Re: [alfa] 2.5L vs 3.0L Milano Flywheels...Different?

["Dean" <tessiedog@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The only issues I can think of off the top of my head is the ring gear for
the starter. Not sure about the tech on that one. Also the fact that the
rear wheel drive cars used donuts so they will have a propshaft mounting
point.
You may need to enlarge the rear sump pan holes so that the bolts go into
the block. I had to do this to fit the 75 sump to the 164 motor. But as you
say some of the blocks are different. The mounts line straight up once you
bolt the V6 mounts to the block
Cheers,
Dean.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dio Genio" <diogenio@domain.elided>
To: "Alfa Digest" <alfa-digest@domain.elided>
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 4:51 PM
Subject: [alfa] 2.5L vs 3.0L Milano Flywheels...Different?


> Thanks to all who have posted regarding the
> transplanting of a 164 "L" engine into a Milano...my
> next project. I'm now pretty much sure that the 164
> engines are a drop-in fit from a mounting perspective,
> as long as you use the 2.5L bell housing, starter and
> distributor setup. A number of people have put 164
> engines into their GTV-6s without any apparent issues,
> so I'd imagine the Milano must follow suit.
>
> The flywheels are still a mystery, however. Some claim
> the 3.0L Milano flywheel is different than the 2.5L.
> Is this true? And if so, exactly how are they
> different? I have spoken to people who just bolted up
> the 2.5L flywheel to the 164 engine and happily drove
> off, with no apparent ills.
>
> Or am I missing something here?
>
> TIA,
>
> -D-
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster
> http://search.yahoo.com
> --
> to be removed from alfa, see /bin/digest-subs.cgi
> or email "unsubscribe alfa" to majordomo@domain.elided
--
to be removed from alfa, see /bin/digest-subs.cgi
or email "unsubscribe alfa" to majordomo@domain.elided