Re: [alfa] Engine turning backwards issue

[SHadowX <shadow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

hagen_jason@domain.elided wrote:

> Does this apply to just the 12V V6 or to the 24 valve as well??
>
>
> --
> Jason Hagen 
> Chicago, IL 
> '73 Spider 
> '95 164Q 
> '91 164S
>
>
> -------------- Original message -------------- 
>  
>
> > Timing belts.... I follow some mailing lists and bulletin 
> > boards for boxer engined Alfa Romeo cars such as Alfasud, 
> > Sprint, 33 etc. Some of you might find this hard to believe, 
> > but timing belt breakage is rarely discussed. If 
> > occasionally mentioned it's generally because, either 
> > someone didn't change it in the prescribed interval, or 
> > someone asking for advise for an upcoming belt change... 
> > many recommend changing the pulley wheels at the same time 
> > as the belts. 
> > The Alfa V6 is a wonderful engine in many ways, but it's 
> > timing belt and tensioning system is a flawed design. Not 
> > because it uses a belt, but because the belt drive was 
> > poorly implemented. 
> > Plenty of other engines use a timing belt without these sort 
> > of problems - yes, unserviced enigines do break belts, but 
> > with how many other cars have you heard this "NEVER let the 
> > engine turn backwards" warning? 
> > That is not character, that is a design flaw. 
> > I suspect the popularity of timing belts can be traced back 
> > to the 1970's, where emissions regulations were killing 
> > performance, while at the same time the oil crisis was 
> > putting greater emphasis on fuel ecomomy. The idea of 
> > replacing chains with belts, reducing friction (and fuel 
> > useage) and releasing a few extra bhp, seemed like a very 
> > good idea... and it was a good idea when implement properly 
> > and when those belts were changed at the prescribed 
> > interval. 
> > FWD... go to any alfa race meeting where both FWD (e.g. 
> > Alfasud, 33...) and RWD alfas are raced... lets be fair and 
> > only compare production based cars with steel body panels, 4 
> > cylinder engines with 2 valve/cylinder, single 
> > plug/cylinder.... so no alloy body, twin spark GTA's or 16v 
> > 33's. While the more powerful V6 and 2.0L rear drive cars 
> > might win outright, it's not often you see 1600cc RWD beat 
> > 1500/1600cc FWD cars. 
> > Easier to build, lighter, efficient and successful on the 
> > race track..... as long as you don't try to put too much 
> > power through the front wheels.... for that you would be 
> > better off with RWD or 4WD/AWD.... and if you don't care 
> > about practical considerations like passaengers, make it mid 
> > engined too. 
> > But for practical small cars, FWD has a lot going for it. 
> > Lex Jenner 
> > Auckland/New Zealand 
> > --
> > to be removed from alfa, see /bin/digest-subs.cgi 
> > or email "unsubscribe alfa" to majordomo@domain.elided 
> >    
> --
> to be removed from alfa, see /bin/digest-subs.cgi
> or email "unsubscribe alfa" to majordomo@domain.elided
>  
Hi!

As much as I know it's only an issue with a 12V V6 with a bi-metal 
mechanical tensioner installed.
If you still have the original oil-fed(hydraulic) tensioner there are no 
worries.

Regards,
Ales Golob
--
to be removed from alfa, see /bin/digest-subs.cgi
or email "unsubscribe alfa" to majordomo@domain.elided