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

Notification

Icon
Error

Login


Take the time to read our Privacy Policy.

8 Pages«<678
castellan Offline
#141 Posted : Tuesday, 9 June 2020 2:03:54 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,438

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 21 time(s) in 19 post(s)
Originally Posted by: 8D11PCH2 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post


The first LC Torana GTR XU-1 Camshaft was then retarded in the later LC to help rev more and make more top end HP.


There was only two camshaft grinds factory fitted in LC GTR XU1.
The 3100X camshaft and then the XH cam in the CK prefixed engines. Both camshafts had their timing retarded from SOP to EOP


Yes 2 camshafts in the 186 XU-1 but the 1st one was set at zero and the next set retarded at the timing gear at one point and then the other camshaft came for a Bathurst version I believe.

There was a 186X the 1st pilot cars most likely and then came the 3100X 8/1970 TO 8/1970 and then the CK 9/1971 TO 1/1972

Edited by user Tuesday, 9 June 2020 2:22:28 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

HK1837 Offline
#142 Posted : Tuesday, 9 June 2020 2:10:21 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,340

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 209 time(s) in 201 post(s)
The figures you got for the GTS350 are very close to reality, hence why I asked. With perfect off the mark traction and flat shifting you may well get 14.6 out of a properly tuned GTS350 with 3.36 rear axle. Remember the test results I posted are tested with two people and throttle lift gear changes, and there was some wheel spin. The fact that the simulator gave the identical 95mph trap speed shows you that the test results and the simulation are aligned.
The testers in the day had the same wheel spin problems with the GT-HO’s, they had to work hard to get them to hookup. From memory one tester got it right on one run and pulled a 14.4, but normally they managed 14.8-ish. I think it was the XW GT-HO (Windsor) that they got 14.4 out of.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
8D11PCH2 Offline
#143 Posted : Tuesday, 9 June 2020 6:03:52 PM(UTC)
8D11PCH2

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/09/2016(UTC)
Posts: 111
Australia
Location: OZ

Was thanked: 10 time(s) in 10 post(s)
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: 8D11PCH2 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post


The first LC Torana GTR XU-1 Camshaft was then retarded in the later LC to help rev more and make more top end HP.


There was only two camshaft grinds factory fitted in LC GTR XU1.
The 3100X camshaft and then the XH cam in the CK prefixed engines. Both camshafts had their timing retarded from SOP to EOP


Yes 2 camshafts in the 186 XU-1 but the 1st one was set at zero and the next set retarded at the timing gear at one point and then the other camshaft came for a Bathurst version I believe.

There was a 186X the 1st pilot cars most likely and then came the 3100X 8/1970 TO 8/1970 and then the CK 9/1971 TO 1/1972


No LC XU1 186 engine number was prefixed 186X, they were all 3100X until the CK prefix was introduced with HQ release. The 1st 20 XU1's did not have the camshaft set at zero. The same alloy cam gear was used for ALL LC XU1, from the very 1st LC XU1 built to the very last LC XU1 to roll off the assembly line. It was the position of the keyway in the cam gear that was retarded 6 degrees.

Edited by user Wednesday, 10 June 2020 10:30:24 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

castellan Offline
#144 Posted : Wednesday, 10 June 2020 11:09:23 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,438

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 21 time(s) in 19 post(s)
Originally Posted by: 8D11PCH2 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: 8D11PCH2 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post


The first LC Torana GTR XU-1 Camshaft was then retarded in the later LC to help rev more and make more top end HP.


There was only two camshaft grinds factory fitted in LC GTR XU1.
The 3100X camshaft and then the XH cam in the CK prefixed engines. Both camshafts had their timing retarded from SOP to EOP


Yes 2 camshafts in the 186 XU-1 but the 1st one was set at zero and the next set retarded at the timing gear at one point and then the other camshaft came for a Bathurst version I believe.

There was a 186X the 1st pilot cars most likely and then came the 3100X 8/1970 TO 8/1970 and then the CK 9/1971 TO 1/1972


No LC XU1 186 engine number was prefixed 186X, they were all 3100X until the CK prefix was introduced with HQ release. The 1st 20 XU1's did not have the camshaft set at zero. The same alloy cam gear was used for ALL LC XU1, from the very 1st LC XU1 built to the very last LC XU1 to roll off the assembly line. It was the position of the keyway in the cam gear that was retarded 6 degrees.

I agree.

They must of cast all the 186 XU-1 blocks before the 202 started to be cast, 6/1971 202's would of been in full swing.
HK1837 Offline
#145 Posted : Wednesday, 10 June 2020 12:22:46 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,340

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 209 time(s) in 201 post(s)
They were a special run of 186. They did the CK engines and some NK service engines. It also looks like they built a number of probably block and piston sets to service pre-HK red engine 179/186 and these have NG prefix on them. GMH issued a bulletin basically stating as much, they say 202 is OK to service HK-HG but not earlier stuff. It wouldn’t have been hard for them to do it, just a mix of 173 and 202 patterns to make the sand mould.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#146 Posted : Thursday, 11 June 2020 12:08:31 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,438

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 21 time(s) in 19 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
They were a special run of 186. They did the CK engines and some NK service engines. It also looks like they built a number of probably block and piston sets to service pre-HK red engine 179/186 and these have NG prefix on them. GMH issued a bulletin basically stating as much, they say 202 is OK to service HK-HG but not earlier stuff. It wouldn’t have been hard for them to do it, just a mix of 173 and 202 patterns to make the sand mould.


I am sure that the 186 casting would be their to use for a small number of blocks like the XU-1

Did the 173 had different main caps with the wider apart bolt holes like the 202 got.

No one has proven that the 173 block casting bores are the same as the 179 186 block yet ?
HK1837 Offline
#147 Posted : Thursday, 11 June 2020 1:17:00 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,340

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 209 time(s) in 201 post(s)
GHM says that provision was made to have 186 stuff available for a period after 173/202 started, so that there were engines suitable to replace/repair 149/161 and 179/186 in EH-HR. They would have supplied ND or NE block and piston for 149/161 or NG prefix for 179/186. 202 were allowed to service HK-HG, and they even say that the 3300 XU1 engine was suitable for LC XU1.

The earlier 173 used the same crankshaft mains as earlier red. Later on they changed to 202 mains.

173 might be similar to 179 as it’s only about 60 thou difference, but it won’t be the same as 186 as it’s bore is the same as 202. They would have had specific patterns for both 173 and 202. Just used the 173 mains area patterns with 202 rest plus the 186 plate screwed to the side. Made enough moulds and blocks to suit those final LC XU1, some spare part XU1 engines and/or shorts plus the generic NG to supply spares for the early girls. It looks like some people even bought those NG blocks to repair HK-HG 186 and LC XU1, probably done by owners or the aftermarket industry though.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Smitty2 Offline
#148 Posted : Thursday, 11 June 2020 4:00:01 PM(UTC)
Smitty2

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/07/2019(UTC)
Posts: 56
Australia
Location: bayside Melbourne

Thanks: 44 times
Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 4 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
They were a special run of 186. They did the CK engines and some NK service engines. It also looks like they built a number of probably block and piston sets to service pre-HK red engine 179/186 and these have NG prefix on them. GMH issued a bulletin basically stating as much, they say 202 is OK to service HK-HG but not earlier stuff. It wouldn’t have been hard for them to do it, just a mix of 173 and 202 patterns to make the sand mould.


these 186 would be the last to use forged steel cranks
after that all would be nodular iron (from memory)

Club circuit racing...the best fun you can have with your pants on
HK1837 Offline
#149 Posted : Thursday, 11 June 2020 5:30:18 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,340

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 209 time(s) in 201 post(s)
Yes, they must have kept some. Probably out of whatever stock they had for 2600S, 186S and 3100X engines after the nodular iron plant started producing crankshafts mid 1967-ish. From what I understand the 2850S engines had nodular iron crankshafts as would the planned 202S for the cancelled HQ GTS.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
 1 user thanked HK1837 for this useful post.
Smitty2 on 12/06/2020(UTC)
8D11PCH2 Offline
#150 Posted : Friday, 12 June 2020 7:49:41 AM(UTC)
8D11PCH2

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/09/2016(UTC)
Posts: 111
Australia
Location: OZ

Was thanked: 10 time(s) in 10 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
From what I understand the 2850S engines had nodular iron crankshafts as would the planned 202S for the cancelled HQ GTS.


XU1 3300 had nodular iron cranks so that stands to reason.
castellan Offline
#151 Posted : Friday, 12 June 2020 1:44:00 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,438

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 21 time(s) in 19 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
GHM says that provision was made to have 186 stuff available for a period after 173/202 started, so that there were engines suitable to replace/repair 149/161 and 179/186 in EH-HR. They would have supplied ND or NE block and piston for 149/161 or NG prefix for 179/186. 202 were allowed to service HK-HG, and they even say that the 3300 XU1 engine was suitable for LC XU1.

The earlier 173 used the same crankshaft mains as earlier red. Later on they changed to 202 mains.

173 might be similar to 179 as it’s only about 60 thou difference, but it won’t be the same as 186 as it’s bore is the same as 202. They would have had specific patterns for both 173 and 202. Just used the 173 mains area patterns with 202 rest plus the 186 plate screwed to the side. Made enough moulds and blocks to suit those final LC XU1, some spare part XU1 engines and/or shorts plus the generic NG to supply spares for the early girls. It looks like some people even bought those NG blocks to repair HK-HG 186 and LC XU1, probably done by owners or the aftermarket industry though.


I am talking about the mains caps ? not the size of the journals.
The 202 mains caps will not fit into a 186 as the bolts are wider apart than the 186 and the rest, but I am not sure of the 173 mains caps, maybe they stayed the same as the 186 or they changed to the 202 type.

I believe later that the 173 changed to 202 mains, so the 202 and them 173 maybe the same casting, just with a 2.8L casting on the block, would it be worth making a block that's 60 tho less, that's f all. the 179 was playing it safe with extra thickness in the walls, but would an extra 60 tho be a problem with a 173 bore wall thickness.
8D11PCH2 Offline
#152 Posted : Saturday, 13 June 2020 8:25:35 AM(UTC)
8D11PCH2

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/09/2016(UTC)
Posts: 111
Australia
Location: OZ

Was thanked: 10 time(s) in 10 post(s)
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
GHM says that provision was made to have 186 stuff available for a period after 173/202 started, so that there were engines suitable to replace/repair 149/161 and 179/186 in EH-HR. They would have supplied ND or NE block and piston for 149/161 or NG prefix for 179/186. 202 were allowed to service HK-HG, and they even say that the 3300 XU1 engine was suitable for LC XU1.

The earlier 173 used the same crankshaft mains as earlier red. Later on they changed to 202 mains.

173 might be similar to 179 as it’s only about 60 thou difference, but it won’t be the same as 186 as it’s bore is the same as 202. They would have had specific patterns for both 173 and 202. Just used the 173 mains area patterns with 202 rest plus the 186 plate screwed to the side. Made enough moulds and blocks to suit those final LC XU1, some spare part XU1 engines and/or shorts plus the generic NG to supply spares for the early girls. It looks like some people even bought those NG blocks to repair HK-HG 186 and LC XU1, probably done by owners or the aftermarket industry though.


I am talking about the mains caps ? not the size of the journals.
The 202 mains caps will not fit into a 186 as the bolts are wider apart than the 186 and the rest, but I am not sure of the 173 mains caps, maybe they stayed the same as the 186 or they changed to the 202 type.

I believe later that the 173 changed to 202 mains, so the 202 and them 173 maybe the same casting, just with a 2.8L casting on the block, would it be worth making a block that's 60 tho less, that's f all. the 179 was playing it safe with extra thickness in the walls, but would an extra 60 tho be a problem with a 173 bore wall thickness.


The 2250 & 2850 crankshaft & mains caps changed to the 202 size (bolt spacing, journal dia. and bearings) in 1974.
Users browsing this topic
Guest (4)
8 Pages«<678
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 0.335 seconds.