Not So Fast: Alfa Romeo not working on Multiair V8
by Jonathon Ramsey on Oct 14th 2009 at 2:32PM 
It's been 32 years since Alfa Romeo put out its own V8: a 2.6-liter, 197 hp mill fitted to the Montreal model that bowed out in 1977. And with emission regs what they are today, it looks like we may have to wait even longer.
Yesterday, Autocar reported that Alfa was working on a new 3.0-liter Mulitair-equipped V8 that would find a home in the replacement for its 166 flagship, supposedly based on the Chrysler 300 platform. Since the story hit the virtual presses, an Alfa spokesperson has denied the claim, saying "No front-wheel drive or four-wheel drive Alfa Romeo will use a engine larger than a V6." However, Alfa's parent, Fiat, does have access to Chrysler's 3.6-liter V6, but we somehow doubt that aging lump will find its way into the next generation of Alfa's range-topping model.
[Source: Autocar]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Greg 2:38PM (10/14/2009)
The Pentastar 3.6 V6 and aging lump!? It won't even be introduced until next May, in the new Grand Cherokee, and is so advanced that it is one of the reasons Fiat hopped in bed with Chrysler.
Reply
Mike7 2:40PM (10/14/2009)
Another case of autoblog not reading itself.
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/04/13/chryslers-flexible-new-pentastar-v6/
dal20402 2:43PM (10/14/2009)
In Autoblogworkd, anything GM or Chrysler makes is an "aging lump," because it's cool to bash those automakers. The actual age or lumpiness of the product is irrelevant.
dal20402 2:43PM (10/14/2009)
"Autoblogworld"... sigh...
oZ 2:45PM (10/14/2009)
Your logic and facts have no place at Autoblog.
Quuppa 4:13PM (10/14/2009)
"and is so advanced that it is one of the reasons Fiat hopped in bed with Chrysler. "
not really... Fiat has its own more advanced V6 in progress, but maybe stopped because this
MikeW 9:06PM (10/14/2009)
Did you ever stop to think it was just a typo? The 3.5 [timing belt] is the aging lump.
The new 3.6 [timing chain] is the torqueless wonder.
Why would MB have even consider that over their own 3.5HO?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i0qAOesIHc
TS 2:39PM (10/14/2009)
Guys come on. Read the quote again - no FWD or AWD car will use a V8. The 166 is based on the updated 300C, and thus will be RWD. My money is still on the V8 happening.
Reply
Mike7 2:42PM (10/14/2009)
That was an easy catch that I'm surprised wasn't stressed more, autoblog.
Greg 2:46PM (10/14/2009)
How rev-happy would a diminutive blown V8 be! Woof!! Not to mention a great way to differentiate Alfa from it's corporate cousin. Big displacement and gobs of low end for Chrysler and high revving Italian horsepower for Alfa.
BoxerFanatic 2:47PM (10/14/2009)
First thing that popped out at me...
Denial by conditional statement, that leaves the door open for things that don't meet that condition.
The replacement for the 300 is likely to be a bigger, longitudinal RWD car, not a FWD or Faux-wheel-drive/rear-wheel-assist platform, with a transverse engine.
Saying that the rumor doesn't apply to transverse cars may be true... while development of the engine still goes on behind closed doors for longitudinal applications. Technically he isn't lying, but it still sounds like a denial and protection of R&D secrets.
geo.stewart 3:22PM (10/14/2009)
Autoblog has definitely taken to quantity over quality lately with its articles. What's up, Mr Neff? why the shoddy articles lately?
John P. 2:39PM (10/14/2009)
The shift in perception has started for me. Alfas are starting to look like Chrysler Products. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Reply
Mike7 2:43PM (10/14/2009)
"Alfas are starting to look like Chrysler Products. Not that there's anything wrong with that."
There's everything wrong with that.
naggs 2:45PM (10/14/2009)
the brand spankin new phoenix v6 is one of the reasons fiat bought chrysler
that engine is supposed to beat the ford 3.5 v6 (not DI) in mpg, nvh, power and cost $600 less. it also weighs less and has DI in mind from day one
it also doesn't have any brackets, everything from the ac compressor to the belt tensioners bolts directly to the block
really nice engine, perfect for 300 or large alfa sedan
Reply
Sean 3:05PM (10/14/2009)
http://www.allpar.com/mopar/phoenix-engines.html
People can read up on the V6 Pentastar engines here. Some research would be nice before the standard Autoblog knee-jerk bit of ridicule.
Reply
Swede 3:15PM (10/14/2009)
Just because Fiat is the manufacturer with the lowest fleet output of CO2 doesnt mean they can throw it all away and start churning out mass-production V8's.
Reply
summazooma 4:09PM (10/14/2009)
Not to mention that Alfa currently uses an American “aging lump” V6, their own tweaked version of GM’s High Feature V6, by many measures not an “aging lump”, after all. The Pentastar would merely be replacing a similar engine with more technological content (Cyl. Deactivation, GDI, all aluminum, North-south/East-west flexible, etc.)
On the other hand, as others have said, there’s nothing in the article that says there won’t be a small V8 for longitudinal application.
Reply
Rick C. 4:32PM (10/14/2009)
Trying to rewrite history again? That engine was a collaboration between Fiat PowerTrain AND GM. Specifically, the Alfa version uses its own unique head design, designed outside of this collaboration.
summazooma 8:22AM (10/15/2009)
“Trying to rewrite history again?”
?
Not sure what that means… any specific examples? Since you don’t know me, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and guess that you’ve confused me with someone that you know well enough, about which to make that statement?
I get your point but I guess you missed my point that this would not be the first time that Alfa had shared a V6 with a U.S. domestic (and, yes, I know very well that the Alfa V6 is not THE HFV6 but, rather, a heavily tweaked version of the GM High Feature V6). Please note that, also, that when I say it’s a tweaked version of the HFV6, the reference is specifically written that way because most people on this board are more familiar with that engine than with the Alfa engine… Besides, I know first-hand how blurred the distinctions are regarding product parentage in this industry and that any program like this has enough hands on both sides to provide question as to whose “baby” it really is. I’ve worked for a number of OEMs in various product development roles and each & every one of them used powertrains co-developed with other OEMs, yet every one was always “our own”, for good reason.
Ironically enough, I could imagine there being similar distinctions regarding the Pentastar (a program kicked off while part of DCX, to provide V6 engines across OEMs, including for Mercedes products).
Cheers!