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 Offline
#41 Posted : Friday, 8 January 2021 9:43:19 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,496

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 239 time(s) in 230 post(s)
Only brake options that I can see on Gen2 Camaro were J50 (power brakes) and J52 (front discs). Over the 12 year life span both gradually became standard on Camaro. It doesn’t appear that rear discs even became available until 1982. Except for a special JL8 4 wheel disc setup for dealer fitment in 1968 or assembly line fitment in 1969. J56 was heavy duty brakes for 1967-9, got you better front brakes and I think improved rear linings. The JL8 package got you the J56 front brakes plus a whole different rear axle assembly to suit the rear discs (just like a HZ or WB). JL8 was recognised for Transam racing which was under FIA Group2 which aligns with what you found, so probably just carried through into Gen2 Camaro homologation for 1970-1972 even though you could not option a road going Gen2 with it. Which ultimately means KB was not recalling the facts right when he made the statement that rear discs were optional and accepted under FIA Group1. They were fitted to later 70’s Pontiac Transams (like Trigger from Smokey and the Bandit) though. Maybe KB should have run a Transam with a 400 or 455 Pontiac engine or the 1977 403ci Olds engine!

Looks like in Corvette J56 got you 4 wheel disc brakes.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Balfizar Offline
#42 Posted : Friday, 8 January 2021 10:44:14 PM(UTC)
Balfizar

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 20/03/2011(UTC)
Posts: 119

Was thanked: 13 time(s) in 13 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Dr Terry Go to Quoted Post
Yes, as HK1837 has said there were no LHD Commodores prior to VT/WH when we sent cars to the Gulf states & the USA (VZ Pontiac) etc. The only LHD Holdens prior to that were FB to HG & LC to LX Torana.

I disagree with HK1837's assertion however, that the VC HDT Brock was NOT a Commodore. They clearly have a badge/decal reading HDT/Commodore on both rear doors & the boot lid.

In 1980 at the VC's release, large engines were definitely out of favour. Ford promoted their 3.3 & added the 4.1 6-cyl to option list for Fairlanes & LTDs (almost unthinkable just 2 years earlier). Many fleets downsized to Sigmas, Cortinas, Mazdas, Bluebirds etc. & GMH had very slow sales with their WB Statemans, Caprice sales virtually stopped. Less than 2 years later Falcon outsold Commodore & everybody wanted V8s again.

Dr Terry


Production Option V8Q "Special Package" - VC Commodore (Oct 10th 1980 dealer information)
HDT received "Secondary Manufacturers Status" IN VK era.

If the ability to option precludes the generic model label, how many "Holden's" would that effect?
8D11PCH2 Offline
#43 Posted : Saturday, 9 January 2021 9:19:22 AM(UTC)
8D11PCH2

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/09/2016(UTC)
Posts: 137
Australia
Location: OZ

Was thanked: 10 time(s) in 10 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Only brake options that I can see on Gen2 Camaro were J50 (power brakes) and J52 (front discs). Over the 12 year life span both gradually became standard on Camaro. It doesn’t appear that rear discs even became available until 1982. Except for a special JL8 4 wheel disc setup for dealer fitment in 1968 or assembly line fitment in 1969. J56 was heavy duty brakes for 1967-9, got you better front brakes and I think improved rear linings. The JL8 package got you the J56 front brakes plus a whole different rear axle assembly to suit the rear discs (just like a HZ or WB). JL8 was recognised for Transam racing which was under FIA Group2 which aligns with what you found, so probably just carried through into Gen2 Camaro homologation for 1970-1972 even though you could not option a road going Gen2 with it. Which ultimately means KB was not recalling the facts right when he made the statement that rear discs were optional and accepted under FIA Group1. They were fitted to later 70’s Pontiac Transams (like Trigger from Smokey and the Bandit) though. Maybe KB should have run a Transam with a 400 or 455 Pontiac engine or the 1977 403ci Olds engine!

Looks like in Corvette J56 got you 4 wheel disc brakes.


Upon the Camaro recognition documents FIA #5310 (Group 2 only) the J56 Heavy Duty Disc Brakes Option is listed as:
Part number 3957992 - Front Hub & disc W/Caliper LH
Part number 3957993 - Front Hub & disc W/Caliper RH
Part number 3965733 - Rear axle W/Disc brakes.

What is interesting is all specifications and pictures of the J56 package have had the rear brakes information crossed out which would indicate the rear discs were never factory fitted to at least the 1000 cars required for Group 2 homologation.

If we then look at the FIA rules for Group 2 we find that specific options were allowed in Group 2 without reference to minimum build numbers - Brakes, Brake Calipers and brake cooling equipment was one of those options. As long as any person, without prejudice, could walk into their dealer and purchase such optional equipment.
HK1837 Offline
#44 Posted : Saturday, 9 January 2021 9:57:06 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,496

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 239 time(s) in 230 post(s)
If you look at the PDF in the link those are the right part numbers for the 4 wheel disc brakes for 1968 Z28

http://www.gmpartswiki.com/getpage?pageid=218461

You are right about the rear disc stuff being crossed out, even in the later forms. And they incorrectly use J56.

https://historicdb.fia.c...number_5310_group_1.pdf

Here is the brakes section of the online Camaro ‘bible’:

http://www.camaros.org/suspen.shtml#Brakes






_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
8D11PCH2 Offline
#45 Posted : Saturday, 9 January 2021 10:34:24 AM(UTC)
8D11PCH2

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/09/2016(UTC)
Posts: 137
Australia
Location: OZ

Was thanked: 10 time(s) in 10 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
If you look at the PDF in the link those are the right part numbers for the 4 wheel disc brakes for 1968 Z28

http://www.gmpartswiki.com/getpage?pageid=218461

You are right about the rear disc stuff being crossed out, even in the later forms. And they incorrectly use J56.

https://historicdb.fia.c...number_5310_group_1.pdf

Here is the brakes section of the online Camaro ‘bible’:

http://www.camaros.org/suspen.shtml#Brakes



I think this sentence by the author holds the answer.
Quote "The inclusion in the 1968 documentation apparently was either in preparation for a proposed option release that never occurred, or as part of a subterfuge for convincing racing authorities that the 4WD brakes were a factory option and thus qualified for Trans Am racing use. "

Would appear that the American Trans Am Series was initially contested by cars that were recognised as FIA Group 2 but changed in '73 to more of a GT category, then in '76 reverted back to it's roots in Improved Production.

Quote from Wikipedia: In 1976, the Trans-Am Series returned to the two category (class) format, classifying FIA (Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile) Group 4 and 5 cars as "Category 2".

Edited by user Saturday, 9 January 2021 10:54:32 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Smitty2 Offline
#46 Posted : Saturday, 9 January 2021 5:42:26 PM(UTC)
Smitty2

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/07/2019(UTC)
Posts: 99
Australia
Location: bayside Melbourne

Thanks: 76 times
Was thanked: 9 time(s) in 9 post(s)
Originally Posted by: 8D11PCH2 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Dr Terry Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: 8D11PCH2 Go to Quoted Post
Think I may have found the confusing rule change for the valves.

1979: Valves must be of the original dimensions.

1980: Valves must be of the the same head diameter and seat angle as the standard component.


As I said, I can fully understand the small valve thing, this is how the A9X came, but why couldn't they run the rear discs, when they were std equipment for all A9Xs ?

Dr Terry


Am unable to find any differences in the 1979 and 1980 Group C rules that would explain why the A9X Torana could not run rear discs, rear spoiler and bonnet scoop in 1980.



Toranas had to run as std vehicles.... emmission engines etc so A9X was dead as far as the new CAMS rules
and when was the last time you saw a standard LX Torana SS coupe .. a 5 litre 4 speed with rear disc brakes ?

GMH never fitted them ....
Club circuit racing...the best fun you can have with your pants on
HK1837 Offline
#47 Posted : Saturday, 9 January 2021 7:10:50 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,496

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 239 time(s) in 230 post(s)
A9X was a standard vehicle though with pollution engine. I get CAMS making them go back to a standard vehicle which A9X was. It was an evolution of type of a standard SLR or SS. So A9X then should have been able to race as it had in 1979 but with the XT4 heads and intake. In 1980 it looks like they still got to keep wheel flares, Salisbury, T10 and A9X front suspension. But lost the boot spoiler, bonnet scoop, rear discs and the L34 engine. If they had switched to sedans in theory they should have been able to keep the boot spoiler?

Actually, in theory, rather than try racing a hobbled hatchback in 1980 Allan Grice could have either got hold of an old race L34 or an A9X race sedan (surely there would have been a glut of either of these around) and raced as an L34. It wouldn’t have been hard to convert a 1977-79 GroupC sedan back to L34, would just need a HZ 6cyl passenger banjo housing and shorten it to suit L34 axles (avoids modifying the floor again as a HZ banjo uses the same UCA mounts as the A9X Salisbury). Remove the bonnet scoop and possibly change the front crossmember back to L34. Plus put an Aussie 4spd back in. It’d get to keep its performance but get the fragility of the driveline back.

Edited by user Saturday, 9 January 2021 7:32:30 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
8D11PCH2 Offline
#48 Posted : Saturday, 9 January 2021 9:02:38 PM(UTC)
8D11PCH2

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/09/2016(UTC)
Posts: 137
Australia
Location: OZ

Was thanked: 10 time(s) in 10 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
A9X was a standard vehicle though with pollution engine. I get CAMS making them go back to a standard vehicle which A9X was. It was an evolution of type of a standard SLR or SS. So A9X then should have been able to race as it had in 1979 but with the XT4 heads and intake. In 1980 it looks like they still got to keep wheel flares, Salisbury, T10 and A9X front suspension. But lost the boot spoiler, bonnet scoop, rear discs and the L34 engine. If they had switched to sedans in theory they should have been able to keep the boot spoiler?

Actually, in theory, rather than try racing a hobbled hatchback in 1980 Allan Grice could have either got hold of an old race L34 or an A9X race sedan (surely there would have been a glut of either of these around) and raced as an L34. It wouldn’t have been hard to convert a 1977-79 GroupC sedan back to L34, would just need a HZ 6cyl passenger banjo housing and shorten it to suit L34 axles (avoids modifying the floor again as a HZ banjo uses the same UCA mounts as the A9X Salisbury). Remove the bonnet scoop and possibly change the front crossmember back to L34. Plus put an Aussie 4spd back in. It’d get to keep its performance but get the fragility of the driveline back.


Doesn't matter what engine the road going A9X sedans and hatchbacks had. Remember this whole homologation Variant and Evolution thing is, for the most part, about components not completed cars.
The new model LX SL/R 5000 (A9X) was an evolution of the LX SL/R 5000 L34 model (which carried over from the LH SL/R 5000 L34 Variant), hence why they could continue to race using the L34 engine, and the new model SS 5000 (A9X) shared the exact same mechanical specification as the new model LX SL/R 5000 (A9X).

IMO Grice's A9X hatch should have been able to race in 1980 in the exact same specification as it had in 1979.
The A9X was homologated to run an L34 spec engine in motorsport competition and the std cylinder heads and valves for an L34 engine were the ones homologated in 1974 for the L34.
HK1837 Offline
#49 Posted : Sunday, 10 January 2021 5:00:25 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,496

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 239 time(s) in 230 post(s)
I know that, but they weren’t. The argument that they were made to run an LX SS hence the removal of the L34 heads, rear spoiler, hood scoop and rear discs doesn’t wash as the car still has other A9X bits.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Dr Terry Offline
#50 Posted : Sunday, 10 January 2021 9:11:55 AM(UTC)
Dr Terry

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 5,666

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 109 time(s) in 101 post(s)
I spoke to another guy about this & he said they let the flared guards thru because they were allowed on any car under new rules. Look at Dickie's car his had massive flares & no production XD had them. Gearboxes & diffs must have been free as well, because his XD had a Super T10 & a 9-inch. So I guess that meant that the Super T10 & large Salisbury were OK for the A9X too.

So basically what they allowed was a stock 5.0 SS with flares, S T10 & the big big diff. No other A9X bits at all.

Dr Terry
If at first you don't succeed, just call it Version 1.0
8D11PCH2 Offline
#51 Posted : Sunday, 10 January 2021 9:12:24 AM(UTC)
8D11PCH2

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/09/2016(UTC)
Posts: 137
Australia
Location: OZ

Was thanked: 10 time(s) in 10 post(s)
It is seeming more and more like the CAMS did in fact bar the A9X from competing in 1980.
Under the revised 1980 Group C rules there were more freedoms than there were in 1979.

The STD SS 5000 L31 engine could be built up to as good as or better than L34 spec with the exception of the std L31 valves and inlet manifold.
Engines could now have dry sump oiling systems too.

The rules state 'it is permitted to fit mudguard flares as described in the relevant recognition documents as issued by CAMS'.

'Gearbox and final drive ratios must be as nominated on the recognition documents'.

The above rules should account for how a garden variety SS 5000 could compete with A9X flares, T10 and Salisbury drum brake rear axle assy.

And for the 1st time the rear axle assy could be modified to be fully floating.

Edited by user Sunday, 10 January 2021 9:19:00 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Sandaro Offline
#52 Posted : Sunday, 10 January 2021 7:50:14 PM(UTC)
Sandaro

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/10/2015(UTC)
Posts: 189

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 16 time(s) in 15 post(s)
I don't know the specific details of the rules at the time, but I do remember several examples over the years of the governing body introducing disincentive to race the old model/update to the new car. Maybe even the manufacturer would have been behind this. If you're selling commodore you don't want it beaten by yesteryears model
HK1837 Offline
#53 Posted : Sunday, 10 January 2021 8:13:58 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,496

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 239 time(s) in 230 post(s)
If that was the case they’d have stopped Torana being competitive after 1977 or at least the start of 1978 as Commodore went on sale in 1978.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Torana1978 Offline
#54 Posted : Monday, 11 January 2021 12:05:22 AM(UTC)
Torana1978

Rank: Newbie

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 4/01/2021(UTC)
Posts: 5
Russian Federation
Location: Saint Petersburg

I found this VC Commodore specs. Yes, it is not factory-made, but it was sold through GMH dealers. Probably without a Holden warranty? How many VC turbos were sold (or built)?

Users browsing this topic
Guest (4)
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 © 2003-2021, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.400 seconds.