Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Login


Take the time to read our Privacy Policy.

6 Pages«<23456>
wbute Offline
#61 Posted : Friday, 4 January 2019 6:04:53 AM(UTC)
wbute

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 25/01/2010(UTC)
Posts: 871

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 9 time(s) in 9 post(s)
The Brock Magnum ute also has a stroker motor in it, no doubt similar specs to your VL. I believe it was built in about 86/87. I don’t know what block they used, as it was originally a 6 cylinder.
HK1837 Offline
#62 Posted : Friday, 4 January 2019 7:58:23 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 12,911

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 157 time(s) in 155 post(s)
Originally Posted by: commodorenut Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: abi Go to Quoted Post
Not really related to this thread but 1974 Holden studied the potential for a 3.40 inch stroke 4 inch bore derivative of the Holden V8. I read this only a few nights ago in some online notes from an ex GM Holden engine development engineer. 342 cubic inches.

This would have been a fantastic prospect. A dished piston 9.0 compression version for long wheelbase automatic models and a flattop version with bigger valves for the sporty models, shame it was not pursued.

Interesting to read that.

Some 12-13 years later, HDT offered a very similar stroker in the VL series - I own one. It's well known that HDT had lots of inside help from GMH, and the VL stroker was developed before the split (my car was ordered in the days after the split - the original owner fearing HDT would be closing there & then).

According to the HDT paperwork, it's a 3.375" stroke and a 40" thou overbore to 4.040" = 346ci.
Without the overbore, the capacity would be around 339/340ci - so this is pretty close to the 342ci you mention above.

The 3.375" stroke was the largest stroke they could fit in the block without having to relieve it so the rod bolts/nuts would clear the bottoms of the bores & pan rails.
The later VR onwards HSV strokers were 350ci, but included the additional block clearancing to allow for the longer 3.48" stroke that they ran.

Brock (optimistically) rated the 5.6L at around 231kw, but in reality it wouldn't be up there. It does have plenty of torque, and with counter-balancing on the rear crank flange (as well as the dynamic balancing of the whole rotating assembly including flywheel & pressure plate that I had done during the rebuild) it spins up to 6000rpm as smooth as any jap multivalve short-stroke engine. Despite having the big valve heads, cam, ported manifold etc, it's very well behaved, and very smooth to drive.

Knowing what my stroker is like, GMH really missed an opportunity by not going ahead with that concept in '74 - it certainly would have made for a nice powerful, torquey, and smooth luxo-barge motor, and if fitted with the L34 bits (which is effectively what Brock did - less the cam) - would have given the L34/A9X Toranas an even bigger advantage on the track.



Yes, very interesting, Where did you find it abi? The 25 thou stroke difference for the VL version will have been due to the bigger rod bolts. Undoubtedly the work will have come from GMH's work over a decade earlier. HDT were using original L34 stuff in their HO engines too, GMH were still selling old L34 short engines into the 80's (probably kept for racers for Group C).

If the study was in 1974 it would never have made it into L34, it was most likely primarily done to look for a more powerful engine for Caprice and Statesman Deville especially as at that time they'd have been working on the XT4 ADR27A pollution engines for HX and late LX maybe even for the XT5 blue engines. The reason the 400ci SBC was to be available in HV (later HJ) was for the Caprice. GMH were in a tailspin at that time, losing market share and money and not sure what direction to take, and they obviously never went ahead with the plan. I doubt it would have ever made it into many Toranas, there is no way they would have put an aussie 4spd, 1970's Trimatic or a banjo behind it. Sure the A9X got a Salisbury but the TH400 would not fit into Torana and it would have meant using a T10 in production cars which they would never really have wanted to do. GMH almost always followed a formula of torque and vehicle weight to apply what transmissions and rear axles went in. The only time I can think of that they broke it was manual HT GTS350, even then they offered the 12 bolt as an option in the same manner T10 was offered for A9X. That engine certainly would have made a HZ GTS a superior car to what it was, and I agree even as an ADR27A pollution engine the 5.6L V8 in an LX A9X would have turned it into a true Muscle Car. Imagine an LX SS or SLR5000 made prior to 6/76 with a big valve pre-ADR27A version of this engine, the 250hp 308 version of this car with stock valves and small exhaust was a weapon in a straight line. With a 5.6L big valve version and appropriate gearbox/diff history would be different, the PhaseIII would be knocked down a peg in the pecking order.

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
commodorenut Offline
#63 Posted : Friday, 4 January 2019 9:41:05 AM(UTC)
commodorenut

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 2/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 3,124

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 31 time(s) in 30 post(s)
Originally Posted by: wbute Go to Quoted Post
The Brock Magnum ute also has a stroker motor in it, no doubt similar specs to your VL. I believe it was built in about 86/87. I don’t know what block they used, as it was originally a 6 cylinder.

Yes it did get the 5.6L stroker. Probably like the last Brock, which also started as a 6 cylinder, it would have likely gotten whatever they had laying around that could be put to good use - in that car's case, it was a lot of VL stuff (Group 3 Sig Series trim inserts, VL fuel tank, front brakes etc).

That white WB Magnum ute was in the HDT workshops for a long time - and it was well after the split. One of my friends had photos of it in the HDT workshops at the time of the Mobil BMW race-car, so that puts it late '87 or into '88. He provided copies of those photos to the current owner of it.
Cheers,

Mick
_______________________________________________________________

Judge a successful man not on how he treats his peers, but on how he treats those less fortunate.
commodorenut Offline
#64 Posted : Friday, 4 January 2019 10:15:58 AM(UTC)
commodorenut

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 2/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 3,124

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 31 time(s) in 30 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Yes, very interesting, Where did you find it abi? The 25 thou stroke difference for the VL version will have been due to the bigger rod bolts. Undoubtedly the work will have come from GMH's work over a decade earlier. HDT were using original L34 stuff in their HO engines too, ....

The rod bolts HDT fitted to my 5.6L are no bigger that the standard bolts in the regular VL 304. Obviously they're aftermarket (ie stronger than factory), but I couldn't tell you what brand they are.

One thing that springs to mind is they might have been rounding up the 3.375" number to 3.4" to keep it simple?

If we look at volume (bore radius x pi, squared, x stroke, x 8) we get: (HDT stroker (with 40 thou overbore)): 3.375 x 4.040: 346.08ci
But Holden wouldn't have sold a 40 thou over engine in a new car, so if we then work on: (non-bored + 5.6L HDT stroke dimension): 3.375 x 4.000: 339.28ci

Now compare that to the (3.400 stroke dimensions): 3.400 x 4.000: 341.84ci

It's just under 3ci difference.

One thing that is unique to the 5.6L stroker compared to aftermarket stroker cranks, is that it has a tapered counterweight on the rear flange - similar in shape & design to the counterweights between the main & rod journals on the crank inside the crank-case. This doesn't seem to appear on most aftermarket Holden V8 stroker cranks, and it bears a resemblance to the SBC stuff from the 70s - further suggesting GMH's development was used for it.

This external counterweight wouldn't be needed on manual cars that could have a balanced flywheel, keyed or drilled to fit in only one place, but Brock offered the stroker with an auto-trans - hence this approach wouldn't fly. It makes sense that if GMH were developing the stroker for luxo-barge use, where automatics are the norm, and smoothness is desirable, then this probably stems from that development as well.

The more I think about this, the more I am convinced this work is what ended up being used by HDT, and it wouldn't surprise me if the actual stroke length was the same 3.375" that ultimately went into (low volume) production.
Cheers,

Mick
_______________________________________________________________

Judge a successful man not on how he treats his peers, but on how he treats those less fortunate.
wbute Offline
#65 Posted : Friday, 4 January 2019 10:26:14 AM(UTC)
wbute

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 25/01/2010(UTC)
Posts: 871

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 9 time(s) in 9 post(s)
Originally Posted by: commodorenut Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: wbute Go to Quoted Post
The Brock Magnum ute also has a stroker motor in it, no doubt similar specs to your VL. I believe it was built in about 86/87. I don’t know what block they used, as it was originally a 6 cylinder.

Yes it did get the 5.6L stroker. Probably like the last Brock, which also started as a 6 cylinder, it would have likely gotten whatever they had laying around that could be put to good use - in that car's case, it was a lot of VL stuff (Group 3 Sig Series trim inserts, VL fuel tank, front brakes etc).

That white WB Magnum ute was in the HDT workshops for a long time - and it was well after the split. One of my friends had photos of it in the HDT workshops at the time of the Mobil BMW race-car, so that puts it late '87 or into '88. He provided copies of those photos to the current owner of it.


Yeah I spoke with the current owner a few years ago (assuming he is still the owner). I know of one previous owner and also know of the bloke that got HDT to build it. It had some strange stuff like Statesman bench seat, dash and column auto. Not really what I would have got HDT to build.
HK1837 Offline
#66 Posted : Friday, 4 January 2019 10:58:05 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 12,911

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 157 time(s) in 155 post(s)
Originally Posted by: commodorenut Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Yes, very interesting, Where did you find it abi? The 25 thou stroke difference for the VL version will have been due to the bigger rod bolts. Undoubtedly the work will have come from GMH's work over a decade earlier. HDT were using original L34 stuff in their HO engines too, ....

The rod bolts HDT fitted to my 5.6L are no bigger that the standard bolts in the regular VL 304. Obviously they're aftermarket (ie stronger than factory), but I couldn't tell you what brand they are.

One thing that springs to mind is they might have been rounding up the 3.375" number to 3.4" to keep it simple?

If we look at volume (bore radius x pi, squared, x stroke, x 8) we get: (HDT stroker (with 40 thou overbore)): 3.375 x 4.040: 346.08ci
But Holden wouldn't have sold a 40 thou over engine in a new car, so if we then work on: (non-bored + 5.6L HDT stroke dimension): 3.375 x 4.000: 339.28ci

Now compare that to the (3.400 stroke dimensions): 3.400 x 4.000: 341.84ci

It's just under 3ci difference.

One thing that is unique to the 5.6L stroker compared to aftermarket stroker cranks, is that it has a tapered counterweight on the rear flange - similar in shape & design to the counterweights between the main & rod journals on the crank inside the crank-case. This doesn't seem to appear on most aftermarket Holden V8 stroker cranks, and it bears a resemblance to the SBC stuff from the 70s - further suggesting GMH's development was used for it.

This external counterweight wouldn't be needed on manual cars that could have a balanced flywheel, keyed or drilled to fit in only one place, but Brock offered the stroker with an auto-trans - hence this approach wouldn't fly. It makes sense that if GMH were developing the stroker for luxo-barge use, where automatics are the norm, and smoothness is desirable, then this probably stems from that development as well.

The more I think about this, the more I am convinced this work is what ended up being used by HDT, and it wouldn't surprise me if the actual stroke length was the same 3.375" that ultimately went into (low volume) production.


Most rods prior to the mid 80’s used small rod bolts, same as small journal SBC if I remember right. They changed to the L34 style rod with bigger (large journal SBC?) mid 80’s from memory. This is probably why the 25 thou difference in stroke.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
abi Offline
#67 Posted : Friday, 4 January 2019 1:17:59 PM(UTC)
abi

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/07/2010(UTC)
Posts: 56

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
The 1974 proposal was as follows - 3.40 stroke, 4.00 bore, 5.9xx inch rod and taller deck. from my reading the 1.80 compression ht pistons were going to be used.

Being 74 I think the Holden powertrain people had 2 markets for this motor. A replacement for 350 in statesman and replacement of the 214ci and 300ci Bedford sourced motors from Britain. These oversized Grey Motors were woefully out classed by Dodge and International by the early 1970s. Instead Holden went with the Mexican Chev 250 and 292 in 1975 and with it probably 2/3 or more of the proposed 342 volume.

The taller deck may have been a problem for Torana fitment, I dont think a performance version was considered. The tall deck and long rod with high compression height piston screams truck usage to me. mid 79 we had the '5.0 heavy Duty' with anodised ring lands, valve rotators. different rings and i think L34 rods and stronger timing set.

This info I discovered only a few days ago on the retired Holden employees web site. If you haven't visited this site be prepared for some reading, its really hard going and will require patients and a lot of time but full of gems. For instance When Ron Harrop first produced his 308 stroker cranks to the market back in the late 80s and early 90s guess who cast the bare units prior to Harrop machining? Holden Engine Company this was when HEC were looking for overseas markets for the PFI Holden engine and were talking to that English sports car maker Griffin. It didnt work out but they did supply engines to the Australian Giocattollo (Spelling) sports car maker.

Edited by user Friday, 4 January 2019 1:31:18 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

HK1837 Offline
#68 Posted : Friday, 4 January 2019 2:25:36 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 12,911

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 157 time(s) in 155 post(s)
Where did you find it on the HRC site? I haven't ever seen it there before.

I agree it sounds like truck usage. But that doesn't mean the crankshaft design can't have been easily re-used for the VL stroker engine. I wouldn't be surprised if HDT talked to HEC and told them what they wanted and "hey presto" a stroker crank!

Edited by user Friday, 4 January 2019 2:30:26 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#69 Posted : Friday, 4 January 2019 4:22:23 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,295

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 10 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
So the XA GT-HO would have gotten the 1972 R-code 351 HO. Specs below from Wiki. 275hp SAE net would be about 325hp roughly, but with a 780 Holley it would have probably been more. This engines cam was slightly lower than the 1971 R spc, which appears to be the same as the stock PhaseIII cam.

1972 R-code (351 HO

The 351C HO "R-code" had a number of changes to help meet emission standards for 1972 compared to the 1971 Boss 351 "R-Code". The camshaft had less duration, but more valve lift, while the mechanical lifters remained unchanged. The forged pistons were changed to flat-top style and the heads to open chamber heads, but retained the same large ports, valves, and adjustable valve train used in 1971. This resulted in a compression ratio decreased to 9.2:1 while the cleaner-burning open-chamber heads helped meet the new emissions regulations. The Ram Air option was no longer available. The engine otherwise remained unchanged from 1971. This engine produced 275 hp (205 kW) using the more realistic SAE net system and was only available in the 1972 Ford Mustang.

The drop to 10.7:1 will be the 1971 M-code engine being supplied to Ford Australia.

Phase 4 would be well gone by 9/73 (ADR27 didn't become mandatory until about 4/74, it was supposed to be 9/73 but Ford and Chrysler weren't ready, GMH were ready early but didn't put it on ADR plates until 4/74). The Phase 5 was not an XB, it was to be the XA coupe. The coupe wasn't ready in time to sell the 300 GT-HO vehicles required to be eligible for Bathurst 1972 so the campaign was to be a sedan as a Phase 4 and coupe as Phase 5. The original Ford documentation dated August 1971 detailing that are published in AMC magazine issue 23. They also state that the Falcon GT-HO's will not be able to be competitive with GMH's new V8 Toranas so they decide to develop a Cleveland powered Cortina. All of this got killed off less than 12 months later as we know.

My point about stockpiling was there were no M-code 351's built for US consumption after about August 1971. The 11:1 4V M-code was 9/69 to 8/70 and the 10.7:1 engine was 9/70 to 8/71. Ford Australia must have stockpiled them if they wanted to continue building PhaseIII style engines for the Phase4, which they must have as RPO83's got them. The only 351C's built for US vehicles after 9/71 were the 1972 R-code (351HO) (test above) and the Q-code Cobrajet (text below, copied off Wiki).

Q-code (351 Cobra-Jet)

The Q-code 351 "Cobra-Jet" (also called 351-CJ, 351-4V) was produced from May 1971 through the 1974 model year. It was a lower-compression design that included open-chamber 4V heads. The open-chamber heads exhibited superior emissions characteristics and were required to meet the more stringent emissions standards for 1972 and beyond. The "351 CJ" high-performance engine included a different intake manifold, high-lift, long-duration camshaft with hydraulic valve lifters, different valve springs and dampers, a 750-CFM spread-bore 4300-D Motorcraft carburetor, dual-point distributor (with four-speed manual transmissions only), and four-bolt main bearing caps. These engines also featured induction-hardened exhaust seats for use with low-lead and unleaded gasoline. This engine was different from the 1970-71 M-code 351C having a more aggressive camshaft, a spread-bore carburetor, a four-bolt block and the lower compression allowed regular fuel to be used. It was rated at 280 bhp (209 kW; 284 PS) for all 1971 applications. For the 1972 model year, the only change to the engine was a retarding the camshaft events by 4°. The engine was rated at 266 hp (198 kW) (SAE net) for 1972 when installed in the Mustang, and 248 hp (185 kW) in the Torino and Montego. An increase in the combustion chamber size and the use of smaller valves occurred in 1973, which reduced horsepower to 246 hp (183 kW) for the four-barrel for the intermediate Fords, though it still retained the higher 266 hp (198 kW) rating in the Mustang. The 351 CJ (now referred to as the "351 4V") was rated at 255 hp (190 kW) in 1974 and was only installed in the Ford Ranchero, Ford Torino, Mercury Montego, and Mercury Cougar.


The HJ 308 wasn't re-designed for ADR27. All of the HQ engines carried through into HJ except the 308 was improved, they made the 308 about 20-25hp and 5lb-ft more powerful than the HQ to overcome the loss of the 350 SBC, primarily for Caprice. The 2BBL 400 that was to replace the HQ's final 350 was less powerful by far than the HJ 308. GMH introduced ADR27 on all vehicles from 9/73 (which is why XU1 ended at that time too). ADR27 has little to do with performance, initially it was all about idle and crankcase emissions but later (1/75 on) it is in conjunction with fuel evaporation control so sealed fuel bowl, sealed fuel tank and carbon canister to capture vapours. All US automatic vehicles got the same thing from the start of 1968 model year (manuals got AIR) and it had zero effect on performance. This is why we got unique Quadrajet carbs after the first HK GTS327's and then got back Chevrolet numbered ones again on 350's past 8/73.


The USA 1972 HO Cam is nothing near a XY GT-HO Cam grind.
290 duration 477 lift of the USA 1972 HO, to the 300 duration and near 500 lift of a GT-HO. The XA GT-HO may very well of got the 290 duration cam.

There was no reason to use the USA type open chamber heads at all in a XA GT let alone a XA GT-HO because they were all 10.7:1 any way, like it was with the USA that had to do so in regard to unleaded fuels low octane.

The stockpiling ? they had all the XA GT engines with no problems that they wanted and a 4 bolt would be as easy as to order in, as all the Cleveland blocks were cast and set to Australia to be machined finished off from day one for our 302c.
Fact is that all the 302C that Australia built from Sep 1971 and it was not until around mid 1976 that we started casting the blocks here our selves.

But for the GT 351, they were all built in the USA and 351 2V to about our mid 1973 cars came out. you will find there is a casting difference in the Aussie 2V 351 heads that tells them apart as to them being to them being built here.
But all the 4V GT engines that were made into GT-HO were pulled down here and rebuilt up and all.
So a Phase 4 could be easily built up anyway they wanted to and the 4V heads could easy be ordered. As it's not like the HQ 350 that is just a stock engine dumped here as is like till 1973-4 lost more power.

Them RPO83 were nothing but a lotto mixed bag way of parts to be gotten rid of as they were not all the same.

It's the XE-192540 that is cast on Blocks that are NASCAR that are the best Blocks but they were made for racing.
HK1837 Offline
#70 Posted : Friday, 4 January 2019 6:26:18 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 12,911

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 157 time(s) in 155 post(s)
My point was RPO83's (or most of them) got PhaseIII spec engines which were supposed to be for PhaseIV, so Ford Australia must have got USA built 351 4V engines with 11:1 compression from the USA prior to the end of about 8/70 as that is when the 351 4V changed to 10.7:1. So they must have gotten stuff over here for upcoming use just like GMH did getting all their 307's for HK and HT prior to the end of that engine in 8/68. This is assuming they are 11:1? Ford Australia used the basic 4V as it was for the HO's didn't they, just pulled them down and blueprinted them and made the changes as quoted back further in this thread?

The factory workshop manual for PhaseIII quotes this as the cam which is what I think you are talking about:

Valve lift in & exh 0.494
Valve timing INTAKE Opens @40 deg BTC
Closes@ 80 deg ABC
Exhaust Opens@ 84 deg BBC
Closes@36 deg ATC

I think that makes the advertised duration is 300/300 if I remember my cam maths properly.

The 1972 R code had less duration but basically the same lift as the PhaseIII and the 1971 Cobrajet Q code engines were big hydraulic cams so a different beast to the 1971 R code solid and the GT-HO cam. The 1971 R code is only slightly smaller than the quoted PhaseIII cam, a slightly different rocker ratio (maybe?) or advertised duration quoted at a different lift might be the cause? If they aren't the same it means Ford Australia used a unique camshaft, not unheard of but someone must have done the development for them to get it right?
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#71 Posted : Saturday, 5 January 2019 2:21:02 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,295

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 10 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
So the XA GT-HO would have gotten the 1972 R-code 351 HO. Specs below from Wiki. 275hp SAE net would be about 325hp roughly, but with a 780 Holley it would have probably been more. This engines cam was slightly lower than the 1971 R spc, which appears to be the same as the stock PhaseIII cam.

1972 R-code (351 HO

The 351C HO "R-code" had a number of changes to help meet emission standards for 1972 compared to the 1971 Boss 351 "R-Code". The camshaft had less duration, but more valve lift, while the mechanical lifters remained unchanged. The forged pistons were changed to flat-top style and the heads to open chamber heads, but retained the same large ports, valves, and adjustable valve train used in 1971. This resulted in a compression ratio decreased to 9.2:1 while the cleaner-burning open-chamber heads helped meet the new emissions regulations. The Ram Air option was no longer available. The engine otherwise remained unchanged from 1971. This engine produced 275 hp (205 kW) using the more realistic SAE net system and was only available in the 1972 Ford Mustang.

The drop to 10.7:1 will be the 1971 M-code engine being supplied to Ford Australia.

Phase 4 would be well gone by 9/73 (ADR27 didn't become mandatory until about 4/74, it was supposed to be 9/73 but Ford and Chrysler weren't ready, GMH were ready early but didn't put it on ADR plates until 4/74). The Phase 5 was not an XB, it was to be the XA coupe. The coupe wasn't ready in time to sell the 300 GT-HO vehicles required to be eligible for Bathurst 1972 so the campaign was to be a sedan as a Phase 4 and coupe as Phase 5. The original Ford documentation dated August 1971 detailing that are published in AMC magazine issue 23. They also state that the Falcon GT-HO's will not be able to be competitive with GMH's new V8 Toranas so they decide to develop a Cleveland powered Cortina. All of this got killed off less than 12 months later as we know.

My point about stockpiling was there were no M-code 351's built for US consumption after about August 1971. The 11:1 4V M-code was 9/69 to 8/70 and the 10.7:1 engine was 9/70 to 8/71. Ford Australia must have stockpiled them if they wanted to continue building PhaseIII style engines for the Phase4, which they must have as RPO83's got them. The only 351C's built for US vehicles after 9/71 were the 1972 R-code (351HO) (test above) and the Q-code Cobrajet (text below, copied off Wiki).

Q-code (351 Cobra-Jet)

The Q-code 351 "Cobra-Jet" (also called 351-CJ, 351-4V) was produced from May 1971 through the 1974 model year. It was a lower-compression design that included open-chamber 4V heads. The open-chamber heads exhibited superior emissions characteristics and were required to meet the more stringent emissions standards for 1972 and beyond. The "351 CJ" high-performance engine included a different intake manifold, high-lift, long-duration camshaft with hydraulic valve lifters, different valve springs and dampers, a 750-CFM spread-bore 4300-D Motorcraft carburetor, dual-point distributor (with four-speed manual transmissions only), and four-bolt main bearing caps. These engines also featured induction-hardened exhaust seats for use with low-lead and unleaded gasoline. This engine was different from the 1970-71 M-code 351C having a more aggressive camshaft, a spread-bore carburetor, a four-bolt block and the lower compression allowed regular fuel to be used. It was rated at 280 bhp (209 kW; 284 PS) for all 1971 applications. For the 1972 model year, the only change to the engine was a retarding the camshaft events by 4°. The engine was rated at 266 hp (198 kW) (SAE net) for 1972 when installed in the Mustang, and 248 hp (185 kW) in the Torino and Montego. An increase in the combustion chamber size and the use of smaller valves occurred in 1973, which reduced horsepower to 246 hp (183 kW) for the four-barrel for the intermediate Fords, though it still retained the higher 266 hp (198 kW) rating in the Mustang. The 351 CJ (now referred to as the "351 4V") was rated at 255 hp (190 kW) in 1974 and was only installed in the Ford Ranchero, Ford Torino, Mercury Montego, and Mercury Cougar.


The HJ 308 wasn't re-designed for ADR27. All of the HQ engines carried through into HJ except the 308 was improved, they made the 308 about 20-25hp and 5lb-ft more powerful than the HQ to overcome the loss of the 350 SBC, primarily for Caprice. The 2BBL 400 that was to replace the HQ's final 350 was less powerful by far than the HJ 308. GMH introduced ADR27 on all vehicles from 9/73 (which is why XU1 ended at that time too). ADR27 has little to do with performance, initially it was all about idle and crankcase emissions but later (1/75 on) it is in conjunction with fuel evaporation control so sealed fuel bowl, sealed fuel tank and carbon canister to capture vapours. All US automatic vehicles got the same thing from the start of 1968 model year (manuals got AIR) and it had zero effect on performance. This is why we got unique Quadrajet carbs after the first HK GTS327's and then got back Chevrolet numbered ones again on 350's past 8/73.


350HP Net for the XY GT-HO I believe.

248 is due to more restricted mufflers but one could option the mustang type freer flowing ones to bring them up to 266hp, as to using the 9.2:1 and open chamber heads I doubt it very much, such would be stupid with our fuel octane of 97 and that cam, they would not do such a thing, as far as I know it had the 4V Dot heads with modified combustion chamber to flow better and as to cam it could be anything, as we did not use the USA cams in our Phase 2 and 3.

There is no reason to add cost in pulling down a engine that has been built like the P2 and P3 were. not to mention what would they do with the stupid low comp heads, send them back.
The XA GT were as they were but the GT-HO was to get 4 mains and low volume of such a block would of been imported as is for sure.
If they were going to be 9.2:1 heads, would they use such in racing. never ! and have a GT-HO with 9.2:1 and a GT with 10.7:1 no way.

I would say that about a 280 30/70 cam would be used with a XA GT-HO as such with a diff ratio of 3.0:1 and 15in wheels, so any bigger than something like that type of cam would be just stupid.


The talk of the 400 2barrel Caprice is just crap no worthy of talking about truly, why would you bother, the 350 was crap as well due to USA Pollution Laws. and the 400 is a crap block for Australia as they had problems with dealing with our heat.
Look at the Net power ratings of a 1974-5 350 and 400 single exhaust in the states and why would we want such compression ratios here of 8.0:1 to run Standard fuel ?
castellan Offline
#72 Posted : Saturday, 5 January 2019 2:47:05 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,295

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 10 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
My point was RPO83's (or most of them) got PhaseIII spec engines which were supposed to be for PhaseIV, so Ford Australia must have got USA built 351 4V engines with 11:1 compression from the USA prior to the end of about 8/70 as that is when the 351 4V changed to 10.7:1. So they must have gotten stuff over here for upcoming use just like GMH did getting all their 307's for HK and HT prior to the end of that engine in 8/68. This is assuming they are 11:1? Ford Australia used the basic 4V as it was for the HO's didn't they, just pulled them down and blueprinted them and made the changes as quoted back further in this thread?

The factory workshop manual for PhaseIII quotes this as the cam which is what I think you are talking about:

Valve lift in & exh 0.494
Valve timing INTAKE Opens @40 deg BTC
Closes@ 80 deg ABC
Exhaust Opens@ 84 deg BBC
Closes@36 deg ATC

I think that makes the advertised duration is 300/300 if I remember my cam maths properly.

The 1972 R code had less duration but basically the same lift as the PhaseIII and the 1971 Cobrajet Q code engines were big hydraulic cams so a different beast to the 1971 R code solid and the GT-HO cam. The 1971 R code is only slightly smaller than the quoted PhaseIII cam, a slightly different rocker ratio (maybe?) or advertised duration quoted at a different lift might be the cause? If they aren't the same it means Ford Australia used a unique camshaft, not unheard of but someone must have done the development for them to get it right?


No ! RPO83 were not Phase 3 spec engines at all. they were just a GT cam and some got 4 mains but so did other cars like Farlaine so it's said, but I would think that Ford spare parts got a hold of them, as one could order blocks and 4V heads easy even cams.

The dates may be as you say but the tell tail is in looking at the heads, you have a 4 casting on the heads and then you have a 4 with a Dot for the 10.7:1
The casting method changed with the Dot heads as was the same with the block casting method with the D blocks and the Square blocks.

Yes that's the XY GT-HO cam, but for Bathurst they ran the P2 cam with the higher lift.

Yes Ford Australia used there own cam in their HO'S for the racing regulations I would say, as the USA did not have our type of racing.

I would have to drag out my cam spec's to talk about such as to what is what in the USA.
HK1837 Offline
#73 Posted : Saturday, 5 January 2019 3:07:16 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 12,911

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 157 time(s) in 155 post(s)
It won't be 350hp net for a PhaseIII, maybe up to 350hp gross. If they were 350hp net they'd be doing a much faster trap speed at the end of the quarter.

Look at it form this way, what did an XA GT get? They were all imported engines weren't they? The standard 4V 351C (the 1971 10.7:1 engine) finished in the USA around 8/71. So Ford Australia must have got a stockpile of those for the standard XA GT? And they'd use the same stocks to rebuild for GT-HO use?

They wanted the 400 engine for the extra weight of the HJ Caprice, they had at least one 400 engine out here fitted to a number of vehicles before it left GMH in I think the 350Z. It was in Max Wilson's Contessa Gold HQ GTS350 for one. My guess is how poor the engine was made their choice to drop it. I have researched the power figures for most of them from that era. The 400 they had here had an engine number suffix of CLK which is a 1971 LF6 400, a 2BBL engine. It will be built to identical pollution specs as the HQ 350 engines from 1971 and 1972. The lucky thing is I have SAE gross figures for this engine so I can compare directly to the HQ engines so the results that are not obscured by net figures, meaning the figures are totally comparable. The 400 is down on power compared to the 4BBL L48 350 in the HQ but it has massive amounts of torque which is the reason it existed in the first place. Figures below. This doesn't mean that GMH wouldn't have got GM to build them a 4BBL 400, they may well have done that as GM specially built the 350 auto engines in HT-HG for GMH, when they were made there was no LM1 engines available in the USA.

HQ 350:

SAE gross 270hp@4800, 360ftlb@3200rpm (GMH almost the same but gave 275hp@4800rpm, probably as the HQ 350 had far more advance that the US engine and use of 97 octane fuel).
SAE net 175hp@4000, 290ftlb@2400 (auto full size), 210hp@4400rpm, 300ftlb@2800rpm (manual Camaro).

1971 400 LF6:

SAE gross 255hp@4400rpm, 390ftlb@2400rpm
SAE net 170hp@3400rpm, 325ftlb@2000rpm (auto full size, no manual version of this engine in 1971) .
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#74 Posted : Saturday, 5 January 2019 10:08:21 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,295

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 10 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
It won't be 350hp net for a PhaseIII, maybe up to 350hp gross. If they were 350hp net they'd be doing a much faster trap speed at the end of the quarter.

Look at it form this way, what did an XA GT get? They were all imported engines weren't they? The standard 4V 351C (the 1971 10.7:1 engine) finished in the USA around 8/71. So Ford Australia must have got a stockpile of those for the standard XA GT? And they'd use the same stocks to rebuild for GT-HO use?

They wanted the 400 engine for the extra weight of the HJ Caprice, they had at least one 400 engine out here fitted to a number of vehicles before it left GMH in I think the 350Z. It was in Max Wilson's Contessa Gold HQ GTS350 for one. My guess is how poor the engine was made their choice to drop it. I have researched the power figures for most of them from that era. The 400 they had here had an engine number suffix of CLK which is a 1971 LF6 400, a 2BBL engine. It will be built to identical pollution specs as the HQ 350 engines from 1971 and 1972. The lucky thing is I have SAE gross figures for this engine so I can compare directly to the HQ engines so the results that are not obscured by net figures, meaning the figures are totally comparable. The 400 is down on power compared to the 4BBL L48 350 in the HQ but it has massive amounts of torque which is the reason it existed in the first place. Figures below. This doesn't mean that GMH wouldn't have got GM to build them a 4BBL 400, they may well have done that as GM specially built the 350 auto engines in HT-HG for GMH, when they were made there was no LM1 engines available in the USA.

HQ 350:

SAE gross 270hp@4800, 360ftlb@3200rpm (GMH almost the same but gave 275hp@4800rpm, probably as the HQ 350 had far more advance that the US engine and use of 97 octane fuel).
SAE net 175hp@4000, 290ftlb@2400 (auto full size), 210hp@4400rpm, 300ftlb@2800rpm (manual Camaro).

1971 400 LF6:

SAE gross 255hp@4400rpm, 390ftlb@2400rpm
SAE net 170hp@3400rpm, 325ftlb@2000rpm (auto full size, no manual version of this engine in 1971) .


350hp was the best one dyno by a well know race dude, I will have to look up the name, but most did not make that, I think it was a Bathurst race car.

I do not know the last casting dates of the last of the XA GT were.

Mainly the new models come out in Sep the year before, but I think I remember seen a later date for the build of Mustangs like Dec 1971 start for 1972 models, not all models come out in Sep all the time.
But with a 4 bolt block it would not of mattered for a XA GT-HO, just because they pulled down GT eng down to build XW-Y GT-HO does not compute with the XA GT-HO because what would they do with the low comp heads.
HK1837 Offline
#75 Posted : Sunday, 6 January 2019 8:35:54 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 12,911

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 157 time(s) in 155 post(s)
The trap speeds indicate max of maybe 330-340hp gross for the road cars. The ones they quote with more power must be those fitted with what I see called an "alternate cam", this must be the PhaseII cam you mention? It seems to say the same duration but 0.524" valve lift.

Ford had these Aussie only cams from the start of PhaseII? The Cleveland was introduced in 1969 for 1970 model year which means not much time between the first engines and when they were ready for the PhaseII, so did Ford US do the cam development for Ford Australia? Or was it done here?
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Premier 350 Offline
#76 Posted : Sunday, 6 January 2019 9:03:06 AM(UTC)
Premier 350

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 518
Man
Australia
Location: On a build over WWII airfield. Got the .50 cal cases from my driveway to prove it

Thanks: 11 times
Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 5 post(s)
Much as I love old Holdens, GM should have started to lift the equipment levels by the late 60s. We lived in New Guinea then, and there were no import duties.
Dad bought a new Fiat 125S for about the same price as a HT Premier. The Fiat gave you a five speed, 4 discs, cloth reclining buckets and more instruments.

Would it have killed GM-H to offer front discs as standard? And a basic heater on Kingswood and Belmont. The same applies to Frod & Chrysler.

I'd love to have a HT Premier, I'd like to have the Fiat too. It stayed in the family till the early 1980s.
Attn camry drivers. The accelerator is the skinny pedal on the right.
castellan Offline
#77 Posted : Sunday, 6 January 2019 9:23:39 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,295

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 10 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
The trap speeds indicate max of maybe 330-340hp gross for the road cars. The ones they quote with more power must be those fitted with what I see called an "alternate cam", this must be the PhaseII cam you mention? It seems to say the same duration but 0.524" valve lift.

Ford had these Aussie only cams from the start of PhaseII? The Cleveland was introduced in 1969 for 1970 model year which means not much time between the first engines and when they were ready for the PhaseII, so did Ford US do the cam development for Ford Australia? Or was it done here?


I would say you are correct in all that.

The First few months of the Cleveland powered XW GT-HO were just stock engines with a Holly tossed on it and then came the Phase 2 engines.

I seem to remember that them GT-HO cams were grinned here by the same mob that did the Torana L34 option cam, Crane I think. I may be wrong.
castellan Offline
#78 Posted : Sunday, 6 January 2019 10:08:21 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,295

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 10 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Premier 350 Go to Quoted Post
Much as I love old Holdens, GM should have started to lift the equipment levels by the late 60s. We lived in New Guinea then, and there were no import duties.
Dad bought a new Fiat 125S for about the same price as a HT Premier. The Fiat gave you a five speed, 4 discs, cloth reclining buckets and more instruments.

Would it have killed GM-H to offer front discs as standard? And a basic heater on Kingswood and Belmont. The same applies to Frod & Chrysler.

I'd love to have a HT Premier, I'd like to have the Fiat too. It stayed in the family till the early 1980s.


The Fist 125s must of been cheaper in New Guinea than Australia I have a 1969 Fiat 125 GT down for $3773.

Holden and Ford and Valiant knew their market well I am sure, but the general public were not up to the benefits of such as disc brakes at the time and did not regard Heater as so worthy for the extra cash or give a cracker about gauges or bucket seats, sadly. unless you were a car fanatic or love driving and appreciate good cars to drive.

Holden would of lost sales to Ford and Valiant with getting rid of the drum brake rubbish in the day.

Them Fiat's were a drivers car and sods would not appreciate such for what it truly is.
Look at all the people who bought 6 cyl Holden's 202's in HQ to HZ and Fords with 250's from XA to XC, why did people not get a 253 engine at least.
The car mags test were always 202 Holden vs 250 Ford or 253 vs 302 and 308 vs 351. there is bugger all difference in the size of the Falcon and Kingswood to be bothered with.

If it was not for the Jap cars being imported here, we would still be driving with drum brakes nowadays as far as your average person is concerned, only now the safety message has come to be a big thing due to media peddling it, but as for the drivers they are still ignorant as ever.
Dr Terry Offline
#79 Posted : Sunday, 6 January 2019 12:10:59 PM(UTC)
Dr Terry

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 5,495

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 74 time(s) in 70 post(s)
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
Holden would of lost sales to Ford and Valiant with getting rid of the drum brake rubbish in the day.


I don't quite understand this statement. Could you elaborate.

Dr Terry
If at first you don't succeed, just call it Version 1.0
HK1837 Offline
#80 Posted : Sunday, 6 January 2019 4:45:01 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 12,911

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 157 time(s) in 155 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Premier 350 Go to Quoted Post
Much as I love old Holdens, GM should have started to lift the equipment levels by the late 60s. We lived in New Guinea then, and there were no import duties.
Dad bought a new Fiat 125S for about the same price as a HT Premier. The Fiat gave you a five speed, 4 discs, cloth reclining buckets and more instruments.

Would it have killed GM-H to offer front discs as standard? And a basic heater on Kingswood and Belmont. The same applies to Frod & Chrysler.

I'd love to have a HT Premier, I'd like to have the Fiat too. It stayed in the family till the early 1980s.


Technically they did. Disc brakes became standard with any V8 model from a certain time during HK-HG. As far as order procedures or pricing was concerned you are correct that drums were standard on most 6cyl until sometime in HJ, but also remember that GMH built probably 8 times as many cars to sell as they did to order, and a lot of what they built came with disc brakes. Sure there was still a lot of drum brake vehicles in the Belmont level cars, but discs were also very common on Kingswood and Premier models. Of all the HK-HG I have wrecked or owned which in non GTS models were mainly Kingswood/Monaro or Premier I can only recall one with drums and it was a Belmont.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
6 Pages«<23456>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF | YAF © 2003-2019, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 1.375 seconds.