Are all the 3.2L V6 159's four wheel drive?

[Roj]

Hello all. Long time Alfa admirer, first time purchaser, hopefully. I am looking at buying a 159 JTS Ti 3.2L V6 and was under the impression that all of the 159 V6 models in Australia were Four-Wheel-Drive. I am now looking at a 2010 model, that according to the owner, is Front Wheel Drive and now I am confused because all the information I can find, suggests that there shouldn't be a front wheel drive 159 JTS Ti 3.2L V6. So I thought who better to ask than the experts. Did Alfa release front wheel drive V6 models in Australia? And if they did, which is better to drive? Am I going to notice a big difference between all wheel drive and front wheel drive?
Appreciate your replies.

[shiny_car]

Not all are.

The last batch of V6 159's was a group of cars originally destined for the Sth African market, but was cancelled, and ended up here (that's the story AFAIK).  So they were a different configuration to the earlier Aus-spec cars.

Some of the differences included:
- FWD instead of AWD
- part-cloth trim interior
- manual instead of auto
- some non-Ti cosmetic differences

I think there can be a mix and match of differences amongst the cars, and they were typically 2010-2011 models, the last ones sold.

I used to own an AWD auto 2008 version, and once test-drove a FWD manual version. The 'manual vs auto' made more difference than 'AWD vs FWD', but I only had a very brief drive of the latter.  But not much difference, though the roads were totally dry.  You might find a difference on wet roads, with FWD having the typical deficiencies 'off the line' if you try to accelerate hard.

[Roj]

Ah right, good to know. Thank you for clearing that up. I guess RedBook never got the memo on those models. ha ha! 

For my main usage, I am thinking FWD will be just fine. My main thought actually, is the future value. The 159 is such a stylish car, and paired with the V6 and Q4 I'm of the opinion that they may even increase in value, and that bodes well for when I'm in a position to afford a Giulia. Time will tell though.

[bazzbazz]

Would want to increase in value a bloody huge amount.   

[Ascari32]

Ah right, good to know. Thank you for clearing that up. I guess RedBook never got the memo on those models. ha ha! 

For my main usage, I am thinking FWD will be just fine. My main thought actually, is the future value. The 159 is such a stylish car, and paired with the V6 and Q4 I'm of the opinion that they may even increase in value, and that bodes well for when I'm in a position to afford a Giulia. Time will tell though.

Having had a 156, 1.8 TS for over 160,000 miles, then moving to a 1.9 GT; somewhere in between, I got the itch for a 159 and drove 130 miles: each way to see and test drive a 3.2 Front-wheel drive version.

I was singularly unimpressed and vowed I would never buy one. Compared to with the 156, which although seriously less powerful it just did not have that little Twinny's balance. The GT was a bit more cumbersome, because of that diesel lump but still a great car, for all it was front wheel drive - it too taking me over 174,000 miles and again, although in a different class, preferable to that 159.

Although this particular 159 had just had its chains replaced, it was a awkward cuss and the weight over the front wheels was all too obvious. Bottom end torque was poor and it seemed like I could never get away from having to change up and down for the kind of changes in direction, ordinarily Alfa's just sail through. Loved the shape but to me, was a dog of a car. Maybe I drove a bad example but the 159 was now firmly of my shopping list.

"I've got just the Car for you - it's got your name on it", said Paul some years later. "A Q4, 3.2 JTS". In no time at all, I was smitten and bought it. The way the car drives though bends, even low speed ones seemed so different from the one I drove at Leicester. Still a little lacking in bottom end torque but seemed so much better balanced despite it.

I've done lots to it and although cosmetically she need some attention, it has been worth it as fundamentally it is a great car. The chassis/floor pan has more spine than the Forth Road Bridge and everything that hangs off it is super precise. She feels solid, the suspension pretty supple; not too much so, just enough to give me confidence about where my wheels are, which remain firmly planted. Steering geometry is needle - sharp for such a "Big Girl" and setting her up for bends seems second nature. There is nothing loose about her handling in any way, shape or form.

But, she was underpowered and operating in lean - burn mode below 1500 rpm doesn't help low end torque. Two issues which compound this are oil pressure too low to maintain tension on the chains at low rpm and, timing errors which are also a function of this. The Attached Dynamometer plot illustrates the difference between a pristine low mileage 3.2 JTS Brera and my 112,000 mile 159. At the time of the plot, the only changes I had made were to oil flow/pressure supplementation - nothing else.

The difference is remarkable not least because of the increased tractability it created on urban roads. No need to work the gearbox in slow moving traffic and the difference it makes to town driving - is that of making it less stressful. I may be tempted to buy a Spider at some time in the near future. And if I do, the very first thing that I shall do is supplement the oil flow/pressure as I have done with my 159.

My 159, at 112,000 miles failed on a Parabola whilst screaming at 7200 -7300 rpm. The only two comments from a respected Automotive Journalist, who was driving her at the time was, "She just kept going - there were no flat spots, did not want to stop." Well she did, and thus my spare Brera Engine rebuild.

It would have been too easy to simply find another car, lower mileage perhaps and let this one go for parts. But, I always believed this engine was technically better than what Alfa supplied. It is doubtful, if I do get a Spider, I will go the "whole hog" on it's engine - unless of course, my 159 engine goes into it. However, Oil - Way mods will be "Mandatory".

Moving on to all the modifications I have made to my Brera engine, which is now installed in my 159, was really a function of trying to determine how much more this engine has to give. In standard guise, even with the bottom end torque issue resolved, the power is not enough to test the "Superb Platform" this car sits upon. But 300 bhp +, and it is a different story. I do not know the absolute figure of mine yet but remain confident it is comfortably over that figure. I still need to find some rear boxes and it would be churlish not to fit equal length sections between the Autodelta's and the Sports Cat. I have found a company but that is a couple of months away. Then it will be a question of software changes.

I am not sure, looking back, if I really understood much at all about this engine. But at the moment, I am glad I did what I did. I think it is a monumental car and in every respect deserves preserving for the future. Despite Alfa, the Q4's will not suffer the same fate as the Alfa 6, the ARNA or the 90. Unless of course enthusiasts continue to overlook the genuine virtues of this series of cars, the Spider, Brera, 159 and Sports-wagon.

And the Holden Block upon which the Alfa Heads sit; in terms of a BOGOF production unit, is Fabulous. The architecture lends it incredible strength, the crankshaft buried within a Cathedral like crank - case, with bearing caps bracing it in a manner I've not seen before.             

[Ascari32]

last plot too big - hopefully this is a better fit.

[GTV6SA]

SA fwd models have different wheels,no alloy pedals, brake caliper not painted Red , different trim for seats I.e. not all leather,front seats are not electric and not heated not that you need it here, I.e. manual adjustment, black dash. Awd 159's are really sure footed in the wet especially with all the current rain we've had lately and handling is neutral and balanced,  not sure whether the fwd models give the same assurance. I've had mine remapped (Autodelta by local Rep.) Plus larger dia. SS catback exhaust with resonator deleted so sounds and performs like a "proper traditional Alfa ". Wonderful comfortable tourer with enough power and Qtronic offers the best compromise between city driving ( stop/start traffic) and either using sequential or paddles if you want more spirited driving pleasure. With Autodelta Headers ( on list) will give close to 300Hp. Fast enough in my "old age".

[Ascari32]

The Autodelta headers certainly do make a tremendous difference, particularly oil temperature. Autodelta stated to me, they were worth about 8 bhp recovered losses. I emphasis that point as they do not make the engine more powerful, just reduce the internal losses due to heat retention, which the Manifold Cats and Alfa Valve Timing actively promote.

Their removal reduces upper cylinder temperatures by a significant amount, resulting in the intake air retaining greater density. So, with the Autodelta's, having this virtue + better cylinder evacuation, it is not unreasonable to assume the difference can be 10 to 12 bhp. Certainly Autodelta expect one to be able to feel the difference and with such a heavy car, is a meaningful improvement.

With increased air density, the combustion process moves away from lean burn and; to me, goes some way to explain the increased torque at the bottom end.

With the manifold cats restricting the flow of hot gases, much heat is retained in the upper cylinder and the cold, dense intake air absorbs this heat and expands, slowing the flow of intake air through the MAF, leading to the ECU metering less fuel based upon the MAF air flow figure - resulting in the AFR being leaned - up. This fundamentally changes when free flow manifolds are fitted as not only is the velocity of the exhaust gases maintained at the output port of the exhaust valve, but there is less oportunity/time for the heat of the exhaust gases to be absorbed by the Cylinder Head or Piston Crown.

However, given the attached plot is of my engine with only oil flow/pressure supplementation, rising from tick - over to "X" mph, oil pressure is not at the optimum working level. So not only is pressure on the timing chains less than optimum, but valve timing, which is wholly derived from oil pressure, isn't ideal either!!!!! So several; nay, considerable degrees of inaccuracy "Will Exist". This facet is indisputable!!!!!

Hand in hand with this of course is lower oil temperature and thus less thermal decay.

However, the issue of valve timing remains a serious limiting factor wrt increasing Volumetric Efficiency; V.E. Colombo Bariani state it is not necessary to modify software when fitting their fast road cams. However, the caveat remains - if only the cams are swapped out, which of course is not what I have done.

To this end, it has made life considerably more difficult when trying to set up the correct AFR and by definition, the best MAF element. Yes, eventually I will have to have a re-map done, but there is absolutely no specialists within East Anglia who can undertake doing it. Which means a considerable travel and possibly a two night stop over, whilst it is done. Plus cost!

But that does not mean a close approximation cannot be made and certainly, despite my engine being over - rich, she is still displaying substantial power gains. However, a 23.5deg. PVO, in combination with a 100 cpi sports cat; or even with a centre cat delete, was always going to cause problems, given the VVT system can change valve timing continuously over 50 degrees on both inlet and exhaust!!!!!!!! One cannot say my engine; in a classic sense, has a "Torque Curve". "It's Flat".

So are there options open to owners, to improve power levels without creating; although fascinating, a time consuming problem with the AFR? I believe there are. Colombo Bariani state, up to 85% of the power gains a quad cam swap can bring, can be achieved by swapping out the Inlet Camshaft only.

With all four camshafts changed, the valve timing is modified from 9deg. ATDC Exhaust valve closes, 11.5deg. ATDC Inlet valve opens, to 0.5deg. BTDC Inlet valve opens, 23.0deg. ATDC Exhaust valve closes. This, in conjunction with the exhaust system promotes massive scavenging action, so much so, small changes in exhaust system is reflected in tangible changes to MAF output voltage!!!!!

However, retaining the Alfa Exhaust camshaft and changing only the Inlet camshaft; with C.B., the valve timing would change to 0.5deg. BTDC Inlet Valve opening, 9.0deg. ATDC Exhaust valve closing, giving a PVO of 9.5deg. This in itself could reduce upper cylinder temperatures considerably and under these circumstances the manifold cats could; I believe, remain.

This I understand is a major concern for owners as aside from the cost of the Autodelta's, there are labour costs involved in replacing the manifolds. Although Autodelta state their manifolds can be fitted without the engine being removed. But with the gains I believe just the inlet camshaft swap would bring, owners would be persuaded to fit Autodelta's at a later date.

In summary then, I would propose substantial improvements to how this engine performs, can be achieved by just replacing the inlet camshaft with a CB inlet.

However, regardless of this, as can be seen from the plot above, substantial improvements to valve timing accuracy, will be gained by oil flow/pressure supplementation.

[Ascari32]

According to my sources, the manual gearbox was developed specifically for - and financed by Fiat, but not in house. GM/SAAB come into the equation somewhere. However, it is a little convoluted as financial interests too loom large with connections to Toyota. Borg Warner also come into the act, which may explain the connection with Toyota and Aisin further. Borg warner have great track record with Auto boxes.

However, the F40 manual is as strong as an Ox, having triple cones on 1st and 2nd, double cones on 3rd and 4th, 5th and 6th being single. The triple cones on 1st and 2nd explains why these two gears are always a bit notchy.

My 159 Q4 manual was always stubborn in selecting these from cold. However, I don't believe it is entirely down to the gearbox and attribute it mostly to the engine and specifically the valve timing. The valve timing produces so much drag, it kills the revs quickly on lifting - off. And the transmission system cannot influence how smoothly first or second can be found - I sometimes think double de-clutching is the only way.

Both the valve timing and the exhaust system choke the engine such that there is little to no overrun - hence the popping and farting as the cars inertia tries to spin the engine on lifting, when all it wants to do is brake/stop spinning.  I also believe, this drag has a profound effect on the longevity of the timing chain system.

Free the engine of this inertia, with changes to valve timing and the load it relieves from the transmission system is enormous, with wonderful run - on between shifts. And gear selection becomes a lot more pleasant.

This engine, by design; Alfa's design, runs "Lean - Burn" up to 1500 rpm, which explains why it is so gutless unless one gets the revs up on pulling away. The e-disc torque plot and the runs I did with my mates spanking Brera Q4 illustrate this too. His being an Auto is always "Hunting" at slow speeds, unless he selects a fixed gear. Which sort - of makes this combination an Oxymoron - "A Torque Converter with and engine that has very little torque at the bottom end" - which is where Urban drivers expect to need it.

Substitute NVO with PVO and all this will change. The engine will spin much more freely on overrun and gear selection becomes much sweeter. That I think, would suit the auto box and my mates Brera would be much more fun to drive.

Neglecting all else - changing the inlet camshaft alone will do the trick - I firmly believe!

And it doesn't matter whether it has a Ti badge or not, is Q4 or FWD, is manual or auto - they all suffer from the same problem.

[Colin Edwards]

Hi Alfatango.

I had an AWD 3.2JTS Ti manual for around 3 years.  Fantastic car!  Hunted around for near 6 months before I found it - thanks to Robert at Zagames.
Have driven a few autos, however prefer the extra "involvement" the manual needed. 
Castrol Syntrax Universal Plus 75W90 seemed to help the cold shift issues.

Colin