105 GT early upgrades - what can be improved?

AikenDrum105 · September 20, 2013, 09:26:32 PM

Quote from: Divano Veloce on September 20, 2013, 08:03:51 PM
A pusher Thermo fan frees up a couple of hundred watts but more importantly with the stock fan shrowd removed you can access the crank pully with a socket

+1

Divano Veloce · September 23, 2013, 10:05:10 AM

Apparently the 105 chassis was strengthened around the engine crossmember with the introduction of the 1750 (and could probably do with even more strengthening). Reinforcing the rear to prevent kinked arches is a must. If I had another go at a coupe I'd do away with the std door handles and use replica gta handles instead. The std handles will eventually damage the doorskin as they are stiff and poorly attached.

Relays on high current loads

DaveT · September 23, 2013, 10:30:15 AM

The kinking of the rear arches is an interesting one, I'd never heard of it before until I went to look at a 64 Sprint GT, really nice car but it did have these little bulges/creases in the rear arches, which kind of ruined the lines and made me wonder how much it would cost to fix them properly.

Apparently the rear can be damaged like this just by having a heavy boot load of stuff and going over a nasty bump.

Anyone have examples of how to strengthen the back end to prevent this?

pancho · September 23, 2013, 02:59:35 PM

good points made gents.

I haven't seen anyone really do anything super special to the rear of the cars for rear body stiffness - so I'd be interested to see somethign that might help. The boot floor is only spot welded to the rear apron and also the inner wheel arches and rear bulkhead - not the guards themelves. I've had some work done at the 'rails to boot floor' area with some stitch welds - though this won't help the boot floor much. If you take into consideration the limited welded support areas and thin metal - the fuel tank would be ~40kg plus the spare wheel ~5kg and preseto stick siomething in there and hit a big bump - pootang! creases......

Door skins can have a metal plate chemically bonded/attached to the inside to provide a more solid fixing point. Invisible fix.

Paul Gulliver · September 23, 2013, 04:14:11 PM

QuoteI haven't seen anyone really do anything super special to the rear of the cars for rear body stiffness - so I'd be interested to see somethign that might help

We can all get a little bit precious about the rear wheel arch bending through not being stiffened, but my personal experience was they were still a reasonably tough little car that could do just about anything I just found this old photo of my 105 GTV circa 1976. I use to do a lot of catamaran sailing back then with the Alfa as the tow car . The Alfa towed the boat to South Australia a couple of times and up to Sydney with no problems . I also had a mate that had a Austin bugeye sprite as a tow vehicle for his catamaran. Unfortunately aerodynamics took over at about 50 mph. But that's another story. ( Those were the days )

Gully

Dan H · September 23, 2013, 04:17:50 PM

Vin Sharp at Pace Engineering makes a set of fairly unobtrusive strengtheners that are bolted up under the rear arches. From memory about $150 the pair (a few years ago) and simple to fit.

If you're an absolute stickler for the car being original then it might not be the solution for you - then again if you were, this is probably not the thread you'd be reading!

My understanding is that it is the later cars without the deeper arches that usually have the problems but its probably not such a bad bit of insurance in any case for any 105 coupe - the creases in the rear guards are a right pain to get rid of properly.

DaveT · September 23, 2013, 04:37:33 PM

Quote...I use to do a lot of catamaran sailing back then with the Alfa as the tow car . The Alfa towed the boat to South Australia a couple of times and up to Sydney with no problem...

Perhaps that's the answer...towing a boat...pulls out the creases!

McAnnik · September 26, 2013, 07:00:14 PM

Good one DaveT, Your probably more right than wrong!! I will mention here.....installing grease nipples on lower wishbone sealed bushes. Good idea? or not! If this post gets to air, (problem with sending) I will explain more...................................W.T.S.

McAnnik · September 26, 2013, 07:37:45 PM

O.K.! It works, now that I have your attention,What I have suggested has been done to quite a few Alfa's over the years, mine included. Is it a good idea? Well, In my case the car was modded in this fashion some years ago by a well known Alfa service centre. They had drilled through from the bottom of the lower wishbone and through the casing of the sealed bush and then tapped the hole for a grease nipple. I decided to renew the bushes as a matter of course as logical thinking sez they are 40 years old so renew 'em. on removing the "old" bushes, one finds that they were not as stuffed as first thought and could well have been left in place but, they were not in good condition because of the grease service point. Inspection showed that three of the holes had not been completely drilled through to the joint itself so NO grease ever got to them! The forth hole had been drilled and lube had reached it but so had the drilling swarf that then caused the very problem that was trying to be erased by the insertion of the G/nipple! So, I guess the reason for the extra grease is to eliminate wear. Good idea, so I drilled and tapped the steel rounded end caps that cover the fixing nuts and fitted right angle G/nipples. I am not expecting to give these a regular squirt of grease, rather , i would think a light top up with the g/ gun about every 20000K. There! now you have another reason to grease the wishbone bushes as well as the nipple you put on the steering idler box. You did fit one there .......Right?

And a P.S. Is this one of the mods suggested by Branko that was thought of to cure a non existent problem that needed to be fixed ,"just in case"? And,yes indeed, I do like the ball race conversion on the steering idler shaft! I am seriously thinking of that one. But mine is far from stuffed at the moment.................................................

AikenDrum105 · September 27, 2013, 10:24:16 AM

At the expense of a little more weight, you could have some side-intrustion protection added to the doors... I'm fairly sure the 2000 GTVs had a rippled panel welded in there for this. I've seen a pair of tubular bars welded in (and keyed to the door jamb ) as well... there's a bit of room in there between the glass and the outer skin anyway.

Davidm1600 · September 27, 2013, 04:18:02 PM

Quote from: pancho on September 23, 2013, 02:59:35 PM
good points made gents.

I haven't seen anyone really do anything super special to the rear of the cars for rear body stiffness - so I'd be interested to see somethign that might help. The boot floor is only spot welded to the rear apron and also the inner wheel arches and rear bulkhead - not the guards themelves. I've had some work done at the 'rails to boot floor' area with some stitch welds - though this won't help the boot floor much. If you take into consideration the limited welded support areas and thin metal - the fuel tank would be ~40kg plus the spare wheel ~5kg and preseto stick siomething in there and hit a big bump - pootang! creases......

Door skins can have a metal plate chemically bonded/attached to the inside to provide a more solid fixing point. Invisible fix.

Too true re the relative weakness of the rear end of the 105 coupe but I was always under the impression that in fact this was a deliberate engineering design intention, that being it represented a crumple zone to protect the cabin and occupants in the risk of a major rear end. Alfa being ahead of the game in this respect. But of course it does mean that the rear arch is liable relatively easily to suffering the dreaded kink in the panel.

Therefore to try to engineer in additional stiffness into the rear of the coupe similarly would be a mistake as it would defeat the very purpose intended.

I could be wrong in my understanding ??

AikenDrum105 · September 27, 2013, 04:41:01 PM

Quote from: Davidm1750 on September 27, 2013, 04:18:02 PM
I could be wrong in my understanding ??

If the intention was to gently crumple you up nice and cozy with the fuel tank - then no...

There's no doubt the 105 coupe has crumple zones.... how deliberately they were engineered is the carborundrum. (a really hard conundrum..)

DaveT · October 01, 2013, 09:54:34 AM

I've been reading a fair bit lately on the alfabb about the Burman steering boxes cracking and one or two instances of them breaking open. I assume this problem isn't isolated to LHD steering boxes?

Does anyone make a modification to the RHD boxes to address this problem?

McAnnik · October 01, 2013, 08:47:06 PM

LHD Montreals suffered from Burman steering box problems as you describe, RHD did not as the steering box was a ZF. I don't know if this is the case with RHD 105's (which the Montreal basically was!) Someone out there (who is more 'with it' than I am) can answer that one!..........................................I just realized, this is my 105................th post!

McAnnik · October 03, 2013, 08:37:28 AM

Further research delving into various books and Autobook W/S manuals explains that 105s were fitted with Burman and ZF steering boxes in both LHD and RHD forms. No specific years or models were identified however a Owners Handbook i have for a '74 2000 GT states that the model could have been fitted with either steering box, depending one assumes, on what the Factory had on hand at the time. Browsing my edition of the Montreal. The Essential Companion. (www.velocebooks.com) tells that Burman steering boxes fitted to LHD cars were made using an inferior grade of aluminium in the s/box casting that would crack at the mounting lugs and split in the casing itself when stressed during cornering forces. The use of wide sticky tyres was partially blamed for the problem.