Tuning Ford TDCi Engines

I said it was designed in the 60s. I said it was a great engine (and it still is a very nice engine - has a bark that you don't get with a modern lump, and is much, much less peaky than any of the 16v 'competition' - I'll still maintain that 150bhp from a 2lt 8v, is bloody good - especially as it doesn't have any fancy ignition system - just the good old electro-mechanical Bosch KE-Jetronic). I'm impressed that any cheap old hack will do 4k miles in my hands without _anything_ going wrong with it...... my Fords certainly didn't. I didn't say it used oil

- that's Dervman clouding the issue by referring to the later 16v engine.

Around 16k miles up in the 75, the only hassle being the clutch wearing out. Something that can happen to any 115k mile old car. Other than that it's been fine. I'd say that's pretty good for a car of it's age and mileage from any manufacturer.

Reply to
SteveH
Loading thread data ...

To be fair tho, i never noticed many 405's really till i got one, maybe i'm just not noticing old alfa's.

Reply to
Dan405

You remarked how fantastic it had been to cover 4,000 miles without problem and that it dates back from the 1960s, and that it's designed to drink oil.

Shoot, would you be impressed with a similar generation design covering ten times the mileage without using any oil?

But you didn't trust it enough with your commute!

Reply to
DervMan

I remarked that I was surprised that a 'sold as seen' banger of a 155 hasn't given me any problems in 4k miles. 4k miles in a very short space of time. 4k miles of relentless thrashing. I also said that the engine was designed in the 60s. The reference to drinking oil was with regards to the 16v TSpark lumps - everyone knows that I rate the old 8v lump higher than those anyway.

I didn't want to rack up close on 30k miles in the 75 this year. It's my toy, my baby, my relatively rare classic. It's the last of the RWD Alfas, I want to keep it, cherish it and restore it - not run it into the ground doing astronomical mileage over the next couple of years.

The 155, however, is a cheap hack and is doing very nicely indeed.

Reply to
SteveH

with

[snip Mondeo stuff]

Hehehe! But there's a difference - we're going to put at least 20K onto the Ka over the next twelve months, and likely to be 30K. We're not going to buy another car for it.

Quite. If it's in good condition and looked after by somebody who knows what to look after, it's going to last - surely?

To a point. I guess it's partially because few cars use oil, so we, the royal we, get used to not checking. It gets really boring checking the Ka every week to find that it's used no oil... :)

Yes. This is great - but too many people wonder what that dinky little red light means, and continue driving.

Hehe! There's a difference in how it's sold, though.

Yes, but they also need what many people consider to be "specialist" care and attention. Talking with colleagues, one was shocked that his wife's 156 used oil between services. "Oi, Dervy, is this normal, the oil level has dropped?" was his exact question.

It is a lovely piece of kit, and checking the oil is so bloody simple if somebody is too lazy to do the most basic of checks, they don't deserve to be driving something like this... but unfortunately people don't bother until it's too late. :(

A huge difference. But the DOHC eight valvers I've driven have felt "traditional multivalve," i.e. need over 3,500 rpm to feel quick.

"Power sells cars, torque moves them" springs to mind (I prefer the mark two Golf GTI 8v rather than the 16v too, although the 16v generally had a better standard specification).

Yes. The point I was making is that people see the badge on the back "oooh twin spark, nice" or "ooh sixteen valves, must be nice." Rather than a badge that says, "simple fuel injection, eight valves" and think, "oooh technically impressive engine."

Okay so some of us might be thinking this /blush/ but to most people, most of the time, they don't know or, more importantly, want to know.

Hehehee! To be fair to ours, it's been reliable and hasn't used any oil. Outdated? It passes emission tests, it provides enough torque to lumber up steep hills and with the current exhaust, it sounds interesting enough, so we're happy enough.

Reply to
DervMan

"Stylish" can mean "flash git" to some, though.

Modern ones don't sound half as good as old ones, and old ones are so rare we never hear them any more.

Character - love it or hate it. The Ka has bags of character...

Not all are like this, heh.

Reply to
DervMan

Great that they discovered it, now:

- is this because they needed to stop their cars from dissolving?

- and when did they start using it anyway? :)

Reply to
DervMan

No, no, they're rare enough to look out for. I've seen loads of Ferraris in comparison to the Alfa 75. Indeed, I've seen more Mazda 6s than I have AR75s... and that's saying something.

Reply to
DervMan

My "sold as seen" Mondeo had nothing but routine servicing for 35K without any problem, aside that post I reversed into whilst parking (that was a Dervy problem, oops)...

But you won't run it into the ground, surely?

The point is that the 75 won't, surely, wear out in just another 60K. It'll be run in.

I love to see an older car that's been enjoyed. At Interford on the weekend, it was good to see that the Ferrari 348 had plenty of stone chips on the bonnet. Somebody has enjoyed that car. Far better to see one with

70K on the clock and some bonnet acne, because somebody has bought a car that needs to be driven to be properly appreciated...
Reply to
DervMan

Well, the 75 sounds just like an old Twin Cam 8v should. Like the 60s throwback that it is.

OK, it may well withstand another 60k miles in 2 years, but at 180k miles it's going to be feeling very tired. I'd much prefer to keep the mileage lower and spend some cash on getting it closer to show condition than it is now.

Reply to
SteveH

Yes. But it took Ford and Vauxhall a _lot_ longer to realise this is something they need to do.

The first was the 164, closely followed by the facelifted 75 and seriesIII 33s.

Reply to
SteveH

Nah dude, you're from Scouseland, thats different. You buy from Scousers, run the car for a few thousand miles and the sell the bastard things to other Scousers before they have the chance give you any serious financial jip. (c;

I have never owned a toyota.

Douglas

Reply to
Douglas Payne

There aren't many Alfa's of your 75's generation around here either (Aberdeen - NE Scotland) but I'd put that down to the proximity of the city to the sea and amount of salt they put on the roads in the winter.

Aberdonians are also apparently known (unjustifiedly IMHO) for being tight bastards. (c: Maybe there is something in it though...

I know someone with a 155 V6, but I have only been in it a few times, it does seem to go. But the impression I get of FWD V6's as cars to work on scares me.

Douglas

Reply to
Douglas Payne

I don't know how you can defend Alfas if 180k will make it feel very tired. My Sierra at 160k was like new apart from some shiny plastics that were textured. My Rover 414 was fine at 150k. My micra was shagged at 120k but wasn't looked after. My cavalier was just crap, but X reg (X suffix..) 1.6 and 120k and going strong when I flogged it on. Was going to trade the Volvo but am gonna try and keep it for a couple of years more, so I reckon it'll be 160-200k when I'm finished with it. 1 million miles is high mileage.

Reply to
Tim S Kemp

One of the many reasons I don't have a V6. Well, that and the cambelt. I prefer the security of a chain. The V6 is also too heavy for a FWD car, although it works very well in the RWD 75 due to the transaxle gearbox.

Reply to
SteveH

Because I can tell the difference between a car with 40k miles on it and one with 180k miles on it?

Remember, I'm not just talking reliability - there's all the stuff that just wears - all the rubber bits in the drivetrain and suspension, and the interior will get increasingly worn as I rack up the miles. Interior bits are things I especially don't want to have to track down if I wear them out.

However, I've done the expensive stuff now, I suppose - replacement clutch and gearbox synchros.

I don't really care if I wear stuff out on the 155, 'cos it's just a Fiat with a fancy badge. I do care if I wear out the 75.

At this point I'd suggest you either spend far too much time maintaining your cars, or don't drive them anywhere near as hard as I do.

Reply to
SteveH

My rover dealer loved it when my cambelt snapped on my 75 (rover, not alfa...) front drive V6....

Engine change.

Reply to
Tim S Kemp

Indeed, nice shiny inlet manifold :-) Worth buying one just for that. It's a work of art, IMHO.

The TSpark lump in my 75 looks a bit lost in that engine bay. Suppose I would do, having been designed to accomodate the V6. The other thing that's wierd is the lack of suspension turrets due to the wierd torsion bar front end.

Reply to
SteveH

And not being transversely mounted.

I never realised what a boon longditudally mounted engine was till I had to change the gearbox on my Carlton. The undoing of about 15 simple and easily accessible nuts/bolts saw it on the garage floor (with me pinned there by my right hand under the 'box and blood seeping variously but that's another story).

Compared to my 205 Diesel, most of the work I have done under the bonnet of my Carlton has been a piece of piss.

Anyway, one can see the ground through the engine bay of the Carlton. You can't on the 205 (peace be upon it) and you _defiantely_ can't on the 155 v6. Alfa does have shiny bits under the bonnet however, they are cool.

Not sure how I got into the comparison of 205's and carltons but thats the only 2 cars I have owned.

Sad really at my age. (c:

Douglas

Reply to
Douglas Payne

My 160k spacewagon was once alleged by a police officer to be being driven at >117 mph, is that hard enough?

Reply to
Tim S Kemp

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.