[alfa] Engine turning backwards issue

[hagen_jason@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Does this apply to just the 12V V6 or to the 24 valve as well??


--
Jason Hagen 
Chicago, IL 
'73 Spider 
'95 164Q 
'91 164S


-------------- Original message -------------- 

> Timing belts.... I follow some mailing lists and bulletin 
> boards for boxer engined Alfa Romeo cars such as Alfasud, 
> Sprint, 33 etc. Some of you might find this hard to believe, 
> but timing belt breakage is rarely discussed. If 
> occasionally mentioned it's generally because, either 
> someone didn't change it in the prescribed interval, or 
> someone asking for advise for an upcoming belt change... 
> many recommend changing the pulley wheels at the same time 
> as the belts. 
> 
> The Alfa V6 is a wonderful engine in many ways, but it's 
> timing belt and tensioning system is a flawed design. Not 
> because it uses a belt, but because the belt drive was 
> poorly implemented. 
> 
> Plenty of other engines use a timing belt without these sort 
> of problems - yes, unserviced enigines do break belts, but 
> with how many other cars have you heard this "NEVER let the 
> engine turn backwards" warning? 
> 
> That is not character, that is a design flaw. 
> 
> I suspect the popularity of timing belts can be traced back 
> to the 1970's, where emissions regulations were killing 
> performance, while at the same time the oil crisis was 
> putting greater emphasis on fuel ecomomy. The idea of 
> replacing chains with belts, reducing friction (and fuel 
> useage) and releasing a few extra bhp, seemed like a very 
> good idea... and it was a good idea when implement properly 
> and when those belts were changed at the prescribed 
> interval. 
> 
> FWD... go to any alfa race meeting where both FWD (e.g. 
> Alfasud, 33...) and RWD alfas are raced... lets be fair and 
> only compare production based cars with steel body panels, 4 
> cylinder engines with 2 valve/cylinder, single 
> plug/cylinder.... so no alloy body, twin spark GTA's or 16v 
> 33's. While the more powerful V6 and 2.0L rear drive cars 
> might win outright, it's not often you see 1600cc RWD beat 
> 1500/1600cc FWD cars. 
> 
> Easier to build, lighter, efficient and successful on the 
> race track..... as long as you don't try to put too much 
> power through the front wheels.... for that you would be 
> better off with RWD or 4WD/AWD.... and if you don't care 
> about practical considerations like passaengers, make it mid 
> engined too. 
> 
> But for practical small cars, FWD has a lot going for it. 
> 
> Lex Jenner 
> Auckland/New Zealand 
> -- 
> to be removed from alfa, see /bin/digest-subs.cgi 
> or email "unsubscribe alfa" to majordomo@domain.elided 
--
to be removed from alfa, see /bin/digest-subs.cgi
or email "unsubscribe alfa" to majordomo@domain.elided