on Friday 17th August 06:40
VitorioVeloce said:
Perhaps partially because in Italian circles, it is pretty much the best/nicest engine this side of a ferrari V8? (perhaps some maseratis?).
Personally i dont really care for BMWs, they could put an engine in there which runs on water and sounds like a Mig on afterburner and i still wouldnt really care.
The 3.0 V6 12v in the old 164 and Alfa 75 was the nicest IMO, about 180-190 bhp 30 years ago. It had tons of low down grunt thanks to very conservative valve timing which is why there are no headline power figures. As an engine it's much nicer than say a 330i E46, nice and grunty with a proper deep bellow rather than the tinny rasp of the BMW. Unless you've sat behind an Alfa V6, you won't get it. It will be 40 years old next year btw.Personally i dont really care for BMWs, they could put an engine in there which runs on water and sounds like a Mig on afterburner and i still wouldnt really care.
Ian Geary said:
Out of interest, can anyone who has owned a GT and a 156 comment on whether their handling is similar?
My 1.6 156 had excellent handling (imo) and I'm wondering if the GT managed to retain this? Though I realise the heavier engines did make handling suffer.
The 156 saloon was too impractical for what I needed but I think the three door hatch would probably have been better.
Ian
Very similar, the GT uses many of the same components. The key difference that I found was the actual/perceived stiffness compared to the 2.0 JTS Veloce 156 I used to have vs the 2.0 JTS flavour in the GT.My 1.6 156 had excellent handling (imo) and I'm wondering if the GT managed to retain this? Though I realise the heavier engines did make handling suffer.
The 156 saloon was too impractical for what I needed but I think the three door hatch would probably have been better.
Ian
iSore said:
The 3.0 V6 12v in the old 164 and Alfa 75 was the nicest IMO,
Best to worst, 12v 2.5 > 12v 3.0 > 24v 3.0 > 24v 3.2 > 24v 2.5 for me. I always say that, though - my old GTV6 had the sweetest engine of any of the Alfas I've owned or driven. On any given day, I'd alternate the 24v 3.2 and 24v 2.5 for last place, but any of them is an enjoyable engine. 
Chris Type R said:
From the photo, the donor car doesn't look in bad nick - did you part it ?
Fewer on the road, more collectable
Have you got a build journal anywhere ?
It did get broken for parts but I didn't get involved in that but was kept up to date with it. I hadn't realised how many bits of a car could be sold off. There really wasn't much left to scrap at the end.Fewer on the road, more collectable
Have you got a build journal anywhere ?
Yeah, the interior and the bodywork looked fabulous. Unfortunately I believe the sills had been screwed by (I think) incorrect jacking and the car wouldn't have passed another MOT without some fairly serious expense.
I'll no doubt post a readers car thread for the LB Stratos when there's a bit more progress
jamies30 said:
iSore said:
The 3.0 V6 12v in the old 164 and Alfa 75 was the nicest IMO,
Best to worst, 12v 2.5 > 12v 3.0 > 24v 3.0 > 24v 3.2 > 24v 2.5 for me. I always say that, though - my old GTV6 had the sweetest engine of any of the Alfas I've owned or driven. On any given day, I'd alternate the 24v 3.2 and 24v 2.5 for last place, but any of them is an enjoyable engine. woody33 said:
jamies30 said:
iSore said:
The 3.0 V6 12v in the old 164 and Alfa 75 was the nicest IMO,
Best to worst, 12v 2.5 > 12v 3.0 > 24v 3.0 > 24v 3.2 > 24v 2.5 for me. I always say that, though - my old GTV6 had the sweetest engine of any of the Alfas I've owned or driven. On any given day, I'd alternate the 24v 3.2 and 24v 2.5 for last place, but any of them is an enjoyable engine. My first experience with an Alfa V6 was in 1985 when, aged 18, I had to take an ex demo Alfa 90 back to Alfa GB in Edgware Rd....from a dealer in Berkshire. I was followed by another young herbert in a white A plate Senator.
Must have looked like a police chase as we were touching 120 in places on the M4.
The 2.5 in the Alfa was certainly run in. They had 150 bhp iirc and it seemed quite brisk.
Must have looked like a police chase as we were touching 120 in places on the M4.
The 2.5 in the Alfa was certainly run in. They had 150 bhp iirc and it seemed quite brisk.
Someone clearly loves this Alfa 156. They must have ploughed thousands into it!
That said I think smoking around in what is effectively a brand new 156 for the price of a fiesta does have some appeal!
https://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/...
That said I think smoking around in what is effectively a brand new 156 for the price of a fiesta does have some appeal!
https://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/...
Edited by lord trumpton on Wednesday 22 August 06:42
Ah, the Alfa V6s, I have 6 of them in the fleet - 3 x 3.2s, 2 x 2.5 24v and 1 x 2.5 12v.
They’re all good, attempting to rank them is like saying a £1000 bottle of wine is “better” than £1000 of weed. They’re both good at different things.
Start with the 2.5 24v. Yes, it lacks a bit in the low down torque department, but that’s only in comparison to what it does above 4000 rpm. The best bit is is that you can get all the racing car noises without being on the wrong side of 100. It has real (not contrived) crackle on overrun, and revs like a mad thing.
The 3.2 fixes the torque issue, but does not rev as well. That said, all hell breaks loose when to does get up to speed. The big problem is that winding a 3.2 up to 6k takes commitment and a clear road. I often do it joining motorways, and you can be easily at license losing speeds before you’re off the slip road.
2.5 12v? It’s nice enough, but I don’t see it as radically different to a 24v, and its tappets are a PITA, especially the undersized exhaust ones.
They sound so much better than comparable engines - I remember comparing with a mate’s M135 - we both agreed that the BMW engine sounded like a bag of bolts in comparison.
They’re all good, attempting to rank them is like saying a £1000 bottle of wine is “better” than £1000 of weed. They’re both good at different things.
Start with the 2.5 24v. Yes, it lacks a bit in the low down torque department, but that’s only in comparison to what it does above 4000 rpm. The best bit is is that you can get all the racing car noises without being on the wrong side of 100. It has real (not contrived) crackle on overrun, and revs like a mad thing.
The 3.2 fixes the torque issue, but does not rev as well. That said, all hell breaks loose when to does get up to speed. The big problem is that winding a 3.2 up to 6k takes commitment and a clear road. I often do it joining motorways, and you can be easily at license losing speeds before you’re off the slip road.
2.5 12v? It’s nice enough, but I don’t see it as radically different to a 24v, and its tappets are a PITA, especially the undersized exhaust ones.
They sound so much better than comparable engines - I remember comparing with a mate’s M135 - we both agreed that the BMW engine sounded like a bag of bolts in comparison.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff