From: JALFAjr@aol.com
Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 23:50:02 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Why I bought my 164
Here's my $.02 on the reasons for a 164.
If you ever want to have 4 people in a single car, there is nothing in the
price range that even remotely compares. Sure you will get torque steer, but
you gotta have TORQUE to have it.
I think several of the Digesters have indicated the car is great at speed,
which unfortunately in the US is very rare. One of the highlights of my time
with the car is a 120 MPH cruise down a back road shortcut returning to KC,
with the wife reading in the front seat, and my two step daughters playing
cards in the back seat. NOBODY but me was aware that we were going that
fast, because the car is effortless and sooo smooth at speed.
I have also always liked the sleeper aspect of 4 door sedans with killer
motors and handling. Even if you should lose by a 1/2 car length to a well
driven Mustang 5.0 GT, you still win, because you're driving a sedan and not
a coupe, so the extra weight probably was the difference.
I switched from a Honda Accord (89) to the 164 in 1993, and have enjoyed
every minute of driving it since. But maybe I can see myself in a 4 door
sedan.
Your description of changing lanes under power, could indicate a need for
shocks, and probably a lower profile tire.
I still enjoy driving my slightly modified 1750 GTV, but it is an entirely
different pleasure than one I get every day driving my 164 to work and back.
John Justus
91 164S
71 1750 GTV
From: Nizam Zambri
Date: Wed, 14 May 97 11:31:34 -0700
Subject: Re: 164! What is it good for?
As a (relatively) new owner of a 164LS, and a long-time proponent of the
116/161 chasis (that's the Alfetta, Giulietta, GTV6, Milano/75 cars) - I
have to admit that the 164 is a better all-rounder than its predecessors.
I have two 75's ... one of them built specifically to be "the ultimate" -
in power, handling, comfort and utility. Wait, that's the BMW M3 right?
Yes, but I've already owned a 325i and didn't want another BMW.
After gazillions of dollars and years of man-hours into the 75, I'm still
far from getting the car I envisioned in the previous paragraph. The
164, however, has superceded all my expectations. It's bigger than the
75, yet doesn't handle as clumsily. Why, just a mere six hours ago, in
the wee hours of the morning I was returning from an extended "shift" at
work and happened upon a Ford Probe 24V with a rather spirited driver
(V6, 2.5L, 24v). I wasn't in the mood to be delinquent, but the 164 made
it soooo easy! At 4am, there wasn't any traffic at all (which actually
raised the risk factor higher as far as law enforcement is concerned).
To cut a long story short, the 164 could easily hang on to the rear
bumper of the Probe in aggressive, tight on-ramp attacks, stayed flat on
long, flat-out-high-speed freeway connectors (sweepers) and when I was
bored of bringing up the rear, out-accelerated my companion in fourth,
and on to fifth. For those who care to do the math, calculate 6,200rpm
in fifth in a 164LS (which has the same gear ratio as the 164S) before
backing off for my exit. The Probe, too, was impressive - he probably
maxed out before the 164 did and was left behind. But while he had the
sporty car, I had the "family sedan" which maintained the cabin
temperature at 72F and kept the radio reception clear during all of this.
I probably make the same monthly payments as the Probe owner!
I couldn't have done so in my old GTV6, nor in either of my present 75's.
I still got home tired and somewhat relaxed ...
In conclusion, the 164 is not for everyone, but those who have it and use
it (and respect it) tend to be believers.
Nizam
'88 Milano Verde
'88 75S
'94 164LS
From: "Colin Verrilli"
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 98 15:28:25 -0500
Subject: Re: 164 - Manual or Auto ?
"Dr. M.J.D.Mallett" writes:
> Dear all,
> I'm in the market for a 90-92 Alfa 164. I've seen a few so
> far, two of which have caught my eye, a manual one in black and
> an auto one in green. Both are in similar condition except the black
> one has a fault with its ventilation system (possibly stepper motor)
> and the green one has done 160k miles to the black ones 110k.
> Now I've never owned an automatic car before (driven a few)
> so initially I'm tempted towards the black car, but maybe its time
> for me to try something different...
> I'm looking for comments on which one to go for.
I have a '94 auto and have driven a '91 5-speed and a '95 5-speed. I have
always driven and enjoyed manual cars, especially in Alfas but I bought
the auto this time primarily for my wife who greatly prefers automatics.
It was between that car and a volvo or something. My first impression is that
the automatic transforms the car from a sports sedan into a luxury sedan.
This is expecially true in the "auto" mode where the car will lug down to
1500 rpm and upshifts early at 3000. The engine can barely stretch its legs with
such restrictions. On the other hand, for driving the kids to school, commuting
in rush hour and going on vacation trips, it works just fine.
In "sport" mode, the car comes alive a bit, downshifting at 2000 rpm and
upshifting at 4000 with mild throttle input. It will also rev up to 6300 with
full throttle input. But still, as with all automatics, you just don't have
the control you do with a 5-speed. Prime example is accelerating out of a turn
and it downshifts on you...twice. You can compensate for some of this by manually
shifting the auto, but you're still missing one of the five speeds.
So, there's no simple answer: you have to consider what you're going to use the
car for and who's going to be driving it.
Colin.
'94 164LS Auto
From: Thomas Washburn
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 01:37:50 -0800
Subject: Re: Auto Boxes
Bill_Magoffin@peoplesoft.com wrote:
> > you said:
> > I'm looking at an auto 164 but someone told me that a car with an
> > auto box is heavier on petrol. True or false?
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > true. also slower
> > imho,
> > doug
>
> I know it's a bit like pissing in the wind - extolling the virtues
> of an auto box to a died in the wool Alfa audience. However, in
> fairness I don't think a general comment like the above is terribly
> fair.
[snip]
However, in the case of the 164, Doug's criticism is true. Though
the 164 automatic is a nice enough car, I think the automatic gearbox
really spoils the package. It upshifts too soon and won't kick down
soon enough. To the extent that I would want an automatic at all,
I'd want one more eager to kick down in response to a subtle prod at
the throttle.
It does seem to get pretty lousy mileage, too.
My experience is with the US 2-valve 3.0-liter 164.
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 98 16:42:26 UT
From: "Roger LaFerriere"
Subject: '92 164L
The '92 164L is the 12 valve 183HP version of the Alfa V-6. My wife drives a '92
164L auto. GREAT!!!!!!! Car. Better than any sedan on the raod. The auto
trans. is the same unit as that used in the SAAB 9000. Change trans. fluid and
filter once a year and it should be trouble free. It has been our experience
that this car is no more expensive to register, insure, maintain, repair than
any other popular sedan.
Date: Sat, 09 May 1998 19:28:41 -0600
From: "C.M. Smith"
Subject: Alfa 164
As the original owner of a 91 164L, and previously an 82 GTV-6, I am no
newcomer to Alfa's. I am a newcomer to the Web, however.
A quick glance at the digest shows owners and prospective owners of 164's
asking about two problems I have experienced which are unacceptable in
modern car design.
First, beware the dreaded stepper motor fault! The climate control sends
a constantly repeating signal to the temperature control stepper on a
pulse basis. This is no problem if the mixer door is between the maxi
mini stop positions. The motor just moves the door back and forth
periodically adjusting the cabin temperature. However, in our extreme
Canadian climate the mixer door spends a lot of time at fully open or
fully or fully closed. The "gearbox" attached to the stepper motor
contains plastic gears that apparently cannot withstand this constant
pulsing pressure and a tooth eventually breaks off, causing the gears to
skip a tooth, breaking more teeth and eventually ruining the "gearbox",
the motor is unharmed but the gears are not available separately. In
fact, you have to buy the two steppers and the mounting bracket as one
hugely expensive piece!
The bad design involves the fact that the stepper cannot be replaced
without essentially removing the entire
dashboard, a 10+ hour job. The equivalent work on the
SAAB 9000 using essentially the same climate control system involves 2
hours labour to R&R the glovebox. I worked out a cobble up job with my
very skilled mechanic which allows you to replace this stepper through
the tiny inspection hatch in the glovebox in under 2 hours. This requires
disassembly of the stepper from the "gears" and removal of the wiring
from the plug so as to permit insertion of the new motor through the
hatch. The mounting bracket must also be bent slightly so a cable tie is
needed to hold the new stepper into the bracket. It should be possible to
do this without resorting to beneding the bracket but it would take more
time and patience. Of course if Alfa had designed the dashboard with
serviceability in mind the job would be a snap. If Alfa would recognize
the fault and sell us only the broken gears the whole problem would be a
minor irritation instead of the ridiculous affair it is.
The second problem appears to be the plastic gearbox part! I've never
heard of anyone using plastic in a high performance vehicle gearbox
(transmission for North American readers). My 164 developed exactly the
symptoms described recently in the Digest as a clicking developing into a
grinding especially in the lower gears. After 4 or 5 months th gearbox
sounds about ready to blow up. My local Alfa mechanic advises ALFA has
redesigned the part and includes this in an upgrade kit including
replacements for all the bearings. I remain unimpressed as my car has
only 95,000km on the odometer ( 55,000 miles). My SAAB turbo has 195000km
on the original transmission(and turbo!). Also, the 164 gearbox requires
10+ hours just for the strip and re-assembly! Can$1200+ even if you R&R
the box from the car yourself.
Great car but the boys in Milano need to go back to engineering school
for a while. This car could be a world beater if the design were up to
modern standards of reliability and serviceability. Alfa cannot return to
the North American market until they learn to design more than just a
sensual tour de force. The tragedy is that it would cost them less money
to build the car correctly than they are spending doing it wrong. Just
look at the advanced design of the older Alfa's from the 50's and 60's.
The 164 is a much better built car than the GTV-6 but it's still sadly
behind the times. The failure of Alfa to penetrate the North American
market with this brilliant car (the 164) is directly attributable to
these kinds of design faults. The actual quality of the car's assembly
and finishing is of a very high order. It's the detail engineering that
is deficient.
Gotta go. The sun is shining, the police are in the local doughnut shop,
and my 164 is singing the siren song from my garage.
Calgary, Alberta
Canada
P.S. Great winter car also!
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 10:01:13 -0500
From: "Roger Pellegrini" <pellegrini_roger@jpmorgan.com>
Subject: I Bought a 164 LS
Howdy. Some months back I posted a note about what kind of car I should
get as a station car, yada-yada-yada. Most folks said not to go with an
Alfa, in a surprising and uncharacteristic burst of collective sanity.
Well, it turns out that I really didn't need a car to get to the station,
as I can do better with rides, feet and cheapo local cabs.
Instead, we really just needed a second car as a backup for my wife's 15
highway mile commute, and for general use. Aha! What followed was a
scouring of the web for used 164's relatively close to our Westchester, NY
location....and voila! A 1994 164 LS turned up at a Jaguar dealer in
Pennsylvania. Black, auto trans (for my wife's use) and in really good
shape.
Picked it up with a 12 mo/12K extended warranty and drove it home. Now I
can see why this thing engenders the following it does. The "Sport" auto
transmission mode is wild! As for defects, there are very few in this
example, (no vibrations at speed, no ticking steppers, etc.)
Here are my observations of faults, some of which I've heard before on this
list, all of which may fall into the "they all do that" category:
- Some segments of the clock's LCD are shot (big deal)
- The front fog lamp lenses seem cracked, although the fog lights function
normally (by the way, are they always a bit anemic?)
- When closing the sunroof, it seems to bump into the wind deflector
sometimes, and I have to stick my finger in to free it.
- I feel there's a good amount of wind noise coming from the closed sunroof
at speed (70 mph +)...or could it be the cell phone antenna on the top of
the rear window?
Overall, I'm really pleased with it, and would heartily recommend the
(non-Alfa) dealer I bought it from (the used-car manager owns a 164, for
example)...."The Great Britains" of Willow Grove, PA. They even had the
164 indoors on the showroom floor when I showed up!
I know I should have the timing belt replaced just as a routine safety
measure but any other thoughts ?
Best regards,
Roger
1969 1750 Spider (in hibernation)
1994 164 LS
1990 MB 300 TE 4MATIC
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 12:34:37 -0500
Subject: looking for 164; feedback on auto trans
Name: Bill Rice
I'm looking for a 91-93 164, not an S. Am living in Washington DC area but moving in
April 99 to Indiana. Strongly prefer low mileage (under 60K, but best under 40K). Will
purchase a car that needs work (stepper motor, for example), as long as honestly
represented. Will consider auto trans but would like feedback on the experience of owning
one, since all the Alfas I ever had were 5-speed and I might want to remain a purist.
Name: Damon Duree
Time/Date: 10:41:22 1/28/99
Message:
Having owned a 91 164L auto I would highly recommend it. I always enjoyed the auto in
that car. It always shifted at the perfect moments. It was nice and easy around town but
would hold a gear when you stepped on it and down shifted at the perfect time. My
experience with it was great. My current 94 with the dual settings is less that perfect. The
AUTO mode is too slow. It upshifts way too early and never seems to down shift. In this
mode you might as well be driving a Tempo. In the SPORT mode, the car is fun but it is a
harsh shift, especially at slow speeds , like in traffic, when it can be jarring. You have to
really be accelerating to get a smooth shift in the SPORT mode. I love the car but I wish it
had the other trans.
Damon Duree "94 164LS
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 10:38:16 -0500
From: dshimano@reincapital.com
Subject: 164 reliability, 10 bleeding obvious long-winded alfa rules
<<<>>>
Dennis,
The 164's are very reliable cars and great as a daily drivers long or short
haul. Comfortable, fast and rock solid as a Benz at speed. I have 66k on my
95 Q and it has rarely let me down. Two timing belts, a new radiator, a
Stebro exhaust [old one rotted away] and more brake light bulbs than I can
count are just about it. A quick look at the 164 home page will give you an
idea of what the problem areas have been for other owners. And yes, most
Japanese cars are more reliable, and so is my dishwasher, but it hardly
excites me every day.
I'm on my third "daily driver" Alfa, two of the V6 variety. I have found
them to be extremely faithful cars with one key factor- an Alfa will be as
reliable to you as you are to it. I'm sure you know all this since you
already have one or more Alfa's so you can ignore my ravings if you will. A
few lessons I've learned:
1. Learn the car. Get all the manuals. Get to know everything about it,
where the trouble spots are. Watch the problem areas. This applies even to
those who can't/ don't fix their own cars [sometimes it's a lack of time,
not skill or interest, and certainly not something to be derided]. Get to
know what the underside of the car looks like.
2. Inspect the car regularly, fluids, tire pressures, all the "soft" parts,
corrosion etc...Then look again.
3. Change the oil and filter religiously. DUH=85
4. V6 cars- no one ever regretted changing the timing belt every 30k.
5. If it ain't [very] broke don't fix it don't apply to Alfa's- if it looks,
feels, smells like something may be wrong check it out. If it's hanging get
it fixed. Every part in the car impacts and stresses another part somewhere
else- don't wreck the balance.
6. Drive it fast and smooth, don't drive it HARD. The car will know the
difference.
7. When you start the car cold, don't go banzai until things stop creaking a
bit. [serious digression- new M5 has great tach with LED's that raise the
redline from 4k and up as the car warms]
8. Wash that salt and bird shit off the car before someone scrawls "wash me"
in it. Don't be afraid of automatic car washes- hand washing the car is
great, but if you find reason not to do it for six months [try winter]
you'll spend a lot more repairing rust than you will repairing a dull
finish. Besides, any Alfa is a beautiful car, let it show.
9. Keep records of all the work done on the car. It's not just the next
owner or your estate that will need to look back from time to time.
10. Break all of the above rules at least once or twice during the life of
your car.
Life is short, though the commute is long=85why drive a boring car?
dave s.
NJ, USA
95 164Q
83 Aston Martin Lagonda
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 07:08:38 -0800 (PST)
From: D Shimano
Subject: re: Alfa ute- 24V vs. 12V 164
I have the 24V 164Q, but I have never owned a 12V, so
here are my one sided observations:
Direct ignition ok, takes the fun of getting hot wires
away, plugs are more difficult to get to, and quite
expensive.
Gearbox- ?, but I still get a stiff 2nd gear when the
car is cold.
Seat motors- never any problems, they are supposed to
have been updated. Same inoperable seat heater issue,
if the cars in oz have those.
Steppers- I was discussing this with the NJ AROC
chapter President last week, he says they were updated
in the 24V cars. I hear the gears groaning behind the
panel, but all HVAC functions work fine. I inquired
about this a short time ago on the digest, but got no
response. I did notice a fellow in AU just had brass
replacement gears made for the steppers, and is selling
them on the Internet.
The HVAC and clock LED's on the center panel are
problem areas. Many begin to lose LED segments. The
panel is $1600 US to replace, and I doubt Alfa sells
very many out of warranty. Mine is difficult to
decipher and I just live with it.
Q has the adjustable suspension. Soft is seasickness
mode, firm is really nice, surprisingly limited body
roll compared to a stock 164.
Racks- I'd be interested to hear longevity reports on
the rack as well. Mine is original, the PS lines have
all given up the ghost already.
Timing belt somewhat more difficult to change, and the
24V's are said to enjoy lunching on a timing belt if it
is well seasoned enough.
Good source of info on other [and wiser] owners
observations is the 164 home page and discussion forum
http://www.digest.net/alfa/FAQ/164
dave s.
95 164Q
83 Aston Martin Lagonda
From: M.Battley@irl.cri.nz (Mark Battley)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 13:34:08 GMT+1200
Subject: Fiat / Lancia / Saab 9000 etc
There have been two requests for information about the Fiat Croma and "Type
4 cousins" recently. I'm not an expert on the details of how they were
developed, but I can provide the perspective of an owner (I have a 1989 Fiat
Croma CHT).
>I would like more information on the Fiat / Lancia / Saab 9000. I know that
>these three automakers worked on this car together. I am not sure of the specifics
>or the differences between the cars. Does this mean that I can have the equivilent
>of a late model Fiat in the US by buying a Saab 9000.
You missed one car: the Alfa Romeo 164 is also the result of the joint
venture between Fiat/Lancia, Saab and Alfa (which subsequently became part
of Fiat). Basic details (to the best of my knowledge):
Fiat Croma: 5 door hatchback, 1996cc Fiat DOHC in 8valve carb, injected,
& turbo form, also 1600 and diesel/turbo diesel for some markets, 5sp or
auto
Lancia Thema: 4 door saloon, 1996cc Fiat DOHC, 8 and 16v injected &
turbo, 3L V6 (Renault/Peugeot sourced?) and the Ferrari V8..., 5sp or auto
Alfa Romeo 164: 4 door saloon, 1962cc Alfa Twinspark, 3L Alfa V6 (12 and 24
valve), 5sp or auto
Saab 9000: 5 door hatchback (CS) and 4 door (CD), all sorts of variations
on Saab's 2L, 2.3L injected and turbo, and V6 engines, 5sp or auto
All cars share basically the same structure/bodyshell with changes to (some)
external panels (and differences between 4/5 door models of course) The 164
looks the most different to the others, and I'm not sure how similar the
structure is. I can't see why Alfa would have changed it more than they had
to though. For example: Apparently Saab 9000 doors are identical to those on
the Croma/Thema apart from internal trim mounting differences. I believe
that the much of the suspension/brakes are the same also, certainly between
the Croma nd the Thema (rear suspension is different on Saab?). I'm told
that gearboxes in the Croma/Thema/164 are basically the same apart from
ratios: all suffer the same weakness with (input shaft?) bearings. The body
design is very space efficient: all cars have heaps of internal space front,
back and boot. The hatchback (5dr) variants are very practical cars.
Each manufacturer tuned engines and suspension to suit their image and
market, however as a generalisation all cars handle and grip well, and most
versions perform well, the performance versions of each being very quick. In
most markets all three Italian versions have depreciated very quickly
meaning that they represent exceptional value for money to a second hand
buyer. I'm not really sure why depreciation is so high: they are "good
cars", basically reliable and rust free... however they are haunted by their
makers' previous reputations.
>Additionally how is the reliability of these cars. Some people swear that
Saabs are
>great cars and some people think there reliability is along the lines of
Fiat's. Since
>I rarely have any problems not related to poor maintenance by the previous
owner
>I would think these are pretty good cars. I know this is the Italian car
digest but these cars are cousins.
It was interesting to get the Swedish perspective on Saabs when I lived
there in 1995: Swedes seem to regard Saabs as complicated, very expensive to
fix, and prone to problems... Yet in most markets the 9000 is the only model
with any residual value! My (and other locals) experiences with Cromas and
Themas have been very good. Only mechanical weakness is a gearbox bearing
(which typically gives problems at 130 000-160 000km), but new bearings can
be fitted to the box for $NZ400 (incl labour) without removing the box from
car. The Fiat engines are as good as ever: 200 000+ km in normal without
significant work if they get oil changes, and the turbos keep going for
ever. The 5dr bodyshells (Croma and 9000) are somewhat flexible in torsion:
squeaks from rear hatch on bumpy roads are common. Interior trim on the
Croma is prone to squeak/rattle, and electrical system is not 100%: electric
window switches can give problems (but then so do Audi's..) and the Croma
Turbo has a complicated electronic controlled heating system which can cause
problems.
But best of all: none of the cars RUST! (well not more than superficially..)
The Croma was the first Fiat to really cure this problem: they are better
than many other cars of this era. Apparently the "next generation" of Fiats
(Tipo/Tempra) solved the interior trim problems.
And...
>I knew I should have checked what model I was talking about before I shot
>my mouth off. When I said "large" I meant larger than the
>Unos/Puntos/etc. Now I see you own a Croma and I think that's probably the
>car I was talking about. Perhaps you could post a rebuttal to my comments
>extolling the virtues of the Croma, if you're inclined to do so?
I've tried to above.... I agree that they are not beautiful (but I wouldn't
call them Butt-ugly either :-)) ), but they represent an worthy (and very
good value) alternative to the ubiquitous Toyotas/Nissan/Mitsubishi etc
which dominate our car market in NZ!
>The point I was attempting to make is this: I can forgive the relatively
>boring population of economy-type FIATs in Italy but it seems to me
>their larger cars were equally as boring, save for the Coupe and the
>Barchetta. Maybe this comes from my American perspective that Italian car
>makers only produce sexy sports cars. At any rate, I would welcome the
>perspective of an owner.
I think you sum it up well: The American perspective on Fiat is very
different to the rest of the world. Fiat is the Italian "Ford" it makes
(good) cars for the masses, and also happens to make a few sports cars as
well. In general Fiat has excelled at making very good and interesting small
cars, but its large cars have not been "exciting'. In my view the Croma is
the best large car that Fiat has made.
The basic type 4 design seems to have been successful: all versions have
been in production for a long time, and all have been good for their
manufacturer's reputations.
I quite like the 9000: buy one if you like, but don't kid yourself that it
is a Fiat... what you see and feel (interior, suspension tuning, engine and
gearbox) all come from Trollhatten!
Mark Battley
Auckland, New Zealand.
1989 Fiat Croma
1974 Alfa Romeo 2000 GTV
AROCNZ, Fiat/Lancia Club Auckland.
From: "Hardwick, Robert C"
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 13:55:25 -0700
Subject: An American and His 164
I recently purchased one of the prime competitors for the 164 in the
USA, a 1990 Audi 90 Quattro 20 valve. They were after the same market,
at least the businessmen probably thought. With Bosch electrics,
similar power to weight ratios and size, the comparison, and mostly
contrast, has been interesting.
My wife drives the 164, me the Audi. Now when I drive the 164 it feels
so lavish. Doors, steering, brakes all allow me to go smooth and fast,
but they're not the "tight sphincter" approach of the German car. The
engines are really worlds apart. The 20 valve 5 cylinder loves to rev -
any upshift below 3k rpm bogs it. At full song it has a methodical,
insistent braaap and really gets down the road with no wheelspin. The
Alfa 6 pulls from any rpm and just keeps coming with a moan that is pure
sex! Of course, any gear below 4th results in drunken gobs of smoke
from the front tires if you're not careful. Fast, secure luxury sedans
with definite and disparate personalities. Now put the Alfa 6 in the
Quattro drivetrain...and I'd have the 164 Q4 not available in the US,
argggh!
Note that I purchased both cars used, with about 50k miles and 5 years
on them for 1/3 the original price. We Alfisti know cars. And that's
Alfa's problem. The core group of potential purchasers know that the
new cars of today will be available for a fraction of the cost in a
couple of years, and we're confident of our abilities to assess those
examples which have been abused. Why buy new? Either because you're
impatient for the latest or you lack the knowledge to confidently
purchase used. My wife and I are doing quite well, but I can't ever see
justifying $35k+ for a car. The difference buys a lot of track days and
trips to Italy!
robert hardwick, seattle usa (who apologizes for the solipsism he shares
with his countrymen)
From: drubie@macquarie.com.au (David Rubie)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 17:00:51 +1100
Subject: Re: Alfa 164 L, S or GTV....?!
> Mike,
>
[164 cheaper to run than GTV6?]
>
> I have two active-duty Milano/75's and a 164LS. I rotate between them and
> they are all different. Depending on my mood, any of those cars fit the
> bill for me at certain points in time. If I could only have *one* of them,
> however, I'm afraid I'll have to choose the 164 over the Milano and 75.
>
I owned a 164L for about 2 years after having an Alfetta GTV2000 and
a '73 2000 Spider. I was after something more luxurious and more modern,
and I also wanted a good excuse to get rid of a Saab 900 my wife was
driving at the time. I owned the spider and 164 concurrently. The spider
I bought after a Volvo hit my Alfetta in the rear and totalled it.
I liked the 164, but I would seriously dispute the running costs
argument. In between getting the heater/air conditioning system working
correctly, the prohibitive costs of normal service (timing belts, huge
labour charges due to the inaccessability of parts even at an authorised
dealer) and worst of all, the huge amount of electronics ready to fail
in those cars, I eventually threw my hands up in the air and sold it.
The final straw? The wiper speed control is a printed circuit board attached
to the wiper motor. This is probably fairly common on modern cars, but the
replacement cost here in Australia would have half-financed a rebuild on
a 4 cylinder alfa engine. It was a chain of small but expensive failures
like this (speedo, HVAC, lower control arm bushes, wiper motor) that
had me sit down with a calculator and just have a look at how much money
the thing was costing me. My wife pointed out we could buy a new car
for the same costs, so she chose a Jeep Cherokee instead. Sacrilege, I
thought, but it turns out to be not so bad. Kind of like a big
friendly puppy dog with about the same level of coordination.
I sold the spider help finance the purchase of a house. I bought a
beater Alfetta GTV and finally decided that I like those the most.
They are extremely cheap over here in Australia, parts are easy to
get and they are easy to work on.
> Finally, having also worked on all of them personally, I like the 164 the
> best as it's much better put together. If you find a good example for
> cheap, don't look back - the 164 is a lot of car for the money!
>
There is no doubting that. They are quiet, quick, lovely to look at
and fantastic long distance cars, but I found my 164 ultimately lacking
a particular quality that was present in scads in the Spider and GTV's.
I could never quite put my finger on it, but it might have something
to do with the fact that you only ever hear the wonderful engine
working when it's working hard, while on the older cars it's a constant
musical companion. It might have something to do with the relatively
dead FWD steering setup. The reliability worries can be directed at
any late 80's european car (they all share similar electrics) so running
a BMW of a similar vintage is just as expensive. I personally found that
I was happy to spend a fortune on the older cars because the reward
seemed higher. It sounds bizarre, but they are friendlier, while the
164 seemed a trifle aloof and uninvolving. Almost germanic in it's
demeanour.
Just my opinion and experience. I'd give the GTV6 a go if you can find
a good, late model, low mileage one. The 164 was too much trouble for
me for not enough reward.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 20:56:20 -0500
From: bjanesi@juno.com
Subject: Re: Milano Vs. 164
From: Lgowin@aol.com writes...
>I'm curious why I didn't receive more suggestions for the 164. I've heard
>good things about them, and the styling isn't as dated as the Milano. Opinions?
We (164 owners) were figuring you had to try a Milano first to fully
appreciate a 164 . Here's a couple reasons why should buy the 164
instead of the Milano...
1) Pininfarina styling (enough said)
2) Water pump lasts forever rather than 30K miles
3) 2nd gear synchros last forever rather than 30K miles
4) No driveshaft to worry about re-balancing nor guibo self-destructing
5) Normal human seating position rather than "Ergonomics By Apes, Inc"
design
6) Power steering pump & rack retains most of it's fluid
7) No requirement for snow tires in Winter (although still recommended)
8) 100% galvanized unibody
9) No "Project Milano" article series to (occasionally) look forward to
in the Alfa Owner
I'll let someone else tell you why a Milano is better than a 164.
Suffice it to say, when you do have to work under the hood of the 164,
you will spend 2 to 3 times longer to complete the same (or similar)
task, and sacrifice 5 to 6 times more blood.
Brad Anesi
'91 Project 164Q 5-speed
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 16:57:53 -0500 (CDT)
From: "David Nolen"
Subject: Anti 164 Bigotry
I don't want to get into the middle of any flame wars, but I must agree
with JAK, who said that his '91 164 had many superior characteristics to
his '74 spider.
I also have a '74 spider and a '91 164. In addition, I have a '68 POrsche
911 and a '69 Porsche 911 (heresy!!!). Over the years I have had a lot of
exotic cars, including a Ferrari 308 and a Lamborghini Jalpa. All of them
had definite personalities that were suited for different conditions.
My 164 (with its automatic tranny) is my ride of choice for high speed
commuting, either on straight interstate or on curvy roads. It is very
fast, comfortable, quiet, and gets reasonable gas mileage. The spider is
for warm day back road "storming" and the 911's are for the same thing in
cool weather. None of them are bettter than the others, just different.
The 164, with its front wheel drive and automatic tranny, is one of the
best all around cars I have ever had the pleasure of driving. In bad
weather, its manners are superb. That does not diminish the Spider or
other rides in any way.
Those who would diminish the 164 are missing out on a very satisfying
experience.
David Nolen
'74 Spider
'91 164L
'68 Porsche 911
'69 Porsche 911 (some assembly required)
From: Dave Hillman
Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 16:17:11 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: 164 differences ( L v S v LS )
John Lagerquist asked...
> 1. What is the difference between a 1993 164L and a 1993 164S?
> 2. What is the difference between the above two cars and a 1994 164LS?
No one seems to have answered this, so I'll share what I know.
1.
Engine - The S has more aggresive cams, and engine control unit to match.
Claimed to yield roughly 8% more horsepower and torque at slightly
higher RPM.
Suspension - S has two-setting cockpit-adjustable shock-absorbers. Sport
and Auto settings. Big bucks to replace shocks.
Body - All Ses have rear spoiler, some Ls do. Ses have deeper front,
side, and rear valances. Ses are red, white, or black. Ls may
be several other colors.
Transmission - All Ses are 5-speed manual. Most Ls are 4-speed automatic.
Manual Gearbox - L has numerically lower final drive ( 3.111 vs 3.412 )
Different 3rd and 4th ratios. ( 1.518/1.132 vs 1.523/1.156 )
Interior - Standard S Front seats have more substantial side bolsters.
Optional Recaros ( S only ) even better. A very few Ls have cloth
interior, all S are leather. S have red trim stiching on front
seats and dash.
Wheels - Ses have 'sausage-cutter' wheels, Ls have 16 spoke disc wheels.
2.
Engine - LS has 24 valve motor with claimed 210hp. In North America,
apparently, 12 valve cars did not have a heat shield between
front exhaust manifold and radiator. 24 valve NA-market cars,
and most/all ROTW cars have this shield. LS has new-style
timing belt tensioner ( as do most older cars by now ).
Body - Different front bumper and grill configuration. Elongated, with
deeper chrome, heart-chaped grill surround. Chrome trim
runs along two-tone division for the length the car.
New exterior colors.
Manual Gearbox - Still another final drive ( 3.35 ) and new longer first (
3.75 vs 3.5 ).
Wheels - Still 15" in North America, but traditional Alfa disc with
holes wheels ( Speedlines ).
Interior - New HVAC control buttons, different gauge cluster.
I'm sure I've missed some...
From: Dave Hillman
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 09:49:35 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: '91 164S vs '92 164S
Jeremy,
AFAIK, there are no significant differences in the 164S between the '91
and '92 model years. In fact, if there were, you would need to check the
build date sticker on the inside of the driver's side door, instead of
relying on the model year for distinction.
Most of the 164s sold in America in both 1992 and 1993, were in fact
built in 1990 or 1991, and only differ from earlier 'models' in that they
stayed on dealer lots longer.
At most, there may have been some minor assembly line updates. For
example, Alfa made a minor change to the 164 front struts starting at, I
believe, 12/90.
From: Dave Hillman
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:46:18 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: re: Q: 164S vs 164L
Jeremy,
In short, there's a reason the S is $8K more, and this is from the
owner of a L. And a modified one at that... ( oh no, not again ).
Here's my fairly limited experience. My L, with 16x7.5 wheels,
205/55/16 P700Zs, metallic brake pads, all the Ricambi suspension bits,
and a new chip was one to one and half seconds slower around Blackhawk
Farms 1.95 mile circuit than a bone-stock '91 S with smaller, mediocre
tires... with drivers of similar experience. Note that I say similar
experience, not necessarily talent. Someone else probably could have
gone a little faster in my car, but I don't think that would change my
point.
I attribute the difference mainly to the 10% more horsepower and torque
and the lower gearing of the S. A stock L will be quieter, softer, and
slower than a stock S. If I were buying again, I'd get an S. You can
make an L like an S ( mine is no longer quiet or soft but it is still
slower )... but you'll wind up spending as much as the S was in the first
place.
That said, did the other driver have *more fun* than I did... I doubt
it. I guess you need to ask yourself what makes a 164 fun to *you*...
While I'd like an S, I do also get something out of owning a 164 that
doesn't look like anybody else's... and that two people at the Chicago
swap meet called the nicest looking 164 they'd seen, albeit from 30 feet.
From: "Colin Verrilli"
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 98 08:05:24 -0500
Subject: Re: 164LS vs. 164Q question and 164 goes skiing
lukek@netscape.com (Luke Kowalski) writes:
> question?
> what are the differences that constitute the additional 20 hp of the 95
> 164Q as opposed to the 24 valve LS? Cams, exhaust? Plug and play stuff
> or not?
Only difference is the exhaust center and rear section and the intake runners.
From: Tonywoodtw
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 02:55:46 EST
Subject: re: ..difference 164 Super and 164 Super Lusso.
Peter asked:
>I was wondering of some one out there could let me know the difference =
>between a 164 Super and a 164 Super Lusso.
Lusso has as standard (*=option on Super): foglights, headlamp washers, elec
heated and adjustable front seats with lumbar support, automatic climate
control, 205-section tyres*, electric sunroof *.
From: Berlina71
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 20:36:02 EDT
Subject: RE: '91 164S Seats
All 164 S have more deeply bolstered seats than a standard L or B model. The
back seats are the same in both Recaro S and Standard S. They have more deeply
contoured bolstering on the side passengers, leaving the middle just a hump.
The only difference between Recaro and Standard S is the upholstery.
There are two easy ways to tell if a 164 S has the Recaro factory option.
First, the upholstery has vertical pleats with perforated holes in the
leather. The seats also have 12 way adjustment including power lumbar with a
driver's memory control on the driver's side. The standard S and L have only
6 way adjustment. Also look for the word "Recaro" on the side of the seat that
pivots for the backrest.
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 09:31:51 +0100
From: "Birkett, Graham"
Subject: Re: 164L vs. LS; problems and prices
Paul Begemann wrote:<I am considering the purchase of a 164, and was
wondering what the collective thoughts on the L (i.e.12 valve) vs the LS
(i.e. 24 valve) series are?>.
Having owned both until recently you may find the following comments of
interest:-
In the LS, Alfa have engineered out a lot a the problems and gremlins from
the L and have the 'improved' the quality feel of the drivers controls.
Things that have changed include:-
* the a/c panel is all new - I've seen AD traffic about lost pixels -
very expensive to find them again! I'm told the stepper motors are updated
and more robust.
* the ABS and Motronic are updated and supposedly have better diagnostics
* you'll know all about the timing belt problems- make sure yours has
had the recall for the later belt ( the one I bought had just been repaired
after a belt breakage @54k - 1500GBP)
* they have hydraulic tappets so no worries about clearances
* more seat motors but again, not prone to jamming like the earlier ones
* they have an infra-red actuated remote security system fitted as OE.
Make sure it comes with a remote or the appropriate code to allow you to
program a new remote ( see TSB's)
* in the UK it has the projector headlamps which seem to be an improvement
* they have the stronger gearbox input bearing
* the oil pan has much better ground clearance (the exhaust pipes now
being the lowest parts)
* the trunk/boot is smaller (about 3 or 4 inches shorter!)
Otherwise it's business as usual.
The '94 has quite a different feel to the '91. It feels more refined, more
sophisticated but has inevitably lost some of it's driver appeal. The
throttle response is not razor sharp any more, the engine note has lost that
burble, the steering is duller and has much less feel. But on the plus side
it is noticably quicker and more driveable!
Thats as much as I've learned so far but each day I learn a little more!
94 164 24V Super (LS)
(Yes the 91 164 3.0V6 Lusso has gone!)
Cheshire, UK.
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 22:37:50 -0500
From: Bernie & Diana Bennett
Subject: Bennetts 164 LS and comparison with 164 L
Bernie & Diana Bennett proudly announce the arrival of their white over
silver 1994 164LS automatic sedan. Purchased in N.J. from Frank Sala,
Import Auto Buyers, the car had/has 34K+ miles/36,K. It included a 7
year/100K warranty.
Some initial observations (compared to Diana's 100,600 mi. 1991 164L.
Interior improvements:
+LS Driver's dash is much improved; e.g. indicator lamps have been
subdued so they don't blind the driver at night.
+Everything seems much more readable.
+Reset of digital tripmeter seems more positive, mechanical reset is
always iffy in L.
+Sun Visors no longer have the annoying ridge on the headliner which
kept them from being extended all the way down (forward).
+Seat adjusters are nice design hopefully the switches are more reliable
+Sport and ice settings on automatic transmission should be very
useful. Already driving back from NJ (3 nights and 2.5 days and two
rainstorms (one driver)) passing on two lane Texas country roads (hilly
with short passing zones) the immediate kickdown provided by the sport
setting inspired confidence in passing (the extra 27hp didn't hurt
either).
+Glove Box is no longer a knee banger / nail breaker
Interior +/-
+Radio/tape/optional (don't have it)12 disc CD changer
+is well integrated
+antenna behavior is logical if you ain't using the radio the antenna is
down! (My Milano has an addon switch to manually achieve this effect.)
+touch screen for radio / speaker balance / tone adjustments nice
+Sound system cover nice, hides the unit from prying eyes.
-radio is too low and inset into dash
-too many features buttons too small. Needs a remote.
Door Pockets
+covered better security
-smaller less useful e.g. can no longer store my folding unbrella
-covers limit size of items that can be stored
Interior seems larger more headroom than an L?
Air Conditioning Controls and Dash Switches
+Fan no longer AUTOmatically goes to HI to cool car unless selected
manually.
+/_ Four fan speed buttons have been replaced with two (speed down and
up) Using the Auto feature now should require less use of fan speed
buttons. Can no longer select the speed you desire directly; but have
more detents (intermediate speeds). The L on AUTO with temperature
priority would use these speeds but could only be 'selected' by
judicious temperature selection. Does not seem to need temperature
adjustment as frequently.
-Temperature displays outside--digital /inside setting--graphical /and
clock--digital hard to read and flaky (adds to the difficulty of
reading)
Exterior, Car looks great it's an inch lower than the L and though the
wheelbase is the same the front and rear overhangs are ca 2" longer on
each end. The trunk seems bigger though the owner's manual says
otherwise.
Well We love the car, and just wanted our friends to know as great as
the L is the LS is much more refined.
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:51:56 EST
From: VLADDS@aol.com
Subject: Euro 164 things
There are a few diferences between the euro 164 and US.I will list them here
together with brochure info about performances for euro 164's.
One should compare figures with those described in 164 owner's manual (they're
metric too in there) or in the cardisc:
first some info about the info:
They had the equivalent of the 164 S there as Quadrifoglio single cam.Then
came Quadrifoglio dual cam same model as here and then Q4, dual cam awd.
the weight that they call "curb weight " is with full tank.Notice however that
tank capacities are different.
0-100 km/h is not exactly 0-60 MPH but 0-62.something
In the latest brochure, the one for 156 they even say how they measure that (
2 people + 20 Kg load in the car)
for the 164 L, it never existed there as a model but putting all the options
on a 164 base would make one up.Since weight is important i will mention
what's not given in the car that has it's performances shown
Another thing quite commonly shown in EU tests is that the speed indication
that one reads is not identical with the real speed.Untill like 60 mph the
truth is more and over is less (not a specific Alfa info).
164 3.0 V6
No: fog lights,sunblinds,power mirrors,power rear seats,heated,
leather,washers,alloys,sunroof;
184 HP (with cat) /5600
max torque 132Kw/5600
Kurbweight 1400 kg
Standing Kilometer 28,2 sec
max speed 230km/h
fuel tank 70litres/9reserve
consumption:
6,8 litres/100 km @ 90 km/h
8,9...........................120
12,5..........................in town
A quick figure-out i think is that 29MPG is around 8litres/100km
164 Q (single-cam =Sport)
200 HP/5800
max torque 145/5800
Kurbweight 1430 Kg (without sunblinds, heated seats, headlight washers,
recaros or sunroof)
max speed 237 Km/h
Standing kilometer 27.8 sec
Consumption
7,3 l/100km @ 90 Km/h
9,3 120
13 in town
164 Super V6 24V (= 164 LS)
210hp/6300
torque 28 Kgm/5000 rpm (sorry that's what they chose as units)
max speed 240Km/h
standing km 28 sec
164 quadrifoglio (dual cam= quadrifoglio here)
230 hp/6300
29/5000
max speed "over 245 km/h"
standing kilometer 27,8 sec
164 Q4 (allweheeldrive *there is your SUV (lol))
230hp/6300
29/5000
max speed 240
standing km 27,9
form "auto motor und sport" there are some 0-100 km/h
164 v6 7.9 sec; LS 8.0; Q4 7.5
One last thing: Alfa Romeo (FIAT) has in Northern Sweden at Arvidsjaur a Test
facility for extreme cold, sooo they thought about that too
Vlad
91 164 L ..........sorry for the length of this and i have info on 93 spider
too
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 12:43:29 -0400
Subject: Q
From: Tim <>
The Q's do not have red stitching as the S's do. The interiors of the 94 and 9
5 cars was completely redone (Which I like) and the Q's have black stitching ab
ove the gauges and along the left side of the upper center console. Not along
the doors and the bottom center console like the S's. (it has a different cent
er console and doorpanels than the earlier cars. I like the black stitching bet
ter because I think it is a little more subdued than the red (a bit garish).
From: JHertzman
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 17:24:35 EST
Subject: More? on the Type 4
Since the flurry of notes on the "Type 4" platform project I received some
second-hand notes which seem to me to have the ring of authenticity, evidently
based on analytical disassembly of Thema, Kappa, 164 and 9000 cars (the Croma
was not mentioned) and which I for one will believe until someone who *really*
knows (Agnelli?) comes forth with a more convincing story. They are
particularly interesting for the inferences which one might draw on national
and international engineering and corporate cultures.
One of the threads of the notes was that the US-based multinationals seem to
be much better at exploiting the potential savings of carrying over parts
within and among different makes within a conglomerate than are the
Euronatives.
Apart from the nuts-and-bolts standard items the Lancia Thema and Alfa 164
evidently shared about forty parts numbers while the Alfa-engined Lancia Kappa
shared a very few more. This did not mean that many of the parts might not
look alike or interchange physically, but that (for instance) the Alfa and
Lancia versions of the Alfa V6 had different camshafts, ECU algorithms, and
virtually everything else in the induction and exhaust systems, and that the
same degree of deviation from common detail to suit different hypothetical-
buyer demographic profiles carried through the entire car, largely eliminating
many of the theoretical economies of parts sharing. Just four floorpan
stampings and a few lesser sheetmetal parts were identified as carried over
from the original joint project.
This evidence can be taken to support the "Alfas are still real Alfas"
argument, if the old Alfa corporate culture survives within the Alfa division
strongly enough to shift the nuanced detail. On the other hand, the mossback
rejectionists can still say that within Fiat Alfa can deviate only to certain
degrees, can only be a relatively convincing, rational and effective
reminiscence of the wild spirit it once was. That argument will probably never
end.
From: bjanesi@juno.com (Bradley J. Anesi)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 22:47:31 EST
Subject: 164 (Type 4) History ...continued
JHertzman writes...
>Any other input on the Saab-Lancia-Fiat-Alfa relationship on these cars
would also >be much appreciated.
Well okay, I'll throw in my 3 cents worth on this topic, garnered from
Bruno Alfieri's work on the 164 and a brain that remembers many
(otherwise useless) facts ...
-The 164 had it origins in 1981 as a strictly Alfa project, oddly enough
given the project number 156. The initial plan was for a rear-wheel
drive vehicle using the typical Alfa transaxle of the time.
-In 1982, the Type 4 agreement was signed between Alfa-Fiat-Lancia-Saab,
to produce a platform which would share a common floorboard and doors.
No doubt, trying to uphold the sporting nature of the Alfa marque, the
164 would share only the central part of the floor-board from Type 4,
while the Croma, Thema, and 9000 would share all four doors and the
entire floor plan. Had Fiat owned Alfa at the time, surely the 164 would
have conformed to the original intent of Type 4, and would have had more
in common with it's 3 "half-siblings". How ironic, that by the time the
cars went into production in the late eighties, both the Thema and 164
would both be produced at the factory in Arese.
-The 156 project became the 164 project with the demise of the initial
RWD design, although much of the theme of the initial design work from
Pininfarina and Arese was carried forward, with Pininfarina winning the
overall design project in the end. A fairly unique fact in recent
automotive history is the fact that the 164 project number was carried
through to the actual model name (although this seems to unofficially
happen in the Porsche world with great regularity ==> 930, 951, 993,
986, etc)
Any more, and we'll have to call this the history-digest....
From: "Daniel I. Trnka"
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 09:57:20 -0800
Subject: History behind 164 (lack of) torque steer.
> My daily driver is a '95 164LS (BTW, given traction at both front tires, it has
> NO perceptible torque steer).
Alfa Romeo put a tremendous amount of effort and money into making
the front stick under acceleration in the 164. As you know, the Saab
9000 and Lancia Thema share the same platform. Both cars came into
market 2 years before the Alfa, including the Ferrari V-8 powered
Thema.
As I recall, the biggest problem was that the V-6 Alfa had more
torque than even the Ferrari V-8 and caused unacceptable torque steer
by Alfa standards of the time. As a result, Alfa redesigned the front
half of the chassis from scratch. FIAT came into the picture as Alfa
was putting the finishing touches to the 164 and scrapped the Alfa
interior design further delaying its debut.
The 164 may not be a "pure" Alfa but from a chassis standpoint I
trust it is (was) probably as good as it can possibly get under that
common cage.
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 20:58:35 EDT
From: JHertzman@aol.com
Subject: Re: history of the V-6
In AD7-641 Danny Pham asks: "Does anyone out there know when the 91' 164L 3.0
engine was developed? Was it ever used by Alfa to race? I heard it was
developed in the 60s by Alfa but never put in production until the early 80s
when it first appeared on the GTV6s. Did it initially have a timing chain and
that w/Fiat financing, fuel injection and a belt was put on for production?"
The V-6 first appeared with the cogged belt and six single-choke Dellorto
downdraft carburettors in the Alfa Six sedan in 1979. The books say that the
design was done before the Alfettas (which were announced in 1971 and first
delivered on the market in May 1972). The similarities and differences in the
suspension and drive-train layout support the Six being an earlier design
than the Alfetta, so "developed in the 60s" is almost certainly correct. Alfa
had a long history of interest in larger, more prestigious cars but the
relatively modest sales of the ironblock 2000 and the 2600 against the
Giuliettas and Giulias was enough reason for the company to use its limited
resources on the mainstream Giulias and Alfettas and the less expensive fwd
boxers.
I don't believe it was ever used (or considered) as a competition engine; the
Montreal engine and the four-cam two-liter V-8 of the 33 Stradale (and a wide
range of other Autodelta engines) were available in the sixties and the V-6
had no advantages on them; the two liter Stradale V8 was rated at 230 hp at
8800 rpm, against the 160 at 5800 of the first production version of the six.
There was the V-6 mid-engined Alfasud Sprint, presumably a prototype for a
possible rally car, but the Alfetta rally cars of 1975 had three-liter V-8s.
I doubt that Fiat financing had anything to do with either the belt or the
Bosch injection.
John H.
Raleigh, N.C.
Forward from Jack Hagerty, Re: Alfa Ricambi
From: Steve Barber
Subject: Alfa Ricambi
>Seems like most times I call Alfa Ricambi for GTV parts these days, even
>for routine maintenance items like filters, they're out of stock. Is
>this a typical problem encountered by others? If we can't count on A-R,
>where do we find reliable parts sources?
After running into exactly this problem several times, I started doing
what I should have been doing all along, seeing as how I live in the
Bay Area: I started using Jon Norman's "Alfa Parts" in Berkeley. Ruth
Ann Yager has been in the Alfa parts business forever and is *extremely*
knowledgeable. They are reasonably priced, have just about everything you
could want in stock and will ship anywhere the same day. They have recently
started carrying the "Re-Originals" line as well.
Phone: (510) 525-9435, fax (510) 524-3636.
Std. Disclaimer: I have no connection with AP other than being a satisfied
customer and having known Ruth Ann for a couple of decades :-)
From: Bruce Murray
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 08:12:59 -0600
Subject: Reliable Parts Sources
It seems that people are beginning to have difficulty getting parts from
aftermarket suppliers for their more modern cars. I would suggest they try
the ALFA dealers.
I only buy my parts from an ALFA dealer who gives me great service and
whose prices are almost always less than from the aftermarket outlets. I
support a GTV6 and a 164 this way.
The dealer I use is BOBCOR in New Jersey (Jon Tangen is the man) and they
seem to be able to fill my orders largely from stock (201) 587-0028. If a
special order part is needed I will usually get it in one week. The UPS
shiping costs, to Boston at least, are trivial. Under $10 for an exhaust
system.
Of course if you want to go in and kibbutz with the counter man you might
be better off at the parts store.
The ALFA parts prices have been generally holding steady or even dropping
over the last few years. I suspect this is because they no longer have the
bloated overhead of a sales organization to deal with.
As an academic exercise, comparison shop for a Milano complete clutch
assembly from a dealer and your favorite supplier.
From: "Colin Verrilli"
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 98 11:45:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Reliable Parts Sources
Bruce Murray writes:
> It seems that people are beginning to have difficulty getting parts from
> aftermarket suppliers for their more modern cars. I would suggest they try
> the ALFA dealers.
> [clip]
I would agree. Also, many dealers now offer alternative parts when the
factory parts are not competitive (price-wise or performance-wise). If you're
in a hurry for special order parts, dealers can "VOR" (ie. drop ship)
directly from the FIAT warehouse to your home (for an extra charge).
Overnight or UPS ground is available.
From: bjanesi@juno.com (Bradley J. Anesi)
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 21:05:41 EST
Subject: Centerline Alfa Products ...a positive experience
With all the recent discussion about problems with parts availability
from a certain well-known establishment, I though I would offer an
alternative based upon a very recent experience. I'll save all the
details, but suffice it to say another parts house was happy to take my
money for the wrong set of Koni struts (not entirely their fault, as even
the Koni application guide was incorrect). With some help from Koni, we
discovered that Cenerline was the only organization with the correct
struts in stock. After a conversation with Steve from Centerline (who
knew right away which strut I SHOULD have purchased), arrangments have
been made to overnight ship the correct struts out to me for a very fair
price. In light of the fact that I have already destroyed the original
Boge struts to re-use the housing for the Konis, these guys really saved
the day and didn't take advantage of the fact that they had me over a
barrel.
I know I will buy from them again; feel free to request your own catalog
at
(303) 447-0239; ...just a satisfied customer, blah, blah, blah...
Brad Anesi
'91 Project 164Q 5-speed (currently strut-less)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 21:05:49 -0400
Subject: antenna [ used parts source ]
From: Donald Vanpraag
Tim,Sorry about the bogus address. Here is the correct address for AAA Small
Car World:
1500 Carson, Ft Worth, TX 76117
Phone 817-831-0946 or 1-800
-524-7419
Hope this helps