Series 1 vs Series 2 GTV V6

[joestram]

Hi All,

I am currently in the market for a track/weekend GTV V6 and have found a couple, however, one is a 98 with the 5 speed and the other is a 2002 with the 6 speed.

Do the 6 speed feel faster due to the shorter gears or isn't there much in it?

What else is different? I have read that the throttle on the newer on is elect as opposed to cable on the older generation.

What would suit my purpose more?

Thanks

Joe

[poohbah]

Joe, I had a 6 speed 156 and overall I don't recall it feeling like it was geared for sprinting compared with a normal 5sp. I'd go with whichever has been looked after better, and has fewer km. Which probably means the 2002 6sp. My 2001 156  also had quite a few refinements  compared with my current 99 ( like 7 airbags vs 2) though that probably doesn't matter if you're wanting a track car. Personally I would have preferred much shorter gearing, really just felt like they squeezed an extra gear in between 4 & 5.

[bazzbazz]

My 2001 156  also had quite a few refinements  compared with my current 99

Pity one of them wasn't a fire suppression system . . . . .

[alanm]

According to period road testers both cars engines make 162kw (220hp), both weigh 1415kg, both have 305 mm front discs (I think). Phase 1 does (did) 0 - 100 Klms in 6.7, phase 2 in 6.6.
Comparison between 3.0 and 2.0 for track is more interesting - more power vs better balance.
Al

[poohbah]

Pity one of them wasn't a fire suppression system . . . . .

Oi!

[cc]

every 156 V6 that is lost is mourned : )

[bazzbazz]

Pity one of them wasn't a fire suppression system . . . . .

Oi!

Too soon ?   

[poohbah]

nah, just don't want you to scare Joe off buying one.

Joe - All Busso-V6 powered Alfas are magnificent, and once you've owned one, you'll want to have at least one Busso in the garage forever.

(But do buy a fire extinguisher and mount within easy reach just in case - especially if you are heading to the track. Always better to be safe than sorry!)

[joestram]

Thanks everyone.

I have decided the Phase 2 will be the better car to purchase.

I am also now wondering if I get a GT V6 instead as they are cheaper than I expected.

The GTV I am thinking of getting will need about 5-6k repairs so that is making me think I just go the GT.

GT might be too heavy for the track though

[poohbah]

For track work, I'd definitely say the GTV/6 would be better suited than the GT due to weight.

That said, a Series 1 2.5L V6 156 is about 60-70kg lighter than the GTV6, and is probably stiffer, so may be even more suited to track work. (the 156 was a very successful platform in euro touring car racing though they only raced 2L fours).

[johnl]

FWIW, I'd suggest that the stock chassis stiffness is more or less irrelevant to the racing version. The race cars will almost definitely be seam welded everywhere, but more importantly will be running a full roll cage (which hugely increase chassis stiffness). My assumption would be that mostly due to the cages, all the different make sedan chassis used in a serious racing series would be fairly similar in chassis stiffness, i.e. plus or minus an insignificant gnats' whisker.

Nearly any modern sedan is likely to be substantially stiffer than an open top car, unless the open topped car has a great deal of heavy reinforcing metal added by the factory (and even than may still not be as rigid). A newer sedan is likely to be heavier than an older one, mostly because of the extra metal added to achieve a good ANCAP rating (i.e. a more rigid / stronger passenger compartment).

Of course if the car is a racing toy then a lot of weight can be dumped by gutting it, but it is hard to lighten the chassis itself, so if car A is significantly lighter to start with than car B, it is still likely to be lighter after stripping out everything you don't need on the track. So if weight is important, then the older car probably has an advantage there. Any stiffness deficit of the older car could probably be addressed by adding a full roll cage.

Regards,
John.

[poohbah]

Good points John re-roll cage and chassis stiffness - I assumed Joe wasn't looking to build a full on race car with a cage, just something he could drive on the road for fun, but still take to the track for the occasional fang.

[bazzbazz]

FWIW, I'd suggest that the stock chassis stiffness is more or less irrelevant to the racing version. The race cars will almost definitely be seam welded everywhere, but more importantly will be running a full roll cage (which hugely increase chassis stiffness). My assumption would be that mostly due to the cages, all the different make sedan chassis used in a serious racing series would be fairly similar in chassis stiffness, i.e. plus or minus an insignificant gnats' whisker.

Ahhhh, about the roll cages adding stiffness . . . .you haven't been down to the track on a Alfa Club Race series event and seen how 90% of the roll cages are fitted . . . . . have you?  Nooooooo you haven't have you!!   



Late last year I went along as pit crew for one of the club members at Willowbank Raceway on a Club Race day. I loved looking over the crafty and ingenious engineering methods and solutions the guys had put into practice. But out of about 10 cars in total only ONE of them had the roll cage fitted correctly, both for life preservation and for chassis stiffness.

I honestly have no idea HOW they passed scrutineering, I think it may have been a case of "This is was the way we always do it" and no one could "see the wood for the trees" syndrome.

This subject is currently a 1/2 part of an article I am trying to finish off for Per Sempre Alfa, the Qld Alfa Club official magazine.

But seriously, if fitted correctly, as John said, the roll cages make the chassis utterly rigid.

Baz

[johnl]

Well, I can't help it if people do it badly or just wrong. What a pity, go to all that trouble (and expense) only to stuff up one of the best things you can do to improve a car for racing. Of course even the stiffest roll cage still needs to be installed in a manner where that rigidity can actually be transferred into the chassis. There is little gain in attaching the cage at any chassis point that is less than rigid itself (or not really part of the load transfer pathway). All this really achieves is to increase localised flexure of the chassis at the soft attachment point, diminishing the stiffening effect and potentially causing the chassis attachment point to crack.

This is an issue even with simple things like strut braces. Very many such braces (and similar) on the market may well have rigid enough bracing tubes, but the metal brackets that attach them to the the strut towers are made not only from very thin metal but also poorly shaped to transfer loads from the chassis into the tube, and from the tube into the chassis. As a result the brackets flex, and the brace becomes little more than engine bay bling. Of course they're not all like this, there are some well engineered ones available for various cars (or, you can make your own for next to zero $, like I do).

I suspect this to be at least one reason why many people fail to see a tangible improvement after fitting a tower brace (e.g. "I bought one off ebay, and it does nothing, waste of money"). Of course some cars will benefit more from a good tower brace than others (usually depending on how forward from the firewall the strut towers are, or are not), but still, there are a lot of cheap braces 'out there' (and not so cheap...) that have poorly designed brackets that will flex excessively under load. Check this out on ebay, look at the brackets on many of the braces on offer, you'll see what I mean, the definition of 'flimsy' in many cases...

A rigid chassis will not only be a 'good thing' in and of itself, but also means that other chassis enhancements will have more of an effect than if installed in a wet noodle. My bet is that many weekend racers just don't fully understand what the cage really does, apart from ticking a safety related box to keep the scrutineers happy...

A car chassis can never be to stiff, the more the better, unless it's actually a kart (where chassis flex acts as the 'suspension'). The notion that there is some optimum value of chassis rigidity is just wrong. Long gone are the days when when a racing engineer might hack out the odd chassis member in an attempt to adjust the cars' handling. Even if sometimes this actually worked, it was attacking the problem at the wrong end, i.e. the issue lay in the suspension set up, not with the chassis being too rigid.

Having said that, there will be a point of diminishing return, where adding more stiffness has less and less of an impact, becoming not worth it, both because of the expense and the added weight. Of course a rigid chassis can't make up for a poorly set up suspension...

Regards,
John.

[johnl]

Good points John re-roll cage and chassis stiffness - I assumed Joe wasn't looking to build a full on race car with a cage, just something he could drive on the road for fun, but still take to the track for the occasional fang.

I didn't know whether Joe was building a dedicated track toy, or a multi purpose road / race car. Nor what the budget might be. Of course if the car is to be road registered, my understanding is that the best he can do re a roll cage is a half cage. Even then, the rear seats will have to come out, the powers that be get worried about the occupants potentially hitting their heads on any structure within the cabin. And, there are hoops to jump though, engineering reports etc.

Regards,
John.