Alfa 156 in the Euro Super Touring Cup - Year 2000

[bix]

I recently received a German Alfa book entitled "Alfa Romeo Limousinen". It contains a whole section on the Euro Super Touring Cup and European Championship where Alfa 156's won in 2000, 2001, 2002 & 2003. In the Euro STC, the book says that the 156 was pretty much close to the production build with an addition of rear spoiler, a more aerodynamic GTA front spoiler and 17" wheels. What is interesting is that they replaced the TwinSpark 2L motor with a smaller and lighter bored out 1.8L (Bore and Stroke: 86mm x 86mm versus standard 1.8 of 82mm x 82.7mm or 2.0 of 83mm x 91mm). This motor produced 250 BHP @ 8500rpm.

My question is how many kg's would you expect to save from this layout and how difficult would it be to build such an engine? Looking at the weight of a 1.8 model vs. 2TS, there is about 20 kg's between them, so presumably the bulk of that is the engine weight. I think the crankshaft would be a completely custom unit, and imagine there wouldn't be that much meat between the cylinders to bore out and maintain the strength so a new inner-liner would need to be added... What do you reckon?

[colcol]

You are most likely not old enough young bixxy to remember when the 155 Super Tourer raced in Australia, in Valvoline colors under the Gary Rogers Motorsport team and driven by Porcshe cup driver Steven Richards, the club went down to look at it, and it was a while ago, but if i remember rightly, it was a Fiat cast iron block, with a Lancia head turned 180 degrees around so the intake was at the front, to ram air in, the parts were horribly expensive, and had a really short life due to the enormous amount of power it put out, the last i heard of this car was it was being raced in Asia by David Auger, who was a driving partner of F1 commentator Martin Brundle, oh the days of 2 litre Super Tourers, how good were they?, Colin.

[Craig C]

My book by John Tippler says 300bhp at 8200rpm but describes a car quite different to the production version. Engine set back further and lower, sequential shift, driver adjustable roll bars, 19 inch wheels and 335mm Brembos.

It also talks about the Group N which could be ordered from the factory for the same price as a road car.  That had the 2.0 TS, stripped interior, roll cage, seat, harness, race springs and dampers, strut brace, ingnition cut out, bonnet fasteners with 'serious aerodynamic kit' rear wing and air dam.

I understand that earlier ones had to have interior such as rear seats but later ones didn't.  I don't know if that would explain any weight differences.

PS, is your German book written or available in english?

Craig

[colcol]

156's are too heavy with all those safety features and strong bodies, get yourself a Alfasud or 33, they are light to start off with and they will handle better, the 156 is a nice road car, but the power to weight issues still crop up, Colin.

[Jekyll and Hyde]

My question is how many kg's would you expect to save from this layout and how difficult would it be to build such an engine? Looking at the weight of a 1.8 model vs. 2TS, there is about 20 kg's between them, so presumably the bulk of that is the engine weight. I think the crankshaft would be a completely custom unit, and imagine there wouldn't be that much meat between the cylinders to bore out and maintain the strength so a new inner-liner would need to be added... What do you reckon?

I think you'd probably find the choice to use the 1.8 motor had nothing to do with car weight, but everything to do with the engine characteristics they wanted.  Going to a 'square' engine as they did (equal bore and stroke), instead of using the undersquare 2l, would likely have made for an engine that was happier to rev.  The whole engine would have been designed around where they wanted the power band, and how they wanted it to be delivered.

[Evan Bottcher]

Going to a 'square' engine as they did (equal bore and stroke), instead of using the oversquare 2l, would likely have made for an engine that was happier to rev. 

Forgive my ignorance, but aren't oversquare engines better at high RPMs?  F1 engines are generally oversquare?

I don't think it necessarily changes what you are saying though - the 1.8 would have different and potentially desirable characteristics...

[Jekyll and Hyde]

Going to a 'square' engine as they did (equal bore and stroke), instead of using the oversquare 2l, would likely have made for an engine that was happier to rev. 

Forgive my ignorance, but aren't oversquare engines better at high RPMs?  F1 engines are generally oversquare?

I don't think it necessarily changes what you are saying though - the 1.8 would have different and potentially desirable characteristics...

Correct - I got my unders and overs mixed up (Where's the facepalm smiley on this forum!)  I meant to say that the 2l was undersquare - otherwise known as a long stroke motor.

Will edit that directly.

[bix]

According to the same book, in 2003 the rules were changed to try and reduce overall cost of the racing. The motor needed to cope with a minimum of 4 races otherwise the car started at the back of the grid. It mentions they also introduced the option of a sequential shift which apparently carried a 30kg weight penalty as opposed to a conventional H pattern.

I don't believe the book is translated in English and I only chose it after Alfisti were out of a part which I ordered http://shop.alfisti.net/Fan-Articles/Books/Alfa-German/Alfa-Romeo-Berlina::2824.html

You're right Colin, the 156's are severely handicapped (as are most of the new cars) compared with a 33 or Alfasud - Crikeys, the Alfasud only weighed in at around 810kgs!  Still it feels like a GTA junior compared to the 159!

[colcol]

And after 40 years the Alfasud would tip the scales at less than 810 kgs, due to the Italian lightening system employed at the time, the 156 is a seriously strong heavy car, that would require a lot of lightening, you can only scrape off so much sound deadoning, Colin.

[bix]

And after 40 years the Alfasud would tip the scales at less than 810 kgs

LOL, yes my 105 series had some built in cleverness to lighten itself over the year! The 156 has shown no such traits thus far.

So I wonder about the characteristics of the 1.8L engine being nearly square. I don't believe any arrived on Australian shores but they must have been a real revver.

[bix]

Going to a 'square' engine as they did (equal bore and stroke), instead of using the oversquare 2l, would likely have made for an engine that was happier to rev. 

Forgive my ignorance, but aren't oversquare engines better at high RPMs?  F1 engines are generally oversquare?

As taken from Wikipedia "The stroke of a Formula One engine is approximately 39.7 mm (1.56 in), less than half as long as the bore is wide (98.0 mm) producing an over-square configuration."

[colcol]

Long stroke engines produce more torque [twisting power], short stroke engines produce more power, in the good old days of F1 and Touring cars, teams could have motors for different tracks, ie lots of torque for Monaco, and lots of engine power for Monza, but now the bean counters have taken over and they all have to use the same engine for a number of races, Colin.