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

Notification

Icon
Error

Login


Take the time to read our Privacy Policy.

2 Pages<12
castellan Offline
#21 Posted : Tuesday, 22 October 2019 7:37:10 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,339

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 13 time(s) in 11 post(s)
But aren't the LC and LJ a crappy car for highway work at the best of times let along driving it flat out on the highway, the only place they may have some advantage is in tight corners as to weigh.
I could not wait to get out of the LJ that I test drove what a shit box and who would like to sit in the rear of that crap.

I sat shot gun in a TA Torana once just around the block flat out and enjoyed that better than driving a LJ GTR.

But back to the Charger as a car, well I don't like siting in the back of them as I found with my Aunty 215 auto Charger back in 1976 I don't think that they are good as you get car sick because you can't see out of the back of them well. same with the XA-B-C Falcon Hardtop the XM-P Hardtop are fine in that regard but just crapper seats and the Hardtop XA-B-C rear seats are not as good as the sedan rear seats as well, I don't think that they come with a rear centre arm rest talk about crap, why he hell not.

Look at the Valiant chargers engines the 265 2bbl were great 6 cyl performance and then you could get the sporty one with open air cleaner and dual exhaust manifold no one could sniff at that or go down the track of 3 carbys and bigger cams or that Auto with the 340 V8. what 4 door sedan Valiant is good from 1972 on ? VH Pacer and then what ? what 1972 Valiant sedan comes close to any Ford or Holden that you can say hey look Valiant is the answer. sure he 245 265 Hemi were the only real advantage that they had as to 6 cylinders but the 318 V8 well it needed a 4 Barrel and the 360 V8 needed a 4 Barrel,
I looked up E58 1978 USA 360 4 Barrel 175HP 4000RPM 260lb 2400 and the
E57 360 2V is 155hp 3600 270lb 2000rpm
E46 318 4v is 155 4000 245 1600
E44 318 2v is 140 4000 245 1600
How about a E85 440 4V 190 3600 320 2000, not to mention that all them were single exhaust.

USA 1974 360 Chrysler first got a 4v
360 2v 8.4:1 180hp 4000 / 290lb 2400
360 4v 8.4 200 4000 / 290 3200
360 4v 8.4 245 4800 / 320 3600 so look at that one hey !
440 4v 8.2 230 3600 / 350 3400
440 4v 8.2 275 4400 / 375 3200

Now look at the 1973 340 v8 8.5:1 240hp 4800 / 295lb 3600, the 1974 360 has the 340 pegged, both are Net in HP. so that bastard 360 could of been made to get along ok.

A 318 V8 Charger with a 4v could of made a worthy performing V8 and I believe that they were importing the parts for the 318 v8 in the VH on and assembling them here, so slipping in a better cam and 4v intake could of be easy as, for Valiant to of done. maybe the small 3.91in bore is the problem for making power, like the 307 Chevy is not taken seriously by GMH for power applications but just dependable torque plodder.
HK1837 Online
#22 Posted : Wednesday, 23 October 2019 3:17:12 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,063

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 165 time(s) in 163 post(s)
You can't really compare many of those engines as the ratings are all over the place, some are SE gross, some are net. It gets really painful to try and figure some of it out.

The 307 was never meant to be a performance engine. When it was introduced in about August 1967 it replaced the 283 which was only a 2BBL low comp engine by that stage. At the same time GM had:

307 2BBL 200hp (69-70cc heads. Code L14).
327 2BBL 210hp (standard V8 Camaro engine 75cc heads. Code LF7).
327 4BBL 250hp (standard 4BBL V8 in full size, what we got here in 1968 Impala and Parisienne and GTS327, same heads as 307, Code L73).
327 4BBL 275hp (same engine as 250hp but with 291 or 040 fuelie heads. Code L30).
350 4BBL 295hp (L48 engine, 1968 version of the HT GTS350 engine, same engine as L30 but 3.48" stroke rather than 3.25").

There were the high performance 302 (Z28) and 327 (L79) as well but that was it.

The 307 eventually replaced the 210hp 327 in Camaro as the standard V8 late in 1968, a few months into 1969 model year. This was a 1969 307 though so it had different heads to the HK 307 and the block was revised a bit too.

So all GMH did was use the 307 as GM intended, as a 2BBL base spec V8 engine. The only reason they used it was the planned 283 was cancelled before HK release. There have been GMH documents found with a code for a 4BBL 307 but no such thing was ever made by GM as a regular production engine. The 327 as used by GMH in the GTS327 was simply the next engine up and the logical choice as there would have been little point in a 2BBL 327, it really made no more power than the 307 already used in HK. Remember GMH rated the 307 at 210hp and probably rightly so as it had more timing than the US 307 and was to be run on Super fuel. It was also 8.75:1 compression, the 2BBL 327 was about 8.5:1 courtesy of its 75cc heads although it did get a compression bump for 1969 model year to 9:1 as the heads were switched to the same specification heads (69-70cc) as the 307 and the 4BBL 250hp 327.

Having said all that a 307 dressed with a 4BBL 327 intake and carby goes pretty well given a dual exhaust. It was a pretty common mod in the day. The HK 307 in that form is identical to a GTS327 engine other than the 1/8" bore difference. Same heads, same cam, same dizzy, same exhaust manifolds, same crank and rods. All you'd see is a few less hp due to the 20ci difference, plus the 307 loses 0.25:1 or so in compression due to the slightly less swept volume of the piston. Many people bored them straight to 4" at rebuild anyway, and then they are identical to the 327 at that stage, although I couldn't count on my fingers how many I've found also sporting 350 crankshafts too. I have one in my shed that was running at +4.030 for long enough to make a lip, and I had one in my FJ40 'cruiser at 4", plus my mate's HK 307 was out to 4.040" pulling 450hp for over 20 years until a rod bolt let go.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Premier 350 Offline
#23 Posted : Wednesday, 23 October 2019 7:32:26 PM(UTC)
Premier 350

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 521
Man
Australia
Location: On a build over WWII airfield. Got the .50 cal cases from my driveway to prove it

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 5 post(s)
Great thread guys. Thanks for an entertaining read. I too wish that Holden had used the GM parts bin to it's full extent. I'm thinking the Corvette vented 4 caliper discs as well.
Such a Monaro would have chopped a tarted up Fairmont off at the knees.
Attn camry drivers. The accelerator is the skinny pedal on the right.
Sandaro Offline
#24 Posted : Wednesday, 23 October 2019 7:55:10 PM(UTC)
Sandaro

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/10/2015(UTC)
Posts: 118

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 9 time(s) in 9 post(s)
Back to the original question. I believe the 340 was a serious weapon. I also believe Valiant imported the 300 odd motors in 69 to satisfy the minimum build numbers required. I think it is settled history that they used the test ute mule, shortened to charger wheelbase (before charger release) to track test 340 v triple carb 265 at Malalla. 265 was 3 seconds faster, generally put down to handled better with less weight. Many have speculated that on an open track like bathurst 340 would have had advantage. Anyway, much like holden had to clear out 307 after HK, valiant did the same with 340 in the e55. Pity it was auto only, that really would have killed it for any true drivers in the day. BTW, valiant didn't actually offer ANY v8 with manual. You couldn't get one at all (until 77/78 in panelvan and limited chargers (80 I think)
Sandaro Offline
#25 Posted : Wednesday, 23 October 2019 7:59:23 PM(UTC)
Sandaro

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/10/2015(UTC)
Posts: 118

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 9 time(s) in 9 post(s)
The auto in the e55, the torqueflight 727 was a good auto box, same as used in the 426 hemi
HK1837 Online
#26 Posted : Wednesday, 23 October 2019 8:44:17 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,063

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 165 time(s) in 163 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Premier 350 Go to Quoted Post
Great thread guys. Thanks for an entertaining read. I too wish that Holden had used the GM parts bin to it's full extent. I'm thinking the Corvette vented 4 caliper discs as well.
Such a Monaro would have chopped a tarted up Fairmont off at the knees.


Old Man Emu would have been a weapon with a 360-370hp LT1, Muncie and 12 bolt posi. Brakes were obviously an issue but they were working on the failed oil cooled idea. The other interesting thing to ponder is at least by mid 1968 GMH had probably a 75% HQ design which they would have known would be using HK stub axles on HQ. And as we all know because of this HQ rotors and calipers bolt straight onto HK-HG. I’m pretty sure some South African assembled HK-HQ had Chevrolet stud pattern, but in any case the rears were not hard to change. And they had easy access to 4.75” PCD wheels from GM. So if the will was there they could have had better brakes on such a car if they needed to. But in the end I think reality told them that to get high power production (read cheaper) engines with specs good enough to race, ready to go out of the USA after 1970 they’d have to do what Ford did and change engines here themselves. Remember from the start of 1971 model year (9/70, meaning engines produced starting late July 1970) Chevrolet engines went soft, and just to finish HG GMH had to have the Canadian St Catharines plant specially build them some 1970 spec L48 engines, which would have been more expensive as they were no longer produced. One possible option was the HG 308 GTS with tall rear axle to keep the 308’s rpm down. But the cheaper option as it used far less imported parts was the LC Torana. Sure it had a set of imported carbs but in reality it was simply a GTR with a production 186S with 161 head with a bit of extra $ in the outsourced head work and a different cam. Sure the car had a few low volume specialty parts but still a far better bang for buck overall, even if doing it let Ford dominate the big race for a few years. And GMH could control their own components rather than get stuck with forever evolving US engines and driveline components. And at this time LH with the local V8 would be very much common knowledge too.

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
HK1837 Online
#27 Posted : Thursday, 24 October 2019 4:54:50 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,063

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 165 time(s) in 163 post(s)
Actually, were the XU1 carbs imported?
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Dr Terry Offline
#28 Posted : Thursday, 24 October 2019 6:32:33 AM(UTC)
Dr Terry

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 5,540

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 80 time(s) in 75 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Actually, were the XU1 carbs imported?


Yes, English Zenith-Stromberg.

Dr Terry
If at first you don't succeed, just call it Version 1.0
HK1837 Online
#29 Posted : Thursday, 24 October 2019 7:40:35 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,063

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 165 time(s) in 163 post(s)
I thought they were, was just wondering when I remembered mostly all the other non Rochester carbs were Strombergs too
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Dr Terry Offline
#30 Posted : Thursday, 24 October 2019 8:53:14 AM(UTC)
Dr Terry

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 5,540

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 80 time(s) in 75 post(s)
The problem is that everybody loosely refers to all these as being "Strombergs".

The early cars (FX-FJ) had US made Stromberg downdraught carbies.

FE to HZ had Aussie made Bendix-Stromberg downdraughts.

The CD side draught carbies were UK made Zenith-Strombergs, a very distant relative, with no design features in common at all.

Dr Terry

Edited by user Thursday, 24 October 2019 8:54:59 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

If at first you don't succeed, just call it Version 1.0
castellan Offline
#31 Posted : Thursday, 24 October 2019 11:43:02 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,339

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 13 time(s) in 11 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
You can't really compare many of those engines as the ratings are all over the place, some are SE gross, some are net. It gets really painful to try and figure some of it out.

The 307 was never meant to be a performance engine. When it was introduced in about August 1967 it replaced the 283 which was only a 2BBL low comp engine by that stage. At the same time GM had:

307 2BBL 200hp (69-70cc heads. Code L14).
327 2BBL 210hp (standard V8 Camaro engine 75cc heads. Code LF7).
327 4BBL 250hp (standard 4BBL V8 in full size, what we got here in 1968 Impala and Parisienne and GTS327, same heads as 307, Code L73).
327 4BBL 275hp (same engine as 250hp but with 291 or 040 fuelie heads. Code L30).
350 4BBL 295hp (L48 engine, 1968 version of the HT GTS350 engine, same engine as L30 but 3.48" stroke rather than 3.25").

There were the high performance 302 (Z28) and 327 (L79) as well but that was it.

The 307 eventually replaced the 210hp 327 in Camaro as the standard V8 late in 1968, a few months into 1969 model year. This was a 1969 307 though so it had different heads to the HK 307 and the block was revised a bit too.

So all GMH did was use the 307 as GM intended, as a 2BBL base spec V8 engine. The only reason they used it was the planned 283 was cancelled before HK release. There have been GMH documents found with a code for a 4BBL 307 but no such thing was ever made by GM as a regular production engine. The 327 as used by GMH in the GTS327 was simply the next engine up and the logical choice as there would have been little point in a 2BBL 327, it really made no more power than the 307 already used in HK. Remember GMH rated the 307 at 210hp and probably rightly so as it had more timing than the US 307 and was to be run on Super fuel. It was also 8.75:1 compression, the 2BBL 327 was about 8.5:1 courtesy of its 75cc heads although it did get a compression bump for 1969 model year to 9:1 as the heads were switched to the same specification heads (69-70cc) as the 307 and the 4BBL 250hp 327.

Having said all that a 307 dressed with a 4BBL 327 intake and carby goes pretty well given a dual exhaust. It was a pretty common mod in the day. The HK 307 in that form is identical to a GTS327 engine other than the 1/8" bore difference. Same heads, same cam, same dizzy, same exhaust manifolds, same crank and rods. All you'd see is a few less hp due to the 20ci difference, plus the 307 loses 0.25:1 or so in compression due to the slightly less swept volume of the piston. Many people bored them straight to 4" at rebuild anyway, and then they are identical to the 327 at that stage, although I couldn't count on my fingers how many I've found also sporting 350 crankshafts too. I have one in my shed that was running at +4.030 for long enough to make a lip, and I had one in my FJ40 'cruiser at 4", plus my mate's HK 307 was out to 4.040" pulling 450hp for over 20 years until a rod bolt let go.

Them first 1974 figures are all Net HP and the 1978 were maybe DIN but regardless it shows relation ship to all in the year and non were the Gross figures that are totally useless in reality.

Having a 327 and going out and wanting to be using a 307 is like having a 186 and wanting to be using a 161.


I think that Australia had Super at 97 RON back in 1967 but I think that Holden did not want to have such as 10.25:1 until 1969.

I asked my dad about such octanes but he sold both fuel stations back in 1963 and could not remember such as the rating. he had a new 1955 customline and said he ran on Standard up and around Toowoomba and coming down to Brisbane she would ping and as such had to use the Super.

A HK GTS327 with 10:1 would of got along much better than that low comp crap that they came out with.
Look at the XT GT that came out in 4/1968 with about 9.8:1 I think. and then one had to wait until the HK GTS327 Monaro came out.
So Australia only has a good performing car staring in 5/1967 with the XR GT, sure the 289 V8 Fairmont from 9/1967 was the start of a good Aussie car, one could look to the Valiant 273 v8 but it only had drum brakes.
You had to wait till 2/1968 for a 307 HK and then 9/1968 for a GTS 327.

Or if you wanted a big GMH tank they only came with up to 327 with a 2sp auto and no disc brakes, but Ford had the big Galaxie 390 v8 3 sp auto from 1964 on and disc brakes from about 1970 I think, as the 1969 year model only came out in 2/1970 hear.

So the first real Australian made real drivers car was the XR v8 Falcon that one could point back to and say hey ! no one could hang shit on that back in the day.

1965 HD 179 X2 well it had disc but crap non syn 1st box and only 2 sp auto box, so no big deal, but HR 4SP 186S now that's not that bad and is full synch box so at least you can drive it and have fun from only late 1967.
8/1967 VE 226 2 BBL 160HP 3SP full synchromesh and 3sp auto and the big 273 V8 auto and they had disc brakes, not to mention the VIP came out before the HK Brougham.
HK1837 Online
#32 Posted : Thursday, 24 October 2019 12:27:05 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,063

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 165 time(s) in 163 post(s)
Gross Hp is the only way to compare engines, not sure how many times I have to say it! Net introduces variables that confuse you, sometimes they are with auto box, sometimes manual, some with single exhaust, some with dual. It gets too confusing.

No they aren’t. 307 dressed the same as a 250hp 327 still goes well, there isn’t that much between them. You’ll notice the 20ci but nowhere near as much as 161 to 186.

HK GTS327 and the Impala/Parisienne were just over 9:1, same as auto HT engine. HT manual was a Mickey over 10:1. GM always rounded up to the nearest 0.25:1. The 275hp 1968 327 was 9.8:1 but rated at 10:1. You can work all these out by the GM published figures. The final GTS327 were about 8.55:1, same as the 1966-7 GMH assembled Impala and also the base 210hp 2BBL 327 in ‘67-‘68 Camaro.

All the high compression Holden engines from EH onwards ran on Super as far as I know. Same with 253 and 308 which were both 9.0:1. You could buy low comp versions of all of them except 308 with compression ratios around the 8:1 mark give or take a few points, to run on standard fuel. They just stuck 179/186 heads on 149 and 161 to drop the compression but with 173 they also dished the piston as they would have gone above 8.3:1 which was about the limit for Aussie standard fuel on these engines. The 8.75:1 307 and 9:1 327 were right there in the desired compression range for Super fuel. It was only the HT-HG manual 350 and a little later the XU1 that went up significantly over 9:1. The HQ 202 was 9.4:1. They didn’t bump the 308 to close to 10:1 until mid 1974 on the L34 (9.8:1) and a few months later on HJ 5.0L (9.7). 253 had to wait until HX to get 9.4:1.

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#33 Posted : Friday, 25 October 2019 3:59:27 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,339

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 13 time(s) in 11 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Gross Hp is the only way to compare engines, not sure how many times I have to say it! Net introduces variables that confuse you, sometimes they are with auto box, sometimes manual, some with single exhaust, some with dual. It gets too confusing.

No they aren’t. 307 dressed the same as a 250hp 327 still goes well, there isn’t that much between them. You’ll notice the 20ci but nowhere near as much as 161 to 186.

HK GTS327 and the Impala/Parisienne were just over 9:1, same as auto HT engine. HT manual was a Mickey over 10:1. GM always rounded up to the nearest 0.25:1. The 275hp 1968 327 was 9.8:1 but rated at 10:1. You can work all these out by the GM published figures. The final GTS327 were about 8.55:1, same as the 1966-7 GMH assembled Impala and also the base 210hp 2BBL 327 in ‘67-‘68 Camaro.

All the high compression Holden engines from EH onwards ran on Super as far as I know. Same with 253 and 308 which were both 9.0:1. You could buy low comp versions of all of them except 308 with compression ratios around the 8:1 mark give or take a few points, to run on standard fuel. They just stuck 179/186 heads on 149 and 161 to drop the compression but with 173 they also dished the piston as they would have gone above 8.3:1 which was about the limit for Aussie standard fuel on these engines. The 8.75:1 307 and 9:1 327 were right there in the desired compression range for Super fuel. It was only the HT-HG manual 350 and a little later the XU1 that went up significantly over 9:1. The HQ 202 was 9.4:1. They didn’t bump the 308 to close to 10:1 until mid 1974 on the L34 (9.8:1) and a few months later on HJ 5.0L (9.7). 253 had to wait until HX to get 9.4:1.



Sure I agree with you as to ID the engine as to Gross HP but for some of the lies that were made like 300hp for a GT-HO ect.

I know of hot 173 and 161 that went well, in fact they were smoother to rev out and I am talking fully balanced 6000rpm to 7000

I know of 307 that wen real well too but I would go the 327 bore for the money, look at the Valiant V8's 318 and the 340 use the same stroke but 340 had that big 4.04 bore piston and the 318 only a 3.91 but it's the same rod ratio so a 318 should be able to perform well, talk about the 360 and you have 4.00 x 3.58 now as to the deck height I don't know but the rod ratio may not be best for a racing car but it looks ok for street if done right.

Yes all Holden up to EJ ran on standard, so come the EH people are looking to this high octane fuel to feed the big 149 and 179 beast, remember he Falcon XM with the 170 Pursuit and the 200 Super Pursuit with racing flags not to mention the EH 179 with the same deal, boy the power ! in the day that the manual box had to be up rated to handle that type of beast. down the pub boasting of the high tec box Angel back in the day, f we would have a good laugh at the older generation with the shit that they would come up with, back in 1980 my mates cane cocky grandad was 90yo would take off in 2ed in his Mitsubishi L200 ute as he claimed that 1st was extra low ha ha ! and all sorts of BS. others would come around a corner in a 3sp VG Pacer 2ed and not drop back to 1st but chug chug chug out of the corner like a fool.

The only place that would buy a low compression Holden in EH to HQ was farmers as they were all mainly great tight arses or that the fuel that they had delivered to the farm was Standard as many tractors ran such and most likely got fuel rebate like they do with diesel even today and that's why they run diesel and you seen cocky's run about in diesel Mercedes-Benz and I would ask what the f are you driving this sh1t for.

Remember when you would see a Volvo driver and say watch out for this idiot, well I seen one yesterday and yep what a f whit could not drive for jack shit, they are not all that bad nowadays but years ago to be sure to be sure they sure were moronic drivers.
castellan Offline
#34 Posted : Tuesday, 29 October 2019 5:29:33 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,339

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 13 time(s) in 11 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Sandaro Go to Quoted Post
Back to the original question. I believe the 340 was a serious weapon. I also believe Valiant imported the 300 odd motors in 69 to satisfy the minimum build numbers required. I think it is settled history that they used the test ute mule, shortened to charger wheelbase (before charger release) to track test 340 v triple carb 265 at Malalla. 265 was 3 seconds faster, generally put down to handled better with less weight. Many have speculated that on an open track like bathurst 340 would have had advantage. Anyway, much like holden had to clear out 307 after HK, valiant did the same with 340 in the e55. Pity it was auto only, that really would have killed it for any true drivers in the day. BTW, valiant didn't actually offer ANY v8 with manual. You couldn't get one at all (until 77/78 in panelvan and limited chargers (80 I think)


Fact is that only 124 VH E55 were made and only 212 VJ E55 were made that's 336 I would say and the VJ 340 V8 engine is not the same as the VH for a start.
HK1837 Online
#35 Posted : Wednesday, 30 October 2019 5:26:35 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,063

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 165 time(s) in 163 post(s)
Most aren’t. Some of the VJ used the same engine as VH but the later ones were lower compression. It is what would have happened to HQ if they had started building them a year earlier.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#36 Posted : Wednesday, 30 October 2019 10:05:30 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,339

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 13 time(s) in 11 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Most aren’t. Some of the VJ used the same engine as VH but the later ones were lower compression. It is what would have happened to HQ if they had started building them a year earlier.


I was looking into that last night with eng numbers and build dates in VH E55, eng no 00001 in the last cars was built on the last day of E55 built 1/6/1973. now the VJ model started coming out in Apr73.

But like the Falcon GT from Sep 1973 say Then we start getting the more ADR stuff coming on, so the carbys would change about this time in the VJ E55 I would think.

One dude claiming a steel crank in a 11/9/73 car and AVS carby with D01123 eng no. orange paint under the blue and large valves.

One dude claiming a steel crank in a 16/11/73 D00151 eng no, J heads but small valves and AVS carby and correct intake manifold for that.

Now I would think that when Valiant Aus got the engines imported in they went about stamping Their numbers on them and then stacked them away and out came a eng of that stack pile regardless into a car for the cars up to around Sep 73 build, some AVS could of slipped through like the 16/11/73 one, but she has small valves.

So I see that the 1st E55 is 1/9/1972 and goes to Dealer W868 West Aust I would think the W stands for and Dealer 868 their, now maybe that was truly the first order or is it truly the build date. the care was lime in colour.

Then the 2ed is lime 4/9/72 N755 Dealer NSW I would think.

3rd and 4th is red and a lime one both 7/9/72 to dealer F100, what F means I do not know, but it's funny that the 2 cars must be ordered on the same day I would think.

The highest eng no in the E55 VH is A00158 and went into a 19/1/73 car.

So one could say that their were 158 engines built with A at the start, maybe that is the 1st batch imported ? and the eng no starting with D could be a bitsa with some steel cranks ect.
HK1837 Online
#37 Posted : Wednesday, 30 October 2019 12:25:59 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,063

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 165 time(s) in 163 post(s)
ADR27 was meant to come into force around 8-9/73 and GMH were ready for it. They quickly built the final batch of XU1 and all the other cars got clean air engines from this time. Carby numbers changed, the 350 engines got the temperature switch in the radiator hose to adjust spark advance and cars got “clean air” paper stuff with them. However they did not put 27 on the ADR plates until about 4/74.
Ford and Chrysler said they wouldn’t be ready so the introduction of ADR27 was delayed until 4/74.

This may all be tied up into the E55 as well, with the changes (or not) or a rush to get them all out before ADR27 became law?
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12
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 0.648 seconds.