Zathras > wrote:

> >A 5-pot is definitely more characterful than a 6-pot (and you can stick
> >an inline 6 in a transverse car - Volvo manage it) - people generally
> >forgive Alfas some faults because of the character.
>
> Alfa barely managed to fit the 5 pot in and had to reduce the turning
> circle to manage it. There's minuscule clearance vertically and
> horizontally. I'd guess that the block is quite an old design and the
> cylinders are relatively far apart - I doubt a straight 6 mod to this
> block would fit anything transversely. Alfa can't compete at all
> against bigger straight sixes with smaller fours so they keep trying
> their best with the 5.

I've not looked under the bonnet of the 159, so don't know how
comfortable the 5-pots are in there - I know they're tight in a 156, but
the 159 is a much bigger car.

> These days straight 6 engines have very close cylinder positioning to
> make fitting easier but also to reduce the length of the crank shaft
> as much as possible. Fiat could bin the current 5 and do a short 6 but
> the trouble is that it might well be a severely nose heavy car as well
> as cost investment money for what could end up being a slow seller
> with fuel process going the way they are.

Agreed - 6-pots aren't the way forward. Everyone wants a small capacity
turbo these days.

In the BMW range - the biggest sellers are cars with the 2.0 4-pot
diesel - both in the 1, 3 and 5. (this lump is badged as a 116, 118,
120, 318, 320 and 520, along with the X1 and X3 - don't think the X5 got
the 2.0 option, though)

> What would be interesting would be if they could increase the current
> 5 to a 3 litre capacity to attempt to compete against the 3 litre
> German opposition. Pumping more and more fuel into the 2.4 is going to
> fail because many buy diesels for fuel efficiency and there is already
> increased competition from smaller capacity turbo petrol engines.

Hmmmm, I think 2.4 is pushing the limits of the block already - remember
it was originally a 2.0 5-pot.

> I seriously think Alfa need to split the current diesel engines more
> and have a 2 litre and 3 litre motor in the 159 class car. To enable
> this in a good handling package, rear wheel drive needs to make a
> return. It all sounds a bit pie-in-the-sky to me.
>
> >What I'm more puzzled about is why Alfa don't take the Fiat Drivtrain
> >option of the twin-turbo 2.0 as used by Lancia and, ISTR, Saab - that
> >would appear to be the ideal way to get 2.4 matching power with 1.9
> >economy.
>
> Alfa seem perpetually confused. After all, in the 159 segment, who are
> they competing against? Premium German or boggo
> Ford/GM/French/Swedish/Japanese? I think they're really competing in
> the latter segment because they don't have the packaging flexibility
> to compete against,say, the 3 series (which can take small fours all
> the way to V eights via straight sixes).

I see Alfa in the Volvo / Saab / VW sector. Which appears to be dead on
its feet. They wouldn't want to enter the mainstream with Ford / GM and
the French, can't step up to the BMW / Mercedes class, so sit in that
middle ground.

Strangely, a 159 is a much more attractive package than a Mondeo - you
get a lot more car for your money - but that may be because Ford seem to
be intent on pricing themselves out of the market these days. (Of our
company car proposed list - Prius, Insight and Focus Econetic - the
Focus is the lowest power, lowest spec. and highest price).

> I just wish Alfa could do better but with bugger all dealers and
> limited choice of premium saloon car it's an uphill task. I mean,
> where were Alfa when the premium saloon knocked the Mondeo into touch?

Alfa were there at the start of the Mondeo's decline - think back to how
many 156s were shifted into the fleet market in the late 90s. Sadly the
156 soldiered on for too long before the 159 came along - then Alfa
appeared to lose interest in fleet sales.
--
SteveH