Donor?

[snurdf]

Hi everyone, as I can't afford a Hawk kit at the moment, I've decided to start the ball rolling by selling my present car & buy an Alfa which I can use until I can afford the kit at which point it will become the donor.

The question is, which Alfa?

Do all the 3litre's have the same engine mounts?

Are there any preference for power's sake?

Are the 2.5s worth bothering with?

Sorry about so many questions but then again you've all been there.
I'm assuming the brakes from the different models will be compatible.

Thanks,

Roy.

[strat6v]

It all depends on what you use it for. If you want to go rallying then best bet would be a 156 2.5l or 164 3.0 12v. Road use either a 164 3.0, 12 or 24v or if you can stretch a little further, a 3.2 gta (unlikely to get a cheap driveable donor). I think Hawk can supply mounts for all as a retrofit on an earlier chassis or they are easily fabricated at home. 5 and 6 speed boxes have a different mount and gearshift mechanism, again gerry would be the one to speak to. Not yet seen Gerry's 6 speed linkage but i have made my own.

[chris.richard]

Also think about a Lancia Kappa 24v V6, see pictures of Sando's engine bay. it gives you a Lancia logo'd engine and is the same engine as the 164. Rare though.

[Sando]

Another thought for the engine is a 24v 3.0l 166 or GTV 5 speed would be easiest transplant (or as above the 156 2.5) if one was at the right money.

The advantage with these later (98-) engines is that the water pipes are the gearbox side and easier to plumb and the cam belt fully wraps around the rear head exhaust pulley properly too.
The later box on the 156/147 (different size Diff/CWP) also now has an Alfa LSD available at the right money, but is cable operated so a new linkage as John has done, needs to be thought out and made.

Other donor parts on a 166 /GTV/156 I'm not so sure about, most bits can be got individually anyway, but the later engines are a good option.

Rob

[chris.richard]

Don't later engines have the buggeration of immobilisers etc.?

[strat6v]

Simple if you get the whole car as a donor. Later v6's have the oil pump driven differently, not by the timing belt. This then allows the belt to wrap a lot further around the pulleys, hopefully not leading to belts jumping. I know there are a lot of 2.5 24v's about that have broken belts but this isn't really caused by misuse, more by lack of maintenance. I think alfa's belt change schedule was 72000 miles,(too long imho) now changed to 36000?(after a stack of warranty claims) Personally, i have never run any vehicle past 35000 without changing a belt, common sense really.

So as Chris and Bobster have said, a 24v Gtv would also make a good donor. Also a 156 or 147 would yield 5 stud drive flanges, the shafts may fit too but i haven't checked mine just yet, thats one job for this weekend.

You also get the big runners on a 166 3.0 or gtv ;) but the management system may not be suitable?

[snurdf]

Thanks guys, this is all extremely helpful. I was looking on the trader last night & there're loads of 156 2.5s going at decent money, good condition ones too.
Could someone give me the power figures for the different engines please. I wouldn't like to spend alot of time & money building a car that was a bit dissapointing in the power department when I finally got it running.

Cheers,

Roy.

[AndyH]

Hi,

You'll be bound by the emissions of your donor car engine, so a car with a CAT will suggest that you'd need to fit a CAT to you Kit (At least to pass SVA).
Not a lot of room.

I opted for a 1989 Alfa 164 3.0L V6 (12V).. No cat. Once I pass SVA I can change to a later engine. I've also used brake calipers, handbrake and gearlever.

Loom is a fairly easy strip out the Alfa.

Worth thinking about.

Andrew

[Matt No VAT]

I also went for the V6 3Ltr 12v engine. Easily available and cheap too, so cheap I have a complete spare "everything" in case the first one lets go.

Easy to work on (IMO), no messing with cats and lambda's etc. 188BHP according to Alfa, but a few mods gets one over 200 easily.

Saying that, even with a standard engine its quick :D ;) :D

[Swamprat33]

it is worth considering the stock 12v 3.0 164 engine from a pre-cat car. You will not need a cat, and can then once SVA and registration are out of the way, upgrade to a newer engine but not use a cat.

Cheers

Tim

[snurdf]

Looks like the main thing is get it through the SVA with a catless engine, then your options aren't limited afterwards.
I have absolutely no knowlege about the SVA so I'm going to ask the question-can you not use a later engine without the cat? Do they check exactly what engine your using & if your exhaust should or not be catted(for want of a better word)

Roy

[chris.richard]

Do they check exactly what engine your using & if your exhaust should or not be catted(for want of a better word)

Yes, sorry.

[Chris J]

Do they check exactly what engine your using & if your exhaust should or not be catted(for want of a better word)

Roy

Roy,
From the moment you land home from passing the SVA test with the 'old school cat-less engine', you can change it for a modern (catted) type engine (but without the cat).

As I understand it, you can get away with this simply because the car will never need SVA testing again and there is no post test policing of SVA standards.

This fact that vehicles only need to be SVA legal for the duration of the once in a life time test, is why I personally don't value the test. You could argue that a vehicle only has to be MOT(able) for the duration of that test, but at least it's once a year? I just see the SVA test as a farce. Not because of the reason it's there (to make the likes of kit cars safer), but because it's only enforced for less than a day in the car's life.

Which Alfa engine to use? The old 3.0 12v is a good engine and cheap. It's the one I'd go for because it's the most proven, most compact and most reliable(?). The trouble with the 12v is that all the old potential 164 12v donors have done a huge mileage, and the 12v isn't the most powerful. So with that in mind, maybe a low mileage 3.0 24v GTV with some body damage (or similar non engine related issue) to make it cheap, would be the best bet?

Your idea of buying a whole Alfa V6 engined car and running it first has got to be the sensible thing to do. That seems to be way most people go.

[snurdf]

Yeah I agree with you about the test Chris, it is a bit of a farce. I was thinking 156 'cause there's loads about at the right money but it's a bit of a pain with the cat situation. Somebody mentioned that there isn't much room for one either.
Trouble is I don't really want to run an old Alfa indeffinitelly which could end up needing a bit spending on it.

Catch 22,

Roy.

[strat6v]

3.0 gtv 24v has a pair of cats built into the headers.Check and make sure though, same as my gta i think?. Also the GTA has a second set of cats built into the exhaust pipes too, probably to meet very stringent euro emissions. All said and done the gta has 250bhp stock, aftermarket ecu and a few other mods would give 270bhp- ish. That would be expensive :eek: to attain from a 12v, then you'd still have to buy a 24v upgrade after, to change it, plus the extra work. Suddenly becomes an expensive and time consuming method?

[Chris J]

A 24v 2.5 156 engined Hawk has been built. I doubt you'd call it slow?, and like you say, plenty of them, cheap and sometimes with low miles. Maybe a good cheap 'fit and forget' option if you're happy with the not too shabby power output and it's ok to keep as standard.

What is the power of a 24v 2.5? Phil Jordan's 12v 2.5 isn't exactly slow and I'm guessing that's a similar output being pre cat?

'Can't argue with the GTA's standard 250bhp and 3.2 capacity, but they're so thin on the ground?

[Chris J]

Three Cloverleafs here:

http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/161090.htm

http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/161059.htm

http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/159401.htm

All high mileage, as usual.

[strat6v]

There was a gta engine on ebay recently. Dare say the identity may have been available too £ 800.00 If i'd had the cash it would be in my garage now!!

[Martin K]

From what I can find, the 2.5 24 valve engine puts out 191 bhp @ 6500 rpm with peak torque of 236 Nm at 5000 rpm. To get more out of them requires larger runners and a chip. After these mods Squadra claim 211 bhp @ 6500 and peak torque of 242 Nm at 5000 rpm.

Like most 4 valve per cylinder engines, VE below 4000 rpm is poor with consequently weak torque figures and as power is dropping off after 6500 rpm (down to 195 bhp @ 7000 rpm) I would not choose this engine for a rally car as you would have to keep the revs up above 4000 at all times to be quick - not easy with standard gear ratios I would think.

The best standard 3 litre 12 valve from the GTV Spider gives 190 bhp at 5500 rpm but makes 239 Nm torque at 3000 rpm rising to 257 Nm between 3500 and 5000 rpm - marvelous for a rally car! With a chip from Squadra this can be improved to 201 bhp @ 5500 while still delivering 195 at 6000 rpm. Torque improves too with 239 Nm available at just 2500 rpm, 2779 Nm peak at 4000 but still producing 270 Nm at 5000 falling to 257 Nm at 5500 rpm.

I daresay any decent chip would give similar results.

If the 24 valve engines are confirmed not to be acceptable in rally cars (and I can't think of a reason why they will be permitted to be honest) and with the choice of gearing so limited, I would choose the torque of the 3 litre over the 24 valver's BHP any day of the week if I was choosing an engine for rallying.

For the road? A 24 valve 3 litre (or bigger!) of course...... I get just about 250 bhp from my 3 litre QV with a Superchip and decent (98 octane) fuel.

[Chris J]

Do you not rate the 2.5 24v for any use Martin?

[snurdf]

Do you not rate the 2.5 24v for any use Martin?
I'd like to know this too. When I build my HF it's going to be more or less a daily driver. It'll probably have an odd do on the track but it's not to be a track car as such.

Roy.

[chris.richard]

3L 12v on the left, 3L 24vQV on the right. Black line standard, red line with Squadra chip

[snurdf]

Right bare with me on this one. The way I'm reading this the 3ltrhas a bit more low down torque, hitting 260 @ 2500 revs where as the 2.5ltr only reaches 240 @ 2500 revs.
But the 3ltr seems to have a large flat spot till about 3500then picks up till it peaks about 4500.
The 2.5 ltr keeps climbing at 2500 till till about 4500 where it tails off.

So basically the question would be how much difference does that bit more early torque mean when your actually driving the car? And how noticeable is the flat spot?

Roy.

[Chris J]

3L 12v on the left, 24vQV on the right. Black line standard, red line with Squadra chip

Chris
Is the QV you're referring to a 3.0 QV?

[chris.richard]

Both sets of graphs are for 3L engines. 12v on the left, 24v QV on the right

Here's the 2.5L curves

[snurdf]

I'm still being tempted to go for a 156 2.5 as 190 bhp I would imagine to be pretty quick in a car so light. I'm not thinking of rallying it so the 156 should make a nice road driving car.
Also there's nothing to stop me putting a decat pipe on between mot's(or nothing I can think of).
Am I correct in thinking that that if I go this route that my brakes will bolt straight on and possibly a few other bit will be useful?

Roy

[Swamprat33]

The 156 V6 is also a good practical car as well.

[strat6v]

Loads of other bits will be usefull. Bear with me on the hub/driveshaft bit just yet. My Hawk has a fair amount of 156 bits on already and the list is growing.

As Sando has pointed out, there is a torsen diff available that fits the 156 box, cheap at £ 250.00. Next one on my shopping list. wether it will stand the power output is another thing, time will tell :confused:

[Chris J]

The 156 V6 is also a good practical car as well.

That's a good point Tim.
No great lolloping 164 to cope with and park. Although I've heard they're quite agile for such a big car?

[mudhut]

Although I've heard they're quite agile for such a big car?

Only if the suspension is in good condition, otherwise it can be a bit scary in such a big car...

[Sando]

A couple of other thoughts about the later engines.
Firstly Alternator. Big, big advantage on the later 24v 3.0 and 2.5 engines is that this is on the opposite side. It gets close to the anti roll bar mounting on a Hawk, nothing that cant be sorted with a hacksaw and file, but otherwise fits perfectly and if converting from a 4 pot engine, it negates the need to move the chassis diagonal and alter the fuel tank. All you need is a shorter belt if you are not needing Aircon and PS.

Second thought was about immobilisers and complex standard ECU wiring. I'm completely sold on the aftermarket ECU route now, as one or two more are have done / are doing too. I'd suggest that as the way forward to overcome the above issues, but would also help get best power and torque and smoothest curves from any of the engines being discussed and would be mapped to suit your exact inlet / exhaust set up.


cheers
Rob

[Timberwolf]

I'll agree with that handling point, my new donor, 164 super 24v has 138k suspension and it is 'interesting' in the handling department. Should hone the reactions ready for the strat!

Having trawled the ebay and every other site regarding possible donors my recent experience is that if you have the budget you can have virtually anything you want, however as the budget goes down so the options decrease. I wanted a 3.0l 24v cos they are cheap, (about the same as a 12v) and with a bit of searching can be had as low as £500 (mine). Up to£1000 there are loads. Low mileage starts above £1500. I'm not going to put a heap of mileage on my strat so an engine with 90k wasn't a problem as long as it had been looked after. I just wanted a bit of tax and mot so I could 'get to know' the car before i got out the spanners.

Maybe a plan of action could be:
1. Decide what your budget is, 2. decide what you want out of the car, 3. find out which avaiable model fits no.2 4. go find the donor that fits those criteria. Thats more or less what I did. I'll let you know in a bit whether it worked........ :)

I hope you enjoy the process how ever you go about it, it's all part of the fun!

good luck

[snurdf]

I like the idea of an aftermarket ecu. No immobiliser probs, you can get the fueling bang on & in a case like my own you could have two fuel maps, one for the cat And one for without.

[Martin K]

Do you not rate the 2.5 24v for any use Martin?

Looking at the figures - not really. Can you see any real benefit? Except that it's closer to the original 2.4 capacity...

The graphs from Squadra for the 2.5 24 valve engine show the difference - should someone have the skill to post them here!

The other thing to consider is the cost of "upgrading". No-one, it seems, is ever happy with the engine they first put in the car. Increasing output from the 3 litre 12 valve will always produce more power for the same effort, and when it comes to cams, valves etc you only need half as many, so half the cost!

I'm not saying that the 2.5 litre engine won't make a decent performing car, I just don't think it has any real performance or driveability advantages, that's all.

[Martin K]

Right bare with me on this one. The way I'm reading this the 3ltrhas a bit more low down torque, hitting 260 @ 2500 revs where as the 2.5ltr only reaches 240 @ 2500 revs.
But the 3ltr seems to have a large flat spot till about 3500then picks up till it peaks about 4500.
The 2.5 ltr keeps climbing at 2500 till till about 4500 where it tails off.

So basically the question would be how much difference does that bit more early torque mean when your actually driving the car? And how noticeable is the flat spot?

Roy.

A flat spot in a torque curve is not as bad as it may look. It does not represent a decrease in output, but a constant level of output, which you would only notice as a constant stream of acceleration power, not a decrease.

What you would notice is that there is 20%+ more torque between 2500 and 6000 rpm from the 3 litre 12 valve over the 24 valve 2.5 litre, which should translate to quicker acceleration.

Also, poodling around at 3000 rpm will be much more satisfying with the 12 valve. With the 24 valve engine - even a 3 litre, just jumping on the throttle at that engine speed can be very unimpressive, so changing down a gear or two is required, whereas the 3 litre would be raring to go with just a dab on the throttle.

Just my humble opinion, you understand

[chris.richard]

The graphs from Squadra for the 2.5 24 valve engine show the difference - should someone have the skill to post them here!


Err, that's what I've done Martin!

[Martin K]

Err, that's what I've done Martin!

Yep! So you did! Sorry 'bout that!

[Chris J]

Looking at the figures - not really. Can you see any real benefit? Except that it's closer to the original 2.4 capacity...

It's just that there's more and more of them around. But I can see that's maybe not reason enough?

[Martin K]

It's just that there's more and more of them around. But I can see that's maybe not reason enough?

As I see it, you pays your money and makes your choice.

A mate of mine has a 2.5 and it is by no means slow - even in a 1355Kg kirb weight car (156) the 0-100 kph figure given by Alfa Romeo is 7.3 seconds and it will do 143 mph, apparently, having 189 bhp @ 6300 which is 75.8 bhp/litre and 139.5 bhp/ton. Nothing wrong with that at all, though you do have to use the gears and the revs to get it to fly. But as I said previously, I think if you want more power from one of these then it could get expensive very quickly.

[Steve Poole]

Following this has answered all my questions in one foul swoop. Thanks lads! :) :)