Re: 164 L or S, and Speed, & Belated Thanks

[David R Johnson <johnsnd@domain.elided>]

On May 28, 10:20am, C M Smith wrote:

> Great debate we're having. Hope this is helping someone decide which
> version of 164 to buy.

It certainly is.  The debate has answered many of my planned questions about
the differences between them.  I will most likely be searching for a 164L when
I get my wife's Passat working for long enough to sell.  This version would
appear to offer all the options I could want, better value than the souped up
ones, and (IMHO) better looks too.  Not to mention that more of this model seem
to have been imported into this Alfa-deprived continent.  I would like to offer
my belated thanks to all those who responded to my questions about the towing
and carrying abilities of the 164.  In fact I never had much troubling
persuading my SO to buy a 164, it was more a matter of making sure it would
meet my family's needs.

I am also reminded that when the 164 was introduced (this would be late 80's
when I was living in the UK), it was criticized for having excessive torque
steer.  I read in a major British motoring magazine that this was exorcized by
changing the geometry of the driveshafts so that they were closer to
horizontal, presumably by lowering the gearbox.  Can anyone confirm this, and
if so when was it done?  I am guessing this was before any 164's reached the
USA, but since I am considering purchasing one, it would be nice to be sure.

> I do agree that technically a gearbox should be set up to produce maximum
> speed at maximum power output rather than maximum rpm, that's 500 rpm lower
> for the 164 S and 700 rpm lower for the 164 L. However, for the real world,
> redline top speed, although a bit lower, produces quicker acceleration and
> allows a 5 speed box to be closer ratio. That's why 6 speeds are showing up
> (and 7 speeds for GP cars). There is no perfect compromise. ( My factory
> manual gives peak power rpm as 5600 for the L and 5800 for the S, the
> brochure gives 5800 rpm for both models, adjust the math according to your
> confidence in each source).

I have a six-speed transmission car (Camaro Z28).  It appears to be geared so
that top speed (155 mph for an unmodified car) is reached at redline in fifth.
 Sixth is a very lazy overdrive, virtually unusable below about 70 mph (at
which it turns about 1700 rpm) ever since I put on headers, which dropped the
low rpm torque a little.  This ratio I believe was determined more by the CAFE
fuel economy requirements and gas guzzler taxes here in the US than by
practical usefulness.  This  results in me using it almost never, while a
better ratio might have improved my fuel economy which is supposed to be what
the rules are for.  Another such gadget was the forced 1-4 shift at part
throttle, overridden under heavey acceleration.  This feature was so annoying
that I always accelerated hard so as to be allowed to shift into second
properly.  I say "was" because I have since disabled it using instructions from
another digest (wonderful things!).  No environmental flames please, I still
have the cat and am 50-state legal but I found that gizmo to be a safety
hazard.  And I'm not trying to proliferate another Alfa-contentless thread,
honest!

> It's a rare road car that is properly sorted and needs significant aero
> aids at speeds below 140 mph or so, My SAAB 9000 turbo tops out at 222
> km/hr (at any sensible elevation, as the turbo keeps pumping more air in
> when it gets a bit thin). The car is perfectly stable with its tiny rubber
> lip spoiler on the hatch, stock suspension and 195/60 15 V rated Pirellis.
> Ditto the Alfa 164 L. Both have a modest chin spoiler which is very
> important. In fact a chin spoiler is so effective it's the best mod for
> high speed motoring, even more important than stiffer springs and shocks.
> The stiffer springs don't help much if your front end is unloading due to
> air stuffing itself under the front of the car, I've never felt insecure
> about the back end of a modern car travelling fast.

This is probably true.  This kind of thing seems to become very important at
speeds above this, such as the higher classes of the Silver State classic.  Go
significantly higher still and add-on aerodynamic aids may not be enough, as
R&T found out with their speed record attempt with a Pontiac Trans Am.  This
car was modified with supposedly enough power to reach the mid or high 200's I
think, and was tested on the Utah salt flats.  Unfortunately, at around 230 (or
so?) it developed an aerodynamic instability which resulted in the car swapping
ends, and resulted in it flipping over (and over, and over...).  The
explanation given was that the center of pressure was ahead of the center of
gravity, I think, the analogy being to firing an arrow feathers first.  Moral:
if you are going to play with the big boys, you better know what you are doing.
 For another illustration, recall the enormous ugly spoilers and bodies from
the days of homologated rallying in the 80's; those cars rarely saw more than
140 mph, and so a lot of surface area was needed to provide useful downforce.

Thanks for listening to me ramble.  Enjoy your long weekend, for those that get
one, preferably driving (or wrenching on) your Alfas!

Dave J.
1982 GTV-6

- -- 

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