Alfas, Lancias and fuel consumption of older models.

[babbo_umbro]

because when you are regularly travelling longer distances and higher milages a year it is more comfortable and practical to have a slightly larger car

mini = town car
supermini = extra urban
small family = above plus motorways
large family/exec = mainly motorways



also small diesels dont make sense when you include the extra purchase cost

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/petrol-vs-diesel/?deriv=46366#manu=2193&model=1662&deriv=46366

Thanks for the upper case - wouldn't have understood your comment without it.

I can understand why a bigger body would be more practical if you needed to carry more, but I can't see how a bigger engine is more practical; I agree that a gutless engine working its nuts off can make hard work of a journey but a modern engine of 1.3 litres or so has adequate power unless you're carrying a lot of weight. It's an issue of refinement, aerodynamics, engine efficiency, use of lightweight materials, and so on. This is not new - cars like the Lancia Fulvia proved it decades ago. Surely the point of technical development is to alter the categories that you define, which is also one of the reasons why engines like the TwinAir deserve to succeed as they enable a car to span those categories.

 

[multispoke]

Interesting to see a mention of a Lancia Thema & a Fulvia. I had a Fulvia after a Lanica Coupe 1.6 The coupe rusted and the Fulvia with its V4 certainly wasn't fuel efficient and was only a 2 seater whilst the coupe was a 2 x 2. I wouldn't be keen on travelling across Europe in a 500 3 up with luggage in a 1.2 and trying to catch a ferry that is running an hour early. This happened to me in a Fiat 127 1050cl (we were 2 up with 2 bikes) when the hour went back an hour early in France ahead of the UK at the end of March in the mid 80s. It's nice to have a little bit of power in reserve with a beefed up suspension and a few electronics - it makes the car a bit safer if you have a little emergency. I missed the ferry and ended up sleeping overnight freezing my nuts off ! It would have been nice to have had that Abart with the 160bhp tuned engine.

 

[babbo_umbro]

Re: What Engine to go for?

Interesting to see a mention of a Lancia Thema & a Fulvia. I had a Fulvia after a Lanica Coupe 1.6 The coupe rusted and the Fulvia with its V4 certainly wasn't fuel efficient and was only a 2 seater whilst the coupe was a 2 x 2. I wouldn't be keen on travelling across Europe in a 500 3 up with luggage in a 1.2 and trying to catch a ferry that is running an hour early. This happened to me in a Fiat 127 1050cl (we were 2 up with 2 bikes) when the hour went back an hour early in France ahead of the UK at the end of March in the mid 80s. It's nice to have a little bit of power in reserve with a beefed up suspension and a few electronics - it makes the car a bit safer if you have a little emergency. I missed the ferry and ended up sleeping overnight freezing my nuts off ! It would have been nice to have had that Abart with the 160bhp tuned engine.

I'd have said that in their day both the Fulvia and the contemporary Alfa Giulietta and Giulia, especially in 1.3-litre form, offered an exceptional combination of performance and economy - their saloon variants were particularly aerodynamically efficient for their time and their twin-cam engines were jewels. The 127 - even the "big" engined one that you had - was hardly at the technological leading edge but I suspect it was capable of cruising a prudent way above the legal limit so your problems were more to do with not knowing what time it was rather than a limitation of the car.

I stand by my contention that there's no real need for any truly modern general-purpose car to have an engine bigger than a litre and a half - if the politicians were serious about the planet, one of their first actions would be to impose that as a limit.

 

[multispoke]

Re: What Engine to go for?

I'd have said that in their day both the Fulvia and the contemporary Alfa Giulietta and Giulia, especially in 1.3-litre form, offered an exceptional combination of performance and economy - their saloon variants were particularly aerodynamically efficient for their time and their twin-cam engines were jewels. The 127 - even the "big" engined one that you had - was hardly at the technological leading edge but I suspect it was capable of cruising a prudent way above the legal limit so your problems were more to do with not knowing what time it was rather than a limitation of the car.

I stand by my contention that there's no real need for any truly modern general-purpose car to have an engine bigger than a litre and a half - if the politicians were serious about the planet, one of their first actions would be to impose that as a limit.

Hi babbo_umbro. I cann't comment on the alfas that you mentioned (I didn't drive or own them) but the Lancia Fulvia I had was thirsty for a 1.3 not bettering 25 mpg on a good day. I was unfortunate to discover the cars poor economy on a maiden voyage on a 'short cut' across the mountains with a lady friend of mine. The Lancia Beta coupe 1.6 was a great with its Twin cam engine and was practically unburstable and offered relatively good economy 30+. The Fulvia to me (it would have had a lot of miles on it) was a step back from the Twin cam. When I off-loaded the Lancia coupe I moved to a black 127 sport 1050 70bhp (a newish one) and this was more modern day, easy to work on and enjoyed sitting on the red line (My mate Dave said that my current 500 1.4 reminded him of this car). I once tried driving it economically and nearly feel asleep at the wheel (it bettered no more than 35mpg) - it's 4th gear has been lowered for acceleration. It was quite revolutionary at the time for it's bhp output based on its size. This was sold to finance a course in the UK hence ending up with a cheaper 1050cl. My mate had a 128 3p (1298cc) and this had the best blend of economy and performance. It was a car that could be run within a budget and yet had plenty of zip and personality. Re restricting engine sizes to 1.5 I remember reading somewhere that the optimum size of a 4 cyclinder engine is 1.6. I often think that the 1.6 petrol engine in my Marea is a better engine than the 1.4 and seems a little more relaxed and does involve playing with the Sport button to keep it on the boil. There is a trend to adding turbos on smaller engines - just look at BMW & Audi reverting to straight 6s from V8s for emissions. Thinking of the Twin Air and say a 1.4 on full belt on an Autoban in Germany at 90mph I would not be surprised if the 1.4 was more economical and less toxic than the Twin Air. My wifes Alfa 147 1.6L was thirsty on the open road than my old 323i 2.5L. Still I accept that downsizing is the way to go but adding a turbo is a bit of a cheat to beat the cc 'restriction'.
Going back to that Ferry that I missed in LeHarve - it was by 5 minutes and I knew 3 hours ahead of the departure of the time change. I still remember the drive in that 1050cl in getting there

.

 

[babbo_umbro]

Re: What Engine to go for?

Don't remember ever getting less than 30 mpg from a couple of Fulvia coupès. I thought it was generally accepted that a per-cylinder capacity of about 350 cc is optimum.

My main point was that many - most? - cars these days are simply too big and that modern technology should be exploited to ensure that reasonable transport can be assured in a small-engined car.

Not really on topic - I can remember a classic occasion when the French ferry crews had been on strike and a group of UK returnees at Calais were prevented from getting on the ferry they'd booked on. When normal service was restored we presented our tickets and were greeted with Gallic shrugs and told that, as we'd missed the right crossing, we'd have to go to the back of the growing queue. Pleased to say that British phlegm prevailed - we all locked our cars where they were at the ticket barriers and refused to move them till we were put on the next sailing. The flics were called but we refused to back down and were on the next ferry.

 

[alfatastic]

Re: What Engine to go for?

Hi babbo_umbro. I cann't comment on the alfas that you mentioned (I didn't drive or own them) but the Lancia Fulvia I had was thirsty for a 1.3 not bettering 25 mpg on a good day. I was unfortunate to discover the cars poor economy on a maiden voyage on a 'short cut' across the mountains with a lady friend of mine. The Lancia Beta coupe 1.6 was a great with its Twin cam engine and was practically unburstable and offered relatively good economy 30+. The Fulvia to me (it would have had a lot of miles on it) was a step back from the Twin cam. When I off-loaded the Lancia coupe I moved to a black 127 sport 1050 70bhp (a newish one) and this was more modern day, easy to work on and enjoyed sitting on the red line (My mate Dave said that my current 500 1.4 reminded him of this car). I once tried driving it economically and nearly feel asleep at the wheel (it bettered no more than 35mpg) - it's 4th gear has been lowered for acceleration. It was quite revolutionary at the time for it's bhp output based on its size. This was sold to finance a course in the UK hence ending up with a cheaper 1050cl. My mate had a 128 3p (1298cc) and this had the best blend of economy and performance. It was a car that could be run within a budget and yet had plenty of zip and personality. Re restricting engine sizes to 1.5 I remember reading somewhere that the optimum size of a 4 cyclinder engine is 1.6. I often think that the 1.6 petrol engine in my Marea is a better engine than the 1.4 and seems a little more relaxed and does involve playing with the Sport button to keep it on the boil. There is a trend to adding turbos on smaller engines - just look at BMW & Audi reverting to straight 6s from V8s for emissions. Thinking of the Twin Air and say a 1.4 on full belt on an Autoban in Germany at 90mph I would not be surprised if the 1.4 was more economical and less toxic than the Twin Air. My wifes Alfa 147 1.6L was thirsty on the open road than my old 323i 2.5L. Still I accept that downsizing is the way to go but adding a turbo is a bit of a cheat to beat the cc 'restriction'.
Going back to that Ferry that I missed in LeHarve - it was by 5 minutes and I knew 3 hours ahead of the departure of the time change. I still remember the drive in that 1050cl in getting there

.

I think the 1.3 alfa should have given more than 25mpg, I never drove my GT Junior when it had the 1.3 in it but I do get 25mpg with its currently fitted 2 litre twincam, big problem in fuel consumption of these old engines is the 2 twinchoke carbs still poring petrol in when its not needed as engine not under load.

That 1.3 alfa engine gave 90bhp back in the 1960's:devil:. Should be able to keep up with the current 1.4 500 in all but fuel consumption as the cars weigh about the same.

 

[babbo_umbro]

Re: What Engine to go for?

I think the 1.3 alfa should have given more than 25mpg, I never drove my GT Junior when it had the 1.3 in it but I do get 25mpg with its currently fitted 2 litre twincam, big problem in fuel consumption of these old engines is the 2 twinchoke carbs still poring petrol in when its not needed as engine not under load.

That 1.3 alfa engine gave 90bhp back in the 1960's:devil:. Should be able to keep up with the current 1.4 500 in all but fuel consumption as the cars weigh about the same.

The 1.3 engine in the Giulia saloon - not imported in that form unfortunately - gave exceptional performance for its day, helped by the very aerodynamic body - though it didn't look it. Full four seater with a big boot as well. Much smoother than the 1.6 or larger. I had a 1973 2000GTV - great car, with lsd as standard, but the 1.3 was much sweeter. The stimulus came from Italy's fiscal policy, which has always penalised bigger engines heavily on road tax.

 

[306maxi]

Re: What Engine to go for?

The 1.3 engine in the Giulia saloon - not imported in that form unfortunately - gave exceptional performance for its day, helped by the very aerodynamic body - though it didn't look it. Full four seater with a big boot as well. Much smoother than the 1.6 or larger. I had a 1973 2000GTV - great car, with lsd as standard, but the 1.3 was much sweeter. The stimulus came from Italy's fiscal policy, which has always penalised bigger engines heavily on road tax.

My brother had a Giulia Sprint GT which had a 2 litre engine put in. Lovely thing that was

I still fondly remember my 1979 131 Mirafiori 1.6 auto Despite being a lot smaller in displacement than the 2 litre Peugeot 504 that replaced it, it had more go, I'm sure a lot of that was down to the skinnier tyres it wore, but I'm pretty sure it did develop a bit more power or about the same.

 

[multispoke]

Re: What Engine to go for?

I think the 1.3 alfa should have given more than 25mpg, I never drove my GT Junior when it had the 1.3 in it but I do get 25mpg with its currently fitted 2 litre twincam, big problem in fuel consumption of these old engines is the 2 twinchoke carbs still poring petrol in when its not needed as engine not under load.

That 1.3 alfa engine gave 90bhp back in the 1960's:devil:. Should be able to keep up with the current 1.4 500 in all but fuel consumption as the cars weigh about the same.

On the Lancia Beta coupe 1.6 Twin cam I had a problem with its Twin choke weber running rich and not getting any more than 23mpg. Luckily I had a 'old' school mate who sourced a 'new' one off a crashed saloon and it gave 30+ allowing me to enjoy the car. His name was Gerard Beer.

 

[alfatastic]

Re: What Engine to go for?

The 1.3 engine in the Giulia saloon - not imported in that form unfortunately - gave exceptional performance for its day, helped by the very aerodynamic body - though it didn't look it. Full four seater with a big boot as well. Much smoother than the 1.6 or larger. I had a 1973 2000GTV - great car, with lsd as standard, but the 1.3 was much sweeter. The stimulus came from Italy's fiscal policy, which has always penalised bigger engines heavily on road tax.

Did the saloon version of the 1300 only have a single carb, for better economy? I'm not one for seeing the upper limits of the rev range so guess my driving still would not like the 7000 red line of the 1300. On the list of improvements to my car is a lightened flywheel to give a few more revs than 5400. I let the 1300 engine and axle go when I picked up my GT junior which has the 2000 gtv engine and rear axle (including LSD) already install. Didn't have the space to keep engine and axle which would probably have required a rebuild. Think my car is the amalgamation of the 2000 gtv mechanic (minus bigger fron brakes/hubs) in a 1300 Gt junior shell and interior, but registered with the DVLA as 2000gtv. (also being a 1972 car, I get the free road tax bonus)

Not sure what back axle its runing as it struggles to make 100mph, but it sure gets to 30-90 quick.

 

[sludgeguts]

Re: What Engine to go for?

I stand by my contention that there's no real need for any truly modern general-purpose car to have an engine bigger than a litre and a half - if the politicians were serious about the planet, one of their first actions would be to impose that as a limit.

The bigger engines are more economical and environmentally friendlier.
Recently I have been driving 2 vehicles at work - a 3.5 litre merc and a 2.8litre ducatto triaxle.
Both doing identical journeys, the ducatto has a fibreglass bodyshell so comes in at around 4500kg, the merc has an aluminium body & comes in at 3900kg.
doing the same journeys, the merc returned a healthy 33mpg whereas the ducatto returned 16mpg.
The reason for the merc's better economy is that the larger engine hardly has to work, idling at 800rpm it'll pull up to 25mph and sit there happily without even touching the juice, the ducatto has to be forced to 25mph kicking and screaming - you can hardly hear yourself think.
This same philosophy was borne out recently with a car doing over 1000 miles on a tank of fuel - using an enormous engine and alu bodywork, the car was as light as a feather so the enormous engine barely broke a sweat.

 

[306maxi]

Re: What Engine to go for?

The bigger engines are more economical and environmentally friendlier.
Recently I have been driving 2 vehicles at work - a 3.5 litre merc and a 2.8litre ducatto triaxle.
Both doing identical journeys, the ducatto has a fibreglass bodyshell so comes in at around 4500kg, the merc has an aluminium body & comes in at 3900kg.
doing the same journeys, the merc returned a healthy 33mpg whereas the ducatto returned 16mpg.
The reason for the merc's better economy is that the larger engine hardly has to work, idling at 800rpm it'll pull up to 25mph and sit there happily without even touching the juice, the ducatto has to be forced to 25mph kicking and screaming - you can hardly hear yourself think.
This same philosophy was borne out recently with a car doing over 1000 miles on a tank of fuel - using an enormous engine and alu bodywork, the car was as light as a feather so the enormous engine barely broke a sweat.

Have you thought that the fact that the Ducato has 1 and a half the amount of tyres that the Merc has and is 600kg's heavier might have something to do with it?

 

[306maxi]

Re: What Engine to go for?

I stand by my contention that there's no real need for any truly modern general-purpose car to have an engine bigger than a litre and a half - if the politicians were serious about the planet, one of their first actions would be to impose that as a limit.

I tend to agree. We've got a 2l turbo Subaru but it gets driven a tiny amount. The 1.2 500 that we've got is perfectly fine for driving distances in.

 

[sludgeguts]

Re: What Engine to go for?

Have you thought that the fact that the Ducato has 1 and a half the amount of tyres that the Merc has and is 600kg's heavier might have something to do with it?

The merc also has 6 wheels so that's not the issue, it's the fact that the ducato's engine is badly underrated for the work it has to do - in the same way that many car engines are underrated. There really is no point having a car weighing 1.5tonnes and a range of engines starting with a 1.3 petrol to a 2.5 turbo diesel.