Hi there
I am looking at getting back into the Alfa world.....the models I have owned and loved are the 33s, 75s and 164s.
I have a chance to buy a 164Q. Are these vastly advanced cars compared to a standard 75 or 33?
I really like the 33 16V shape wise, but its seems impossible to get working a/c in these cars.....and in sydney you have to have it.
75s also suffer from this judging by the 2 i have owned.
There are also a couple of 24v 164s in Sydney (imports) for sale....any opinions on this model?
thanks! Tony
i would go for either a 3ltr 75 or the 164Q and not settle for anything less. the 164Q is a unreal car to drive and the torque it has is fantastic
The 164 is later design & technology, galvanised body etc, but you are still looking at 15-20 year old cars.
For the same price as a good 164Q, how about a 156 V6 manual, there are a few around from time to time and you get modern comforts.
Cheers.
The 156s still seem to go for around 6 - 9 k in good condition and my budget is more like 5k.
The Q I am looking at is cheap because it needs some work which I will slowly get done as I can afford it.
So no takers on the 33s? Such fun little cars though !!
What about working a/c? Should I expect this on a 164Q ?
Thanks guys
yes and no but just get the condenser redone and it will be fine
Don't ask me I'm biased :). I love my 164Q, air con is fine, but a bit too good and noisy on a hot day.
Paul thats a great recommendation!
I have owned 2 75s....my 1991 TS had considerably more get up an go than my 1988 one....
You've got me thinking now :)
I'm with Paul and would say a 75 TS, we should start buying them before they all get cannibalised for their engines and transaxles!
My 88 75TS made a great and reliable daily driver and the air con worked well enough.
However the 33 16V is a nice package, a lot more refined than earlier 33s and was fun to drive, although a 85 - 86 33Ti was probably more so. Mate of mine had one since new owned it for 12 years and it was reliable, had sub 2 litre performance, and handled well, cheap now approx 4K lot of car for the money.
....................But then so is a Twinspark so would probably lean towards that.
Good Luck
Pep
i would go the 164Q its a full luxury sedan with a crap load of power driving it it would be the quicker out of these cars by a country mile
i know im funny but am also factual ive driven a fair few different alfas in my time/last 12 years and the 164Q would be the most exciting one ive driven, the power held within that engine it just wants to go and go and ect. ect the acceleration in unreal from standing and droping it back a few gears to overtake. the only down side of the car is it being fwd but its save me a few times
No doubt the 164Q is a nice car, powerful and quick in a straight line, but quicker than a hard charging 75 TS through the twisties? Would be hard pressed to keep the 75 honest.
You ready Paul :)
Quote from: paul edwards on June 22, 2010, 11:01:47 PM
Hi Tony
l saw a nice 75 on carsales- 1991 Champagne silver 219ks for $4200. it looks like a really nice car
Cheers Paul
I think i saw that but I need one in NSW and wasnt that an Auto?
I'd never buy an Auto 75....the whole thing just doesnt make sense!
I am looking at the 164Q tonight so lets see if it pulls the heart strings! Its not drivable at the moment so it will have to sell itself to me on style and that certain feeling you get when you sit in a car and think "i must own this!"
The 33 16V would still be my fav shape and size, but i dont see too many recommends on here for them.
I have to admit the Q is not that quick through twisty bits. I was working hard and struggling to keep up with the 75s on the recent EMR. And one of the cars I do miss was the 75 twin spark. The 33 did nothing for me.
There is a bit of comment on the virtue of the 75 TS as it is acknowledged that they have great handling.
In looking at the 164Q, would it be better to consider the hard to find 75 3lt Potenziata that has a 164 engine ?
You get the ultimate benefits of a 75 RWD and with the powerfull V6.
a v6 75 would be great, but hard to come buy and i need a daily driver asap.
i am embarrassed to be seen in this saab !
My wife has never driven a manual before so i am a little worried that a 164Q might not be the idea car to learn in....power wise etc!
Also considering this
http://sydney.gumtree.com.au/c-Cars-Vehicles-Motorbikes-Parts-cars-Alfa-Romeo-33-Boxer-Cloverleaf-1991-Model-W0QQAdIdZ204283303
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a SAAB!!!!!!
If you have a 9000 then the 164 is the same front suspension in a sort of a way, this has been discussed elsewhere!!!!!!
Beware of the 164 turning circle, it takes at least 3.5 lanes to do a U-turn, high chance of getting T-boned, so not ideal for the wife.
Food for thought.
My choice 75 either TS (for the handling) or 3L (for the sound)
Neil
i have a saab 9000....yes it drives well, handles well, but its gutless ( 2.3 auto ) and EVERY POSSIBLE piece of electrics has broken on it !
The interior trim quality is far worse than Alfas....the door handles come off in your hand....bits of trip rattle loose when going over speed humps....
But yes, its reliable to a fault, which is probably the most surprising thing about owning it.
the added hassle of changing from vic rego to nsw rego would probably be the main problem there...
I appreciate the reply though.....
changing rego is the same as you do every year up there rwc and green slip
Paul- spinning the wheels in no prob hanging the back out is easy (handbrake)
reverse donuts is where its at
Tony,
As your considering the white 33 16V, maybe we should get Frank Musco the Sud/Sprint/33 specialist to chime in to give you some feedback as he currently has one.
Cheers
Pep
Tony,
I do have a white 33 16V so I'll try not to be too biased. I have driven all three on the road, here is what I think.
Firstly I want to go back to the earlier 85 Ti 33's with the 1500 twin carb motors. These are a great car to drive with heaps of character, good looks, and a crisp, responsive, punchy engine. Then they came out with the 1700 8V solid lifter engine with 40 idf downdraft carbies and vented rotor front brakes. This version is very fast and is my pick of the 33 series in the go department. I still cant get over how fast this car is, then the grouse sound the boxer makes under acceleration, and if thats not enough, the crackle on the over-run, yeah baby!
Then Alfa refined the 33, and we have the 16v version. The engine is very smooth, and the most powerful, though delivery is more 'Linear', so feels less punchy when compared to the 1700 8V solid lifter engine. I like the power steering and the driving position is very good for me. The gear change is also improved and in my opinion is the best shift in any car I have ever driven. You sit lower in the car than the 75 and 164. Does make it more difficult to see out the back compared to the 75 and 164. But who looks out the back? This is the best looking 33 in my opinion.
The 164 is just a big 33. It has more power, and feels firmer and stable on the road due to being longer, wider and heavier than a 33. But the extra weight makes it less nimble when compared to the 33's, which equals less fun. I don't like the higher driving position, but my dad does, know what I mean...with the big seat and foot pedals...like in a BUS!
Does look nice, but not as nice as the 33.
This is where it gets very difficult.
Pep and Paul are on the right track with relevant points in favour of the 75TS. A fantastic car. A traditional Alfa with the transaxle in the correct position, making this the best balanced of the three with respect to weight distribution. Also a beautiful looking car.
I must admit, I love hanging it sideways, bloody rear wheel drive cars, some habits are hard to get rid of.
A/C shouldn't be a problem, depends on who is servicing the system.
At the end of the day I will always go for the 16V 33's for a daily driver. I just love the way they drive, light, nimble and punchy. They have the best gear shift, light and positive, with a light clutch pedal. The lower driving position gives me better feel for the road. Excellent fuel economy. Great value for money, you'll get an excellent example for the money you want to spend, and with everything working. There you have it.
I feel a Top Gear Challenge coming on.
Dehne, you found that country mile yet?
As if a 164 would beat a 33 or 75 in a race, der! Not even Calder Park which would give it the best chance, since its two long straights joined by two corners, Oh yeah and the 33 and 75 stuck in 3rd gear.
Challenge: 3 standard cars on road tyres at Phillip Island. I say the 33 16V wins.
Cheers
Frank
Frank, thanks ! I enjoyed reading your post..
My first 33 was an 88, 33ti (twin carb) and when I first drove it i said to the guy "i think there might be something wrong with it as there is a crackling sound coming from underneath!" Of course this would be a sound that I would fall in love with and I still wish I could hear it !!
That car friggin flew ! the lack of powersteering added to the go-cart feel that i actually enjoyed !
My real concern on the 33 is the a/c and lack of airflow. the ONLY vents for a/c are the small opening each side of the dash....the centre ones only bring in fresh (ie HOT) air. Plus, if you have a sunroof, that becomes a heat-plate just to add to the impossible task of keeping these cars cool in summer.
just so you all know im talking about a 164Q manual not auto if you go through the factory stats the 164 Q will eat and then shit out then eat again the 33's and the 75 twini the 2.5 v6 but the 3ltr potenza im not sure on it has the same motor but gearbox are different and not sure on ratios + 75 lighter
Quote from: dehne on June 24, 2010, 11:37:25 AM
the 164 Q will eat and then shit out then eat again the 33's and the 75 twini the 2.5 v6
So what you're saying is that the 164Q eats shit?
Quote from: Frank Musco on June 24, 2010, 03:31:36 AM
Challenge: 3 standard cars on road tyres at Phillip Island. I say the 33 16V wins.
Big call Frank. I haven't driven a 33 16V, but would love to if you think they're that quick. I would put my money on the Twinnie, but only guessing, not having driven either of the other two.
So what you're saying is that the 164Q eats shit?
are you then saying that the 75's and 33's shit then
Quote from: dehne on June 24, 2010, 05:37:28 PM
are you then saying that the 75's and 33's shit then
No, actually I'm not. Read your own post again. Maybe read it twice. I believe
you are saying the 75 and 33s are shite. And that the 164Q eats shite.
Quote from: Frank Musco on June 24, 2010, 03:31:36 AM
Challenge: 3 standard cars on road tyres at Phillip Island. I say the 33 16V wins.
Cheers
Frank
I want a video camera on the face of the 164 driver so I can see their eyes coming into Honda and MG......
i was meant to quote you and then try and get you then to agree that the 164Q is better but it did not happen that way
Quote from: dehne on June 24, 2010, 06:59:23 PM
i was meant to quote you and then try and get you then to agree that the 164Q is better but it did not happen that way
Hehe, fair enough. 164Q is a beautiful car, no doubt about it. Jekyll and Hyde, that's very funny and very true. I was actually going to say, before you posted that, that if the race was only one lap, then maybe the 164 would have a chance, but any more laps than one, forget about it.
;D - Thats All
Tony,
I'm so glad you understand the crackle. I can understand normal people wanting to do something about it, tune it out, change exhaust and so on, but myself being not normal, I absolutely love it, drives me crazy, had to get rid of it or my licence was gone. When I first took my daughter for a drive in the car, she actually wanted me to keep doing it, and one thing you should not do is encourage me in an Alfa, again equals no licence.
About the AC, I'm actually unsure, so bear with me, I'll check it out on my 16V on the weekend and see where the air blows out of.
In Melbourne I just put up with the occasional hot day, never use AC, never taken much notice of how it works.
Cheers
P.S Whats all this talk about eating shit?? You kinky weirdos. I've heard of dogs eating their own shit, does that help you out?
Pardon me Dehne, as far as Statistics go, now thats shit talking, you should always be cautious of stats. The real deal is lap times. Stats are a marketing tool which clever people manipulate to make something appear as what its not. I thought Alfa people understood that.
Honestly, I was just stirring the pot about which would be faster with respect to the 33 and 75. Firstly, no way is the 164 faster, it just too heavy. To get the 164 to corner anywhere near the smaller cars, you will need massive tyres, so its not going to have corner speed. Unless it was that thing with the motor in the back, but its not, I'm talking STANDARD, on STANDARD road tyres. 164 Manual or whatever.
33 v 75. Let me dazzle you with real Stats. Thanks for the lap time Paul, gives me something to work with. So 2:14 at Phillip Island, My Standard 86 Alfa Sprint 1490cc, completely standard with all its interior and bodywork does 2:08 with R tyres. R tyres are worth 6 seconds at the Island so for this example the lap times are IDENTICAL. So its not a big ask to get 2:14 with the 33 16 V, have some faith. You may have noticed a red 33 16V at the Island last year or so, (I think his name is Domenic), The car has R tyres and no interior and its lap was 2:02. What the... yes thats right. He said to me the car was basically standard, and I had a good look and would have to agree with him. Do you know how difficult it is to get a 2:02, very, very , very, difficult. You know, yes you do Sheldon, with a very fast 2:03 at Alfa Island with the 90 on those slicks. Ahhh slicks. So put the 33 on road tyres and it translates to 2:08. Thougths?
What if messed with your minds and said the cars have got nothing to do with it. Maybe its all in the TYRES? What now?
OR maybe the tyres have got nothing to do with, it is all the DRIVER?
Which is the best car now? They are as good as each other, after all they are ALFAS
HAPPY BIRTHDAY 100 years of Engineering Excellence.
Cheers
Frank.
:P Nice photos Pep, now I'll have to turn the computer off and go for a drive. ;D
Cheers Paul, thats what its all about.
Quote from: Frank Musco on June 24, 2010, 11:08:18 PM
Whats all this talk about eating shit?? You kinky weirdos. I've heard of dogs eating their own shit, does that help you out?
Now you're calling the 164Q a dog? Steady on.
Just how standard is that red 33 Frank? You must be a terrible driver (and we all know how far from the truth that is) if he can get to within 2 seconds of you in a "basically standard" car, because your car is a long, long, long, long way from standard, and would probably have at least as much as power as a 16V wouldn't it? And yes I do know how difficult it is to get a second quicker at PI.
I reckon a good driver who knew PI and was on good road tyres could do a 2.10 in a 75 TS without too much difficulty. I was doing 10s in my 90 while it was standard other than Konis and Rs, and the LSD and better balance would easily account for those differences.
Why do you say 6 secs difference with R tyres? I always thought around 2 secs, maybe 3 at the Island? It might be different with the FWD cars but there's no way it's 6 secs in a transaxle car.
The only meaningful comparison I have is that in my completely standard 90 but on R tyres, and my first time at the Island, I was faster than a 33 1.7 8V, which was driven by a very accomplished steerer, by around a second. And the 33 was not standard, don't know about Rs, but it had very stiff suspension.
I reckon we need to take this to the track Frank. I'll get a TS, you bring your 33.
Quote from: Frank Musco on June 24, 2010, 11:08:18 PM
What if messed with your minds and said the cars have got nothing to do with it. Maybe its all in the TYRES? What now?
OR maybe the tyres have got nothing to do with, it is all the DRIVER?
Which is the best car now? They are as good as each other, after all they are ALFAS
HAPPY BIRTHDAY 100 years of Engineering Excellence.
Cheers
Frank.
Stop messing with my mind Frank, I thought I was having an acid flashback for a while there. And it's true, they are all fantastic, they are all Alfas, which is the point I was trying to make in the long-running series in the magazine over the last two years. Even the "worst" Alfas are absolutely bloody fantastic, especially on the track.
Good Stuff Sheldon,
They're all good. Too difficult to make comparisons.
Even if we put all three on the track, we would need to get someone like The Stig to drive them, and then we really don't know whats been done to the cars even if they are all 'standard'. The LOSERS would always complain about the winner.
Don't get me started on excuses.
I cant help myself.
The 33 16V is still my pick for the fastest.
The question mark remains...
At Winton maybe, and probably on a twisty road; but at PI or Sandown, it'll be the TS. Meanwhile, the 164Q is sitting back, arms crossed, with a shit-eating grin....
Lots of interesting speculation. And a few good stats too ;D
I think the comments on tyres are on the mark – the bigger, heavier 164 is going to ask much harder questions of its rubber and frankly its standard 195s are completely inadequate for the track. A colleague of mine regularly took his 164Q out on track days at our local circuit (3.4km, very technical, quite twisty) and with 205s posted some respectable times in comparison with the other standard cars there (and much faster than a 33 16V with a better driver). It's limiting factors were its corner speed and brakes, but don't discount its straight-line performance advantage (road-tests in the UK saw the 33 16V get from 0-60mph in 8.9, 0-100mph in 26.5, while the 164Q did 0-60mph in 7.0 and 0-100mph in 18.0. Out of interest, the 75TS did 0-60mph in 9.3, can't recall the 0-100mph time).
The only comparative testing for laptimes I've seen for these 3 cars was done at the old Castle Combe circuit in the UK – on separate test days two different magazines clocked 1:20 for the 164Q, 1:22 for the 75TS, and 1:25 for the 33 16V. Yeah yeah yeah different days, different drivers, blah blah blah, I'm not suggesting this is the definitive answer, but it gives an indication that perhaps the Q shouldn't be discounted quite so quickly ;)
Right back at ya Paul :-*
Yeah, the 75 (in 4-cylinder form anyway) is beautifully balanced, but for me it rolls too much in standard form and I've never been a fan of the low-geared steering. At least the former can be easily fixed. The local Zender importer back in NZ had a 75TS with mild suspension mods, engine tweaked to just over 160bhp, and wider/lower profile tyres, and boy was that quick at track days.
Cheers mate!
Rory
O.K, I know I could not take a standard 33 16V under 2 minutes at Phillip Island. It took me 8 years to get the 1500 Sprint from 2:08 down to 1:59.
Also, I don't think the 164 is a dog, just joking around with the wording of a previous post. My Father used to own one, and I loved driving it around. You might remember I posted "166 mistake" because my Father bought a 166 in limp mode. This car has been running for quite a while now and its also a fantastic car to drive, sit in, and generally just to look at it, absolutely beautiful. Hopefully one day I'll pinch it for the weekend, put some numbers on it.
I'd like to go on record and say, Standard 75TS going under 2 mins?, Not the average racecar driver is going to be able to do that, only the exceptional racecar driver will be able to do that, and the average bloke that does the occasional sprint is not even going to get close. Ive been passing them for years in my taped up sprint.
Cheers
Frank
Taped-up Sprints rule, Frank! And congrats on your 100th post.
Rory
Cheers Rory, I didn't even notice about 100. Shouldn't be posting for the rest of the year. Too late now.
Sounds like you have taped up a coupe yourself. My favorite Alfa, the Alfasud Sprint Veloce 81-82. My daily driver. Puts a smile on my face everyday.
Would you have any Zender rims, the 15x7, they put on sprints, that you want to sell? or know of any for sale as I have two good ones and two cracked.
Frank.
Yeah I've taped-up the odd Sprint in my time. The last Sprint I had was the proverbial barn-find - was traveling with friends in the country & stopped to visit friends of theirs about 300km out of Wellington when I realised I wouldn't make my flight back to Christchurch. Their friends had an old 82 Sprint in a shed on the farm, long story short I bought it for $100 (plus another $200 for a set of the teledial alloys and a bootful of other spares) and drove it home (about 8 hours plus a 4 hour ferry trip). Only had 66,000km on the clock, looked a bit faded but underneath was a solid, genuine low-mileage, never-been-crashed car. Loved it.
The last one I actually taped up was a Sud sedan - it weighed just over 700kg because most of it had rusted away, and I had to tape the boot shut so scrutineers couldn't see how rotten it actually was. Can't believe it ever got through, but I had more fun on the track in that car than any other since.
No, I don't condone that sort of behaviour, and yes I'm far more sensible than that these days ;)
Sorry, can't help with the rims but I'll keep my ears open.
Rory
Thanks Rory.
Thats a great story. You definitely know how to have fun.
Cheers
Frank.
QuoteYou definitely know how to have fun
Absolutely ;)
BTW for anyone still interested, the 0-100mph time for the 75TS was 28.7 seconds, or over 10 seconds longer than the 164Q. Might well balance out the 75s better, err, balance.
Hello, Frank, re the zender wheels. There was a, 85 33ti for sale late last year (sept?) on ebay that had them on, almost got the car just for the 15's! Cost of getting it over (from the west) put me off tho. Dont know if you can contact person through ebay, or if they even still have the car/rims. Username was '1962nitro' item number: #170380096536. Bloke, lived in Northam, WA. Have a Zender brochure with a fully kitted out Sprint in it....
Philpot that sprint looks fantastic, always loved the Zender wheels especially on a sprint.
Frank, doesn't your brother have a set ? why dont you go past his joint while his asleep and swap em over with a set of Ti rims, Im sure he'll get over it
Tony - Lots of interesting debate here, and some good feedback, however we could argue which ones faster in whatever context from arseholes to breakfast, but in the end it will be driving the 3 of them to see which one turns you on the most I suppose. Good luck as searching is half the fun.
There is one more thing though................................ ;D
So it's a daily driver you are after? Not sure why everyone seems so concerned with track times if this is the case.
And the three cars you mention range from small, to medium, to a larger medium, so I'd think it is a question of where you will be driving the car. Is it going to be used primarily for shorter trips around town, or are you going to be covering long distances regularly?
We have a 75 3.0 and 2x164 which get used depending on mood & where we are going. The 75 I find to be a bit uncomfortable on long trips (I'm 5'11") but is by far the most fun around town. I think the interior of the 164 is a far more refined place to be on longer trips, whilst the 75 is kinda awkward and has a cheaper finish. I haven't owned a 33 although I did own an '83 Sud Ti which, again, was a great car around town but not so comfy for long trips. I don't doubt that later 33s are probably a nicer ride though.
I guess personally, even though I occasionally find the 164 to be a bit big (on occasion) around town, I'd pick a 164q as a daily driver of the three. They simply eat up mile after mile and the acceleration, particularly in 2nd and 3rd is addictive.
We've been toying with the idea of selling the 75 actually as it's just not proving to be that practical. Yet the noise it makes and the way it handles corners has, so far, forced me to hold on to it for a little longer!
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3435/4570513137_b42f382c42.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4063/4570493035_78d6719fb1.jpg)
QuoteNot sure why everyone seems so concerned with track times if this is the case
You're right of course, just an interesting diversion.
Great feedback there from someone who actually owns two out of the three for real-world comparison.
Unbelievable!! "Beautiful", "Sexy", "75" .... all together in the same sentence!! ;)
err....better shots hopefully...
Quote from: stustustu123 on June 26, 2010, 03:08:23 AM
So it's a daily driver you are after? Not sure why everyone seems so concerned with track times if this is the case.
You are right there....could give a rats toss bag (to quote Malcolm Blight) about track times. I have no more points remaining on my license as it is.
Believe it or not, my main concern is working air conditioning ! I'd be happy in any of these model Alfas....if the car is a daily driver, you cant live without it in sydney during summer.
I love the excuses people give when they are selling an Alfa and you ask them about the air conditioning.
The ones I have heard this week alone are:
1. I have never tried it, a/c makes me feel sick
2. Not sure if it works, because i prefer to open the sunroof ( yeah this would really help on a 40 degree day!)
3. Pretty sure it works, but it just needs a regas ( how convenient ! )
I was looking at a 164 that went on Ebay today for around $2k and was considering buying it sight unseen, but the guy told me that the a/c just "stopped working" one day for some unexplained reason. My Alfa mechanic said the worse case scenario on this could run me up to $3k, so I didnt buy.
As far as the sort of driving I do goes....its all city stuff....so nimble is good, but i like the comfort of the 164. The 75s still have that 80s style, no frills interior with some very odd design 'features'...like the elec window controls on the roof, the stereo at the BOTTOM of the console ....just to make you have no hope of accessing it while you drive...etc etc....
I have heard that the clutch on a 164Q is VERY heavy.....is this true? My wife will hate the car (and me) if this is the case.
cheers
Not sure anyone mentioned this yet on this thread, but I'm pretty sure the stepper motor cogs (or something) for the air-con always fail on the 164s. I would imagine most of them have been replaced by now, but I believe it's a very expensive and/or time-consuming job to fix.
I'm sure someone more knowledgable than me will chime in, but if you're concerned about air-con I'd do some research on that.
Hey there
I will chime in on this one of the stepper motors in the AC unit of the 164.
The nylon stepper gears wear out and hence your air only comes out to whichever direction the gear is stuck in, ie windscreen, floor or face vent etc.
The metal gears are about $200 to buy and to replace is a PITA, it can be done without removing the dash, access to the stepper motors is limited.
We removed the entire dash to do ours and took several days and lots of swearing and lots of disconnecting and connecting of bits back in.
Done it several years ago, so memory is a bit faded but not a pleasant job.
Alfa workshops can do them better (one in particular I know of) as they have worked out access through the instrument panel and glove box areas.
There is some information on the web, can't remember where now.
Neil
The clutch on my 164 is pretty much the same as the 75 in terms of force required to operate. They do have slightly different bite points no doubt due to differences in the amount of clutch plate remaining!
I know the pedal on the 164s can get very heavy when the master cylinder is on its last legs though - have read a few encounters of this on the Alfabb.
My old white 164 has failed stepper motors on both the hot/cold control, and air distribution drum. I'd bought some brass gears from Alfapro in Canberra but never got around to using them - the car will end up a parts car in the next month or so anyway. But yeah, it looks like a dog of a job to replace unless you want to cut holes in your dashboard to make access easier. I'd prefer not to do that and this is obviously something you'd want to think about with the 164s out there. I reckon the key is to buy one that someone else has already done the stepper refurb/replacement on!!!!
I haven't really looked at the air-con on the 75 but I'm sure it's probably easier/simpler to service than the 164. Plus it doesn't have the 80's designed computer driving it either.
He posted one earlier, but he's rightfully tried to block it from sight by parking a a beautiful, sexy, and fast 164Q in front of it :D :D
Anyway, sorry Tony - I'll shut up now. The guys have given you some good feedback on the notorious stepper motor problem in the 164. It is a major job, best if you can find one that's had this done.
It's also worth remembering that while these cars are now quite affordable ultimately they were originally around 80k new and many of the servicing and repair costs are in keeping with a car of that value. The switchable dampers are a good example of this - I've heard you could be up for some big dollars if these give you problems. Of the three cars you're looking at the Q would probably be my pick as a road car, but it would easily be the biggest money pit if you buy badly.
Good luck with your search.
Cheers
Rory
You too mate ;D
All the best
R
Paul know what you mean regarding the fuel quality plug in the 75TS, refer to this link here for more on this
http://www.alfaclubvic.org.au/forum/index.php?topic=3940.0
I've got some road tests of the Alfa 75 TS & 3 litre & the 33 16V, once I get them out of the archives Ill post them up, some interesting reading in there
Discostu :) please more photos of your gorgeous 75 3 litre looks like its in outstanding condition
Interesting...at the risk of asking the obvious now, does the 33 1.7 16v have a 'Fuel Plug' that anyone knows of? Haven't started to research myself yet...just checking to see if i'm covering ground trod before....Any feedback would be great! Cheers, Phil.
Is this equivalent to talking to ones self? Responding to my last query, visited 'Craigs Place' and just looked up Bosch Motronic ML 4.1 Circuit Diagram for a Nuova 33 1.7 16V. Lo and behold, relay S30 does exist under the guise of 'Motronic Control Unit Switch Connector'...has any other 1.7 16V owner tried this change of wiring? Where is the thing? Only ever intend to put 98 RON in, only 95 if cant get 98...(ie in the country)
Remember asking an 'italian car specialist' what fuel he ran when he had his 33 16v, and whether there was a knock sensor or, benefit of running 95/98....he just said no to the former, and that he just ran it on 91 to the later, even though it pinged occasionally....Struth!
Cant wait to try and find the thing...!
Hi Tony,
Took my 33 16V for a drive over the weekend and the A/C doesn't work. Sorry I cant be more helpful with that apart from suggesting to send Martin Sifredi, the 33 register captain, a PM and ask him about it, very helpful. He has an exceptional example, and I'm sure he would let you know how the A/C is supposed to operate in a 33 16V.
You mentioned about the clutch pedals in some cars being a bit heavy. Generally as you would have experienced, the 33 have a very light clutch, although they to can get heavier as the car ages. I have replaced clutches in suds and 33 which have been heavy, and once the new thrust bearing is replaced and re-greased, the clutch pedal feel returns to light again.
Cheers
P.S: Why haven't you 75 blokes mentioned that when you go to the Nurburgring, the Alfas they use as hire track cars are 75ts, arent they?
Philpot,
Haven't tried it, nor have I heard of it when asking around. I will have a look into it. I have absolutely no information on the 16V electronics.
By the way, I always run my Alfa road cars on 98. 95 makes them ping the way I like to drive them. 91...No thanks, cant drive that slow.
Thanks for posting that info.
Quote from: paul edwards on June 28, 2010, 10:15:55 AM
Hi stustustu123
mate come on, pic of the beautiful, sexy, 75 pleeeease we are all waiting ;D ::) ;D
l just love Alfas
Cheers Paul
I don't really have many of it but here it is from a better angle (less beige).
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4040/4570503059_c99dcd85e5.jpg)
:)
Thanks Frank, found the red 'Fuel Quality Plug' connector (on my spares/wrecked car) in the Alfa 33 16V it's in the ancilliary tub, passenger side, left of battery, coming out of wiring loom heading into firewall and to computer. Wreck didn't have any relay, blue(91RON- with Catalytic), yellow(95RON with Cat) or otherwise in it. Will check road car tomorrow when bus/train to melb, road 16v is in there at mo, pick up tomorrow (thank god, tis been 6 weeks....) Will ask Patrick his opinion of whole thing before messin with it....been a bloody epic to deal with my 'New' car bought 3 months ago. Turns out it was modded, chip, airflow meter, god knows what else.....If it had been done well then fine, but used heaps of fuel, ran way too rich, and sooted up its cat/exhaust.
Would've been good to have known this before buying, like when had pre-purchase done by another, alfa specialist........
Oh the bills, The BILLS !!!!
Car, Injection and wiring diagrams and manuals are available for download at: http://alfaromeo33.extra.hu/
Cheers ,Phil
Poor Tony,
Those beautiful cars from stustustu123.
Such a difficult decision, but I finally have the answer...A THREE CAR GARAGE!.
Cheers
Quote from: Frank Musco on June 28, 2010, 10:46:24 PM
Such a difficult decision, but I finally have the answer...A THREE CAR GARAGE!.
The perfect answer - why didn't we think of this earlier? ;D
The most important thing with the air conditioning in the 164 or 75 is to use ER12 gas in them because it is the direct replacement for the original CFC based R12. R34 does not work, despite what some air conditioner guys will try to tell you. Don't let them tell you ER12 is banned or dangerous because it is neither. In a 75 it is freezing. With the 164 make sure the recirc flap under the drivers side windscreen is not stuck open and letting hot air in like mine was. On the subject of 75s, the Potenziatas have the same engine as the SZ/ES30 and 164Q with the high compression 10:1 pistons, Motronic EFI and hot cams, producing just over 200BHP. I am having mine rebuilt at the moment and there is no doubt about it. They also have a 3.73 diff instead of the 3.54. Standard 164s and 3 litre 75s have 9:1 compression and normal cams, with LJet EFI on the 75 and Motronic on the 164.
Quote from: oz3litre on July 15, 2010, 03:59:36 AM
On the subject of 75s, the Potenziatas have the same engine as the SZ/ES30 and 164Q with the high compression 10:1 pistons, Motronic EFI and hot cams, producing just over 200BHP. I am having mine rebuilt at the moment and there is no doubt about it. They also have a 3.73 diff instead of the 3.54. Standard 164s and 3 litre 75s have 9:1 compression and normal cams, with LJet EFI on the 75 and Motronic on the 164.
Are you sure about the Potenziata having 10:1 CR and just over 200hp? I've never been able to find hard facts about the Potenziata engine and always thought it was a 3 litre with a 9.5:1 CR, Motronic 4.1 and slightly better cams than the older L Jetronic 3 litre.
http://autospeed.com.au/cms/A_2255/article.html "Interestingly, the 3.0 V6 engine was upgraded to Alfa 164-like specifications during 1990. The up-spec engine lifts the ante to a substantial 141kW and 250Nm – its no surprise that this beast can reach 100 km/h in around 7 – 8 seconds! Rear-drive and a standard LSD mean fast getaways are easy. Note that these later-model Alfa 75s are commonly called "Potenziatas".
I think you're right Duk. I know the 164Q engine wasn't the same spec as the ES30 (200bhp v 210bhp), not so sure about the 75 Potenziata but I don't recall it ever receiving either state of tune. Could be wrong.
Perhaps in your mind Paul ;)
Nice to be sparring with someone who doesn't take himself too seriously ;D
Cheers mate!
Rory
Yeah paul I think the newer gen Alfas are a bit more delicate than the old ones, I had this discussion with Frank a couple of weeks ago about 147's, but happy to talk further in another thread. Can give you my experience, Rory would like to get your feedback on the 156.
The 75 Potenziata info seems a little sketchy, yes its got Motronic 4.1, different cams and 141kw against 136kw for the standard 75 3.0 and 145kw for the 164Q. Once I find the June 1991 road test of the 75 Potenziata v Audi 90 v Peugeot 405Mi16 v Citroen BXGT I will post it.
The wheels test car posted a disappointing 0 - 100 in 9.7 secs and the standing 400m in 16.7 way off the pace, but the journo's at the time complained of massive clutch slip off the line with this particular car so the expectation was it would be a fair bit quicker, given that in the rolling starts it tore the others a new one and was an absolute rocket with a top speed of over 220 kays to boot, talk about a flying brick!
Quote from: paul edwards on July 16, 2010, 01:10:57 PM
::) ::)164s :P :P, Ok very nice motor but you can have that in a nice 75 3lt. and it drives like a real Alfa Romeo should, not like a boat with 200hp outboard motor bolted to the front bumper.
Maybe they should include a fishing rod in the boot ;)
Forza la 75 !!!!!
Quote from: Duk on July 15, 2010, 06:30:08 PM
Are you sure about the Potenziata having 10:1 CR and just over 200hp? I've never been able to find hard facts about the Potenziata engine and always thought it was a 3 litre with a 9.5:1 CR, Motronic 4.1 and slightly better cams than the older L Jetronic 3 litre.
http://autospeed.com.au/cms/A_2255/article.html "Interestingly, the 3.0 V6 engine was upgraded to Alfa 164-like specifications during 1990. The up-spec engine lifts the ante to a substantial 141kW and 250Nm – its no surprise that this beast can reach 100 km/h in around 7 – 8 seconds! Rear-drive and a standard LSD mean fast getaways are easy. Note that these later-model Alfa 75s are commonly called "Potenziatas".
I am absolutely sure about those figures for several reasons. One is that my engine is currently in pieces and it definitely has the 10:1 pistons. It also definitely has the SZ/164Q cams as does my wrecked Potenziata from which I pulled the cams last week. They exactly match the pictures and specs posted by Jim K on the AlfaBB. The second reason is that Jim K is currently finishing his book on modifying the V6 and has all the microfiche records and has bought and dismantled numerous engines. He says that the Potenziata engine is exactly the same as the SZ, minus the stainless steel headers and that all the part numbers match. You will also find that the fuel pressure regulator on the Potenziata is higher than the normal 3 litre by the way. I know because I have taken one off the other car to replace with a brand new 3 litre one and they were different. You can only read the writing on them when you take them off. Another fact from Jim K is that the lift on the cams is actually 10.4 mm not 10.1mm as incorrectly stated by Alfa due to a clerical error. The standard 164 and 75 cams have 9.1 mm lift. The final drive is also definitely 3.73:1 I have checked it using Craig from Melbourne's spreadsheet and checking my speed against the tacho numerous times. I also own a standard 3 litre 75 and a 164 to compare with. It makes sense to me that the Potenziata has the same engine as the SZ because they came out at about the same time and before the 164Q. Why would Alfa make some sort of in between engine when they already had the high performance one in the North South configuration for the SZ? It took me a lot of research to track all this down because, as you say, it is hard to find the facts, especially since Alfa didn't change the driver's manuals. Having my engine in pieces confirmed what I had already worked out. Another thing I just remembered is that the rev limit is much higher on the Potenziata.
Gidday oz3litre
You're obviously more knowledgable on this subject than I am. I do know, however, that the power Alfa quoted for the 164Q was 10bhp down on the SZ, and remember reading at the time what the differences between the two were. It did relate to the engine spec rather than differences in the exhaust, but can't recall the details. Thinking back though, I do have a vague recollection of USA-spec 75 3-litres (or rather, 3-liters ;D ) having a power boost late in the model life-cycle for the Potenziatas. Then again, this could just be Alzheimers kicking in. Then again, this could just be Alzheimers kicking in ::)
Pep & Paul - yeah the 156/147 range were not the last word in reliability, though the newer cars seem to be much more robust. The picture is distorted by the Selespeed issues, take that out of the equation and it's really not so bleak. I have had 3 156s - 2 Selespeeds (1 as a company car) and my current V6, worst fault I've had (come to think of it, the only fault I've had) was a blown heater hose.
In terms of the ownership & driving experience, I think they're wonderful cars. No, power-oversteer is out of the question (unless you're driving in reverse ::) ) but dynamically they're very good with razor-sharp steering, strong brakes, great body-control, and wonderful engines. As is true with most Alfa models the 4-cylinder is the better handler with less weight over the front, but I have the Eibach springs, shocks and anti-roll bars installed and it's now an awesome thing to punt. Let me know anytime you're in Brisneyland and you're welcome to have a go. I wouldn't expect it to to convert you from your rear-drivers but you might be a little surprised at how much fun it is.
Pep, I have a copy of roadtest of the 75 3.0 from Autocar with much better acceleration figures than Wheels achieved, I'll post it on here when I get a chance. 0-60mph in 7.5 sec .... or nearly as quick as the 156 V6 :P
Love to continue this but I have a weekend of yard-work ahead of me :( Take is easy fullas!
Rory
Nice. I'm very jealous - would love to have another toy but circumstances just don't allow at the moment. See you on the track some time in the future ;D
Quote from: L4OMEO on July 17, 2010, 09:26:58 AM
Gidday oz3litre
You're obviously more knowledgable on this subject than I am. I do know, however, that the power Alfa quoted for the 164Q was 10bhp down on the SZ, and remember reading at the time what the differences between the two were. It did relate to the engine spec rather than differences in the exhaust, but can't recall the details. Thinking back though, I do have a vague recollection of USA-spec 75 3-litres (or rather, 3-liters ;D ) having a power boost late in the model life-cycle for the Potenziatas. Then again, this could just be Alzheimers kicking in. Then again, this could just be Alzheimers kicking in ::)
Rory
Hi Rory. The Americans only ever had the L-Jet 75s with the 188 BHP engine and 3.54 diff. They only got 75s for about two-three years. I am in constant contact with them on the AlfaBB and have read countless discussions. They would love to have got Potenziatas. Some of them have upgraded with Q, (or "S" as they call them), cams and a very few others have put 24 valve motors in. They also sometimes put 4.1 LSDs in them. One guy over there is from South Africa and is mates with Dawie Devilliers from Glenwood Motors and has put a modified late model Glenwood 24V 3 litre with GTA cams in his street car and is building a 3.7 litre, all out racing 75, with BMW 3 Getrag trans and other stuff. We're talking serious money here! Devilliers has a GTV6 twin turbo race car for sale which has over 700 BHP at the wheels! That has the M3 box and a heap of other lovely stuff. Apparently if it wasn't a race car you could drive it on the street.
Wow, interesting stuff. Those Americans really are into their Alfas.Those are incredible numbers, bet the $$$ are equally incredible!
I do remember reading a road test of a 75 Potenziata in Road & Track, which is what the comment in my last post was based on, but it must have been a Euro-spec car they were driving.
Are you doing anything special in your rebuild or is it going back together stock?
Quote from: L4OMEO on July 17, 2010, 02:13:44 PM
Are you doing anything special in your rebuild or is it going back together stock?
We are doing a few tweaks too. Might as well while it is apart.
For sure. I never met a kilowatt I didn't like ;D
Hope it goes well, keep us posted.
Hi Oz3litre
I guess you've unlocked some of the mysteries to the Poteziata engine spec, good stuff since this is one model there's not a lot of info on and from
what your saying spec wise it sounds like a bit of a factory hot rod. Does anyone know how many were imported ? From what production year ?
90, 91 ?
Here a link to a road test of a 75 Milano 3.0 from 1988, its yank spec but still pretty quick and includes Recaro's !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb-xGNaqDLs
Quote from: pep105 on July 18, 2010, 08:43:40 PM
Hi Oz3litre
I guess you've unlocked some of the mysteries to the Poteziata engine spec, good stuff since this is one model there's not a lot of info on and from
what your saying spec wise it sounds like a bit of a factory hot rod. Does anyone know how many were imported ? From what production year ?
90, 91 ?
Here a link to a road test of a 75 Milano 3.0 from 1988, its yank spec but still pretty quick and includes Recaro's !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb-xGNaqDLs
I haven't managed to track down how many were imported as yet. I will keep working on that. Someone on the AlfaBB mentioned a figure of 30, but they were guessing. I doubt it was more than that and it could have been less. The trouble is that Alfa's figures include all 3 litre cars and don't differentiate between them. The first were in 1990. There must be someone who was working for Alfa or a dealer who knows, but I haven't found them yet.