[alfa] Re: More Discussions about GTV-V8/Montreal/GTV-6

[George Graves <gmgraves@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thursday, September 11, 2003, at 12:23 AM, alfa-digest wrote:

> Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 05:07:13 +0200
> From: Zak McGregor <zak@domain.elided>
> Subject: [alfa] Re: alfa-digest V9 #783
>
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 01:22:53 +0000
> George Graves wrote:
>
> >  Forget my last post. it's definitely a case engaging keyboard before
> >  engaging brain. I've done a little research, and I have found the
> >  following. The Montreal at 2892 lbs curb weight IS heavier than the
> >  GTV-V8 which is 2866 lbs, and are both heavier than the GTV-6 which 
> > was
> >  2668. Power to weight ratios of the GTV-V8 vs the Montreal are almost
> >  identical at 151.54 hp/ton as opposed to 152.44 hp/ton respectively.
> >  The GTV-6, OTOH is at a bit of a disadvantage here with but 130.58
> >  hp/ton. ALL three cars have a 4.10 rear-end. The GTV-6 and the 
> > Montreal
> >  have identical advertised top speeds of 132 mph, and the GTV-V8 is
> >  supposedly 137 (!). Now the part that doesn't jibe. The 0-60 times 
> > for
> >  all three cars are given as 7.6 for the Montreal, 9.3 (!) for the
> >  GTV-V8, and 8.8 for the GTV-6 (but I used to regularly get 8.1s with 
> > my
> >  stock 2.5 GTV-6). There is no way that I can see that the GTV-V8 with
> >  almost the identical p/w as the Montreal and the same rear-end ratio
> >  could be 2 seconds slower to 60. Somebody's specifications aren't
> >  right. Any one care to theorize?
> Well there are a few explanations for these abnormalities.
>
> Firstly, the Montreal figures come from more than one source. The 
> source I can
> get my hands on right now is Motor's road test of the Montreal. Their 
> 0-60mph
> time is slightly less spectacular than that I have listed, with 8.1s. 
> Which
> proves nothing but that figures can vary considerably accoring to 
> driver &
> conditions, everything else being equal.
Sure. The book says 8.8 0-60 for my GTV-6 with my original 2.5 liter 
engine in it,
I regularly clocked 8.1, 8.2 (G-Tech Pro).


> The next point is that the 9.3 seconds for the GTV V8 is for 
> 0-100km/h, not
> 0-60mph. Generally, there is about a 0.2-0.4 seconds difference 
> between the two,
> 100km/h being 62.1 mph.
But surely an extra 2.1MPH would account for TWO SECONDS?
> Also, the road test (by Auto Zeitung - scans available if anyone wants 
> 'em) of
> the V8 says the following:
> "Kavalierstarts verhindert die (noch) etwas schwache Kupplung. Dass 
> aber
> immerhin Beschleunigungzeiten von 9,3 Sekunden fur den Sprint von 0 
> auf 100 km/h
> moglich sind, zeigt, wie energisch der Motor in diesem Auto zur Sache 
> geht."
> which the Fish (http://babelfish.altavista.com) seems to think means:
> "(still) somewhat the weak clutch prevents "jackrabbit"starts. The 
> fact that
> acceleration times of 9.3 seconds are moglich however nevertheless fur 
> the
> Sprint of 0 to 100 km/h shows, how energetically the engine goes in 
> this car to
> the thing" - which doesn't mean much to me at all, except that there 
> was
> possibly some drivetrain weaknes that prevented the testers from 
> wringing the
> utmost from it.
Now, that's certainly possible. If the clutch slips a lot on hard 
acceleration, you
Will lose a lot of time. I wonder why it was slipping? Design flaw? Bad 
sample?
If it's the latter, one would expect that the magazine would request 
another example.

> In any event, I suspect that under optimal conditions the V8 could 
> probably do a
> lot better.
It should be almost identical to the Montreal - all else being equal.

> I'm not sure about the 8.8 seconds for the GTV6 - I unfortunately 
> added it long
> before I started keeping references per car. I do know that I do not 
> have an
> actual road test of one anywhere, so the figures are probably from an 
> Autocar
> Road Test Results summary page.
I have the Brooklands Road Test Book called "Alfa Romeo Alfetta GTV-6 -
1980 - 1986" It has road tests from Autocar, Car and Driver, 
MotorSport, What Car?,
Asian Auto, Sports Car World, Road & Track, Modern Motors and Car South
Africa, among others.  Below are the 0-60 times and the magazine that
tested them.

8.3 - Car & Driver, June 1981
7.6 - What Car?, Nov, 1982
8.1 - Fast Lane, June, 1984
8.2 - Road & Track, Aug, 1985
8.2 - Popular Classics, 1991

So you can see, the 8.8 sec to 60 listed at the carfolio.com site in 
the original post
is not typical. But My G-Tech times were pretty much what most reviewers
got. BTW, with the 3-liter and the Pandora's box, I'm seeing times in 
the low
to mid sixes these days. 6.2 seconds comes up a lot, but occasionally 
I've
gotten a 6.4 or 6.5, especially before I put a new clutch in the car.



>  I will check when time allows. However, as a
> GTV6 owner myself, I know that the gearchange (esp. on early cars) is 
> bad,
> especially if you're giving it the heavy right foot treatment. The 
> rear axle
> ratio also changed fairly soon into the model's lifespan, which may 
> account for
> better acceleration on later models too.
My GTV-6 has a Milano Verde rear end with posi. I've been told by my 
mechanic
that they had a 3.7X ratio rather than the normal Alfa 4.10. But since 
Carfolio
doesn't have the Milano Verde listed (they have a car called the 75 
Green Cloverleaf,
but it's not the same car (2.5 engine, 14" wheels, 4.10 rear end.), I 
can't confirm this.

> Hope that sheds some light on things.
Everything except why the German rag didn't request another sample 
without a slipping
clutch for review.

> Ciao
Thanks, Zak


George Graves
'86 GTV-6 3.0 'S'

> Zak
> - --
--
to be removed from alfa, see /bin/digest-subs.cgi
or email "unsubscribe alfa" to majordomo@domain.elided