Maybe Alfa needs a V6 now

MaxSport · 15 Jul 2002, 06:47 (Ref:334017)

Maybe Alfa will need a 2.0 V6 in next years ETCC.

In the meantime-why don't the ETCC take away the extra 15 kilos of weight on the front drive cars prior to Spa?

The rule changes seem to have given BMW a bit too much help, so maybe some further fine tuning of the rules is needed.

Lets hope that things are closer in the coming races and that no manufacturers who are thinking about the ETCC decide to change their minds about coming in 2003. If others think BMW is always going to get their way and have the deck stacked for them then it might discourage additional entries in the series.

I guess Alfa should just be glad that Kox and Huisman weren't there this weekend as the outcome might have been even worse for them.

BMWs involvement is very important to touring car racing, but if it is at the cost of competition then what is the point?

KM

MaxSport · 15 Jul 2002, 18:48 (Ref:334425)

Guess we have a pro BMW audience here.

I am not pro anyone. It just seems like BMW got more than they needed to make for good racing. Now it seems it is tipped in their favor- which is just as bad as Alfa domination.

I will give it a couple more weekends before I pass final judgement.

**touringlegend** · 15 Jul 2002, 20:25 (Ref:334486)

Perhaps the FIA should've let the first year pan out before any changes, I mean if Volvo or BMW can't keep up with Alfa Romeo then they should work harder or if they don't have a good enough car don't enter!

MaxSport · 15 Jul 2002, 22:35 (Ref:334571)

TL-since the BMWs were already showing signs of catching up and had even won a race just prior to the rule changes, I wondered why they didn't just leave it alone.

Maybe the rules were fair as they were and Volvo and BMW just needed to get their act together. The mid year changes gave the impression of being brought about by pressure from BMW,even if that wasn't the case.

On the other hand, the rules may have needed some fine tuning.
Five hundred more rpm, lower weight along with more weight on their front drive competitors just seems a bit much. The results from this past weekend would support this,IMO.

While NASCAR may be used to adjusting the rules every other weekend the ETCC needs rules stability if they want to attract other manufacturers.

KM

**touringlegend** · 15 Jul 2002, 23:23 (Ref:334606)

In my opinion, you can't have a set of rules for X car, Y car and Z car - each different car. I believe that the Volvo, BMW and Alfa Romeo all have different rev limits? That is just silly. They shouldn't do this as it'll cause major rows soon IMO of course.

100%VauxhallFan · 16 Jul 2002, 00:13 (Ref:334627)

I quite agree with you tl. The whole point of a series is to have one set of rules, not one with sub-sections - one for BMW and one for everyone else.

It just makes the series look stupid and not all that professional if they will change the rules mid season just to make other cars win. Actually, this makes me think back the BTCC last year, but their weight imposing penalties seem less foolish than these major rule changes.

Alfa Fan · 16 Jul 2002, 07:22 (Ref:334725)

I have made my feelings on BMW clear on other threads. If the FIA wants to turn the ETCC into more of a farce than it already is they are going the right way about it!

Alfa Romeo should use a V6. It is a better developed car. BMW only decided to do ETCC late. They quit the ALMS series when the FIA resisted them. Alfa Romeo and Volvo should not pay for BMW building a poor car.

END OF STORY

Alfa Fan · 16 Jul 2002, 07:24 (Ref:334727)

Quote:

Originally posted by MaxSport
Maybe Alfa will need a 2.0 V6 in next years ETCC.

In the meantime-why don't the ETCC take away the extra 15 kilos of weight on the front drive cars prior to Spa?

The rule changes seem to have given BMW a bit too much help, so maybe some further fine tuning of the rules is needed.

Lets hope that things are closer in the coming races and that no manufacturers who are thinking about the ETCC decide to change their minds about coming in 2003. If others think BMW is always going to get their way and have the deck stacked for them then it might discourage additional entries in the series.

I guess Alfa should just be glad that Kox and Huisman weren't there this weekend as the outcome might have been even worse for them.

BMWs involvement is very important to touring car racing, but if it is at the cost of competition then what is the point?

KM

Where were they?

alfanano · 20 Jul 2002, 15:34 (Ref:338198)

I’ve been away on holiday so I’ve just heard the results of the ETCC race in Germany… well what a surprise – domination by BMW! As previous contributors pointed out, the laws of physics were bound to win! Rear wheel drive cars will always have an advantage over FWD (name a FWD Formula One car) – the series will now become a BMW benefit. I cannot understand why the FIA have thrown out all the knowledge gained in Touring car racing over the last fifteen years – if FWD and RWD cars are to compete directly together, the FWD cars must be given some sort of handicap advantage. Giving identical weights to both types will just mean the RWD cars will win.

The Alfas don’t need V6 engines (I’m sure they wouldn’t be allowed to use a special 2 litre engine in this class of production racing anyway) – they have got lots of power. What they (and the Volvos) don’t have is traction and that’s because they are FWD! In terms of overall handling, it looks like the Alfa is the least effective of the main contenders.

Alfa Fan · 20 Jul 2002, 19:06 (Ref:338330)

Quote:

Originally posted by alfanano
I’ve been away on holiday so I’ve just heard the results of the ETCC race in Germany… well what a surprise – domination by BMW! As previous contributors pointed out, the laws of physics were bound to win! Rear wheel drive cars will always have an advantage over FWD (name a FWD Formula One car) – the series will now become a BMW benefit. I cannot understand why the FIA have thrown out all the knowledge gained in Touring car racing over the last fifteen years – if FWD and RWD cars are to compete directly together, the FWD cars must be given some sort of handicap advantage. Giving identical weights to both types will just mean the RWD cars will win.

The Alfas don’t need V6 engines (I’m sure they wouldn’t be allowed to use a special 2 litre engine in this class of production racing anyway) – they have got lots of power. What they (and the Volvos) don’t have is traction and that’s because they are FWD! In terms of overall handling, it looks like the Alfa is the least effective of the main contenders.

I would say that the Alfa has fairly good handling, jus it is being weighed down and penalised by the new rules.

alfanano · 20 Jul 2002, 20:29 (Ref:338361)

I'm really talking about the situation before the rule changes. The Alfas definately have the power but they were (are) weaker in the twisty bits. The Volvo looks to have the best chassis, putting the FWD / RWD issue to one side!

MaxSport · 20 Jul 2002, 22:56 (Ref:338407)

"I’m sure they wouldn’t be allowed to use a special 2 litre engine in this class"

If this is true, then how can MG take a 2.5 and bring it down to 2L for their rumored ETCC entry?

100%VauxhallFan · 20 Jul 2002, 23:00 (Ref:338411)

Quote:

Originally posted by MaxSport
"I’m sure they wouldn’t be allowed to use a special 2 litre engine in this class"

If this is true, then how can MG take a 2.5 and bring it down to 2L for their rumored ETCC entry?

The 2.0l engine in the MG is a V6 engine.

MaxSport · 20 Jul 2002, 23:57 (Ref:338458)

"The 2.0l engine in the MG is a V6 engine."

Isn't the V6 a 2.5 in the road car?

**touringlegend** · 21 Jul 2002, 10:05 (Ref:338623)

Yep the MG ZS has a 2.5 V6 - but there is a 2.0 V6 available in the Rover 75 - as far as I know manufacturers are allowed to put an engine from anywhere in their range in their Touring Car.

alfanano · 21 Jul 2002, 10:51 (Ref:338677)

Exactly, but Alfa don't have a 2 litre V6 and I don't think Fiat have one either.

100%VauxhallFan · 21 Jul 2002, 22:32 (Ref:339181)

Quote:

Originally posted by touringlegend
Yep the MG ZS has a 2.5 V6 - but there is a 2.0 V6 available in the Rover 75 - as far as I know manufacturers are allowed to put an engine from anywhere in their range in their Touring Car.

The 45/ZS both have 2.0 and 2.5 V6 engines. That's one of the special things about Rover's K series of engines above 2.0 - they have 6 cylinders.

**touringlegend** · 21 Jul 2002, 22:40 (Ref:339186)

I'm sure the ZS doesn't have a 2.0 V6 I couldn't see it on the MG site. perhaps I am blind.

unlike you

100%VauxhallFan · 21 Jul 2002, 22:43 (Ref:339190)

Well, I'm sure there is a 2.0V6 in either the MG ZS or the Rover 45. I have a good knowledge for my car engines on most cars!

100%VauxhallFan · 21 Jul 2002, 22:44 (Ref:339191)

Ok, just checked. The 2.0 V6 is in the 45.

**touringlegend** · 21 Jul 2002, 22:55 (Ref:339196)

Quote:

Originally posted by 100%VauxhallFan
[BI have a good knowledge for my car engines on most cars!

[/B]

how many PS does that 2.0 V6 have???

100%VauxhallFan · 21 Jul 2002, 22:57 (Ref:339199)

Hmmm, somewhere about 148?

**touringlegend** · 21 Jul 2002, 23:01 (Ref:339202)

whats that equivalent to in the good ol' horses?

100%VauxhallFan · 21 Jul 2002, 23:02 (Ref:339203)

They are roughly the same I thought?

**touringlegend** · 21 Jul 2002, 23:06 (Ref:339204)

not sure but my bro's car has 90PS and 120BHP...summet up.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
This Alfa	John Turner	Motorsport History	12	19 Feb 2006 16:09
Alfa 156	Don K	Road Car Forum	2	7 Nov 2002 16:36
GR Alfa 147	OVERSTEER	Touring Car Racing	6	6 Jun 2002 11:43
Alfa vs BMW	pink69	Touring Car Racing	1	1 Feb 2002 11:01
Alfa 147?	BeerMonster	Road Car Forum	7	1 Feb 2002 01:27