Alfa 90 Differences

[Sheldon McIntosh]

I think you'll find the leaded engine has around 1bhp more power.

I only drove a GCL once, and was disgusted with it to be honest.  The gearing is way too high, and the suspension way too soft.  I've often been asked my opinion on 90s by people considering buying them, and I always tell them to not even consider anything but a Super.

General consensus at the time they were new was that the GCL was a pretty dreadful car, but the Super was what it should have been from the start, and was rated more highly than the contemporary 2.5 75 in one credible road test.

The digi dash is pretty cool in a donkey-kong kind of way, but is unreadable if the sun is shining on it.

In my humble opinion, the 90 GCL is a seriously flawed 80s Alfa anachronism, but the Super is a credible Alfa, which can be a reliable and entertaining drive, and can be made to be a seriously good car.

All the above is only my opinion of course, and I don't have the range of experience with 90s that dehne does.  I'll look out my road-tests and other data later on, after dinner, if you're interested.

[kartone]

loosely translated "uber-cool" in Italian is "gran figata" (do not use this terminology in the presence of an italian speaking priest or nun)

[Mat Francis]

Half for the sake of discussion, and half for my curios mind, humour me for a minute Sheldon?

My 90 is a GCL. Let's pretend for a minute that I've got no clue what I'm doing (not far from the truth really anyway), and want to transform it into a semi respectable road car. Nothing radical, just something that I'll enjoy on weekends and might take to the track every now and then for fun, not to drive competitively fast in.

How would you go about transforming said "seriously flawed car" into "seriously good car"?

[dehne]

With what sheldon said about the suspension, they are the same components, to get stiffer suspension you use stiffer shocks, In my opinion with the ride side of things they are the same to drive. The main differences are the super accelerates quicker but the GCL has a higher top speed, The front grille is different, and the instrument cluster is different. The GCL has an extra option with the trip computer but apart from that they are virtually the same.
I like the GCL as there is no emmisions control on it so it sounds a little deeper(with standard exhaust) and the digital dash (that reads up to 299kph (don't think it will get there anymore though)(well without some major improvement) With the sun you can generally read one of them (for those that dont know there is a sliding(illumated)bar and a number readout).

[dehne]

Half for the sake of discussion, and half for my curios mind, humour me for a minute Sheldon?

My 90 is a GCL. Let's pretend for a minute that I've got no clue what I'm doing (not far from the truth really anyway), and want to transform it into a semi respectable road car. Nothing radical, just something that I'll enjoy on weekends and might take to the track every now and then for fun, not to drive competitively fast in.

How would you go about transforming said "seriously flawed car" into "seriously good car"?

Matt the easyway is just check out my grey one on the weekend, the white 90 i took you for a drive in the last time you came up was a super, if you can remember that

[Beatle]

Thanks Sheldon, I appreciate the...err... candour  

All,
Apart from the dash and the gearing (and the aquaducts) , are the cars built differently?  Is the plastic or electrics in the later model any better than the early cars?  Are the earliest 90s better than the 75?  My 75 experience wasn't encouraging in that department I'm afraid.  I found it more fragile than my '79 Alfetta coupe trim-wise.

To me, suspension on a car of this age is a bit of a moot point if it's simply a matter of spring and damper rates.  Of course if there is an inherrent design difference, which is not easy or cheap to overcome, that's entirely a different matter. 

Like matt, I guess I'm asking what differences between GCL and Super are not easily remedied.  OK, dash is difficult, diff less so but potentially expensive, suspension and clutch seem easily fixed when the stock parts require replacement?  Are steering racks the same?  Suspension geometry?


Acceleration is an important aspect to be sure, but then I lived in the NT back in the pre-speed limit days and nothing I owned was geared tall enough.  Not for additional speed, but to enable a more comfortable sustained cruise RPM.   But I'll ask again, is the gearing simply down to the diff ratio, or are all ratios in the gearbox different between GCL and Super?  A tall 1st gear is likely more an issue in Sydney or Melbourne, but less problematic for us rednecks out in the bush?

Is it simple to convert to a single-plate clutch?  I thought most 75 and GTV6s have been converted to single-plate long ago, save those going for absolute concourse originality.

I assume none of the 90s got Isostatic?

Does the 90 have the longer Tbars of the early Alfettas or the shorter ones?

[Beatle]

Thanks Kartone.  Too bad 'gran figata' won't fit on a number plate........    What does 'figata' mean on its own, remembering this is a family form???

[dehne]

apart from the engine,dash,gearbox,grille the cars are identicle. I would doubt that there are any twin plate clutches left as they all would have been replace by singles by now, the acceleration in a GCL is still good, there would be stuff all in the 0-100 could be as little as who let the clutch go first, all parts are interchangable and with some mods the dash is to, with the gearbox the difference is in the gears you can pull a diff centre from a 3ltr 75 and slot it straight in. the steering racks are the same,

I have driven both 90's in full on city traffic and on freeways where you dont see heaps of cars, they both perform just as good as each other, 

[L4OMEO]

apart from the engine,dash,gearbox,grille the cars are identicle

So all the info in the media releases and road tests at the time (and corroborated here) about the suspension tune being different is incorrect?

Sorry mate, I may bow to your vastly superior ownership experience but I beg to differ.

[dehne]

apart from the engine,dash,gearbox,grille the cars are identicle

So all the info in the media releases and road tests at the time (and corroborated here) about the suspension tune being different is incorrect?

Sorry mate, I may bow to your vastly superior ownership experience but I beg to differ.

thats cool you can express your opinion, can you list the differences apart from what i have said, the suspention had different shocks in it, all the parts are interchangable I have used parts from each other.
maybe from new you could tell the difference but with a 25 to 27 year old motor car that has had parts replace as required these cars are pretty much identical now apart from what i have mentioned, just cause the book said it 25 odd years ago does not mean its the same today.

[Sheldon McIntosh]

Is the plastic or electrics in the later model any better than the early cars?  Are the earliest 90s better than the 75?  My 75 experience wasn't encouraging in that department I'm afraid.  I found it more fragile than my '79 Alfetta coupe trim-wise.

The trim is very fragile in my experience.  I plan for every plastic clip to break if I'm removing anything, and then I'm pleasantly surprised when I only break one or two.

I assume none of the 90s got Isostatic?

They both have isostatic.

They have the shorter TBs.  On that note, I was under the impression that the Super had 22.8 and the GCL 21.8mm, but I'll defer to dehne's superior knowledge of the GCL on that matter.

Gearing is....   GCL.  1, 3.500; 2, 1.956; 3, 1.258; 4, 0.946; 5, 0.078.  Final Drive 3.500
                    Super.  1, 2.875; 2, 1.720; 3, 1.226; 4, 0.946; 5, 0.780.  Final Drive 4.1

Top speed is identical, the only difference is that the GCL does it in 4th, since it can't pull over 4800 in 5th.

My 90 is a GCL. Let's pretend for a minute that I've got no clue what I'm doing (not far from the truth really anyway), and want to transform it into a semi respectable road car. Nothing radical, just something that I'll enjoy on weekends and might take to the track every now and then for fun, not to drive competitively fast in.

Well, you've got the 3 litre, so it'll cope slightly better with the GCL 'box, but bear in mind that it's still a lot higher-geared than even a 3 litre 75; I don't know if you've driven one of those, but even they feel a little sluggish sometimes.  One of the best things about these cars is the mid-range punch you get out of 2nd and 3rd gear corners, and it'll be even more so with the 3 litre.  It would be a shame to hamper it with such high gearing.  Obviously the best would be a TS gearbox, but even a standard 75 or 90 Super box would do the trick, same gearing as the TS, just no LSD.  I've found that with the stiffer suspension it very rarely picks up the inside rear now.

Then 27 or 28mm TBs, 180-200lb rear springs, Koni Yellows, 2 degree neg camber, poly caster arm bushes (or ball-joints).  Probably Volvo front brakes too since you've got a 3 litre.  It would still be a bearable, but firmish, car around town, have great body control in the twisties, and be able to cope with a day at the track.

[L4OMEO]

thats cool you can express your opinion, can you list the differences apart from what i have said, the suspention had different shocks in it, all the parts are interchangable I have used parts from each other.
maybe from new you could tell the difference but with a 25 to 27 year old motor car that has had parts replace as required these cars are pretty much identical now apart from what i have mentioned, just cause the book said it 25 odd years ago does not mean its the same today

The fact that parts are interchangeable doesn't mean they're the same. Yes, the shocks were different, and any anyone who's replaced a set of standard shocks with something better will not underestimate the extent of improvement this can bring, hence my earlier comment regarding minor on-paper changes and significant real-world effect.

The only valid way to make this comparison is to talk about the cars in their standard state of tune. Speculating on what changes may or may not have been carried out in the intervening years renders this pointless. If you've updated a GCL to Super specs and then tell us that both models feel the same to drive on the basis that this is probably what's happened to most of them ... well, I'll let someone else with more time on their hands take up that argument.

[dehne]

Top speed is identical, the only difference is that the GCL does it in 4th, since it can't pull over 4800 in 5th.

They are not identical, as has been said in a previous thread the top speed for a super is 204, the GCL can do more than than, and for getting in 5th and it not reving past 4800 is also not true, as I have done this in mine, In ripped the hood lining out of it doing 220 up the hume years ago

[dehne]

thats cool you can express your opinion, can you list the differences apart from what i have said, the suspention had different shocks in it, all the parts are interchangable I have used parts from each other.
maybe from new you could tell the difference but with a 25 to 27 year old motor car that has had parts replace as required these cars are pretty much identical now apart from what i have mentioned, just cause the book said it 25 odd years ago does not mean its the same today

The fact that parts are interchangeable doesn't mean they're the same. Yes, the shocks were different, and any anyone who's replaced a set of standard shocks with something better will not underestimate the extent of improvement this can bring, hence my earlier comment regarding minor on-paper changes and significant real-world effect.

The only valid way to make this comparison is to talk about the cars in their standard state of tune. Speculating on what changes may or may not have been carried out in the intervening years renders this pointless. If you've updated a GCL to Super specs and then tell us that both models feel the same to drive on the basis that this is probably what's happened to most of them ... well, I'll let someone else with more time on their hands take up that argument.

Im not arguing so to speak what im saying is that most 90s now are basically the same except for the differences i have stated, the state of tune is all dependant on its owner not what type of car or how old it is.

[Mat Francis]

Thanks Sheldon.

I've got solutions for everything you've mentioned there in varying degrees except for the brakes, I can always come back to them after.

Cheers