Re: Tea Tray theories

["John Hertzman" <johnhertzman@domain.elided>]

I for one greatly appreciate, or at least enjoy, the ongoing tea tray
analysis, particularly the more venturesome suggestions (Thank you,Bbrian!)
but still believe that it was done for aesthetic effect, like the Milano's
bent tail and the step of the stepnose and the gull-wing of the Giulia T.I.
tail.

The first application of the V6 engine (which had been around a looong time, I
understand) was in the Alfa Sei of 1979, which appeared first with six tall
single-choke Dellorto downdraft carbs and then later with the Bosch injection.
The two versions had different heads as well as different induction systems,
and neither required any trick hood (or bonnet). I believe there was latitude
in the design of both the heads and the manifolding to fit the engine under
any hoods which might have been anticipated in the company's plans.

Sidebar digression: the Sei carbs are described as "6 carburatori monocorpo
verticale invertiti". Pat Braden cites (p.11 in his Weber book) the 'I' in
Weber nomenclature as an example of the inconsistency of the Weber letter
code: "The I in IDA seems to mean 'invertito', or inverted. Yet there are no
updraft, or inverted Webers. The IDA is a downdraft." I believe the answer
lies in history: the vast majority of carbs in the twenties were updrafts, so
historically an updraft was simply a 'normale' needing no descriptive term,
and a downdraft was thus a "Verticale invertito", as opposed to an
orizzontale, or simply an "invertito".

Back on track. In an article on the GTV 6 a few years ago in either "Classic &
Sportscar" or "Thoroughbred & Classic Car" there is a photo which is supposed
to show the GTV 6 engine as installed, but it is evidently a photo of a
pre-production prototype; some details (the cowl air intakes, for instance)
are straight from the earlier Alfetta coupes, thus it is early, but it is not
an amateur cobble-up, rather a much more finished installation than the GTV 4
Turbodiesel prototype which never reached production. The V6 induction system
in the magazine photo is similar to, but not identical to, that used on the 90
two-liter V6 CEM. Instead of the single central plenum there are two low,
smaller, plenums snugged down against the rocker covers, each feeding three
cross-tubes to the ports on the opposite bank. (See d'Amico & Tabucchi p.901 &
902 for the 90 CEM installation.) In other words, Alfa knew very well a simple
way to arrange the plenum(s) for appreciably more underhood clearance, and had
evidently done so at the GTV 6 prototype stage before settling on the taller
plenum design.

With no disrespect intended, I doubt Paul Witek's suggestion about the
difficulty of stretching the metal for the hood bulge; it is a very shallow
and simple pressing compared to the rotund forms of a technically more
primitive era, like the roof-stamping of a 101 Sprint, and the bulge could
easily have been designed in a less aggressive form. Similarly, I would doubt
Al Mitchell's suggestion that at the planning stage Alfa was allowing for a
few Callaways several years later. (I believe there was a cold-air-intake on
the South African three-liters, but I also would doubt that it had been
anticipated.) Given ARI's skittishness about letting anybody 'tamper' with the
Spica system, Brian's thought that Alfa was trying to make carb conversions
easier for Americans seems unlikely, but I may be wrong. Wouldn't be the first
time, or the last.

Cheers,

John H.
--
to be removed from alfa, see /bin/digest-subs.cgi
or email "unsubscribe alfa" to majordomo@domain.elided