Someone talk me out of it......

> the 166's boot is smaller than that of the 164
> (504l)

True, that's one of the points why I still use 164...

Was thinking even to convert it to sportwagon... using Lancia thema combi
chassis panels

Szymon

"Stephen Poley" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 22:56:47 +0100, "MarkK" >
> wrote:
>
> >"Stephen Poley" > wrote in message
> >news
> >> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 00:24:47 +0100, "MarkK" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The 156 is a better car in terms of chassis and packaging. The boot in
the
> >> >166 is only marginally bigger.
> >>
> >> 490 litres compared to 360 litres hardly seems marginal to me.
> >>
> >490 versus 378 for the 156 saloon if you're going to be picky. You quoted
> >the smaller Sportwagon boot size.
>
> Well I rechecked and the book I referred to gives 360 for the saloon.
> Apparently the book got it wrong.
>
> Though I'm pretty sure that when I looked at the 156 a few years ago
> Alfa was quoting 360 for the saloon and 330 for the Sportwagon. Did the
> boot increase slightly when the 156 nose was changed?

I got my info from a 1998 156 brochure. Checked a 2002 brochure & it says
the same, 378l. There was almost no factual information in my Sportwagon
brochures, just lifestyle pictures...

Mark

Halmyre > wrote:

> > I got my info from a 1998 156 brochure. Checked a 2002 brochure & it says
> > the same, 378l. There was almost no factual information in my Sportwagon
> > brochures, just lifestyle pictures...
>
> Is litres not a ridiculous way of measuring boot capacity? Liquids are
> measured in litres...

Not really - it's a standard way of quoting a volume.

Everyone knows what a litre of water looks like, so it's easy to imagine
how big a boot is if you quote in litres.
--
Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark Lusso - Fiat Marea 20v HLX - COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

MarkK wrote:
> "Stephen Poley" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 22:56:47 +0100, "MarkK" >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Stephen Poley" > wrote in message
>>>news >>>
>>>>On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 00:24:47 +0100, "MarkK" >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The 156 is a better car in terms of chassis and packaging. The boot in
>
> the
>
>>>>>166 is only marginally bigger.
>>>>
>>>>490 litres compared to 360 litres hardly seems marginal to me.
>>>>
>>>
>>>490 versus 378 for the 156 saloon if you're going to be picky. You quoted
>>>the smaller Sportwagon boot size.
>>
>>Well I rechecked and the book I referred to gives 360 for the saloon.
>>Apparently the book got it wrong.
>>
>>Though I'm pretty sure that when I looked at the 156 a few years ago
>>Alfa was quoting 360 for the saloon and 330 for the Sportwagon. Did the
>>boot increase slightly when the 156 nose was changed?
>
>
> I got my info from a 1998 156 brochure. Checked a 2002 brochure & it says
> the same, 378l. There was almost no factual information in my Sportwagon
> brochures, just lifestyle pictures...
>
> Mark
>
>

Is litres not a ridiculous way of measuring boot capacity? Liquids are
measured in litres...

--
Halmyre

ceci, n'est pas un signature

In article >,
(SteveH) wrote:

> Halmyre > wrote:
>
> > > I got my info from a 1998 156 brochure. Checked a 2002 brochure & it says
> > > the same, 378l. There was almost no factual information in my Sportwagon
> > > brochures, just lifestyle pictures...
> >
> > Is litres not a ridiculous way of measuring boot capacity? Liquids are
> > measured in litres...
>
> Not really - it's a standard way of quoting a volume.
>
> Everyone knows what a litre of water looks like, so it's easy to imagine
> how big a boot is if you quote in litres.

I think cubic centimeters would be better for things like boot size and
engine displacement. I mean a liter is 62 cubic inches. Imagine
measuring an engine's capacity in fluid ounces or in gallons instead. a
3-liter engine becomes a 0.79 gallon engine. Silly, huh?

--
George Graves
The health of our society is a direct result of the men
and women we choose to admire.

George Graves > wrote:

> > > Is litres not a ridiculous way of measuring boot capacity? Liquids are
> > > measured in litres...
> >
> > Not really - it's a standard way of quoting a volume.
> >
> > Everyone knows what a litre of water looks like, so it's easy to imagine
> > how big a boot is if you quote in litres.
>
> I think cubic centimeters would be better for things like boot size and
> engine displacement. I mean a liter is 62 cubic inches. Imagine
> measuring an engine's capacity in fluid ounces or in gallons instead. a
> 3-liter engine becomes a 0.79 gallon engine. Silly, huh?

Erm?

I don't get it.... all you've done with the engine capacity is convert
metric to imperial units, which is a different thing altogether. The
Yank way of measuring engine capacity in cubic inches is just silly.
--
Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark Lusso - Fiat Marea 20v HLX - COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

In article >,
(SteveH) wrote:

> George Graves > wrote:
>
> > > > Is litres not a ridiculous way of measuring boot capacity? Liquids are
> > > > measured in litres...
> > >
> > > Not really - it's a standard way of quoting a volume.
> > >
> > > Everyone knows what a litre of water looks like, so it's easy to imagine
> > > how big a boot is if you quote in litres.
> >
> > I think cubic centimeters would be better for things like boot size and
> > engine displacement. I mean a liter is 62 cubic inches. Imagine
> > measuring an engine's capacity in fluid ounces or in gallons instead. a
> > 3-liter engine becomes a 0.79 gallon engine. Silly, huh?
>
> Erm?
>
> I don't get it.... all you've done with the engine capacity is convert
> metric to imperial units, which is a different thing altogether. The
> Yank way of measuring engine capacity in cubic inches is just silly.

You're entitled to your opinion.

--
George Graves
The health of our society is a direct result of the men
and women we choose to admire.

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 21:52:47 +0100, "MarkK" >
wrote:

>"Stephen Poley" > wrote in message
.. .

....
>> Well I rechecked and the book I referred to gives 360 for the saloon.
>> Apparently the book got it wrong.
>>
>> Though I'm pretty sure that when I looked at the 156 a few years ago
>> Alfa was quoting 360 for the saloon and 330 for the Sportwagon. Did the
>> boot increase slightly when the 156 nose was changed?
>
>I got my info from a 1998 156 brochure. Checked a 2002 brochure & it says
>the same, 378l.

Odd. Oh well, it's of no great import.

> There was almost no factual information in my Sportwagon
>brochures, just lifestyle pictures...

Alfa is sadly rather heavy on that side - though probably a lot of other
car manufacturers are as well. I get a magazine from Alfa occasionally
(twice a year?) which would be an excellent way of keeping (potential)
customers abreast of what Alfa is doing. But I don't think I've ever
discovered any actual information in it. All marketing waffle by people
with no discernable knowledge of cars. They probably alternate the Alfa
work with articles on fur coats and wine.

--
Stephen Poley

> I think cubic centimeters would be better for things like boot size and
> engine displacement. I mean a liter is 62 cubic inches. Imagine
> measuring an engine's capacity in fluid ounces or in gallons instead. a
> 3-liter engine becomes a 0.79 gallon engine. Silly, huh?

Not everything metric sounds good when imperial ))

That's why they all use liters to describe capacity in automotive world,
cubic would sound better, but the world itself is quite squared. From the
other hand... 3 liter engine is described quite often as 3000cm3, especially
in official documents (registration papers).

Szymon