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

Notification

Icon
Error

Login


Take the time to read our Privacy Policy.

7 Pages«<567
HK1837 Offline
#121 Posted : Saturday, 30 May 2020 4:10:38 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,284

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 197 time(s) in 191 post(s)
Same carby for 253, 2600S, 186S and stillborn 202S. Just calibrated to suit each engine. The other carby was an Email-Carter design carby, I think used as an alternate supplier. I've only seen on HJ before. Pretty sure it is the same carby used on maybe XA or XB as an alternative?

The WW stromberg spec is twin 1.43" throttle bores (basically twice the standard 6cyl 1.44" bore). The Quadrajet is 2 x 1.38" and 2 x 2.25". Another spec I can find is the barrel size (or venturi size). 173 is 1.156", 202 is 1.219", 253 is 2 x 1.188", Quadrajet is 1.09" primary with the secondary variable by the air flap.

GM used two different size 2-barrels carbs in the later 60's and early 70's. The 283, 307 and 210hp 327 used the smaller 2-barrel (HK-HT 307 used this carby). The smaller one was 1.44" throttle bores, 1.09" venturis). The larger carby was used on the 1969 327 235hp engine (same engine as 210hp 327 except for the carby) and also on the L65 250hp 350 (same engine as auto HT-HG GTS350 but with 2BBL). This carb was 1.69" throttle bores.

The WW Stromberg uses the same 1.25" flange as the smaller Rochester 2-jet as used on HK-HT 307. There is a larger WWC that is a 1.5" flange like the larger 2-jet.

Pretty sure the 250 2V Ford 6cyl and many of the 2BBL 302 and 321 used a WW as well. Pretty sure they are just under 300cfm, 280cfm rings a bell.

The 351 used in the GT-HO in XW only had a small carby. They are just as quick as a PhaseII or III if tuned right. Might not have the top speed or the same peak power but didn't make the cars any slower. The GT-HO's in 1969 at Bathurst were faster in every record (qualifying time, fastest lap, total race time etc) than the PhaseII's in 1970. Shows you that HT or HG GTS350's probably would have won again in 1970 if they were the weapon of choice for GMH.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#122 Posted : Sunday, 31 May 2020 12:22:19 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,422

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 21 time(s) in 19 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Same carby for 253, 2600S, 186S and stillborn 202S. Just calibrated to suit each engine. The other carby was an Email-Carter design carby, I think used as an alternate supplier. I've only seen on HJ before. Pretty sure it is the same carby used on maybe XA or XB as an alternative?

The WW stromberg spec is twin 1.43" throttle bores (basically twice the standard 6cyl 1.44" bore). The Quadrajet is 2 x 1.38" and 2 x 2.25". Another spec I can find is the barrel size (or venturi size). 173 is 1.156", 202 is 1.219", 253 is 2 x 1.188", Quadrajet is 1.09" primary with the secondary variable by the air flap.

GM used two different size 2-barrels carbs in the later 60's and early 70's. The 283, 307 and 210hp 327 used the smaller 2-barrel (HK-HT 307 used this carby). The smaller one was 1.44" throttle bores, 1.09" venturis). The larger carby was used on the 1969 327 235hp engine (same engine as 210hp 327 except for the carby) and also on the L65 250hp 350 (same engine as auto HT-HG GTS350 but with 2BBL). This carb was 1.69" throttle bores.

The WW Stromberg uses the same 1.25" flange as the smaller Rochester 2-jet as used on HK-HT 307. There is a larger WWC that is a 1.5" flange like the larger 2-jet.

Pretty sure the 250 2V Ford 6cyl and many of the 2BBL 302 and 321 used a WW as well. Pretty sure they are just under 300cfm, 280cfm rings a bell.

The 351 used in the GT-HO in XW only had a small carby. They are just as quick as a PhaseII or III if tuned right. Might not have the top speed or the same peak power but didn't make the cars any slower. The GT-HO's in 1969 at Bathurst were faster in every record (qualifying time, fastest lap, total race time etc) than the PhaseII's in 1970. Shows you that HT or HG GTS350's probably would have won again in 1970 if they were the weapon of choice for GMH.

Thanks.
I never seen a 351 with a Stromberg ww2 on it, but only the Carter 2BBL like on my 351 T Bar XB ute.

Back in the day of the Ford 302 V8 XT on to XB I though why were they so gutless Holden 308's with dual exhaust would blow them away, then I was shocked to find that they only had a 2BBL Stromberg on them, but some 302 V8's had the Carted 2BBL I am sure, must of been the time when the Holden's got them as well. it was due to the ADR fuel evap tank setup I think, Stromberg must of got caught off the ball at the time.

When I pulled the Stromberg ww2 of my mates dads 1977 302 auto F100 I was surprised to see that the intake manifold was restricted with a cone shaped restriction going from the size of the throttle body's down to a 10c size d'oh! true story, they restricted the F100 302 v8, but the Falcon 302 intake manifold was not restricted down with a cone shaped rubbish setup like that.

I seen many people put adapters on Ford 6cyl log heads and then have a 350Holly on topApplause d'oh! why ? when if the hole on the top of the log can only flow X amount, the intake hole looks to only be able to flow something like 250CFM to me.

I once seen a dyno test on street machine with a 4bbl 600CFM carby on a 302 Cleveland stock XB 2v intake setup with a 4bbl adapter, it was found to be not that good performing, I think the 2BBL 350CFM Holy was better on that manifold in the test.

I am not sure that the HT or HG GTS350 would of had it over the XW P2 or P3, As the disc brakes were only solid on the HT-G for a start, I am sure that they did their home work well on the Torana GTR XU-1 for winning Bathurst. I hate the LC-J Toranas myself as the care is just to small for me, they look fine. but to drive on the Highway forget it, they are rubbish. Give me a HG GTS308 T Bar with air-con any day. I don't think that the XW GT-HO P2 really appeals to me as a car in the day I would fork out for, the XT GT T Bar would be my pick by far of any Falcon to drive.

So you have a real good Australian car from 5/1968 in the XT GT 4SP or Auto that is a drivers car, then you have to wait until 8/1970 for the HG GTS308 T Bar the first real Holden that I would say I would loved to own back in the day for sure. the 4sp is fine as well and with all the off the shelf and options mind. a HT-G GTS350 would be fine as well. But when one looks into it all you find that under the top shelf their truly is fine cars to drive that no one can poo poo a HG GTS308, the HT GTS308 auto is only a crap 2sp so it fails in that regard.

The XW GT T Bar fail as to being a dopy FMX boring as to drive such and the 4sp is a pain to use unless you are driving it flat out to enjoy such and that goes for them all to The XB not to mention crap rear sprung setup is just shit, the Holden rear leaf is much better setup.

I am just putting out the reality's here if you drive a car and had to live with it doing many miles a year and drove them to their capacity that they were designed to aspire to of such people who are in such a league to truly appreciate.
Yes I appreciate the GT-HO's and the GTS350's but you would not of seen me crying about not having them to drive back in the day. to much is made of such cars that most people miss out on just how good a car could be had that was just under the top shelf.
HK1837 Offline
#123 Posted : Sunday, 31 May 2020 4:56:13 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,284

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 197 time(s) in 191 post(s)
HT GTS350 did it easily in 1969, even ignoring the lap miscount on the West/Brock car. And the GT-HO's in 1969 were faster than the PhaseII's in 1970 in all aspects recorded in the day. So by application of logic even if the GTS's had zero development in 12 months the Fords were a lot slower overall in 1970 than they were in 1969. The GTS's would have to have major failures not to win again if entered by HDT.

The HT or HG GTS350 auto would run rings around a 308. They had 50hp and significant torque extra in basically the same car. The GTS350 got dual exhaust standard, and it HT had bigger brakes.

You are right that most road testers didn't like the GT-HO's suspension or the cranky engines, they didn't like the GTS327 or GTS350M road feel much either but did like the engines, but all of these were factory race cars. If you wanted an everyday car absolutely, a standard GT or a 5 litre GTS would be a better choice. The best choice would probably be a HK V8 GTS optioned with dual exhaust and buy yourself an inlet and carby off a 327 or 350 for it. Better still find some standard fuelies as well.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#124 Posted : Monday, 1 June 2020 2:00:24 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,422

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 21 time(s) in 19 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
HT GTS350 did it easily in 1969, even ignoring the lap miscount on the West/Brock car. And the GT-HO's in 1969 were faster than the PhaseII's in 1970 in all aspects recorded in the day. So by application of logic even if the GTS's had zero development in 12 months the Fords were a lot slower overall in 1970 than they were in 1969. The GTS's would have to have major failures not to win again if entered by HDT.

The HT or HG GTS350 auto would run rings around a 308. They had 50hp and significant torque extra in basically the same car. The GTS350 got dual exhaust standard, and it HT had bigger brakes.

You are right that most road testers didn't like the GT-HO's suspension or the cranky engines, they didn't like the GTS327 or GTS350M road feel much either but did like the engines, but all of these were factory race cars. If you wanted an everyday car absolutely, a standard GT or a 5 litre GTS would be a better choice. The best choice would probably be a HK V8 GTS optioned with dual exhaust and buy yourself an inlet and carby off a 327 or 350 for it. Better still find some standard fuelies as well.


A HG GTS308 had the 3sp auto, why would one buy a crappy 2sp auto HG GTS350, just look at how much more you had to fork out back in the day.
I am sure the GTS350 2sp auto would go well and all, but I would not of bought such over a GTS308 T Bar any day. just pointing out the reality's.
What's going to come up on a HG GTS308 4sp or T bar with dual exhaust, nothing but a GTS350 4sp or a XW-Y-A Falcon GT or a GT-HO comes within it's league, 6cyl Chargers don't cut it for highway high speed long distance cruse, only the E55 may but it had no dual exhaust option and only a auto.

So their you have it, what was a quality drivers car back in them days to choose from that you could jump in and drive miles on end and fast that one would be proud of to have and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

The first true cars Holden made were the HK GTS327 Monaro then HT GTS350 4sp or T Bar and HT GTS3084sp only and then the HG GTS308 4sp or T Bar and HQ GTS350 4sp auto ? slush box and the GTS308 with dual exhaust with 4sp or T Bar and the HJ GTS308 4sp only. Torana LH and pre ADR27A LX 308
4sp or T Bar.
The Torana LC-J GTR XU-1 were a dog box.

The first true cars Ford made were the XR GT, XT GT 4sp and T Bar, XW GT 4sp but the FMX Whistle All XW GT-HO's and XY GT 4sp but for the FMX Whistle The XY GT-HO and the XA GT 4SP they are all worthy and the XB GT is not bad, it's in the HQ-J league.
No worthy 6cyl at all or 4cyl.

Valiant's only one the Charger E44, but it's in the same league as the HQ and XB.
The 6 cyl hemi can do well but regardless they just don't cut it.

The top dog is the XY GT-HO by far for power, but I am not talking about racing or Bathurst, but to own a real nice car that no one can say it's shit or does not quite cut the mustard to enjoy driving hard long distance cruse.
out of all of them I would say the best of them all would be the HJ GTS308 4sp with dual exhaust and 3.08 LSD diff with air-con.
The best handling high speed by far is the HQ-J with a few mods.
HK1837 Offline
#125 Posted : Monday, 1 June 2020 3:38:27 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,284

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 197 time(s) in 191 post(s)
The 350 didn't need a 3spd. It would have been nice if it had a TH350 but these were only just coming into use on US vehicles at the time, everything else used a Powerglide up until a certain hp level then TH400 (mainly behind BBC but high power SBC got TH400 too). The 350 4BBL engine had more than enough torque to make good use of the Powerglide, plus floorpan mods would have been needed to fit a TH350 into HT-HG properly. They got really good reviews in the day, remember on a GTS350 auto the standard rear axle was a 3.08 LSD. 308 auto HT-HG GTS was 3.36 LSD. Only the GTS350 got a dual exhaust. The early Trimatics were problematic boxes too. Wheels loved the HT GTS350 auto, the car they tested was in proper tune and FULLY loaded with air, steer and reclining buckets. In total it weighed 222lb more than a standard GTS350 manual, yet managed 16.0s quarter mile at 90mph and 0-100mph in 22 seconds, all letting the Powerglide do its thing.

You missed one. HK GTS V8 manual. If optioned with a dual exhaust it went just as well as a 308 (remember 308 was standard with single exhaust too), and didn't run out of puff like early 308's did. It had the same suspension as GTS327 other than the shocks. HT V8 GTS was the same, but HG GTS V8 manual (not GTS350) got softer front and rear springs (same front and rear springs as auto HT V8 GTS). They were a better ride but didn't steer anything like a HK or HT V8 manual GTS. So it is the later HT 308 manual GTS you would want not a HG. I'd rather a HK V8 manual GTS, and would just change the carby and inlet. These were 200hp with the small 2BBL (GMH rated them 210hp running on Super and with more timing using the GTS327's dizzy). 327 with the same carby was 210hp, but when fitted with Quadrajet they went to 250hp. The 307 with a 4BBL would be 240hp +/- and will easily rev to 6000+rpm and not fall flat on their face on the way. A stock HT-HG 308 stops making power under 5000rpm due to the tiny camshaft. They are roughly the same compression ratio (307 8.75, 308 9:1). The heads on the 307 are identical to the engine in the GTS327, those will pull 6500rpm all day, but are slightly higher compression than the 307 due to the extra bore size at roughly 9.0:1.

Peter Robinson stated quite clearly in 1971 that his choice of the best long distance tourer for mile after mile was the HG GTS350 manual. His drive to Elizabeth back in 1971 to try and get a glimpse of the new HQ coupe was in a HG GTS350. He stated that it was a true 2 mile per minute car, averaging 120mph for the trip. Someone forgot to tell him that Elizabeth were not making HQ coupes though! I found the internal correspondence recently where he was busted trying to sneak onto the Elizabeth grounds to get photos. Go looking for the Wheels article later in 1971.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#126 Posted : Tuesday, 2 June 2020 1:15:31 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,422

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 21 time(s) in 19 post(s)
Their was no problems with the Tri matic box they were fine. the only problem was with the pad material that when one had a steep driveway to reverse out of was causing the material to fray.
My HG 253 auto was fine to 150,000 miles when the engine got blow by and I got rid of it. the only problem with the auto was the bastard wanted to rev to 5500RPM so I had to take my foot of and let it change up before this. their was a wire that you could adjust to make it change at a lower RPM I would think but I never touched it, I should of experimented with it, but with my HX when I fitted a tri matic to it I just tossed the electronic kick back away as it was not needed at all, as it changed up at 4500RPM and that was all that was needed and if you wanted more I just used the T Bar for that, it was spot on and it did 300.000KM but with a big oil cooler only and did not go into the radiator at all because it was a manual type one that I got when it was a 4sp.
I have never heard of problems with tri matic but for people with steep driveways and driving around with a crap radiator cooking the guts out of them and never servicing them.

I remember many a 307 were gutless as 2 speed auto and 2.78 diff nothing to see there, old Jack had all 3 Broughams from new and said that the HK went the best, I remember a brothers mate had a HK Brougham as well back in 1978 and recalls it was such a slug to drive.

Driving a GTS350 with a 2sp auto and 3.08 diff out on the highways, well no what's it going to do when overtaking from 60mph or 70mph they run out of puff from 4500RPM truly and top gear response with all that torque is good from 60mph but I am sure that a HG GTS308 T Bar dual exhaust would kill it in over taking for sure from 50mph 60mph 70mph to 90mph that's pretty important that you would be doing all the time. the 50mph to 90 mph times are critical to enjoy with over taking.
I remember driving a 6sp auto Falcon 4.0L and thinking that they got the ratios so wrong that it made overtaking from 100km/h 110km/h on a real pain and the 5sp manual was geared so much better for doing that. they needed to cut 3rd gear back in half of that ratio on the auto and it would of been fine, keep all the ratios the same but add one between and wow what a grate performing car it would of been.
Get the ratios right and all is fine, but 2sp auto's yuck ! they can be ok in the drag strip but not out on the roads if you are one who really love to drive great cars.
What may be good for Bathurst may not be best for the highway, what we had with the roads back in the days in QLD well Think

Edited by user Tuesday, 2 June 2020 1:17:12 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
7 Pages«<567
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 © 2003-2020, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.379 seconds.