GTA attitudes

[JHertzman@xxxxxxx]

 Ken Hancock, whose sig line reads in part "Freezing my keester off in
Bozeman, Mt" (which is one of many reasons I enjoy Carolina) wrote me off-
digest about the recent high-nose discussions. He said:

>>> I recall the Corsa models of the GTA Jr. being a bit nose high. They built
them that way for a reason. though the earlier cars were lower.

> I also recall, through the mists of time, asking an Alfa authority about
removing the spacers from the front springs on my GTV to lower the ride
height. It was a bit nose high in stock form. He said I shouldn't. At the time
( ca. mid 70,s ) there seemed to be a very good reason. For the life of me I
can't remember what it was.    It may not have been right, but there was an
accepted reason the cars were produced that way. I believe it had everything
to do with suspension tuning and nothing to do with headlight requirements. Am
I engaged in fantasy or does any of this sound correct?<<<

One reason which I believe applied specifically to the Corsa, and which I
believe had not been mentioned yet, is the deep sump. An option offered for
the GTAs was a spacer which went between the main sump and the removable
bottom cover, increasing the oil capacity by a few quarts and decreasing the
ground clearance by a few inches. A friend who ran a GTA Stradale at Daytona,
and lost an engine, said that the added oil supply was a blessing in a
distance race, but if you did get into the rough it added appreciably to the
pan replacement cost, and also placed a premium on killing the engine in time
if you didn't want spun bearings. The deep pan would not have been run on all
GTAs at all times, but to allow for those cars which might run it on
appropriate occasions I would assume that the suspension would have been tuned
to allow its use without degrading the handling. I claim no expertise in these
areas, but Ken's recollections sound right to me. 

John H.

------------------------------