916 GTV rear shocks suggestions

[johnl]

Mine is a pre-facelift 147 TI, it sits pretty high. Whether it was only the later TIs that were a bit lower I don't know.

As I said before, I have read (on the internet so it must be correct...) that later 147s had softer front springs (and rear?). I assume this means the 'facelift' versions. If so then (with no changes to the soft damper rates) this would theoretically place the spring somewhat more toward a stiffness that the damper could better cope with.

Less unsprung mass (in the wheel, or wherever) certainly wouldn't hurt, but I'd estimate that it would need to be substatially less to make a significant improvement (?). I tend to doubt the lighter wheels would be lighter enough to make much difference, but I've been wrong before...

Regards,
John.

[ugame]

hehe yep I think from reading your posts, you have the kind of arse that can feel a car.

I (and most others) do not.

Maybe, at least I'd like to think that my arseometer is bit more sensitive than avearage. My first car was an old Nota Sportsman (not dissimilar to a Lotus Seven, Google will show you), not far from being a road registered racing car (which I used to drive way too fast on Sydney streets, young and dumb). I more or less learned to drive in this, a very responsive chassis, stiffly sprung with a very low CG and all masses between the front and rear axles (front of the engine was several inches behind the front axle line, making it front / mid engined). It had an 1800cc engine from a Fiat 124 Sport, and weighed about 200kg less than a Mini (BMC). Yes it was quick. Then I raced karts for years.

Having said that, I think that if most drivers were to fit my rear ARB (modified Holden Rodeo front ARB) to their 147, then they would feel a substatial difference to the wimpy stock rear ARB. Anyone would feel the difference between the stock dampers and the Bilstein B6. Many would feel the difference between the stock rear lateral control arms (soft bushed) and my Toyota derived control arms (stiff bushed). Most of these these things don't make subtle differences, it's fairly pronounced. Even the lateral control arms make a big difference if you know what you are feeling for, though possibly some drivers may not notice.

[etc etc]

Regards,
John.

Yep I hear you. I have a good enough arse to at least tell how much better my GTV feels with Koni's at the rear for example.

However I'm not sure I have the same expectations of the 147, as I don't see it as "sporty". I see it as Practical.  It's a family hatch back. Not a GTV.

I guess that's where I'm coming from.

Is it meant to be sporty just because it has an Alfa Badge?

Now if it were the GTA, then that is of course different as that is designed to be a "hot hatch".

A bog stock 147 TS though? It's an i30 with slightly more prestige (in terms of it's target task).

I'll probably be removed from the club now

[warsch]

Is it meant to be sporty just because it has an Alfa Badge?
Now if it were the GTA, then that is of course different as that is designed to be a "hot hatch".
A bog stock 147 TS though? It's an i30 with slightly more prestige (in terms of it's target task).

It's funny how you say that 2.0 with 150 bhp is not a hot hatch. Mind you, it was released in the late nineties when 2.0 16 valve with ~150 bhp was actually a hot hatch territory. Think Golf GTi, SEAT Ibiza Cupra, Opel Corsa GSi, and many others.

[Citroënbender]

I'd not be too surprised if a well-preserved 2.0TS didn't outperform a newer i30.

Returning to the front shocks/springs debate - at least with aftermarket performance shocks there is usually more scope for varying stroke length than OEM spec, so if one starts with standard springs but then goes lower, the shock will cope.

[poohbah]

Chris, the 147 GTA wasn't designed as a hot hatch. It was designed as a MENTAL hatch...

[warsch]

Chris, the 147 GTA wasn't designed as a hot hatch. It was designed as a MENTAL hatch...

I wonder if people at Alfa designed 156 GTA and then were like "hmm...147 is the almost the same car anyway so why the hell not" and went with 147 GTA

[ugame]

[johnl]

Yep I hear you. I have a good enough arse to at least tell how much better my GTV feels with Koni's at the rear for example.

However I'm not sure I have the same expectations of the 147, as I don't see it as "sporty". I see it as Practical.  It's a family hatch back. Not a GTV.

I guess that's where I'm coming from.

Is it meant to be sporty just because it has an Alfa Badge?

Now if it were the GTA, then that is of course different as that is designed to be a "hot hatch".

A bog stock 147 TS though? It's an i30 with slightly more prestige (in terms of it's target task).

I'll probably be removed from the club now

I don't think you'd fit those front seats if you were not intending a sporting flavour. Why bother with double wishbone front suspension when simpler / cheaper Mac Struts are more than OK for a shopping trolley?

I think the 147 TS is a bit confused. It's like a car that may have been originally designed to be one thing, but then changed to something a bit different. My feeling is that the engineering team who designed it may have wanted it to be a practical sports car, but that later maybe the marketing department wanted it watered it down so as to more broadly appeal to a wider propertion of the potential more mainstream market(?).

I wonder why the spring rates are significantly on the stiff side (for a trendy shopping cart), but the damper rates are quite soft? Could it be that the marketing dept wanted a softer ride, so the engineers just specced some crap dampers and walked away in disgust? (walked toward the GTA?).

At any rate, there are a number of things wrong about the 147, but a lot of things that are right about it. The wrong things can be fixed. No cars are perfect for every owner, at least I've never owned a car that I didn't want to improve in some ways.

Regards,
John.

[ugame]

"No cars are perfect"

Now THAT is very very true.

And perhaps you're right in that it is confused.

Given the pratical nature and comfortable interior, I'd argue though that it was intended as a normal hatch, but when they went to drop an engine in it, they only had 2 options.

2.0 TS or V6 Busso.
Which at the end of the day, is awesome!
EDIT: (actually were there more options in Europe? I think perhaps there were)
Yes there were. As low as an i30 comparable 1.6
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa_Romeo_147
/edit

Given I I was moving from a 5.7 V8, and a 350Z before that, believe me that "performance" was not what I was aiming for when choosing the 2.0 TS.

It's all relative, and to me, both the GTV and the 147 felt absolutely gutless (to me) for quite a while.

Now I appreciate the "fun" of both.

And as many others have said before me "It is more fun to drive a slow car fast, than a fast car slow".