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

Notification

Icon
Error

Login


Take the time to read our Privacy Policy.

3 Pages<123>
HK1837 Online
#21 Posted : Friday, 1 February 2019 8:37:35 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)
3300S was never made, it was canned when the HQ GTS coupe was canned.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#22 Posted : Friday, 1 February 2019 1:25:14 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,298

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 10 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
I also meant to mention, imagine the LJ GTR and to a lesser extent the LH SL/R with a 3300S rather than a stock small cam 135hp 3300. One of the magazines of the day speculated what GMH were doing (prior to XU1 release) and stuck a 145hp 186S into an LC GTR, it was very quick. Imagine this as a 3300S with another 15hp or so (assuming a 202S would get the 186S cam). The LH Gpack with its 3.36 rear axle would have been quick too. Neither of them XU1 quick but still would have been far better car than the stock 3300 cars.


The G Pack should of got a 202 S engine, that would of made it a lot better car, with the S cam and carby and headers and better exhaust and maybe a XU-1 head Dancing but look at the cost back in the day, the first batch to the 2ed batch inflation was madness then.

I went to buy a LJ GTR it had the 173 in it and it was low miles real good nick but I did not like driving it at all, it was gutless and the dealer had a fit when I tried to rev it out, so I just could not explore the whole of the rev range, but me bro had a HR with a stock repco 161 with twin Stromberg's extractors speco floor shifter 3 sp box and it went real well, blow that 173 GTR away no problems, so I was expecting the 173 to be something more and I hated the LJ stupid steering wheel angel what a s box.
That GTR was for sale for maybe 8 months at the car yard, he had to much on it and I don't think cars that do not perform sell.

I test drove a VL Turbo once and it had been siting for months and I drove it and it ran like total crap but it was just starting to clean out and the dealer was a wanker, I said I am not going to buy something that runs like shit you know and another a mate had seen a Toyota Supra 2.8L square type looking thing that had been sitting for maybe a year at the car yard, so he went in and drove it and it ran like total shit went and put $5 of fuel in it and then I drove it back and bingo ! she ran sweet as, mate said he was going to buy it the next weekend but it was gone, some bugger would of came and drove it and it ran like a dream and snapped it up, but dick head dealer was trying to sell cars that run like shit, what a tosser.

Then again a mate was trading his VB 4.2L Commodore in on a VH SS 4.2L and boy that was gutless, the old VB would kill it and it was stock as single exhaust up against a dual exhaust 4V. why ! I know he original owner but forgot to ask him what did he do, pussy foot it or what. but some times you just get a slug.

I test drove a VH 5.0L ex highway Patrol what a slug that was as well, I was shocked.
HK1837 Online
#23 Posted : Friday, 1 February 2019 1:33:43 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)
What was an LJ GTR doing with a 173 in it? They were all standard HQ 202's. The final LC GTR's got a 2850S engine, basically the same thing as a 2600S but with a 0.125" larger bore.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#24 Posted : Friday, 1 February 2019 3:01:05 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,298

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 10 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
253 Performance wise is mainly in the exhaust, you need a 2 1/4 free flowing single and that's all, with a 253.

A mate had a 308 HQ with stock dual exhaust but someone put the 253 Stromberg on it, but it went surprisingly well, just that the top end of the rev range lacked over the 4 barrel, but it had good grunt. I thought it would be crap like the 302 fords were that had the same 2 barrel Stromberg, not to mention the Carter 2 Barrel that was a bigger CFM and I never seen any 2 Barrel 302 perform well and that HQ of my mate had would kill them.

I had a HG Premier 253 auto 2.78 diff with just 2 1/4 free flowing exhaust and had many drags. one was a stock XC 5.8L auto with dual exhaust and 2.75 diff and they were neck and neck all the way to 110mph all the time. I met a bloke some years ago who came out with Kenny in that XC and he thought that I had a 327 in my Premier, that was just old Kenny telling porky pies just to try to save face.
I tried 3.55 and a 3.36 ratio diffs in that 253 and them ratios were rubbish such just killed it's performance there was nothing good about them ratios at all, I would of liked to try a 3.08 ratio but they were like hens teeth to find back in the day. Kenny would flog my 253 with 3.55 and 3.36 ratios.
One of the tricks to make the auto 253 perform better was to drop the rev when it changes up mine was 5500rpm when it changed up, so I would have to take the foot off and hit it again about 4500 to 4800 at most on a stock engine is all you need.
you can adjust a cable to make it not rev so high and on newer Holden's they have a kick down sensor, I dust toss that away, you do not need it as they change up at 4500 rpm anyway and drop back just the same regardless and if I needed to go over 4500 I just used the T Bar for that. easy as piss.

I don't think that a stock 253 needs any thing more than a 2V 350 Holley, using a big carby is just BS as the size of the engine will only use x amount of CFM so going above that is just stupid. one has to remember that measuring CFM is different between 2 barrel and 4 barrel, so a 500 CFM 2V carby will flow much more than a 4V of the same 500 CFM.

If the Holden 202 did come out as a 202 'S' 2V Stromberg I think that they would of had to use bigger valves to take better advantage of such. a mate had a stock 202 HQ as mine was both with 2 1/2 exhaust and extractors but he put a 350 Holley on it and yes it did drag mine off but not by that much really at all, just walking away like, so I never put a 350 Holley on mine, I was thinking a 2V Stromberg would be good.
I think a 202 with a small cam of 20/60 and a YT Head and 2V Stromberg will be a good strong stock type of engine that no one could bag at all, as it will have all the torque down low and more than stock and good useable stock range power all the way past what a stock could make and matching it with the stock factory run of the mill 253 that got about.



I agree that the 308 with the 2BBL will be OK. It will lose power (as you witnessed) but will have good low end torque. I had a 307 in an FJ40 that was pretty much stock except it was bored to 4" (327ci) and had a 500 Holley 2BBL on it. Was awful. I pulled the 2BBL off and put a 4BBL manifold and 600 vac sec 4BBL Holley on it. Went well with heaps more power but didn't have the low end torque needed. In the end I put an original 307 manifold and 2BBL Rochester on it, was brilliant. When I converted my Nissan Patrol MQ ute to a 302 SBC and TH400 I fitted a WW Stromberg 2BBL initially, but it wasn't good. I actually fitted a 4BBL intake and a VK Quadrajet, was perfect, had low end grunt and revved out well with good power production. So when you put a Quadrajet on a 253, and set it up like GMH did for the VC/WB they do go really well. A 308's Quadrajet isn't setup right for a 253. Thebest 253 I ever drove was a sweet little motor. Nothing special, was a later one (HZ/VB) with the dome top (9.4:1) pistons. It was fitted with earlier HQ heads and 308 intake with a blue 4.2L Quadrajet. It had HEI ignition, extractors and a single system, and was fitted with the better HJ onwards 308 cam. It was a 5spd manual with a 3.55 rear end. Was a sweet car to drive. Engine was nothing special, but was just right for a daily driver.

A 202S would go better with big valves, but GMH would never have done that in 1970 era. They were a big volume auto producer, just like GM. They built stuff to be used wherever practical across the board. Remember GMH had Perfectune do the XU1 and L34 heads, they didn't do it in house. Pretty much the same for the bigger cams done for race teams to fit themselves, they were done by outside suppliers. As it was a 186S had 145hp, that is 15hp more than a stock HT 186 from the identical engine specs bar induction, headers and timing (HT onwards 186 used the 186S cam in most applications, earlier HK and HR 186 had a smaller cam and was 19hp less than the 186S). All GMH would have done with the 202S was to fit the same stuff the 186S had: better bearings, valves and springs, the induction and headers. Using the same % gain for the 186S over the 186 (same cam between them) this would put the 202S at 151hp (stock HQ 202 was 135hp). It'd probably have been actually higher with the 186S cam, the stock HQ 202 cam was the original 161 cam: 35/75 70/40. The 186S was 43/85 95/48 (these are both including ramps, but you can see the comparison). So if a stock 202 went from 135hp to 151hp with the small 161 cam, with a 186S cam it might have seen 160hp. Add big valves and porting maybe closer to 165-170hp. Getting way too close to the claimed 185hp 253 and thus the HQ GTS would have made a HQ V8 GTS manual with single exhaust and 3.08 rear axle feel slow compared with the GTS's 202S with the same ratio aussie 4spd and a 3.55 rear axle. Plus the 202 would be less restricted with the single exhaust than the 253.

Mick is right about modern technology especially cams. GMH did exactly what GM did with cams, just had a handful and used them across the board. For the later 60's and 70's GM only had 3 production SBC cams, two hydraulics and a solid. The one hydraulic cam was used from 8:1 truck engines through to 10.25:1 300hp 350, this was the same grind as the HJ-VL 308/304. Their next hydraulic was used in the L79 327 350hp (Corvette, was 325hp in others) and 350hp 350 in Corvette. The solid (Duntov cam) was used in the 365hp L76 327, 375hp L84 327 and in Z28 302 plus the 1970 LT1 360hp/370hp engine. As I said, GMH did the same, they developed a better cam for the 308 right at the start (the HJ onwards 308 cam) but saved their pennies and used the 253's cam and retarded it, this was simply done to reduce costs and to have one less part. When they wanted more power they stuck the other cam in and it stayed there on all production GMH 308/304 vehicles until the end of VL (Group A engines excluded). Today with modern roller cams, you can wring huge increases over flat tappet cams especially hydraulics. Modern head chamber designs (plus modern porting practices) also make a huge difference. A simple look at the power output from stock alloy LT1 Corvette heads from the 80's or stock cast 350 Vortec heads compared to the old big port, closed chamber, big valve fuelies of the 60's shows you that the newer heads function far better than the old ones. EFI 304 heads compared to the older heads especially with the 5.7L/350ci versions is another example. Look at LS engines, they are a simple old fashioned pushrod engine, that will outperform old 350ci and 377ci engines with factory componentry, it is all in the heads and roller cam. Put modern alloys and a roller cam on an old rebuilt 350 and it'll perform just as well. I bet those Commodore Cup 253 engines have some hard work gone into their cam designs! If you read the last bit of this article, it shows what they got out of a repro L84 by simply using a modern cam grind versus the original solid cam:

http://www.superchevy.co...ie-motor-on-engine-dyno/

That 308 HQ has the 253 intake on as well as the Stromberg.

Your 307 chev Stromberg carby ? they are not the same as the Holden one ?
castellan Offline
#25 Posted : Friday, 1 February 2019 3:05:52 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,298

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 10 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
What was an LJ GTR doing with a 173 in it? They were all standard HQ 202's. The final LC GTR's got a 2850S engine, basically the same thing as a 2600S but with a 0.125" larger bore.


Chrome rocker and all 173 S maybe it had the LH nose etc fitted, I did not look at the date, as when I got back I just walked off.
HK1837 Online
#26 Posted : Friday, 1 February 2019 3:21:41 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: castellan Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
253 Performance wise is mainly in the exhaust, you need a 2 1/4 free flowing single and that's all, with a 253.

A mate had a 308 HQ with stock dual exhaust but someone put the 253 Stromberg on it, but it went surprisingly well, just that the top end of the rev range lacked over the 4 barrel, but it had good grunt. I thought it would be crap like the 302 fords were that had the same 2 barrel Stromberg, not to mention the Carter 2 Barrel that was a bigger CFM and I never seen any 2 Barrel 302 perform well and that HQ of my mate had would kill them.

I had a HG Premier 253 auto 2.78 diff with just 2 1/4 free flowing exhaust and had many drags. one was a stock XC 5.8L auto with dual exhaust and 2.75 diff and they were neck and neck all the way to 110mph all the time. I met a bloke some years ago who came out with Kenny in that XC and he thought that I had a 327 in my Premier, that was just old Kenny telling porky pies just to try to save face.
I tried 3.55 and a 3.36 ratio diffs in that 253 and them ratios were rubbish such just killed it's performance there was nothing good about them ratios at all, I would of liked to try a 3.08 ratio but they were like hens teeth to find back in the day. Kenny would flog my 253 with 3.55 and 3.36 ratios.
One of the tricks to make the auto 253 perform better was to drop the rev when it changes up mine was 5500rpm when it changed up, so I would have to take the foot off and hit it again about 4500 to 4800 at most on a stock engine is all you need.
you can adjust a cable to make it not rev so high and on newer Holden's they have a kick down sensor, I dust toss that away, you do not need it as they change up at 4500 rpm anyway and drop back just the same regardless and if I needed to go over 4500 I just used the T Bar for that. easy as piss.

I don't think that a stock 253 needs any thing more than a 2V 350 Holley, using a big carby is just BS as the size of the engine will only use x amount of CFM so going above that is just stupid. one has to remember that measuring CFM is different between 2 barrel and 4 barrel, so a 500 CFM 2V carby will flow much more than a 4V of the same 500 CFM.

If the Holden 202 did come out as a 202 'S' 2V Stromberg I think that they would of had to use bigger valves to take better advantage of such. a mate had a stock 202 HQ as mine was both with 2 1/2 exhaust and extractors but he put a 350 Holley on it and yes it did drag mine off but not by that much really at all, just walking away like, so I never put a 350 Holley on mine, I was thinking a 2V Stromberg would be good.
I think a 202 with a small cam of 20/60 and a YT Head and 2V Stromberg will be a good strong stock type of engine that no one could bag at all, as it will have all the torque down low and more than stock and good useable stock range power all the way past what a stock could make and matching it with the stock factory run of the mill 253 that got about.



I agree that the 308 with the 2BBL will be OK. It will lose power (as you witnessed) but will have good low end torque. I had a 307 in an FJ40 that was pretty much stock except it was bored to 4" (327ci) and had a 500 Holley 2BBL on it. Was awful. I pulled the 2BBL off and put a 4BBL manifold and 600 vac sec 4BBL Holley on it. Went well with heaps more power but didn't have the low end torque needed. In the end I put an original 307 manifold and 2BBL Rochester on it, was brilliant. When I converted my Nissan Patrol MQ ute to a 302 SBC and TH400 I fitted a WW Stromberg 2BBL initially, but it wasn't good. I actually fitted a 4BBL intake and a VK Quadrajet, was perfect, had low end grunt and revved out well with good power production. So when you put a Quadrajet on a 253, and set it up like GMH did for the VC/WB they do go really well. A 308's Quadrajet isn't setup right for a 253. Thebest 253 I ever drove was a sweet little motor. Nothing special, was a later one (HZ/VB) with the dome top (9.4:1) pistons. It was fitted with earlier HQ heads and 308 intake with a blue 4.2L Quadrajet. It had HEI ignition, extractors and a single system, and was fitted with the better HJ onwards 308 cam. It was a 5spd manual with a 3.55 rear end. Was a sweet car to drive. Engine was nothing special, but was just right for a daily driver.

A 202S would go better with big valves, but GMH would never have done that in 1970 era. They were a big volume auto producer, just like GM. They built stuff to be used wherever practical across the board. Remember GMH had Perfectune do the XU1 and L34 heads, they didn't do it in house. Pretty much the same for the bigger cams done for race teams to fit themselves, they were done by outside suppliers. As it was a 186S had 145hp, that is 15hp more than a stock HT 186 from the identical engine specs bar induction, headers and timing (HT onwards 186 used the 186S cam in most applications, earlier HK and HR 186 had a smaller cam and was 19hp less than the 186S). All GMH would have done with the 202S was to fit the same stuff the 186S had: better bearings, valves and springs, the induction and headers. Using the same % gain for the 186S over the 186 (same cam between them) this would put the 202S at 151hp (stock HQ 202 was 135hp). It'd probably have been actually higher with the 186S cam, the stock HQ 202 cam was the original 161 cam: 35/75 70/40. The 186S was 43/85 95/48 (these are both including ramps, but you can see the comparison). So if a stock 202 went from 135hp to 151hp with the small 161 cam, with a 186S cam it might have seen 160hp. Add big valves and porting maybe closer to 165-170hp. Getting way too close to the claimed 185hp 253 and thus the HQ GTS would have made a HQ V8 GTS manual with single exhaust and 3.08 rear axle feel slow compared with the GTS's 202S with the same ratio aussie 4spd and a 3.55 rear axle. Plus the 202 would be less restricted with the single exhaust than the 253.

Mick is right about modern technology especially cams. GMH did exactly what GM did with cams, just had a handful and used them across the board. For the later 60's and 70's GM only had 3 production SBC cams, two hydraulics and a solid. The one hydraulic cam was used from 8:1 truck engines through to 10.25:1 300hp 350, this was the same grind as the HJ-VL 308/304. Their next hydraulic was used in the L79 327 350hp (Corvette, was 325hp in others) and 350hp 350 in Corvette. The solid (Duntov cam) was used in the 365hp L76 327, 375hp L84 327 and in Z28 302 plus the 1970 LT1 360hp/370hp engine. As I said, GMH did the same, they developed a better cam for the 308 right at the start (the HJ onwards 308 cam) but saved their pennies and used the 253's cam and retarded it, this was simply done to reduce costs and to have one less part. When they wanted more power they stuck the other cam in and it stayed there on all production GMH 308/304 vehicles until the end of VL (Group A engines excluded). Today with modern roller cams, you can wring huge increases over flat tappet cams especially hydraulics. Modern head chamber designs (plus modern porting practices) also make a huge difference. A simple look at the power output from stock alloy LT1 Corvette heads from the 80's or stock cast 350 Vortec heads compared to the old big port, closed chamber, big valve fuelies of the 60's shows you that the newer heads function far better than the old ones. EFI 304 heads compared to the older heads especially with the 5.7L/350ci versions is another example. Look at LS engines, they are a simple old fashioned pushrod engine, that will outperform old 350ci and 377ci engines with factory componentry, it is all in the heads and roller cam. Put modern alloys and a roller cam on an old rebuilt 350 and it'll perform just as well. I bet those Commodore Cup 253 engines have some hard work gone into their cam designs! If you read the last bit of this article, it shows what they got out of a repro L84 by simply using a modern cam grind versus the original solid cam:

http://www.superchevy.co...ie-motor-on-engine-dyno/

That 308 HQ has the 253 intake on as well as the Stromberg.

Your 307 chev Stromberg carby ? they are not the same as the Holden one ?


No, Rochester 2Jet. Same carby GMH put on the low compression 308 they fitted to late 70’s Bedford. Also the same as the 1967-1969 210hp 327 from Camaro. Only Holden to get the carb was HK-HT 307.
The 302 in my MQ I tried a WW Stomberg off a 302 Ford I think it was off an XW. I used that as it was jetted for a 5.0L engine rather than a 4.2L and its aircleaner size matched the Nissan P40 carb’s LPG donut. It wasn’t really a 302, but a 283 bored 125 thou and fitted with 305 heads which have 58cc chambers and 1.84” intake valves. I used them to up the 302’s compression to better suit LPG, 302 SBC with flat tops only run about 9.5:1 with 64cc heads, the 58cc heads give you just under 10.5.

Edited by user Friday, 1 February 2019 3:38:51 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#27 Posted : Saturday, 2 February 2019 10:53:34 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,298

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 10 post(s)
I wonder why they used that Rochester carb on the Bedford low comp 308, from what I can figure is that that carby is a 352CFM.

The 2V Stromberg is 320 CFM, did they use this carby on the 253 Bedford.
HK1837 Online
#28 Posted : Saturday, 2 February 2019 12:02:55 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: castellan Go to Quoted Post
I wonder why they used that Rochester carb on the Bedford low comp 308, from what I can figure is that that carby is a 352CFM.

The 2V Stromberg is 320 CFM, did they use this carby on the 253 Bedford.


Both the low comp 4.2 and 5.0L Bedford engines used a 4BBL intake with the Rochester 2 barrel like a 307 and 210hp 327 had mounted on an adapter plate. It might be because that carby had a governor on it on US trucks. GM did the same with the really low comp (8:1) 1969 350 truck engine, except it used the slightly larger 2BBL off the 235hp 327 and 255hp 350 from 1969. If that carby was good enough for the 307 on US trucks, it'd be fine for a 308 in Aussie trucks.

Those Bedford V8 engines were the first of the XT5 V8 engines, they had the blue/black type heads and intake, HEI dizzy, forward facing exhaust manifolds and a bigger sump. They pre-dated the VC and WB release of the engine by a long time. And they were silver.

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
8D11PCH2 Offline
#29 Posted : Saturday, 2 February 2019 12:09:59 PM(UTC)
8D11PCH2

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/09/2016(UTC)
Posts: 86
Australia
Location: OZ

Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 8 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
3300S was never made, it was canned when the HQ GTS coupe was canned.


The 202S was made. According to GMH the GTR XU1 has 3310'S' engine as Standard fitment.
HK1837 Online
#30 Posted : Saturday, 2 February 2019 12:18:06 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: 8D11PCH2 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
3300S was never made, it was canned when the HQ GTS coupe was canned.


The 202S was made. According to GMH the GTR XU1 has 3310'S' engine as Standard fitment.


That is an X engine, like the 186X. The S always had a 2 barrel Stromberg. The 202S was planned for HQ GTS coupe but the model was dropped prior to HQ release hence why the engine never made it into production. GMH marketing made a habit of making contradictory statements to Engineering and Styling documentation which I wouldn't be surprised if what you are stating comes from.

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
8D11PCH2 Offline
#31 Posted : Sunday, 3 February 2019 9:29:36 PM(UTC)
8D11PCH2

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/09/2016(UTC)
Posts: 86
Australia
Location: OZ

Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 8 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: 8D11PCH2 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
3300S was never made, it was canned when the HQ GTS coupe was canned.


The 202S was made. According to GMH the GTR XU1 has 3310'S' engine as Standard fitment.


That is an X engine, like the 186X. The S always had a 2 barrel Stromberg. The 202S was planned for HQ GTS coupe but the model was dropped prior to HQ release hence why the engine never made it into production. GMH marketing made a habit of making contradictory statements to Engineering and Styling documentation which I wouldn't be surprised if what you are stating comes from.



I'll disagree. It is a 3310'S' engine. I have not found any GMH documentation stating the LJ XU1 engine is classified as a 202X or 3300X engine.
The breakdown of the 'LJ XU1 Performance Package' states the package includes the 3310'S' engine, M20 4spd transmission, N66 Rally wheels and G80 LSD.
As you said, a 202S in HQ Coupe was canned before production commenced (early 1971), so it's not like 202S or 3310S was already in use like 186S was when the LC XU1 was released.
GMH made the cars so they chose what they chose to call/classify their cars or components thereof.
HK1837 Online
#32 Posted : Monday, 4 February 2019 5:58:46 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: 8D11PCH2 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: 8D11PCH2 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
3300S was never made, it was canned when the HQ GTS coupe was canned.


The 202S was made. According to GMH the GTR XU1 has 3310'S' engine as Standard fitment.


That is an X engine, like the 186X. The S always had a 2 barrel Stromberg. The 202S was planned for HQ GTS coupe but the model was dropped prior to HQ release hence why the engine never made it into production. GMH marketing made a habit of making contradictory statements to Engineering and Styling documentation which I wouldn't be surprised if what you are stating comes from.



I'll disagree. It is a 3310'S' engine. I have not found any GMH documentation stating the LJ XU1 engine is classified as a 202X or 3300X engine.
The breakdown of the 'LJ XU1 Performance Package' states the package includes the 3310'S' engine, M20 4spd transmission, N66 Rally wheels and G80 LSD.
As you said, a 202S in HQ Coupe was canned before production commenced (early 1971), so it's not like 202S or 3310S was already in use like 186S was when the LC XU1 was released.
GMH made the cars so they chose what they chose to call/classify their cars or components thereof.


Very strange. The fact they call it 3310 is typical of Features Manual and POA type literature, whereas badging and Sales documentation is typically 3300. What doesn't make sense is LJ should have been pretty well locked in before the end of 1970. I can't recall the exact timing of the decision to axe the HQ GTS coupe, but as you say I too thought it was at the start of 1971. As I said GMH does often contradict itself, as they have called it a 3310S somewhere yet all the other multi carb red 6's are X engines and WW Stromberg ones are S engines (including the HQ 202S) it does not make a lot of sense.

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
8D11PCH2 Offline
#33 Posted : Sunday, 10 February 2019 8:32:16 AM(UTC)
8D11PCH2

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/09/2016(UTC)
Posts: 86
Australia
Location: OZ

Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 8 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: 8D11PCH2 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: 8D11PCH2 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
3300S was never made, it was canned when the HQ GTS coupe was canned.


The 202S was made. According to GMH the GTR XU1 has 3310'S' engine as Standard fitment.


That is an X engine, like the 186X. The S always had a 2 barrel Stromberg. The 202S was planned for HQ GTS coupe but the model was dropped prior to HQ release hence why the engine never made it into production. GMH marketing made a habit of making contradictory statements to Engineering and Styling documentation which I wouldn't be surprised if what you are stating comes from.



I'll disagree. It is a 3310'S' engine. I have not found any GMH documentation stating the LJ XU1 engine is classified as a 202X or 3300X engine.
The breakdown of the 'LJ XU1 Performance Package' states the package includes the 3310'S' engine, M20 4spd transmission, N66 Rally wheels and G80 LSD.
As you said, a 202S in HQ Coupe was canned before production commenced (early 1971), so it's not like 202S or 3310S was already in use like 186S was when the LC XU1 was released.
GMH made the cars so they chose what they chose to call/classify their cars or components thereof.


Very strange. The fact they call it 3310 is typical of Features Manual and POA type literature, whereas badging and Sales documentation is typically 3300. What doesn't make sense is LJ should have been pretty well locked in before the end of 1970. I can't recall the exact timing of the decision to axe the HQ GTS coupe, but as you say I too thought it was at the start of 1971. As I said GMH does often contradict itself, as they have called it a 3310S somewhere yet all the other multi carb red 6's are X engines and WW Stromberg ones are S engines (including the HQ 202S) it does not make a lot of sense.



I found the reference to 3310'S' in the DOP.
HK1837 Online
#34 Posted : Friday, 22 February 2019 8:49:23 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)
I found some interesting 'S' engine stuff over the last few days.

The initial LC Engineering Technical Specifications document and subsequent updates call the 2600S a 161S. The supplement for 1600 and 2850 engines calls the GTR engine a 173S. The XU1 supplement just calls the LC XU1 engine "XU1", but I did find some LJ release documents that call the LC version of the XU1 a 186 XU1, but it also called the LJ engine 202ci then qualified as 3300 XU1 (the normal GTR engine is listed as 202ci and then 3300 HC). The LJ Engineering Technical Specifications initially call the LJ XU1 a 202 XU1, but this is later revised to 3300 XU1.

I did find some really early LJ planning paperwork with the LJ XU1 engine as a 202 's' (exactly as typed). The first draft list for LJ Press test vehicles has the XU1's requested also as 202 's'. But there was a lot of early stuff for LJ XU1 I also found that was not how they ended up, like the early documents show the LJ XU1 was supposed to get an M21 box (1.38:1 3rd), but it was revised later before release to the XU1 M20 as we know it (with 1.25:1 3rd). There is a lot of stuff like this in the early documents that were changed.

I found documents showing the HQ GTS coupe was canned early December 1970. At this time they were changing the planned Press Test 80737's out for 80837's. Most of the correspondence is 3-4/12/70.

The most interesting document though is a HD one. Dated 8/64 there was a revision where the 179S engine name was changed to X2.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#35 Posted : Saturday, 23 February 2019 11:53:46 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,298

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 10 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
253 Performance wise is mainly in the exhaust, you need a 2 1/4 free flowing single and that's all, with a 253.

A mate had a 308 HQ with stock dual exhaust but someone put the 253 Stromberg on it, but it went surprisingly well, just that the top end of the rev range lacked over the 4 barrel, but it had good grunt. I thought it would be crap like the 302 fords were that had the same 2 barrel Stromberg, not to mention the Carter 2 Barrel that was a bigger CFM and I never seen any 2 Barrel 302 perform well and that HQ of my mate had would kill them.

I had a HG Premier 253 auto 2.78 diff with just 2 1/4 free flowing exhaust and had many drags. one was a stock XC 5.8L auto with dual exhaust and 2.75 diff and they were neck and neck all the way to 110mph all the time. I met a bloke some years ago who came out with Kenny in that XC and he thought that I had a 327 in my Premier, that was just old Kenny telling porky pies just to try to save face.
I tried 3.55 and a 3.36 ratio diffs in that 253 and them ratios were rubbish such just killed it's performance there was nothing good about them ratios at all, I would of liked to try a 3.08 ratio but they were like hens teeth to find back in the day. Kenny would flog my 253 with 3.55 and 3.36 ratios.
One of the tricks to make the auto 253 perform better was to drop the rev when it changes up mine was 5500rpm when it changed up, so I would have to take the foot off and hit it again about 4500 to 4800 at most on a stock engine is all you need.
you can adjust a cable to make it not rev so high and on newer Holden's they have a kick down sensor, I dust toss that away, you do not need it as they change up at 4500 rpm anyway and drop back just the same regardless and if I needed to go over 4500 I just used the T Bar for that. easy as piss.

I don't think that a stock 253 needs any thing more than a 2V 350 Holley, using a big carby is just BS as the size of the engine will only use x amount of CFM so going above that is just stupid. one has to remember that measuring CFM is different between 2 barrel and 4 barrel, so a 500 CFM 2V carby will flow much more than a 4V of the same 500 CFM.

If the Holden 202 did come out as a 202 'S' 2V Stromberg I think that they would of had to use bigger valves to take better advantage of such. a mate had a stock 202 HQ as mine was both with 2 1/2 exhaust and extractors but he put a 350 Holley on it and yes it did drag mine off but not by that much really at all, just walking away like, so I never put a 350 Holley on mine, I was thinking a 2V Stromberg would be good.
I think a 202 with a small cam of 20/60 and a YT Head and 2V Stromberg will be a good strong stock type of engine that no one could bag at all, as it will have all the torque down low and more than stock and good useable stock range power all the way past what a stock could make and matching it with the stock factory run of the mill 253 that got about.



I agree that the 308 with the 2BBL will be OK. It will lose power (as you witnessed) but will have good low end torque. I had a 307 in an FJ40 that was pretty much stock except it was bored to 4" (327ci) and had a 500 Holley 2BBL on it. Was awful. I pulled the 2BBL off and put a 4BBL manifold and 600 vac sec 4BBL Holley on it. Went well with heaps more power but didn't have the low end torque needed. In the end I put an original 307 manifold and 2BBL Rochester on it, was brilliant. When I converted my Nissan Patrol MQ ute to a 302 SBC and TH400 I fitted a WW Stromberg 2BBL initially, but it wasn't good. I actually fitted a 4BBL intake and a VK Quadrajet, was perfect, had low end grunt and revved out well with good power production. So when you put a Quadrajet on a 253, and set it up like GMH did for the VC/WB they do go really well. A 308's Quadrajet isn't setup right for a 253. Thebest 253 I ever drove was a sweet little motor. Nothing special, was a later one (HZ/VB) with the dome top (9.4:1) pistons. It was fitted with earlier HQ heads and 308 intake with a blue 4.2L Quadrajet. It had HEI ignition, extractors and a single system, and was fitted with the better HJ onwards 308 cam. It was a 5spd manual with a 3.55 rear end. Was a sweet car to drive. Engine was nothing special, but was just right for a daily driver.

A 202S would go better with big valves, but GMH would never have done that in 1970 era. They were a big volume auto producer, just like GM. They built stuff to be used wherever practical across the board. Remember GMH had Perfectune do the XU1 and L34 heads, they didn't do it in house. Pretty much the same for the bigger cams done for race teams to fit themselves, they were done by outside suppliers. As it was a 186S had 145hp, that is 15hp more than a stock HT 186 from the identical engine specs bar induction, headers and timing (HT onwards 186 used the 186S cam in most applications, earlier HK and HR 186 had a smaller cam and was 19hp less than the 186S). All GMH would have done with the 202S was to fit the same stuff the 186S had: better bearings, valves and springs, the induction and headers. Using the same % gain for the 186S over the 186 (same cam between them) this would put the 202S at 151hp (stock HQ 202 was 135hp). It'd probably have been actually higher with the 186S cam, the stock HQ 202 cam was the original 161 cam: 35/75 70/40. The 186S was 43/85 95/48 (these are both including ramps, but you can see the comparison). So if a stock 202 went from 135hp to 151hp with the small 161 cam, with a 186S cam it might have seen 160hp. Add big valves and porting maybe closer to 165-170hp. Getting way too close to the claimed 185hp 253 and thus the HQ GTS would have made a HQ V8 GTS manual with single exhaust and 3.08 rear axle feel slow compared with the GTS's 202S with the same ratio aussie 4spd and a 3.55 rear axle. Plus the 202 would be less restricted with the single exhaust than the 253.

Mick is right about modern technology especially cams. GMH did exactly what GM did with cams, just had a handful and used them across the board. For the later 60's and 70's GM only had 3 production SBC cams, two hydraulics and a solid. The one hydraulic cam was used from 8:1 truck engines through to 10.25:1 300hp 350, this was the same grind as the HJ-VL 308/304. Their next hydraulic was used in the L79 327 350hp (Corvette, was 325hp in others) and 350hp 350 in Corvette. The solid (Duntov cam) was used in the 365hp L76 327, 375hp L84 327 and in Z28 302 plus the 1970 LT1 360hp/370hp engine. As I said, GMH did the same, they developed a better cam for the 308 right at the start (the HJ onwards 308 cam) but saved their pennies and used the 253's cam and retarded it, this was simply done to reduce costs and to have one less part. When they wanted more power they stuck the other cam in and it stayed there on all production GMH 308/304 vehicles until the end of VL (Group A engines excluded). Today with modern roller cams, you can wring huge increases over flat tappet cams especially hydraulics. Modern head chamber designs (plus modern porting practices) also make a huge difference. A simple look at the power output from stock alloy LT1 Corvette heads from the 80's or stock cast 350 Vortec heads compared to the old big port, closed chamber, big valve fuelies of the 60's shows you that the newer heads function far better than the old ones. EFI 304 heads compared to the older heads especially with the 5.7L/350ci versions is another example. Look at LS engines, they are a simple old fashioned pushrod engine, that will outperform old 350ci and 377ci engines with factory componentry, it is all in the heads and roller cam. Put modern alloys and a roller cam on an old rebuilt 350 and it'll perform just as well. I bet those Commodore Cup 253 engines have some hard work gone into their cam designs! If you read the last bit of this article, it shows what they got out of a repro L84 by simply using a modern cam grind versus the original solid cam:

http://www.superchevy.co...ie-motor-on-engine-dyno/

Problem with the roller cam is that real low bottom end torque is lost I think.
Sure modern Cam design has advanced even with flat bottom lifers, it's because they can know what it is that they are doing and heads can be ported much better for the reality of what's truly needed, not just rubbish like max peak power rubbish that only idiots peddle.

Is the old HQ 308 heads bad with let's say a stock type of Cam grind, so if one was to pop a stock VN head on would it be better performing all round from 500rpm and up using he stock carby. I think it would loose some real bottom end torque maybe.

Look at the red 253 heads them Valves are huge and then look at the red 202 valves how small they are not to mention the XU-1 Valve Heads are smaller than a 253 but each cyl is about the same, 253 = 525cc and 202 = 550cc and 186 = 500cc.
If you put L34 Valves in a stock 253 you loose performance as they flow too much.
HK1837 Online
#36 Posted : Saturday, 23 February 2019 12:42:30 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)
A correct choice of roller cam will always outperform a flat tappet hydraulic by a large margin. And idle better.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#37 Posted : Sunday, 24 February 2019 11:08:50 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,298

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 10 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
A correct choice of roller cam will always outperform a flat tappet hydraulic by a large margin. And idle better.


No it will not produce right down low off the mark torque off idle, is what I have been informed.

I asked when the 5.7L GEN 3 came out why are they so gutless down low, I was astounded at the lack of torque under 4000RPM what a joke they were that I absolutely hatted it.
So I ran out and bought the new 5.0L ute before they ran out, even tho they had a roller Cam but even they had nothing on a good prepared HQ 308 right down low.

A good stock 308 or 350 it's all about under 4500RPM that things really happen and rev over that through the gears and you are just playing with yourself really.

At Bathurst the HT GTS350 were to keep it under 4500RPM for max performance as any more that that was not productive, but for top gear.
8D11PCH2 Offline
#38 Posted : Sunday, 24 February 2019 11:38:55 AM(UTC)
8D11PCH2

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/09/2016(UTC)
Posts: 86
Australia
Location: OZ

Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 8 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
I found some interesting 'S' engine stuff over the last few days.

The initial LC Engineering Technical Specifications document and subsequent updates call the 2600S a 161S. The supplement for 1600 and 2850 engines calls the GTR engine a 173S. The XU1 supplement just calls the LC XU1 engine "XU1", but I did find some LJ release documents that call the LC version of the XU1 a 186 XU1, but it also called the LJ engine 202ci then qualified as 3300 XU1 (the normal GTR engine is listed as 202ci and then 3300 HC). The LJ Engineering Technical Specifications initially call the LJ XU1 a 202 XU1, but this is later revised to 3300 XU1.

I did find some really early LJ planning paperwork with the LJ XU1 engine as a 202 's' (exactly as typed). The first draft list for LJ Press test vehicles has the XU1's requested also as 202 's'. But there was a lot of early stuff for LJ XU1 I also found that was not how they ended up, like the early documents show the LJ XU1 was supposed to get an M21 box (1.38:1 3rd), but it was revised later before release to the XU1 M20 as we know it (with 1.25:1 3rd). There is a lot of stuff like this in the early documents that were changed.

I found documents showing the HQ GTS coupe was canned early December 1970. At this time they were changing the planned Press Test 80737's out for 80837's. Most of the correspondence is 3-4/12/70.

The most interesting document though is a HD one. Dated 8/64 there was a revision where the 179S engine name was changed to X2.


Very interesting the info you have discovered.
So they had intended to call the 202 XU1 engine a 202'S'/3310'S' but in the end thought it better to just refer to it as the 202/3300 XU1.
I have always been convinced they never would have called the 186/3100 XU1 eng an 'S' as that would have created confusion with the existing HR, HK, HT, HG 186S engines.
I have noted in the LC XU1 Parts Catalogue Supplement the XU1 engine is referred to as the 186X.
I have also noted in the LJ Torana Workshop Supplement the LJ XU1 is referred to as the 202 XU1 (3300) JP.
It is also stated that Production Option XU1 comprises a SPECIAL 3300cc engine.
I always thought of the engine 'S' suffix as standing for 'Sports'. Perhaps it simply means 'Special' ie: 161'Special', 173'Special',186'Special'?

With the 179 & 186 X2, I figured the X2 referred to the twin single barrel stromberg carbs, or was X2 the RPO code and like the XU1 they decided to name the model variant after its RPO code?

Cheers

Edited by user Sunday, 24 February 2019 11:42:34 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

HK1837 Online
#39 Posted : Sunday, 24 February 2019 5:12:23 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: castellan Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
A correct choice of roller cam will always outperform a flat tappet hydraulic by a large margin. And idle better.


No it will not produce right down low off the mark torque off idle, is what I have been informed.

I asked when the 5.7L GEN 3 came out why are they so gutless down low, I was astounded at the lack of torque under 4000RPM what a joke they were that I absolutely hatted it.
So I ran out and bought the new 5.0L ute before they ran out, even tho they had a roller Cam but even they had nothing on a good prepared HQ 308 right down low.

A good stock 308 or 350 it's all about under 4500RPM that things really happen and rev over that through the gears and you are just playing with yourself really.

At Bathurst the HT GTS350 were to keep it under 4500RPM for max performance as any more that that was not productive, but for top gear.


It is the big ports on those engines not the roller cams that kill low end torque. If you took a stock HT L48 350 and put a roller cam in it with appropriate springs it will outperform the hydraulic cammed engine across the board. Same with a HQ 308. LS engines and EFI 5.0L have ports really too big for the engine’s capacity and designed use.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#40 Posted : Monday, 25 February 2019 9:45:34 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,298

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 10 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
A correct choice of roller cam will always outperform a flat tappet hydraulic by a large margin. And idle better.


No it will not produce right down low off the mark torque off idle, is what I have been informed.

I asked when the 5.7L GEN 3 came out why are they so gutless down low, I was astounded at the lack of torque under 4000RPM what a joke they were that I absolutely hatted it.
So I ran out and bought the new 5.0L ute before they ran out, even tho they had a roller Cam but even they had nothing on a good prepared HQ 308 right down low.

A good stock 308 or 350 it's all about under 4500RPM that things really happen and rev over that through the gears and you are just playing with yourself really.

At Bathurst the HT GTS350 were to keep it under 4500RPM for max performance as any more that that was not productive, but for top gear.


It is the big ports on those engines not the roller cams that kill low end torque. If you took a stock HT L48 350 and put a roller cam in it with appropriate springs it will outperform the hydraulic cammed engine across the board. Same with a HQ 308. LS engines and EFI 5.0L have ports really too big for the engine’s capacity and designed use.


Well the VN V6 had roller cam and real good low down torque, so you must be correct on that point and the VS ecotec on is not so snappy right of the mark as the VN was, I think due to ADR laws getting stricter that you have to retard the cam timing some what and you can lose some low down torque some what in making ADR comply.

When the first GEN 3 came out they were really gutless under 4000RPM but when the VY came out the torque performed much better under 4000RPM so I bought one. now after experimenting with the air filter system on GEN 3 I found that when you snap the throttle open it was slow to really respond, but with a air box system right in front of the throttle bore you got direct response, a mate thought that he had more torque but that was not the case, it was only that the response was faster, making it feel that way.
When the VY II GEN 3 came out it had to do with ADR law and it picked up KW from 235 to 245kw but it lacked mid performance a bit over the less ADR laws 235KW and so was the same with the VZ 250kw. this was what I found when testing runs with other utes and the SS sedan in the VY dropped it's diff ratio to save face I believe, but they still had the 3.46 ratio in the SS VZ utes.

If you look at a roller cam and why car company's went that way it was only due to ADR law as to the oil Zinc that they claimed could destroy the life of the cat converter, so Zinc had to go and it's the Zinc that saves our plat bottom cams.
As for a cam profile that works it's all about getting it right regardless of lifter being flat or roller, but I am sure that there is some advantages in roller cam design especially in big cams.

I would say that it's manly in that when it comes to cam grinds nowadays it's more about that they now know what they are doing more so in depth as in why they will do such a grind somewhat. not to mention that some grinders were not as spot on in precision and now if you cam tunnel is out of skew they can set the grind to that that into consideration to fix that problem, many a engine was like that so they lost a lot of performance some were out to even 11 deg from front to rear.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages<123>
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 0.828 seconds.