Talk:Alfa Romeo V6 engine

Engine development

Maybe there should be some more information on some development stages of the engine. For example, the first 2.5s had six individual Dell'Orto carburettors that were a true nightmare for the garage workshops to adjust and fix. This version had more torque than the later fuel injected ones, that were far better to own, nevertheless. The first couple of years the V6s suffered terribly from lack of oil tightness and many a blown head gasket was replaced because of this. These engines had rubber O-rings to seal the oil passages from block to head that were independent from the rest of the head gasket. Unfortunately these rubber rings were not oil resistant and had a fatal tendency to swell when exposed to oil. Then they blocked the oilway, increasing the oil pressure, which in turn blew the ring and made the oil run out of the engine in significant quantity. Many a garage tried to fix this by putting dowels inside the rubber rings, with little effect. This problem was only cured late in the life of the longitudinally mounted engines. The first four valve versions fitted to the 164 had a fatal tendency to slip their cambelts, making for expensive engine damage as a consequence. The routing and tensioning of the toothed belts was not what it should have been, thereby allowing the belts to jump a couple of teeth of their camwheels, a sure way of creating very expensive noise in an engine. Many owners had this happen on their engine more than once and the garages were very criticla about these engines because of that. This fault was never cured until the end of production of this engine version. Only when the engine was redesigned to fit into the much smaller engine bays of the GTV/Spider 916 and 156 the belt drives for the cams and ancillary drives (toothed belts and poly-V belt) was completely rearranged, finally putting an end to this nasty habit.

These engines are also significantly differnt in character. Many prefer the 2.5s because they are much more willing to rev than the larger versions. Also the rare carburetted versions sound even more gloriously than the fuel injected ones and are even more responsive to throttle movements. The three litre version is much less willing to rev (everything is relative, then...) and less smooth running. The four valve versions sacrifice low rev pulling power for top end performance. Even the three litre four valve is comparatively weak in pulling power from less than about 3.500/min and will truly deliver power only beyond 4.500/min, which is a bit annoying for an engine this big. The larger versions are comparatively thirsty, particularly the four valves, which have truly nasty drinking habits when driven hard. I can remember fuel consumptions of beyond 25 litres per 100 km, less than 4 chilometri per litro or worse than 10 miles per imperial gallon quite regularly on fast autobahn blasts with my 166 3.0 V6 24V. The average speeds were very respectable, then, but fuel stops were annoyingly frequent despite the enormously large tank of this car. On a 156 V6 with its small tank an old VW Beetle would achieve higher average speeds as a result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.41.51.115 (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is encyclopedia afterall, most of things you mention are more like "how to/repair" things. Encyclopedia is not consumer guide. -->Typ932 ^T·C 15:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is www.team.net. Thank you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article has no reference of team.net -->Typ932 ^T·C 15:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add to the citation the page of Norbye's Complete Handbook of Automotive Power Trains where this engine weight is found? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

690 engine

This engine does not fit here, it is a racing engine not related to the Busso V6. Merging of the Alfa Romeo 690 engine should have a notice there not here. YBSOne (talk) 10:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposals should have templates on both pages. I've put the other one up now to stimulate further discussion. It does seem to me that Alfa Romeo 690 engine is a stub that heavily overlaps with the existing section here and so a merge is warranted on the grounds of duplication, short text and context. I suppose that SpacedFarmer felt, back in February, that the case obvious. Klbrain (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as for the merge I oppose. To my knowledge there are 2 different engines used for Alfa Romeo DTM efforts. 1992–1995 probably-Busso-derived (will veify with Archivio Storico on that) and 1996 690 PRV-architecture-based. The first one should be present in the Alfa Romeo V6 engine article, more so if truly based; the latter should be mentioned only, but what has happened is that all the info on the first engine was swapped for the whole 690 article content. 690 article should be kept separate more so in case it is not Busso-derived. Maybe a section on "Other Alfa Romeo V6 engines"