Tuning Ford TDCi Engines

And how many of them were doing that in 1987?

Well, 1.9 16v 405 had 165bhp, 1.6 VTi Honda engine was around there somewhere, maybe couple of years later, 160bhp. Triumph Dolomite sprint was

2.0 150bhp, and thats lots older. 106 Rallye 1.3 was 100bhp, XSi 1.4 8v was 100bhp, but they were a little later.

405 MI-16 was 155bhp. And had 16v. Civic VTEC was impressive at 152bhp. 30lbft down on torque, though. Again, 16v. Dolly Sprint was 127bhp, from 16v. 106 was a very limited run homologation special.

Of all the above, how many do you see on the roads these days? - certainly in the case of the Civic, I can't remember the last time I saw one.

I still say 150bhp from a 30 year old 8v lump is damned impressive.

It's not that amazing. I did a similar sort of mileage in a 1985 VW Polo about 3 years ago. It's what I expect from a car, not something to brag about! If you go down the pub talking about cars, do you immediately say "mine's not broken down in ages", or "it's faster than a Ferrari"?

So you're saying an Alfa is reliable as long as you treat it really well, but a Mondeo isn't because there are none left that have been treated well. Hmm, bias?

You can. They just come off worst every time. That's progress.

Possibly.

Shame this thread wasn't 20 years ago, then!

Cheers, Andy

...yet only 1900cc, rather than 2000cc. 16v was chosen as it's a better configuration. Alfa just hadn't caught up yet.

...and 1600cc! You'd expect it to be down on power with 20% less engine capacity.

Quite a few around though.

I saw an Mi16 on Saturday, and a Civic yesterday. Can't remember the last time I saw an Alfa over 5 years old. Actually, I can, it was a 155 last week. Really don't remember the one before that.

Quite possibly. The thing is, you don't have to restrict yourself to a 30 year old car these days. There are new, and nearly new ones out there.

Cheers, Andy

Yea i was about to say that, its not as if they're actually rare.

I can honestly say, i don't think i have ever seen an Alfa 75 in the flesh. Old Alfa's just don't appear on the roads, at least not round here.

People from oop north know that Alfas cost too much to run and are unreliable. Everybody knows you don't even have to ever change the oil in a Toyota let alone check it, so what's the point in an Alfa and all the necessary "routine" maintainence? (c:

Douglas

Dan405 wrote: can honestly say, i don't think i have ever seen an Alfa 75 in the

Too near the sea, they dissolve...

Stacks. Stacks of K, L and M-registration Mondeos, petrol and diesel. It's not unusual to see ten year old Mondeos. It's unusual to see an Alfa Romeo

75, though. It's noteworthy and interesting to see one, actually.

Yes, it's amazing that it's still running.

Really? It reads as though you simply don't believe that the Alfa is a viable everyday car.

So why are they sold as though they're a mainstream car when they're not? Why can you buy something mainstream that has the same performance as the Alfa, check the oil once in a blue moon, and it continues to work?

As I've said before, it's more specialist than a mainstream car, and no more exciting or dynamic. This makes it an ideal niche product for, well, people who want other people to think they're driving something "special" rather than just another BMW.

But the point I'm making is that it doesn't matter two stuffs about HOW it gets it's power from a given capacity. People just are not interested. I can't see many meaningful conversations starting off with, "hey my 2.0 engine only has eight valves but produces almost as much power as Vauxhall's sixteen valve engine." Power sells cars, not how the power is derived.

It's neither specialist nor exotic. It's technically interesting, which for pub car boasts, has "nerd" and "uninteresting" written all over it, for most people. It's a two litre. It's may even have fuel injection. Power? Oh one fifty something. It's a two litre sporty car. It cannot boast a sixteen valve badge on the back...

But for most people, it really doesn't matter what configuration the engine is other than size and power. How many mark four Golf (petrol) GTI drivers are aware that their engine has twenty valves? How many would care? How many Peugeot 205 GTi drivers knew that their engine had only eight valves?

Would this be because it's hopelessly outdated, unreliable, and drinks oil like it's going out of fashion?

And it's testament to their sitting on their laurels that they've done very little with it.

So if everybody else took this long to get to where Alfa Romeo were, what have Alfa done with their engine designs?

And even more amazing that they've done just about jack ever since. Sorry, but this conversation would be more pertinent if it were taking place twenty years ago and we were discussing the mark two Golf GTI, XR3i, or whatever.

Just about jack, eh?

How about the 24v V6, pretty much regarded as one of the all-time great engines.

The 16v TSparks (although I don't like them) were also regarded as the best in their class.

Just for you, there's the JTD lumps, which, no surprise are one of the best diesels on the market.

And that's not to mention that the designers also managed to produce one of the best FWD chassis ever (156 with the TSpark engine), _the_ most desirable mid-range hatch of the moment...... I don't think I need go on any further.

Where did I say that the 75 was outdated, unreliable and drinks oil?

In fact, it's been totally the opposite to that.

Because they're stylish, sound lovely, drive well and have character.

Toyotas are nothing more than a household appliance.

There's several 155s I regularly see around here, a couple of 33s, a handful of 164s, 146s are quite common, and early 156s are in abundance (there's 6 of them on the local used dealer's forecourt).

Considering the comparatively low volumes of older Alfas sold, it's not really a surprise you haven't seen a 75 in the flesh..... you'd have been lucky to see one way back in 1990, too.

Just one word:

galvanising

Alfa discovered it before 99% of other manufacturers.

In news: snipped-for-privacy@uni-berlin.de, DervMan decided to enlighten our sheltered souls with a rant as follows

aye, I bought an L reg Mondeo 2.0 GLX from the local auctions last week for £75. Sold it for £250 within the hour.

Glass houses, stones, Anglia engined Fords.... [1]

I never understood that either. Every Alfa I've ever owned I've used in the same way as every other car I've ever owned. Alfas are rather good at mileage. [2]

It does, doesn't it? Never made any sense to me. I'd have just used the 75.

I do.

The "checking oil" malarky is a pain in the arse.

That said, V6 Alfas are nowhere near as fussy as the old Lampredi lump and the oil level light on every V6 I've owned has worked... I used it as a "top up" light, and carried a litre of oil in the boot.

The Mazda RX7 & 8 drink loads more oil than any Alfa...

Alfa 75's are more fun to drive than the equivalent 3 series. No quicker, but more fun.

I had a Mk2 Escort RS2000 with a 180 bhp 2.0 8v SOHC Pinto engine in [3]. Amusingly enough it was very reliable.

but the manner in which the power is delivered can make a big difference to how a car drives. This is why lots of people prefered driving the ol' Mk2 Golf GTi 8v to the 16v. Even though the 16v had about 20 bhp more. Torque is the key....

I agree with Dervy on this one, but I like my Alfas with V6s in. [4]

replied to this before re Golfs.

like the Endura ?

[1] Yes, I know the Cologne lump is a 60's design too. [2] although I still wouldn't use a 33 to go to the shops in. [3] noisy,. crude, but strong as an ox, and didn't burn oil [4] although I make an exception for the 60's GTA.

In news: snipped-for-privacy@uni-berlin.de, Douglas Payne decided to enlighten our sheltered souls with a rant as follows

Er, I'm from "oop north" and I've had plenty of Alfas.. on the other hand I only ever owned one Toyota, which I hated.

Well.... I didn't really want to be putting 20k plus miles on the 75 every 12 months, and definitely knew I didn't want to do 10k in the 75 and 10k in a 33 8v (the seats really didn't suit me, although the engine and handling did) - the 33 also needed several niggly little jobs doing to it (well, essential stuff like heater matrix that's an absolute PITA to fix), so we decided to chop it for more or less what we paid for it and get the cheap as chips Nissan as the 'hack'. Only I got very bored very quickly with the Nissan, so ended up buying a cheap Alfa hack instead.

I still feel bad putting a lot of miles on the 75, too, as it's a car I want to keep for a long time as a classic, so I find myself racking up the miles in the s**te old 155.

In news:1gggsui.uc35uhhtvyqfN% snipped-for-privacy@italiancar.co.uk, SteveH decided to enlighten our sheltered souls with a rant as follows

Good man. Anything that involves getting rid of an Alfa 33 has to be good.

I can actually appreciate it when put that way, as I bought the Sierra so the Capri didn't get too miley.

Normally I couldn't give a toss about racking up the miles, but the low mileage and condition of Ye Olde Capri combined with Auntie Carole insisting on 6000 miles maximum and Capri prices going up by the week meant £350 for the Sierra (which is a much better drive) was a sensible move..

Capri for sale shortly if anyone's interested...

You mention it was a great engine for something designed in the 60s. That's outdated. You were impressed you managed 4000 miles without much incident. That's unreliable. You also said it was designed to use oil as a consumable. That's drinks oil.

Uh-huh.

Cheers, Andy