A310 V6: which version

Dear all
I'm new in this forum, I'm from Italy and I'm looking for a Alpine A310 V6 as my first classic car.
I'm mechanical engineer and I live in Italy.
I read something about it and I've a big question that only who are very expert can clarify me, in my opinion.
I know that version post 1980 has different rear suspesion (from R5 maxiturbo rally) and different wheels (4 bolts and bigger than older), my question is if post 1980 version has better handling or better performce of pre1980 version and why (suspensions, wheels, other).
Thanks in advance
Ciao

Hi xranalli,

I’ve only driven a Phase 2 A310V6 for a short distance several years ago and the journey wasn’t demanding enough to test its handling or make comparisons.

My car is a Phase 1 and I think it handles well but don’t know whether a Phase 2 would handle even better. From what I’ve read, the suspension changes for the Phase 2 cars was to improve the handling in relation to the heavy rearwards weight bias of the car. It really needs someone with long term experience of both to give a comparative view.

My car has the standard 3 slot wheels with Michelin XDX tyres, 185/70 VR13 at the front and 205/70VR13 at the rear. The engines are basically the same for both models with the same power output in standard form with the twin carburettor arrangement. The Pack GT Boulogne version, with 2 triple choke vertical Webers, had another 34 KW. This model is quite rare, is sought after, and demands a higher price than the standard models.

The Phase 2 car had a 5-speed gearbox as standard whereas the Phase 1 was a 4-speed. Mine was changed to a 5-speed by the previous owner. Again I don’t know which might be preferable, only having experience of the 5-speed. Afraid that I can’t help you further but I’d need to have one of each to be any wiser.

You’re in a good profession and one that’s suited to doing restoration work that is sure to be needed, to some extent, with any car that you find. Good luck in your searches.

If you haven’t seen this article it might be of interest.

http://www.automobile-sportive.com/guid ... a310v6.php

For phase1 in same articles I read that roadholding is good and in others I read it is not fantastic, please explain me if roadholding is good or not and if handling is good or not. Maybe the drive should be an expert because the car is strongly unbalanced on rear axis, please let me know, thanks

I've sent you an email, as I have a good contact in Italy with a collection of alpines and he has an A310 v6 too.

For phase1 in same articles I read that roadholding is good and in others I read it is not fantastic, please explain me if roadholding is good or not and if handling is good or not.

As you’ll know the handling and roadholding of a car is a complex subject and I think it would be difficult to find any objective, specific, theoretical and test data that would explain the technical differences in roadholding and handling between the different versions of the A310V6. What you will find, naturally, are subjective opinions about this subject by owners, magazine journalists, road testers, etc. Everyone is different and, I would imagine, has an opinion based on their experience of other cars they’ve owned or road tested and their own driving style. As you’ve found there are different opinions about the Phase 1 car.

When I bought my car it was a non-runner. Since I finished the restoration I have only driven it about 1800 km and most of that was on dry roads. I avoid motorways because I find the drive boring so most of the mileage has been on country roads. I haven’t driven the car on a track yet so haven’t been able to test its handling limitations and I don’t plan to do that on public roads and end up in a hedge or wall ( it’s only recently had a respray).

I don’t drive flat out all the time, I’d say my driving style was rapid rather than on the limit. So I can only give an opinion based on the above and that is that the car handles well, corners flat, gives me sufficient feedback to be confident in the way it reacts, doesn’t roll in corners, and feels planted. The ride is firm but not harsh and if you want to drive in a more leisurely manner it’s good for effortless long distance cruising. Since I’ve had the car I haven’t had an occasion where the handling has caused any embarrassment or unsafe situation.

There may be others on the forum with experience of both versions of the car who might want to give their opinions.

A book with the title of ‘Renault Alpine Gold Portfolio 1958 -1994’ (ISBN 1 85520 360X) is a compilation of magazine articles and road tests of most of the Alpine models and has several road tests of the A310V6. I just had a quick look at the articles again and none are that critical of the handling of the Phase 1. However, there is comment that the back end can break away but this appears to be when ‘on the limit’. Depends how often you want to drive like that.

Maybe the drive should be an expert because the car is strongly unbalanced on rear axis, please let me know, thanks

Not sure what your question is here.

ops
I mean
"Maybe the driver should be an expert because the car is strongly unbalanced on rear axis"
I mean that who drive should be very expert to manage, for example, a countersteering

OK thanks, I should have realised that was what you meant.

I don't think you need to be an expert, racing standard if that's what you mean, to drive the car. The car certainly isn't that twitchy as I've found from the experience I describe above. It's not as demanding as you may be thinking. If you want to drive at the limit all the time then it might be a different story.

If you can locate any cars that are for sale I'd suggest that you go and view them and obviously have a test drive to help to form your own conclusions. I wasn't able to do that with mine, with it being a non-runner at the time, but I haven't had any unpleasant surprises or regrets since getting it back on the road. On the contrary, restoring and driving the car have both been positive experiences.

ok, I understand, many thanks for your explanation

[Alpineandy]

I have owned both a 3-stud (phase 1) and a 4-stud (phase 2). I have had them both on track days and can't really notice much difference. I liked the 4 speed gearbox which felt a little more 'positive' but the slightly more relaxed cruising of the 5 speed gearbox was also a benefit. I think the 5 speed gearbox was an option on the 3-stud cars but many didn't spend the extra.
Basically you would have to be Ragnotti to notice any real difference in the handling. If you drive it in the correct manner for a rear engine car (brake in a straight line then accelerate through the corner.... in slow and out fast) then it corners and handles very well but like all rear engine cars, it doesn't like 'lift-off' or braking in the corner. The rear weight isn't so much of a problem but the weight is quite high which is the ultimate limiting factor and makes it more likely to spin than an A110 or a 911.
I don't think you should worry about Ph1 or Ph2 from a handling viewpoint. Decide which car looks the best for you and then buy the best one you can afford (assuming the condition is correct for the price.
I sold the 3-stud and kept the 4-stud but only because of the condition.
As a side note I would add that the 4-stud metric wheels limit the car to Michelin TRX tyres which are not as good as modern tyres (although they aren't bad tyres either), so most people then have to buy non-metric wheels to fit modern tyres, so that is an added expense.

I've got a phase II with 195/50/15 on the front and 225/50/15 on the rear (Toyo Proxes). Mine is also slightly lowered. I think tyre choice and pressures would probably make more difference than whether you have the earlier or later model. I've been quite satisfied with the grip (both wet and dry) and break-away characteristics of the Toyos.

I have done a few track days in it, though I've not really tried to push too close to the limits. On the wet track day, understeer was the order of the day in the very slow corners, and it could obviously be made to hang the tail out at will on the exit. Having said that, the car was always communicative, gave plenty of feedback and I came away with underpants intact

I love driving it on the roads here in NZ - it's not too firm, and being quite small and narrow it's easy to drive on some of the tighter, twistier roads. Driving on the roads, I've never worried about the handling or braking.

Having driven a similar aged 911, I felt much more secure and "better informed" in the A310. Contrary to Alpineandy's observation, I always felt more likely to have an unexpected trip into the scenery in the 911 (again, that could have just been down to the individual vehicle).

[Alpineandy]

exocet, sorry for the confusion. I meant to say that the feedback is very good on the A310 but it's ultimate grip is lower than the A110 and 911 but this is (as far as I can see) entirely due to the bigger and higher weight of the motor.

I discovered the technical differences:
ph1 has the lower arm that is a perfect triangle, with spherical joint at the end, for the connection at the hub
ph2 has trapezoidal lower arm, with cilindrical joint for the connection at the hub
from kinematic point of view the systems work in the same way
from theoretical point of view maybe ph1 is better than ph2 because it allows to set the camber, so it seems more "racing"
but I think that ph2 arm is more rigid and this should permit to mantain better fixed condition during the acceleration outside of the curve because wheels don't change their kinematic behavior,
I think this difference can be appreciated by a racing driver, maybe not by "normal" user...
This is my guess.

Please explain me what about wheels&tires, I mean have I to change the wheels if I want to use a modern tyres?

Please explain me what about wheels&tires, I mean have I to change the wheels if I want to use a modern tyres?

Two years ago I did a fairly extensive internet search for tyre options for my Phase 1 car. The tyres specified by Alpine for the Phase 1 are Michelin XDX with 185/70VR13 at the front and 205/70VR13 at the rear. These are quite expensive so I used an online tyre size calculator as a starting point in a search for possible alternative sizes of modern tyres.

Using the calculator it was possible to come up with a range of sizes with similar rolling radius to the tyre sizes as specified by Alpine. The sizes I looked at varied within +/- 7% of the correct rolling radius. This was an arbitary limit just to get some idea of what was available as some of the possible sizes in the calculator turned out to be theoretical only with no manufacturers actually making the tyre in that size.

For the fronts in the correct 185/70/13 size I only found the Michelin XDX in the correct V speed rating. There were a few other tyres in this size but only T or H speed rating, Avon CR6ZZ, Michelin E3B, Toyo TYTE, Falken SN828.

In 175/70/13 size (-2.4% on rolling radius) there was plenty of availability but I could only find T and H speed rated ones. Examples being Michelin E3B, Kalken Sincera SN-828, Uniroyal rain expert, Kumho KH17, etc.

In 205/60/13 size (-2.2%) I found one V rated tyre, Vredestein sprint classic. There were several H rated, Toyo R610, Falken FAZE912.

For the rears in the correct 205/70/13 size I only found the Michelin XDX as specified by Alpine. As far as I know, no other manufacturer makes this size.

In 185/70/13 size (- 4.5%) tyres found were as above for the fronts in this size.

In 185/80/13 size (+ 1.5%) I only found Michelin XAS but H speed rated. Note that this size would not be legal (in the UK at least) as the speedo would be indicating a lower speed than the car is travelling. Whether this would ever be noticed is a different matter but the XAS is expensive also.

In 205/60/13 size (-6.6%) there were several H rated tyres, Falken FAZE912, Toyo R610.

From the above there was good availability of tyres for the front in sizes close to the original, but only one other V rated tyre.

For the rears, I thought that none of the alternatives were acceptable. The 185/70/13 would look too narrow and would shorten the gearing, the 185/80/13 would look too narrow and wouldn’t be legal, and the 205/60/13 would shorten the gearing. These are, obviously, just my own opinions. Note that I did this investigation 2 years ago so tyre availability might have changed since then.

I then considered changing the wheels to 15” to increase the range of tyres at reasonable prices. Again I used the calculator to come up with a range of theoretical sizes and found lots of availability at reasonable prices. For the fronts the closest size was 205/50/15 (-0.5%) and for the rears, 225/50/15 (-1.8%). Several tyres were available in V speed rating.

I then looked at finding suitable 15” wheels, new and on Ebay. I found a good set of Gotti A53 wheels on Ebay but was just outbid in the last minute. In the end I decided, for the time being anyway, to keep the original wheels, which are in good condition, and bought a set of the original specification Michelin XDX tyres. These were of new manufacture, not old stock. I’ve no idea whether the tyre compound and construction is to the original specification or is more modern. All that I can say is that I haven’t experienced any handling, ride or wear problems with these tyres.

from theoretical point of view maybe ph1 is better than ph2 because it allows to set the camber, so it seems more "racing"

My understanding, possibly incorrect, of the adjustability of the rear suspension of the Phase 1 differs slightly. For reference I use the Alpine A310V6 manual that states that camber is not adjustable. If you look at the GBS drawings that you’ve attached, none of the upper or lower suspension arm pivot points can be adjusted in a direction at right angles to the centreline of the car. What can be adjusted is toe in/out (or parallelism) by adjusting the length of the short link rod (not reference numbered in the diagram) that has the ball joint 8 at its outer end. The rod has a left hand thread at one end and right hand at the other so the hub can be rotated a small amount about a vertical plane within the flexibility range of the top hub bush 5 and the top arm bushes 4. The bottom of the hub being totally flexible due to the ball joint 6.

but I think that ph2 arm is more rigid and this should permit to mantain better fixed condition during the acceleration outside of the curve because wheels don't change their kinematic behavior,................

This is my guess.

I think you’re quite correct.

My guess why this arrangement was adopted is because, without the link rod, the rear hub would be too flexible in terms of rotation around a vertical plane and so needed the link rod to stiffen the assembly in conjunction with the side arm attached to the hub assembly. I then guess that Alpine made the link rod adjustable so that toe in/out could be adjusted to remove the effect of manufacturing tolerances in the bushes 4 and 5.

The Phase 2 suspension doesn’t need the link rod because the lower suspension arm has two connection points to the hub, rather than the single ball joint in the Phase 1, so will be inherently stiffer in a vertical plane rotation direction.

No doubt there could be other interpretations to the above.

many thanks
when I'll buy A310, if ph1, I'll buy Gotti 15" (if I find them)
about the camber I understand that is not possible to do a setup of it, not in ph1 and not in ph2,
maybe there is some special part, aftermarket, that can allow to so it
maybe hub and suspensions are interchangeable for ph1 and ph2, intersting to know it...