From: Tony Wood 
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 12:59:42
Subject: 164 mileage (was emissions)

My V6 3.0 Lusso does 28 miles per Imperial (UK) gallon on long runs,
cruising at 80 - 90 mph on non-motorway roads, where convenient,
GATSO-free, and relatively traffic-free.  No catalyst as it pre-dates
the legal requirement ('89 model).

In local day-to-day use it does 26 (if partly in congested traffic) or
27 mpg in light traffic.

I am fortunate in not having to join the rat-race in rush-hours,
where fuel consumption (and frustration) are worse.

Sorry, Brad, I can't give emission level at present - don't have the
last printout from our UK MOT test (but it passed clear).

To: Colin Verrilli 
From: Charles Marks 
Subject: Re: questions

At 08:57 AM 12/5/96 -0500, you wrote:

[ This is for a 164LS ...]

>1. What's your gas milage? I get about 18.5mpg average. This seems low.

About 24 mpg summer, about 22 mpg in the winter.  Drove from Milwaukee, WI
to Toronto, CA right after I got the car.  Drove 660 miles at an average
speed of 78 mph (including stops), often cruised at 110-120 but tried to be
at 90-95 the whole time and got 25.5 mpg for the trip.  I was amazed.

From: "Spiros Angelopoulos" 
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 09:57:05 -0800
Subject: Re: questions


[ This is for a 164LS ...]
> 1. What's your gas milage? I get about 18.5mpg average. This seems low.
When I drive it I get the same, 18.5mpg  When my wife drives it she gets
21-22mpg.  I wonder why ;-)

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 96 17:20:05 -0800
From: Ken Haven 
Subject: questions

[ This is for a 164LS ...]
Colin,

1.	My mileage ranges between 17 and 20 (5 speed), and you're
right, it is not an economical vehicle.

Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 08:37:17 -0800
From: karl.doll@sanjose.vlsi.com (Karl Doll)
Subject: 164LS Alfas

[ This is for a 164LS ...]
Hi,

Gas mileage in a semi-leadfoot mix of highway and city is 20 to 21 mpg.
When I go cross-country at about 70 mph I can get around 23 - 24 mpg.

Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 17:46:57 -0800 (PST)
From: Alan Lambert 
Subject: Re: 164LS Alfas

> >
> >1. What's your gas milage? I get about 18.5mpg average. This seems
> >low.
164L=22mpg

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 09:56:16 PST
Subject: Re: questions
From: latini@juno.com (tony latini)

gas mpg for my 1994 164 LS is 21 mpg overall with a range of 17 to 27
(total highway at 75 mph cruise).

my oil pressure gauge reads lower as the car warms - it usually settles
about 1/3 of the way around the gauge; i'd say about 45.  mechanic says
no problem

i also get a noise on cold starts that disappears - not sure where it
comes from (sounds like in vibrating)

From: Brad Anesi 
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1997 12:05:25 -0700
Subject: 164 Emissions Problem Solved!

Here's a follow-up to our pre-holiday discussion regarding the high (but
not NJ State failing) emissions level on my '91 164.  As you may recall,
my tail-pipe output (with cat') was:
  HC:  99 PPM      CO:  .46%    CO2: 11.1%

Over the weekend I installed a new 3-wire O2 sensor (FYI, I used the
universal Bosch unit, which gets spliced into the existing wiring - price is
$69 from IMPARTS rather than $150 for the "Alfa part")

I just came from the inspection station.  New readings:
  HC  3 PPM    CO:  .01%   CO2:  10.7%

Gee, do you think I found the problem?!  I guess I won't have to worry
about Jack Kervorkian stealing my car now.

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 22:42:04 -0500
Subject: Alfa emissions

Thanks for adding me to your posting list.  I want to stay posted on all the
information I can on 164's.  I have a 1991 164L with five-speed manual, which
I drive daily to work.  Total mileage is only 44,450!  I checked my most
recent emissions test (4/94!) and the tailpipe results (all we currently test
in Illinois) were CO .04% (high idle), .08% (low idle).  CO + CO2 were 15.05%
and 15.1% respectively.  Mileage is about 21-23 mpg (US) in my daily
stop-and-go grind.

Date:    Thu, 24 Dec 1998 03:09:11 EST
From:    Genyee@aol.com
Subject: 164 fuel comsumption

Mine 92 164S 5-speed Combined City( 30 % )/High Way Driving
( between 60-90 mph) return around 21 mpg.

But 94 164LS with automatic transmission only return 19-20 mpg.

Karl Chen

Date:    Thu, 24 Dec 1998 23:51:47 EST
From:    MANZONELLI@aol.com
Subject: Re: 164 fuel comsumption

I get around 20-21 mixing and I drive really hard and fast.

1991 164S

From: Keith Morehouse-WB9TIY 
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 12:06:34 -0500
Subject: 164 performance

Someone wrote:
>
> How fast has any of 164 owners had their car up to? {non S or Q
> please...}Real numbers please, he's young and impressionable. I was
> told that upwards of 150 mph is possible, and CAR magazine in Britain
> rates the old L at 149mph top speed.

Well, lets see...

I've hit the rev limiter in 5th gear several times in my L.  Speedo was
right around the 150 (MPH) mark so, given that the calibration is RIGHT
ON at 80 (checked), I would say that top speed (rev limited) is between
145-150.  By the way, it was still accelerating (slowly) when it started
shooting crows out the exhaust.

I would run with a Corrado any day, as long as it included a bunch of
high speed stuff.  Off the mark performance of the 164 is "brisk" but
not "stunning".  I've matched up against several stock 5.0L Ford
products (Mustangs) of early 90's vintage and found that they jump to a
quick 2-3 car advantage off the line with the 164 equal up to 115-120
MPH and being able to slowly cut the lead as speed increases.

Of course, many of the pre-pubescent, would-be Paul Tracy types back off
rather abruptly when speeds climb to the 120-130 range and one 'o them
funny 'furrin cars is still all over their pipes, the driver wearin' a
big ol' "lets play NASCAR" drafting smile !

Let 'em run, Boys !

Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 22:14:19 +0000
From: max 
Subject: Alfa on dyno

I had a chance to put my 1991 164L on the dyno at the Walter Mitty at
Road Altanta this month.  I got some good "real numbers" if any one is
interested.  I also have the printouts from it and video.  HyperTech
company supplied the dyno and Alfa supplied the fun.
    My L is slightly modified with STEBRO exhaust (resonator in place of
cat), K&N filtercharger, and performance chip from Tom Zat.  We got 160
bhp and 170 ft-lbs/torque at the wheels.  HyperTech technician said with
a V6 manual gearbox add approximately 20% on top of bhp which gives us
192-195 bhp (not bad).  I'm not sure what you add to torque.  If it's
the same (20%) then we have 204 ft-lbs/torque.
    Now lets talk mph.  We got 100mph in 3rd, 132mph in 4th, and 165mph
in 5th at redline (6800 w/ chip).  This is the computer speed being read
off the wheel drums that the tires are turning, not buy the speedo (that
was passed 160, about area of 170).  Now I know there is no wind
resistance to drag the car down but it is still pretty cool to see those
numbers.  E-mail me if you are interested in posting the printouts.

From: JALFAjr 
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 00:00:30 EDT
Subject: Re: 164 Dyno vs Real World

Shortly after I bought my 91 164 S, my new bride and I were in a very flat
western state and I saw 154 mph on the speedo and could have had a couple of
miles more with another quarter mile or so of straight.  I had calibrated the
speedo at only 3% high at 60 and 90 mph so I am certain the car was doing an
honest 150 mph.

I am not sure the 6500 rpm rev-limited engine speed translates to a 165 MPH
speed, but maybe the L has a taller final drive ratio.

Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 09:52:06 +0200
From: Arnt <arnt.aanensen@nodeco.no>
Subject: 164 at 161mph

My old -93 164 V6 TB (Now my fathers) did ca. 161mph (260km/h) on the
road(on the speedo).
I cannot exactly remember the Rpm, but I can recall that it was over 6000rpm.
The car responded like crayzy to about 150-155mph.
I did this high speed because a BMW M5 passed me at high speed when I was
cruising at 110 mph. The BMW has a limit at 155 mph, and I outrun the car.
My passenger was a BMW fanatic and he was very supprised about the 164
performance and handling. 
But..... What is more boring than cruising strait forward at high speed.
Give me some really good kurves and some hills to climb.
Thats what an Alfa loves.

Date:    Sat, 23 Jan 1999 23:38:19 EST
From:    JHertzman@aol.com
Subject: Bonneville Alfas

In AD7-411 Fred Di Matteo asked "Who knows the facts about the  Alfa Romeo 164
world speed record in Utah for stock cars in that class?  Was it 171 miles per
hour?  And when?"

[snip]
But what about the 164? Don says offhand he cannot find anything on the 164
run, but  believes he   wrote the speed  with a marker on the underside of the
bill of his cap, and that Il Quadrifoglio covered the 164 runs. So I went
looking in Il Quad (US edition, my run of EuroQuads is spotty) and did find a
note in the spring 1991 issue. The note, in a section edited by Michael
Hemsley (known to the digest as "Mike from Misissippi") does not say anything
about setting a record but does say that the car, driven by Gianni Marin,
editor of "Gente Motori", did a first run of 144.408 mph against a headwind
and a return run, windboosted against the rev limiter at better than 6500 rpm,
of 149.412 for a two-way average of 148.509 mph.

So- if there was a 171 mph run it was some other day, and probably with some
other gearing. I will keep an eye peeled.

Date:    Thu, 11 Feb 1999 23:14:34 EST
From:    JHertzman@aol.com
Subject: da numbuz-

In AD7-466 Rich Wagner, with his slide rule unhostered (bet that dates me!)
asks for the numbers:

"John didn't mention what the peak HP was for the 164 S model, but my
simulation shows something around 212 at 6,200 RPM.  So, I would certainly bet
that the 164 can exceed 140 MPH, and would likely hit the rev limiter before
reaching terminal speed.

"Okay John, here's a real challenge for your archives.  Can you scare up the
drag coefficient and frontal or reference area of the 164?  If you can do
that, and then fax me the power curves for the two models, I can figure out
the cars' absolute terminal speeds, if we were to install the proper gearing."

How nice to have somebody ready to deal with substance instead of smoke-

According to the previously cited "Product Bulletin" PA60492039 published by
Alfa Lancia S.p.A. the 164 and 164 L maximum power (SAE net) is 183 at 5600
rpm and the maximum torque is 191 ft.lbs (259 Nm) at 4400 rpm, while the 164 S
maximum power (SAE net) is 200 at 5800 RPM and the maximum torque is 195
ft.lbs (265 Nm) at 4500; the penetration coefficient Cx = 0.305 for the base
and 'L', and 0.300 on the 'S'. Effective drag surface is Cx.s =0,61 sq.m. I
know you didn't ask for torque values but someone else may be interested-

They do not specify which if any of these values are valid for Texas.

Gearbox ratio in fifth is 1:0.916 for the three cars, axle ratio 18/56 (3.111)
for the base and L, 17/58 (3.412) for the S giving overall ratios and vehicle
speed per 1,000 rpm of 1:2.849 and 25.62 mph for the base and L, and 1:3.125,
23.03 mph for the S.

I don't see a number for the rev limiter, but the characteristic curves for
both engines chop off at 6200, where the S is down nearly 10 hp from its
indicated 5800 peak.

Sorry, I don't have data on the Quad.

Rich adds "- and then fax me the power curves for the two models, I can figure
out the cars' absolute terminal speeds, if we were to install the proper
gearing." My fax machine has been in dead storage for years but if he really
wants the curves I can fax them some way or another or (horrors!) snail them,
but would need his fax number and/or address.

After rereading a couple of other posts I wonder if Rich would comment on how
much one gains by raising the rev limiter when the power curve is already
heading south like a rock-

Cordially 

John H.
Raleigh N.C.

Date:    Thu, 11 Feb 1999 22:07:22 -0700
From:    "Mark W. Lachniet" 
Subject: Subject: Re: Flat out in a 164

I think 158 mph is possible.  Just had my 1995 164 LS at 140 mph
at 6000 rpms.  Verified speed with Garmin III GPS unit it read
140.3 mph at the indicated 140 on the speedo.  Started running
into traffic on I-70 West and had to back out of it.  It would
seem that 158 mph is possible with a 164.

Mark W. Lachniet

1995 164 LS (77k miles)
1991 164 (b) (124k miles)

Date:    Fri, 12 Feb 1999 12:17:01 -0700
From:    "Rich Wagner" 
Subject: Re: da numbuz-

In AD7-467 John Hertzman wrote:

> In AD7-466 Rich Wagner, with his slide rule unhostered (bet that dates
> me!)

Maybe not.  I'm 35, and I own a few of them!  I also made my own circular
slide rule, which, believe it or not, I carry with me in my car.  (Makes me
sound like the biggest geek on this side of the continental divide.)  Comes
in handy for doing division that I can't do in my head.

Anyway, in AD7-466, I thew down the gauntlet, and challenged John to
produce aerodynamic data for the 164.  To my chagrin, he did:

> the penetration coefficient Cx = 0.305 for the base
> and 'L', and 0.300 on the 'S'. Effective drag surface is Cx.s =0,61 sq.m.


Thank you, John.  I'll never question your archives, or their
administrator, again.

For kicks, let's keep this a group project.  From John's numbers, I've
produced the following data for the 164:

Speed (mph)	Drag (lb)	Power (hp)
=====================================
120		242		77
125		262		87
130		284		98
135		306		110
140		329		123
145		353		136
150		378		151
155		404		167

Note that "Power" is the amount of power required  to reach
these speeds.  It is not the power required at the crankshaft of the
engine.  Gearboxes, given what they do, are fairly ineffecient devices,
and turn a substantial percentage of the power they're transmitting into
heat.  This means that the amount of power coming out of a gearbox
(especially a typical, helical gearbox, like the 164's) is substantially
lower than that being delivered by the engine.  I don't have any data on
the 164's gearbox.  If John or anyone else has any efficiency data on it,
please send it on, and we'll rerun the next set of calculations using it. 
In the meantime, allow me to illustrate why it's important to keep all of
your Alfa Owner magazines, regardless of how much the rest of your family
complains about the mess.  In the March 1998 Alfa Owner, Fred Di Matteo had
a lovely article on his 2.8 liter Milano conversion.  On the dyno, his car
produced 139 HP at the rear wheels and 6,000 engine RPM.  My simulation
says that the engine was probably producing about 185 HP under these
conditions.  Note that John says:

>According to the previously cited "Product Bulletin" PA60492039 published
by
>Alfa Lancia S.p.A. the 164 and 164 L maximum power (SAE net) is 183 at
5600
>rpm and the maximum torque is 191 ft.lbs (259 Nm) at 4400 rpm

So, we're seeing a 2.8 liter engine producing about the same power as a 3
liter engine, but at a higher RPM.  This makes me think that my simulation
is probably correct.  That makes the gearbox on the Milano about 75%
efficient.  A 25% loss seems a bit large to me, but I'll wager it's in the
ballpark.  Let's assume that the gearbox on the 164 is about as efficient,
and work with that figure.  The power required at the 164's crankshaft
would then be:

Speed (mph)	Power (hp)
======================
120		102
125		116
130		130
135		146
140		164
145		181
150		201
155		222

183 HP falls at 145.25 MPH which, gearing aside, should be the absolute
terminal speed of the base and L models.  200 HP falls at 149.6 MPH which,
gearing aside, should be the absolute terminal speed of the S model. 
'Course, gearing isn't just an aside, and we have to work with what's in
our cars.  According to John's figures, 5th gear in these cars (with the
stock tires) gives the following RPM/speed relationship:

Speed (mph)	RPM (base, L)	RPM (S)
===============================
120		4,683		5,211
125		4,878		5,428
130		5,073		5,645
135		5,269		5,862
140		5,464		6,079
145		5,659		6,297
150		5,854		6,514
155		6,049		6,731

And this is where John comes back into play.  John has a set of "power
available" curves for these two engines.  The data I've generated here
establishes a set of "power required" curves.  John can now plot, on the
same engine curves, the power required for each of these cars to achieve a
given speed.  In other words, I've defined a set of "gearbox input" curves.
 For example, for the base and L models, gearbox input at 4,683 RPM is 102
HP.  Input at 4,878 RPM is 116 HP.  For the S model, input at 5,211 RPM is
102 HP.  Input at 5,428 RPM is 116 HP.  As long as the power available
curve is above the power required curve, the car can reach that speed. 
Where these two curves cross, is the actual terminal speed of the car,
given the gearing.  John, let us know where those points fall.

Ideally, you want the curves to cross at the peak of the engine's power
curve.  Let's see how the Alfa engineers did.


> After rereading a couple of other posts I wonder if Rich would comment on
how
> much one gains by raising the rev limiter when the power curve is already
> heading south like a rock-

None in acceleration or terminal speed.  However, if you are constrained to
a fixed number of gears (five for example), running up past the power peak
can get you farther into the workable RPM range of the next gear.  If the
final gear is very tall, that can be important.  So, if you've got a 1.5
liter engine that produces 235 HP over a  narrow power band, and the
car needs to hit 200 MPH using only 5 gears, it can come in handy. 
However, for a car with a terminal speed of 140 MPH and a power band
3,000-4,000 RPM wide, it's not any help at all.


Rich Wagner
Montrose, CO
'82 GTV6 Balocco

Date:    Sat, 13 Feb 1999 12:02:47 +0000
From:    Jon Herbert 
Subject: Re: Terminal velocity

> In AD7-466 Jon Herbert had written "Posted (magazine) UK top speeds
> were 143 for the 12V V6 and 150 for the 12V Cloverleaf." (typo? 12 v
> or 24V?)

I've found more numbers from a UK source (probably Alfa's own figures)

1989-1992

164 2.0               148bhp 129mph
164 3.0 Manual (12V)  192bhp 143mph
164 3.0 Auto   (12V)  185bhp 139mph
164 Cloverleaf (12V)  200bhp 147mph

1993-1998

164 2.0               146bhp 130mph
164 3.0 Manual (24V)  210bhp 149mph
164 3.0 Auto   (24V)  210bhp 145mph
164 Cloverleaf (24V)  230bhp 152mph

Jon Herbert
'90 164 3.0 V6 Lusso
Ludgershall, Wilts, UK.

Date:    Sun, 14 Feb 1999 18:46:21 EST
From:    JHertzman@aol.com
Subject: Number trivia redux

Rummaging around in the files I found a couple of pieces of consumer-oriented
164 literature both printed in the USA (unlike the Italian printed and dealer
oriented Product Bulletin), one dated 2/28/90 and the other 12/91, both of
which give a coefficient of drag of 0.32 rather then the 0.305 and 0.300 from
the Product Bulletin. Can't see any differences which would account for the
higher drag. 

While neither lists any performance data in the specifications tables both
include among the photo captions "Advance aerodynamics and an outstanding
power-to-weight ratio allow the 164S to attain a speed of over 140 mph on a
test track."

Digging a bit further I found a couple of German 164 brochures which do not
list the cd but do list both Max.Leistung in DIN-PS bei U/min and
Hochtgeschwingigkeit in km/h. The numbers are respectively:

T.Spark: PS 143 bei 5800, 207 km/h
3.0 V6: PS 184 bei 5600 U/min, 227 km/h
3.0 Automatik: PS 184 bei 5600 U/min, 222 km/h
Quadrifoglio: PS 200 bei 5800 U/min, 237 km/h
2.0 V6 Turbo: PS 204 bei 6000 U/min, 237 km/h

The main brochure, covering the first four, does not go into gear ratios but
the 2.0 V6 Turbo lists the same ratios, including the 17/58 final drive, as
given for the 'S' in the Product Bulletin. 

The Spider and GTV brochures I have are later (and French), and list power in
CV-CEE which I assume are same as PS-DIN, but if anyone knows better please
say:

Spider 2.0 T-spark 16V: CV 159 a 6200 giri/min, 210 km/h 
Spider 3.0 V6 12V: CV 192 a 5600 giri/min, 225 km/h 
GTV 2.0 T-spark 16V: CV 150 a 6200 giri/min, 215 km/h
GTV 2.0 V6 Turbo: CV 200 a 6000 giri/min, 235 km/h

Which looks like the 164 has a slight edge on the sports cars aerodynamically
as well as aesthetically.

John H. 
Raleigh N.C

Date:    Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:36:14 -0700
From:    "Rich Wagner" 
Subject: 164 Terminal Speeds 19 1/2:  This Time, It's Really Terminal.

Hi Gang:

As I alluded to in my last post, I've completed my analysis of the 164
terminal speeds.  This morning, Colin emailed me the engine power curves
for the base, L, and S models.  Using the data from the analysis I posted
earlier this week, I laid a set of power required curves down over the
engine power curves to see where they intersect.  The intersect point
indicates the cars' actual terminal speeds, given their gearing.  If any of
you would like to see the graphs, let me know, and I will email you a set. 
Perhaps Colin can post them on his 164 page.

The result, for the base and L models was very interesting.  The power
required curve intersects the power available curve at its highest point. 
I don't believe this to be a coincidence.  To reach its absolute terminal
speed (the maximum speed the car should reach, based solely on it's
available power), the gearing must be arranged in just such a manner.  I'm
sure the Alfa engineers chose the overall fifth gear ratio accordingly. 
This also validates, to some degree, the engine curves and aerodynamic data
that John scared up for me.  For those interested, it also indicates that
the driveline of the 164 is about 75% efficient--a figure which I'm betting
will apply well to any roadgoing system.  (Expect a straight-cut race
system to be more efficient.)  The final results:  the 164 base and L
models should reach a speed of 145 MPH without hitting the rev limiter. 
With performance mods (real ones, that is) they can go faster.

The result for the S model is even more interesting.  As we all know, the S
has more power available, and so should have a higher terminal speed.  Not
so.  In fifth gear, the base and L models will stop accelerating right at
their 5,700 RPM power peaks.  The S model is geared much shorter than the
base and L models.  In fifth gear at 5,700 RPM (also its power peak), it
will only be going 131 MPH.  That's a gearing constraint, and can only be
changed by changing the gearing.  We believe that the rev limiter for the S
is set at 6,200 RPM.  At 6,200 RPM, the S will be going 143 MPH.  Unless
the rev limit is changed, it simply can't go faster.  Now, don't go out and
start playing with your ECU.  Even with a mod to its ECU to extend the rev
limit, the car will stop accelerating at 147 MPH, 3 MPH short of its best,
because of the short gearing.  Given the correct gearing, the S has the
potential to go about 150 MPH.  On a terminal speed run in your S, you will
hit the rev limiter.  This makes the base and L models a few MPH 
than the S.  It appears that the Alfa engineers chose shorter gearing for
the S to provide snappier acceleration--at a slight cost to terminal speed.
 A terminal speed run will not tax the engine in your S to its limit.  At
its power peak of 5,700 RPM, the engine will still have about 25 unused
horses on tap.  The result again:  the S will top out at 143 MPH against
the rev limiter.

So, the S model is a real drag racer compared to the base and L models. 
With more power and shorter gearing, it will easily walk away from the base
and L under acceleration.  However, with the pedal to the floor and plenty
of straight, flat highway, the base and L will eventually walk away from
the S.  Course, the difference is literally a walk, 2-3 MPH.  Given the way
it accelerates, and a terminal speed that is, to the human, the same as
that for the base and L models, the S must feel like a LOT of car.  I'm
sure the Alfa engineers planned it that way.


Rich
Montrose, CO
'82 GTV6 Balocco

From: John Burrows 
Subject: Magazine Articles 
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 09:16:23 -0700

AutoWeek		5/7/90		164 Introduction
AutoWeek		1/7/91		164 AutoFile
AutoWeek		7/25/94		1991-1994 164 Performance Review
Car & Driver		6/90		164S Road Test
C&D			7/91		Super Sedan Comparo (164L)
C&D			9/93		164 LS Road Test
Rodent Track		6/90		164S Road Test
R&T			8/91		Sedans Under $30K Comparison Test (164L)
R&T			12/93		164Q Road Test
Automobile		9/90		164 Road Test
Sports Car Intl		6/90		164L Road Test
Italian Cars & Bikes (UK)	#13 1993	164 Range Article
Alfa Romeo World	#3		164 Range Article
ARW			#4		164 Turbo V-6 Article
Complete Car (UK)	11/94		164 TS & Super Long Term Test Report

Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 20:58:11 +0200
From: W Roos 
Subject: Pininfarina and 164

>bofusric@webtv.net (ric salinas)
>Subject: pinninfarina
>
>Has anyone notice that the Peugeot 405/605 is a smaller version 
>of the Alfa 164? 
>>>

The book I was talking about is "Alfa Romeo 164" by Bruno Alfieri, 
published by Automobilia 1987. It is in Englis, French and Italian 
with lots of pics, 102 pages. 

One of my favourites, I got it before I bought my 164 in 1990. 
Nice rading.

Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 15:54:39 -0700
From: W R 
Subject: alfa 164 book

Got some e-mails asking about the 164 book, so here it is for ya all:

***

Alfa Romeo 164
by Bruno Alfieri
ISBN 88-85058-82-5
Published by
Automobilia Milano
Viale Monte Santo 4
ITALY

I think Chris Sweetapple has some copies left for sale, try

 	and ask.

Date:    Sat, 26 Dec 1998 12:09:59 +0000
From:    "gre1@worldnet.att.net" 
Subject: 164 Book again

By the mail I am getting it seems I should post this info (from the 164
page);

>>Alfa Romeo 164
>>by Bruno Alfieri
>>ISBN 88-85058-82-5
>>Published by
>>Automobilia Milano
>>Viale Monte Santo 4
>>ITALY

My copy was ordered, on line, from Border Books.  They were the only store
that offered the book and it took about a month to receive.  Search by
author.

From: Dave Hillman 
Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 17:05:11 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: 164S in your future

Mike Grace wrote:
> I just ran across an ad for a '91 164S for sale.  Talking to the wife
> of the alfisti, she said that the car had 60K miles and had already had
> the tranny rebuilt and a piston repaired.  I've noticed other people on
> the list have described tranny rebuilds at <50K miles as well.  I'm not
> familiar with the newer Alfas but the older ones could be counted on to
> be much more durable than this in terms of major mechanicals.  Of
> course, this 164 has also had it's share of fixed power windows, power
> seats, oil leaks, the usual gripes about alfas.  I really like the
> looks of the car and have read glowing reports of the performance.  My
> question is this: How durable are the major mechanicals on this car?
> What things should I look for in assessing its value?  They are asking
> $11,000 OBO.  What is the going rate for such a beautiful car?

   Although I've never owned an S, I've been looking for a low mileage
example with which to replace my L for a couple months now, and I'm
acquiring more and more information about them.

   I would say that major mechanical repairs such as described above are
*not* common with 164s, and are *not* consistent with proper maintainance.

   The only 164 transmissions I've heard of needing major work before six
figure mileage are the automatics found in the Ls and Bs.  The 3 litres
are, by most accounts, extremely strong and durable.  The automatics and
the power steering racks on the automatic 164s ( which differs from the
manual's rack ) are prone to early failure.  None of which is applicable
to the 164S

   Apart from that, I would say the price sounds fair for a well-kept
example, depending on your geographic location and the relative rarity of
Alfas there.

   If I could add a quick question about 164s... specifically, the front
right wheel well.  My '91 L has a rough-edged hole in the wheel well
which makes me extremely uncomfortable ( all those belts and whatnot
being in the vicinity )... and I've seen similar holes on at least three
others I've checked.

   I'm fairly sure it ain't supposed to be there, but can someone tell me
*how* those holes are created and if I should *really* get it fixed ASAP.

   Does anyone else have a similar hole(s), or are the 164s with holes
extremely coincidental anamolies?

- --
 David Hillman
 1991 alfa romeo 164l | aroc, nma

From: unltd-ltd@juno.com (B. D. Zelazny)
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 17:04:27 EST
Subject: To buy or not to buy a 164 / Tires for 164s

> So yesterday I took a test drive in a 164.  Very nice.  A few years ago

> the 164 did not make sense to me.  Now it does.  We would drive it every
> day in every kind of weather, just as we used to with the berlinas and
> sport sedan.  Some slow traffic, some bumpy roads, some short trips, it
> would need to have the ZF auto.  It would have to last ten years at about
> 7K miles per year.  It would get the best of care, and, like the tempo,

> would have its little needs attended to every other Saturday.
>
> But what do owners think?

Don't have an automatic, but here goes.

The problems with the 164, as I see it are:

You have to go too fast (over 100mph) to have fun (i.e. the sense of
speed is greatly diminished as compared to a GTV-6 or Milano (75).In my
GTV-6 my better half used to easily tolerate 20mph over the posted speeds
on corners, until she spent too much time in the 164. Now she freaks at
those same speeds in the GTV-6, but will tolerate almost double the
posted corner speeds in the 164! Now I can't have fun in the GTV-6 if
she's along for the ride.

The warranty was too short (36,000 miles/3 years). Under normal usage
that would have only been a little over a year for us. We bit the bullet
(drove the GTV-6 and GTV more and the 164 less) and stretched the
coverage to the full three years.

Buy an extended warranty (the longer the better) and DO BUY the
ELECTRICAL rider coverage. If you have seen the 164 electrics schematic
poster you understand why. On the "S" even the shock absorbers are
electronic and WILL NOT BE COVERED without the rider.

Avoid using the "Auto" setting for the A/C and Heater. Use the manual
settings, don't change the fan speed, temperature setting or vent setting
more than is absolutely necessary. This will extend the life of the
stepper motor which will cost either a lot of time or a lot of money to
replace this inexpensive part. See the September `96 "Alfa Owner"
magazine for more details.

The windshields crack too easily. This may be due to rock impacts at high
speed, but  I think it is due to the thinness of the windshields (lower
weight). We are on our third windshield, and it recently got a rock chip
at about 80mph while passing a slower vehicle. (Insurers cannot cancel
you for comprehensive claims, thank  .)

In spite of all of the above, we love our 164S. Definitely spring for the
"S" if you can afford it (Oops, no automatics). We also have the fairly
rare Recaro seat option (125 in `91 only) and believe they are worth
every penny in added cost.

As others have indicated, there are bound to be small problems (and
occasional big ones). Some of us have had better luck than others. The
164s need regular "Italian Tune-ups!!"


Also, regarding tires: I love the all-weather Yokohama A008P (especially
designed for Porsche) 195/65 ZR15. This is the stock size tire and these
babies out perform the Pirellis by a mile. They do wear rather rapidly.
If you rotate often (every 2,000 miles) and don't race from signal lights
(we don't have any in our tri-county area the combined size of CT/MA) you
can get about 25,000+ out of them. Fantastic in the wet and killer in the
corners and at ultra-high speeds (155+)!! They also fit the GTV-6, but
don't last as long as on the 164. Great for the track, too.

Ciao,
Bernardo
Texas Hill Country AROC
President (for life?)
La Pilota editor (for eternity?)
Current total Alfa Romeo miles logged since `73:   578,790 +
Goal: 1,000,000 Alfa miles before I die!

From: JALFAjr@aol.com
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 20:01:56 -0500
Subject: Daily Alfa Drivers and the MG logos

To Herb Spitz and Mark Thornton on Daily Alfa Drivers.   My daily driver is a
1991 164S, which I bought "new" in April of '93 from the dealer, who had
never licensed it.  It had the new car warranty, etc and only 5K miles.  The
car still has less than 30K miles, is going in next week for a Tensioner
upgrade, with new timing belt, courtesy of ARDONA.  I would not say the car
has been trouble free, but has not had anymore trouble than several people at
work with Hondas, Toyotas, Fords or Chevys, which needless to say are not
nearly as much fun to drive.

I drive it in snow, sleet, rain, sunshine.  I do worry about getting rear
ended, etc, but that is a chance I am willing to take, given the joy the car
is to drive. I do have some help on accidents, as I only go about 1 mile to
and from work each day.  The heated seats are nice this time of year, as the
heater just begins working as I reach the house, but my backside has been
warm since about a block after leaving the parking garage.

I also have the knowledge that I can probably outrun, out handle almost any
non-sports car on the road.  I did not buy the car for resale value, so the
fact that 91's are going for under $10,000(US) is not a problem for me,  (I
still have my first Alfa, bought new in 1971, a 1750 GTV), and sometimes I am
tempted to buy another just because it is such a great car.

John Justus
91 164S
71 1750 GTV

From: spiesel@BIOMED.MED.YALE.EDU
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 00:32:03 -0500 (EST)
Subject: er, unusual features

   Okay, I've been reading the Alfa Digest for a good while
now and I've seen the charred and smoking remains when even
a whiff of treason is suspected so let me say up front:  I
LOVE MY ALFA.  I've loved all my previous Alfas, even when
there was no hope of running them between, say, November and
April.  I love their design and its execution -- never mind
that in the old days electrical parts were clearly
hand-chipped out of pot metal just prior to being coated
with the corrosion enhancer.
   I still have the keys to the old Berlina.  My family
loves Alfas. My wife had actual tears in her eyes when the
flatbed came to ferry the GTV across the river Styx.  I did,
too.  My children love Alfas:  my son (who sometimes writes
to the Digest) is on his second; my daughter's boyfriend is
Italian.
   I adore my '91 164L and, yes, I do recommend it, even as
a daily driver, and I can't understand how the person who
test drove one last week could resist signing instantly on
the dotted line.  I cannot imagine a better combination of
zing and pleasure and ease and even reliability (a word I
would never have associated with my previous Alfas).
   I love even the quirky features unique to my own car.
For instance, the Genuine Alfa Certificate of Authenticity,
courtesy of some previous owner:  the unmistakable mark of a
scorchingly hot 38 revolver branded into the leather of the
front passenger seat.
   But I am always surprised that no one has yet remarked in
the Digest on some of the more -- er -- unusual features of
this stunning automobile.  I am not talking about the key
blanks we share with the Yugo or the dashboard which closely
resembles the Rockefeller Center Christmas tree when the car
is started.  I am not talking about the windshield washer
fluid reservoir whose capacity (at an amazing 1/10 of the
car's fuel capacity) is probably able to wash free a car
trapped under a Southern California mudslide.  What I am
talking about are such features as the little coffin in the
rear window deck which -- sorry, European market only -- is
equipped with the first aid kit.  (No doubt the American
market is deprived because of the not irrational fear of a
malpractice suit in case a Band-Aid is improperly applied
after a major crash.)  And I am thinking about the most
stunning feature of all (perhaps the most stunning feature
of any car since Lalique stopped making hood ornaments):
the high pressure jet headlight washers -- sorry, no dryers
- which rise with majestic solemnity on little pillars to-
do their stuff and then, with similar majesty, slowly
descend to return to home in the front bumper.
     So go for it:  buy that 164 -- everything about it is
wonderful.  And nothing on any other car even comes close to
those headlight washers.

Syd

From: "Nick Koleszar" 
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 21:34:43 -0000
Subject: Advice on buying 164

Mark,

Unless I am mistaken, the 2.0 litre 164's were not sold in the UK with A/C
which may limit you somewhat. Have the car checked-out thoroughly by a
decent Alfa mechanic and beware there are some pretty indecent ones out
there. I can give you guidance on that if necessary.

The 3.0 litre 24v models had a flaw with the cam belts which should have
been rectified under warranty by the time you see it. Apparently all the
164's are good for very high mileages if taken care of. The car is still
available new so go test drive a few at dealers. Beware that if you drive a
24v you may be irrepairably smitten! That engine is simply glorious and one
has no trouble making-believe one is taking part in a touring-car race. The
noises are truly heady. I found the 24v suffered from torque steer quite a
bit but certainly can corner fast despite this and really is a mighty
high-speed cruiser.

Having said that, I have no ownership experience of the cars and there are
tons of truly tatty ones about. The TS models with black bumpers and cloth
interiors seem to have been quite popular as executive company cars. A
further potential problem is that as Alfa Romeos have become more
accessable to the ordinary driver, they have suffered correspondin neglect
and lack of understanding. Have you spoken to the AROC secretary? I found
him to be most helpful and he should be able to put you onto someone to
advise you. Issue 1 of Auto Italia magazine ran a feature on the 164.

Those in the know reckon the V6 is always the one to go for though the
handling should be better with the 2.0

> From: "Kempton, Mark, KEMPTOM" 

> I am planning to buy an Alfa 164, probably a 3.0 12v V6, possibly a 2.0
TS, 
> preferably with air conditioning. I will have to buy a high mileage one
due 

Hope this helps

NK
'91 75 3.0 Cloverleaf 61k miles and counting. Daily driver (Almost)

From: bjanesi@juno.com (Bradley J. Anesi)
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 22:17:13 EDT
Subject: 164 Fate -Reply

"Obadiah T. Fayth"  writes...

>I see an ad in the paper for a 164 at a local dealer.
>The white paint looks kinda yellowish back in the corners of the bay around
>the base of the windshield. Do these cars tend to rust there?
That's just yellowed clearcoat from the heat.  These cars should not ever
rust at all since they are 100% galvanized  ...emphasis on should. 

>Driver's side of oil pan has some oil on it; 
Typical - could be the oil pan gasket, the flywheel seal, or even the
distributor O-ring up above.  If the fluid is red, it's the input seal
which should be replaced regardless when doing the clutch. 

>1.) the stepper motors- I don't really know how to check them.
Turn the ignition on, but don't start the car.  You may hear a clicking
noise once every second or so - the louder it is, the closer your motors
are to failure.  Regardless, you can use this to knock the price down a
bit, as even new steppers make some noise.  Not entirely ethical I
realize, but I'm sure the car dealer is still worse. 

>2.) Clutch action- the clutch pedal seemed very stiff in comparison to my
>alfetta (both manual trannys). Is the action normally this stiff, or does
>this signify some sort of internal wear? Pressure plate? Throwout 
>bearing?  Is it $pendy for the do-it-yourselfer to fix?
As the 164 clutch gets old, the required pedal effort goes up - I suspect
you have some time left, but not much.  I just replaced mine at 70K
(wasn't slipping yet).  Parts are not terribly expensive, but it is not
an easy job.  Don't count on starting the job on Saturday and driving the
car to work on Monday, although you MAY be able to do this.  I'll be
doing a write-up in the Alfa Owner on this job at some point - hopefully
before I forget everything I did.  BTW, with the new clutch installed,
the pedal effort is silly easy like a damn Mazda.

>4.) The Air bag light blinked for about a minute and then stayed on
>steadily. I think this means that a sensor needs to be reset. Any 
>other possibilities?
This almost falls into the "they all do that" category.  Usually, the
sensor is falsely triggered and a re-set is all that's needed.  However,
my friend (former Fiat/Lancia mechanic) with a 164L hasn't been able to
re-set his after trying several times. 

>- -Does the steering wheel tilt?
Not really - it just telescopes in and out with a bit of north/south
play.

>There is some sort of button or lever on the left side
That's the diagnostics button.

>- -How can I tell if the car has an alarm? The key had some sort of 
>remote built into the head and a little light on one side. The button was 
>broken so I could not try it out :(
Base models didn't have alarms standard.  The button on the key is just
for the light.

>The dealer wants $6700, supposibly down from $10.900. Given the possible
>problems the car has what do you think a fair offering price would be?
That's a lot of car for not a lot of money - nonetheless, I'd offer
$5000, as I'm sure the blinking Air Bag light has scared others away.

Buy it, you won't regret it.

From: TESTUT 
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 07:59:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 164 fate - reply

Brad and Jon have given some good tips in response to Obadiah T. Fayth's
quest for a 164.  I can't really add very much EXCEPT to say that some
rusting is possible on the 164, although relatively minor.

My 164 which has spent its entire life in the "rust belt" of upstate NY,
practically parking in salt water during the winter months, is prone to
surface rust on the bottom rear fender edges.  On my 164 these spots are
at the peak of the wheel opening and also at the front edge just below
the door opening.  These spots are very minor, but would develop into something
more serious if ignored, I think.

I would also like to second Brad's comment on the clutch.  My clutch lasted
until 87,000 miles before needing to be replaced.  Unlike Brad's experience,
my clutch replacement was a one day job, but admittedly a little trickier
than other cars I've owned which needed a clutch replaced (Any of the '60s
vintage British cars come to mind).

As for the stepper motors (and here I invoke the wrath of the gods), I now
have 93,000 miles on a car built in 12/90 and am on the original stepper
motors.  I've never had any problem with the heating/cooling system with the
exception of an expansion valve which failed last month ($80 part/$25 labor).
FWIW for all the 164 owners out there, I typically use the "AUTO" function
setting my temperature to 73degrees(F) in the summer and 68degrees(F) in
the cooler parts of the year.  I also turn the system off before shutting
my engine off every time.  I don't know if this explains the longevity of
my heating/cooling system, but I offer it as an "observation" for those
of you collecting observations.

In conclusion, Obadiah I would recommend you buy it.  Take Brad's and Jon's
advice seriously (they know of what they speak).  As for price,  I think
Brad's pretty accurate in what he wrote.  If you can get it at a lower price
(and I think you can) go for it, but even if you can't the price doesn't
seem unreasonable to me.

Skip
1991 164 Base
AROC-US

From: Robert_A_Brady@rohmhaas.com (Robert A Brady)
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 07:27:23 -0400
Subject: Looked at a 164 last night to replace my '73 gtv......HELP!

Well, the '91 164 I looked at last night was a VERY nice car.  At ~105,000 
miles it was tight, quiet, and drove like new.  These are obviously very 
well built cars and anyone looking for a sport/luxury sedan should consider 
them.  After comparing it to an '85 B** 535i I drove, it confuses me why 
Alfa didn't tromp B** in sales in that class.  The 164 is a MUCH better 
car, in my opinion.  I can only imagine that alfa's bad rap in the US led 
to their demise.  It amazes me how B** owners can pour $$$$ into their cars 
and still have the reputation for iron-clad reliability.  Anyway, enough of 
that.

The only faults I could find on the car were:
1.  one front headlight with water in it (id did work, however).  The owner 
told me that this is a $350 item.
2.  clutch pedal was stiff (stiffer than my '74 gtv), even though the owner 
claimed less than 30k mi on it.
3.  valve covers leaked a bit, and it looked like there was oil inside the 
timing belt covers.... leaking detensioner??? Timing belt had about 30k mi 
on it, so it was due.  It was last replaced by the dealer, under the recall 
program.

Other than that, it was essentially perfect.  Original owner, dealer 
maintained.  If anyone is interested, call Jeff (Philadelphia) at 
215-829-0435.  He's asking $6900.  I offered $6000 (he'll definately take 
$6300), but am going to retract the offer.... here's why:

As I said, the 164 is a very nice car.... but... after much deliberation, 
it's not for me.  While it was certainly fast (from observing the spedo), 
it did not FEEL fast.  On the same stretch of roads, my '74 GTV FEELS much 
faster, although it is surely much slower.  Also, although it is an 
incredibly well balanced car (esp. for a fwd) and drives like a car much 
lighter/smaller than it is, it is not particularly fun (my opinion) to 
drive.  It is so refined that I feel disconected from the road.  It's just 
too quiet, too smooth, too NICE for me to drive.  If I needed to drive 
clients around or had a desire to impress friends and neighbors, this would 
be a great car to do it in.  My wife would have loved owning it (this is 
not meant as a slam to 164 owners... please).  In fact, she eyed it up and 
was ready to take it and give me her '89 accord... yuk!

I'm just not ready for such a refined car.  FWIW, I had similar impressions 
about the BMW, and was further disappointed in its performance (or lack 
thereof).  Dispite the ads, BMW is NOT the ultimate driving machine... IMO.

So, my search for a "family" GTV continues...  I haven't driven a Milano, 
Berlina, Sports Sedan, or Gulia Super yet.... they're all getting tougher 
to find, esp. near PA. A B** E30 series car is still on the list, as is a 
4dr golf.  Any other suggestions.  $6k was over my self-imposed budget;  
I'd like to be more in the $3k range (so I can pour the rest into my gtv :)

The car must be able to fit two adults and two kiddies (in car seats), be 
manual transmission, and be able to pass PA inspection (including 
emissions).  I can't afford another major project right now, but rust 
doesn't particularly scare me, nor do any mechanical problems. Help!

Bob Brady, DVAROC
'74 gtv.... desperately seeking another alfa

From: Jon 
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 19:00:56 +0100
Subject: Re: 164 purchase

> I am looking into purchasing a 1991 164 L--it's a pure love kind
> of thing.

Hallelujah, sister! Testify!

> Now, my head is pushing my heart aside and wants to ask
> you all what the average cost of maintenance is.

Ah.

> From reading some of the posts on the 164 L, I do see that Alfas
> have their share of problems--as do all cars. Are these problems
> very expensive to repair?  Please share with me your expertise.

The trick is to buy a good car to start with. I didn't... and spent
the same amount again over two years keeping it running. (#4000)

Hopefully, I've got it right this time... (Hahahaha giggle snort)

164s use front tyres and brakes like there's no tomorrow (so long as
you're using them right).
There's a lot of exhaust; check for rust. I've seen one with fairly
bad rear suspension rust, too. Body is unlikely to go.
Clutches wear out fairly quickly too. Not cheap to change. The clutch
pedal gets heavier as it wears out. (Don't know about autos...)
The engine mounts wear out. Try wobbling the engine (back-to-front).
 (You might want to distract the owner before you try this!)
Check to see when the next cambelt change is due (and that the last
one was done). If the cambelt goes... so does the engine.
The air circulation system is a tad frail... (no, no, not the
stepper motors again!) Check all functions and listen for a ticking
noise from the console; the louder it is, the deader they are.
While you're at it, check every other electrical gizmo in sight.

Don't buy the first one you see (unless it's really good.)
The less previous owners, the better.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to mail me direct.

If you're on the net, check out:
http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/4668/

Jon Herbert
Ludgershall, Wilts, UK.
'90 164 3.0 V6 Lusso

From: Jon Herbert 
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 09:45:39 +0000
Subject: Re: Buying an Alfa 164

> Hi...I am interested in buying an Alfa Romeo 164 and was wondering
> what problems they have had and what types of things to look for when
> considering buying one. All help would be greatly appreciated.

164s use front tyres and brakes like there's no tomorrow (so long as
you're using them right).
There's a lot of exhaust; check for rust. I've seen one with fairly
bad rear suspension rust, too. Body is unlikely to go.
Clutches wear out fairly quickly too. Not cheap to change. The clutch
pedal gets heavier as it wears out. (Don't know about autos...)
The engine mounts wear out. Try wobbling the engine (back-to-front).
 (You might want to distract the owner before you try this!)
Check to see when the next cambelt change is due (and that the last
one was done). If the cambelt goes... so does the engine.
The air circulation system is a tad frail... (no, no, not the
stepper motors again!) Check all functions and listen for a ticking
noise from the console; the louder it is, the deader they are.
While you're at it, check every other electrical gizmo in sight.

From: ED.MCDONOUGH@NENE.AC.UK
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 09:23:10 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Jon Herbert's comments on 164s

Jon Herbert was perhaps over-cautious in pointing out 164 faults. Perhaps one
needs to distinguish between 2 and 3 litre cars, but my 2.0 TS has almost
160,000 miles without anything in the last 60,000 except tryes 30, 000 miles
ago, and brake pads once..fronts 20,000 ago, rears  35,000 ago. That's about
it.

Date:    Tue, 22 Sep 98 13:57:32 -0400
From:    "Colin Verrilli" <verrilli@VNET.IBM.COM>
Subject: Re: buying a 164LS

gohyde@juno.com (Gordon C Hyde) writes:
> I'm considering purchase of a 164, but may do it long distance.  I know
> that some of you will have some valuable assistance for what I should
> look for/stay away from. I'm thinking of a 94/95 (newer) and probably an
> LS rather than the rarer Q.   I've been reading the AD for about 2 years,
> but have mostly been paying closest attention to items re: my Spider.
> Your collective assistance is appreciated in advance.

I've had problems with these on my 94 LS:
- exhaust rusting around welds
- power steering rack leak
- A/C control / display failure (check LCD segments, defroster functioning)
- Tape player failure
- heated seat not working
- A-pillar trim vinyl coming loose

Timing belt change is a big expense. Expect $700 if they have to adjust the
cam timing and replace the idler.

That's about it (except for nature and other-driver inflicted wounds). It
has 55K miles.
--
Colin Verrilli     Raleigh, NC     verrilli@vnet.ibm.com
'84 GTV6        '87 Milano Gold         '94 164LS Auto

Date:    Mon, 07 Dec 1998 14:27:00 -0800
From:    Spiros Angelopoulos <spiros@atlas.arc.nasa.gov>
Subject: RE: WTB 164 LS

Henrik

Good choice on your part!  The 164LS is a truly awesome car and proves it
daily to me!

Things to look for:

- Timing belt, timing belt and timing belt!!!  The manual had originally
suggested 50K miles intervals, however, when cars started needing urgent
engine care (in the order of $5K-$7K), they changed the interval to every
30K miles.  So, make sure the timing belt was changed!  The cost of
replacing it at the dealer is around $700.
- LCD console/center unit.  Some early units tend to go bad after a couple
of years.  Make sure that all buttons and especially the LCD elements are
functioning properly.  The cost of a new one is a ridiculous $1,600.
- Stepper motors.  Make sure the whole A/C, vent, defrost system work.  The
best test is to set the temperature setting to full hot (in Auto mode) and
see where air goes - in Auto mode air is deflected automatically and the
icons/buttons change accordingly.  Repeat for full cold and defrost setting.
- Oil leak from the front bank of cylinders, from the corner toward the
passenger side headlight.  Oil tends to accumulate there, damaging the
valve cover gasket over time.
- Bad exhaust pipe gaskets.  These die often, not too much to replace, but
still a pain.

I would also recommend the '94 vs. the '95 model as the later ones had the
more complicated OBD II (but also had a passenger's side airbag - if
important to you).

I would strongly recommend taking the car to Camissa in Burlingame and have
them do a thorough check-up.  They are a bit pricey but so far have done
top rate work on my car.

Good luck!

Spiros
'94 164LS
'85 Spider