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

Notification

Icon
Error

Login


Take the time to read our Privacy Policy.

castellan Offline
#1 Posted : Thursday, 25 March 2021 4:31:57 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,504

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 24 time(s) in 22 post(s)
I was just looking up about the Aussie Datsun 240Z 138hp 6000rpm 151 lb 4400rpm gross 9.0:1 with twin carby's and 4sp

Then I found out that Japan had a triple carby 240Z back 1970 with 10.5:1 175hp 6500rpm 145lb 5200.

Then the 260Z 160hp 5600 152lb 4400 gross 8.3:1 twin carby's and a 5sp.

Now people rant about them 240Z and 260Z back in the nowadays and even now and ok I knew one mate dad had a 260Z and a mate had one. but they were not powerful but not slow for a 6 cyl at the time.
But look at the 260Z compression of 8.3:1 that's well in the Standard fuel range even for an iron head, but they are Alloy head you could run 10.5 with such with Super fuel easy. did we get 8.3:1 260Z ?

So I was thinking that my brothers HR 161 was quick for what it was being a stock gem reco who knows 167ci with twin Stromberg's extractors I wonder what HP that was and it would rev out way smoother than any 186 did, so the Japs with their little 240Z is much the same size as a Holden 149 and the 260Z is near to the 161 Holden.
I had that 161 HR out to 115mph and it would of went faster but I had to back off because it was about to take off the road.

So I thought how about a 149 out to 155 engine supped up how would such go in a EH or LJ Torana you could make 155hp easy or go the 161 out to 167 would easy make 170hp and be smooth as a Datsun if fully balanced, making for a nice sweet revving 6 cyl.

I think getting up to 173 they start getting harsher even if they are fully balanced and that's were Datsun stoped at 280Z with the straight 6 , if they went to 3.0L or 3.3L they may not of been such a smooth engine like people rant on and on about as to how smooth the Datsun 6 cyl were.

Look at he best 4cyl rally cars back in the days were 1.8L as 2.0L must of got too big for being revved like hell so that's 450cc a pot x6 = 2700cc that is just under a 173.
And 3.6lL for a V8.
And 5,4L V12, is not that what a Jag V12 was.

But nowadays we can go bigger because of advanced piston design with short skirts making the piston lighter. so you could now make a 202 smooth as with such pistons.
The heavy pistons cause a harmonic problem at around about 6400rpm in 186 and 202 I wonder if the same with 161ci, the Ford 250 piston may be about the same weight as a 202 but with the longer stroke they run into the harmonics problem at 5700rpm. but look at the EB Falcon OHC 4.0l and the last of the 4.0L DOHC do They have the 5700rpm problem ? I do not think so because of lighter pistons and they changed the rod length in the DOHC making them longer.

I wonder about the valiant Hemi 6 were they suffering 6100rpm harmonics problem

351 Cleveland's were 63000rpm harmonics problem, what about the Holden 308 and 253 ?
HK1837 Offline
#2 Posted : Thursday, 25 March 2021 6:49:10 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,572

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 255 time(s) in 246 post(s)
The Nissan S30 was one reason why GMH canned the GTR-X. They knew that their 6cyl engines and cars didn’t hold a candle to what was coming from Japan performance wise. GMH rarely even sold a 6cyl car that could even reach 100mph, only a few ever could. To them if you wanted performance you bought a V8. The XU1 was the exception but wasn’t built to be an everyday car either. The 6cyl cars were the reliable workhorses and not aimed at the enthusiast or for spirited driving. GMH made the decision to drop the HQ GTS before release and that also will be what killed off the 2850S engine for LJ GTR. I’m in no means saying the Holden 6’s were bad engines, they were simply nothing like the 6cyl engines that Nissan and Toyota had to offer. The red 6’s after HG and LC S engines were not designed for performance.
And given the 6cyl cars were pretty pedestrian, the 4cyl cars prior to Gemini were downright awful. Chris Young (of Young and Green) told me they were always in trouble with their zone managers that they weren’t selling enough 4cyl product. Their response always was “build decent ones and we will”. They didn’t have anything to compete.
On that note I never understood the Opel 1.9 in the LH and the Starfire in the Commodore. What was the point? Sure it was 1.9L, but it also had a 3.9 rear axle and in the Commodore 13” tyres. It revved its guts out and was no more economical than a 173. GMH had the answer. They fitted it to both Holden and Torana - the 130ci (2.1 litre) red 6 for export. Later (into HJ) they fitted the 138 (2.25 litre), which they also used in local Torana but dropped it. A 130ci or 138ci red 6 in an LH with a 3.36 rear axle would be a far better economy car. Same with Commodore. And surely the cost to fit would be cheaper as it fitted the same as a 173 or 202, and didn’t need special tailshaft, gearbox, engine crossmember, radiator spacer etc etc. plus the 130/138 was already fitted to later LJ and LH for export cars. Today if I wanted to build myself a really economical HK-HG ute or van for putting around I’d probably build an original spec 138 or 149 with a column shift all synchro 3spd and 3.36 rear axle or even maybe a Trimatic with 3.08 rear axle. Would be slow but still be a reliable an economical car.
Regarding the lower comp 260Z. You are forgetting ULP introduction in Japan which was 1972. Their engines would have changed for it just like the US engines. The best example that we can relate to here even though it is zNorth America rather than Japan was the L48 350. In 1970 it was 10.25:1, courtesy of flat top pistons and 64cc fuelies. This is the HT-HG engine. For 1971 the L48 dropped to 8.5:1, simply by increasing the combustion chamber to 76cc and putting a dish in the pistons. This is the HQ engine. To GM they are the same specification, one for high octane leaded fuel, the other for low octane ULP. The engine spec changed to suit the US pollution laws. Exactly the same as what happened here HJ-HX and mid-series for LX. Every engine went backwards literally overnight, 308 dropped from 250hp to 216hp. You can imagine in the USA when the 1970 Camaro SS came with a sweet 300hp L48, Muncie and 12 bolt. Come September 1970 the car lost 30hp but looked almost the same. The Z/28 also lost 30hp and the 396 lost 50hp.

Edited by user Friday, 26 March 2021 7:41:50 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#3 Posted : Friday, 26 March 2021 11:55:30 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,504

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 24 time(s) in 22 post(s)
Yes I knew the Japs had unleaded in 1972 or 73 remember the 1973 Kawasaki Z900 had 8.5:1 static compression with a alloy head, hardly a performance feature, it could of had 12:1 easy in Australia back in the day.

Yes the LH 1.9L Torana's a boring city runabout, but The Ford Cortina TC with the 2.0L 4sp from 1971 was a good quick city runabout, you needed everything a stock 202 Torana to keep up with one of them around town even a 253 Kingswood was hard to keep up.

The HB and LC-J and TA Toranas ? well the HB back in the day 1967 vs what for the price ? it was not until the Datsun 1600 that out 4 cyl Torana's became a joke.

One has to remember the price of the cars back in the days when comparing back in the days, as too many people I have come across make claims that are out of hand, like claiming that the Japs made much better cars than Australia did in the 70's. For who ? metrosexuals ! where are they coming from quality of finish maybe, but for what ends are they on about, Oh the Datsun 240Z for one example, ok yes a good all round performing car etc quick 6 cyl but one has to remember we had LH SL/R 5000 that a 240Z has nothing over for performance. but most people forget that fact, but they are thinking 202 LH vs 240Z is were it ends.
I am like listen mate I know what I would rather have clearly any day, ok for the wife the 240Z as the SL/R 5000 is a real man's car. a lesser man would come back shaking in their boots for fear of the grunt of such a beast given it full on hooking in, they cringe in fear of such and start boasting about their 240Z etc being the bees knees in performance car back in the days, C'mon ! they are just pissing into the wind. and I am not bagging the 240Z I am just pointing out that it was not a weapon back in the days.

Look at the metrosexuals who bought new Toyota Crowns, what the Statesman or Fairlane with the big V8 was too much for them ? no they fear to drive such.

People bag the OHV engines claiming that such is out dated backwards rubbish, not true at all ! I like the old Holden 6 as you had torque right off low and I hated the OHC for lack of torque off the mark and down low. look at the VL OHC 3.0L I like the VK 3.3 EFI better in regards as to down low torque. look at the Gen 3 5.7L OHV tec and then look at fords DOHC V8 why bother with all that extra crap.

I drove a 5sp TE Gemini once on the highway and I dropped it back to 4th to get up a hill and the woman who owned it thought I was thrashing it, no it was dropping speed and I was just trying to keep the speed up to 100KM/H so I was not holding anyone up, a lot of people do not know that 5th gear is overdrive for cruse mode, so they will never drop back a gear on a hill for something they feel is somehow taboo.
bazza30555 Offline
#4 Posted : Friday, 26 March 2021 1:34:24 PM(UTC)
bazza30555

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/05/2007(UTC)
Posts: 267

Thanks: 2 times
Stock Lc 2250 3 on the tree 3:08 diff.
I could just get past a mates 2lt cortina in a top end run, probable had 2mph on him lol.
100 mph speedo and a big hill would wind it of the clock and as long as l didn't go up hill it would stay their all day.
castellan Offline
#5 Posted : Saturday, 27 March 2021 11:44:23 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,504

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 24 time(s) in 22 post(s)
Originally Posted by: bazza30555 Go to Quoted Post
Stock Lc 2250 3 on the tree 3:08 diff.
I could just get past a mates 2lt cortina in a top end run, probable had 2mph on him lol.
100 mph speedo and a big hill would wind it of the clock and as long as l didn't go up hill it would stay their all day.


Yes 3.08 is close to a 3,36 and 14in wheels. so I would believe a 138 LC could do as you say by the speedo reading.

I have seen a stock VB SL Commodore 3.3L auto do 185KM/H I did not believe him at all before that I seen it as I was driving behind him. the SL 3.3l auto has a 3.08 diff x 14 wheels.
Now a mates same VB 3.3L auto was base model and they came with a 3.3 ratio diff and it could only do 160km/h.

I was in a new WB 3.3L auto Kingswood ute It did 185km/h it had a 3.08 diff. such would be a sweet spot in the power band about 4500rpm. but with the 3.36 ratio the 3.3L would be running out of that max power range by 160KM/H

The LC 138 may not be running out of breath in a way, as the bigger engines do, because the cyl head would breath better and if the 138 is running the same camshaft grind, well that pushes the breathing efficency up higher as well.
So maybe the 138 does become a spirited engine up higher than the stock 186 say.
The SAE power figures do not claim such but they are worthless in conveying the true spirit of any engine, you need a DIN graph for that.

But as I said with my brothers 161 with twin Stromberg's it did not get breathless as a 186 X2 did, maybe the Gem engine company when they recond engines just used one camshaft grind for all Std engines I would think. so would Gem grind a auto 186, 202 cam or a manual one, I would think Automatic grind would be std fair or something much alike such and such a grind would be more spirited than the stock Holden 161 camshaft grind. my brothers sounded stock with not a hint of lumpiness to it.

Look at the LC GTR 161 she would of been that bit more livelier revving than the 186S, not to mention the stock 186, 202 heads are restricted badly at that with such small valves for a start.

One can see with the chev 302 V8 that such a thing was a more spirited revving thing that a 307 or 327 and a 327 was more spirited revving than the 350 and the 350 more so than the 400 small block.
HK1837 Offline
#6 Posted : Saturday, 27 March 2021 1:30:42 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,572

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 255 time(s) in 246 post(s)
The X2, 186S, both GTR engines plus HT and HG 186 except Trimatic all used the same cam. The one that should in theory rev the best is the 186 X2 or S as it has the more over square engine.
As I said very few standard 6cyl engines would crack 100mph. The only Holden I know of, the HK-HG 186S 4spd fitted with 3.36 rear axle could just get over 100mph.
The Toranas were a little different. XU1 did it easily. LC GTR’s would do 106mph with 3.08 rear axle. I’ve never seen any other LC though even crack 90mph, possibly the later 173 auto versions? I’ve seen road tests for an LJ 173 auto just hitting 100mph but manuals only 97mph. Fastest for a 138 manual 95mph. The manual 2250/2850 were 3.08, auto 2.78. 3300 manual LJ would do 101mph, also with a 3.08.
Fastest LH road test, standard SLR 202 manual 3.08, 96mph. In LX a hatchback, 3300 auto 2.78 155kmh.

Doesn’t take much in mods to give the few extra hp needed to go a bit faster. My 2/76 LX hatchback 3300 auto 2.78, when it was just over 10 years old. I put extractors and a 2.25” system on it and it had 14” wheels but tyres were 245/50/14 so probably similar in diameter to the 13’s. It would go off the 160 speedo, but only just. Speedo was close to correct, they checked it during a chassis dyno tune. I guess on a 2250 or 2600 or 2850 LC/J, just a decent exhaust and maybe a better air cleaner and you’d pickup the few mph to crack 100mph.

Edited by user Saturday, 27 March 2021 1:41:13 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Smitty2 Offline
#7 Posted : Saturday, 27 March 2021 5:35:54 PM(UTC)
Smitty2

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/07/2019(UTC)
Posts: 118
Australia
Location: bayside Melbourne

Thanks: 84 times
Was thanked: 9 time(s) in 9 post(s)
.. ignoring all the 'that engine is better than that engine'
simply GMH built cars (and yes reasonable) engines that
suited the 'family' car market.

Sure they were not perfect (given the engineering and manufacturing processes of the 50s, 60s and 70s)
but Dad could stick the family in the HR (161 and 3 on the tree) and get to SE Qld with no hassles, no problems.
Yes.. long days driving, the cafes in West Wyalong only gave fried food and the motel in Parkes was an adventure
but apart from the vomit bags (myself and my siblings all suffered from motion sickness) and the hot vinyl
seats, we got there



Jap? my father would never buy one, the wounds of WW2 death marches and Darwin bombings too raw.
My mothers' 2 cousins fighting the japs in PNG (they survived) coloured their thinking.. as I am sure thousands
of other aussie motorists...



ps... GMH did not can the GTR-X... Detroit did. Simple business maths. You needed to generate X% return for
X number of years for the model to get up. Having a niche model that could get its market share halved very
quickly (by the 240Z) meant the risk factor of model success was too high. Performance wise the GTR-X kicked
arse...I spoke to guys at GMH when I worked there who had driven it and said its very light weight (much lighter
than a LC GTR) and XU1 186 engine gave it performance way above seen by any main stream auto maker in this country

Club circuit racing...the best fun you can have with your pants on
HK1837 Offline
#8 Posted : Saturday, 27 March 2021 6:06:20 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,572

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 255 time(s) in 246 post(s)
True, it was probably GM with the GTR-X forcing GMH’s hand, but given what was coming from Japan in the same market segment they knew it was trouble. They would have also known that by September 1973 the triple carb engine would be killed of by ADR27 and that if the GTR-X was to run past then it would be with a far less powerful 6 or it’d have to move to a V8. The XU1 was the final performance 6 and in reality even it should have ended mid 1972 with the V8 XU1 becoming the performance Torana. The LJ GTR was meant to be fitted with the 2850S engine, the info on the pilot builds still shows the 2850S, but probably the culling of the HQ GTS meant the end of S engines so it was changed to the stick 202 with its tiny 161 camshaft. It may well have been the knowledge of ADR27 planned to be coming into force in 1973 that changed their mind too?

I hear what you say about the mindset about Japanese stuff, and it was even made a joke of in Back to the Future. However the refinement of fully imported Japanese cars by the end of the 70’s was or real concern to local manufacturers. The quality and performance difference between say a 1980-81 5M-E Cressida compared to a VC-VH SLE with its vintage 3.3L engine and Trimatic was huge. Sure you could opt for a V8 SLE but the majority of Aussies bought 6cyl cars. The later 5M/6M/7M-GE Toyota’s made the Holden 6’s look prehistoric which they were.
If it was me buying a new car in that time period, I’d have been buying a 5.0L TH400 VB or HZ or maybe a VC or VH with TH350. However if I was a car for my wife that was well built, economical, overdrive, and bugger all to ever touch the Cressida was the pick. Or maybe one of those early Supras with the same engines. Same reason I bought a 6cyl petrol Hilux 11 years ago, nothing ever goes wrong with them.

Edited by user Saturday, 27 March 2021 6:10:46 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#9 Posted : Sunday, 28 March 2021 12:36:37 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,504

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 24 time(s) in 22 post(s)
I was impressed when the 3.3L Blue motor came out in how well it performed over the Red 3.3L and I am talking new engines not old worn out crap.
I believe some do go better than others tho and some are gutless, their is many reasons for such being the case, one dude I know makes claims of freak motors and Monday built motors and cars, that's just nonsense I point out, he also claims that all banjo diffs wine that's total nonsense again, non that I had did at all nor what I had been in that I can remember.
That type of nonsense gets around and becomes folklore and all 202 drop valves and big ends BS. how many 202 were built vs the Jap 6cyl's that came to aus, their was f all jap 6cly not to mention how many yobbos owned a 202 and did not service them well at all. I had seen plenty a jap 6 cyl with the alloy head eaten out. people were against alloy heads, that's why Holden stuck with the iron head for reliability sake so long.

Ford even had the old 250 log motor in the F100 till 1978 because many people were so fearful of something that was new may have designed faults.

The 1970's Jap 6 cyl were to small and lacked torque down low.
The first real Jap 6 worth a cracker was 1988 type Cressida that Jack Brabham drove, nice car, wheelbase still to short for a true Aussie car but I liked them any day over the shocking VN V6 Chaffcutter or the EA Falcon ohc 6 with that 3sp auto what a shocking shit box they were and I drove a Fairmont ghia, if it was not for the EA S 5sp manual MPI EFI 3.9L I could not stand a VN V6 or EA 3sp auto at all, it would of been the Cressida that I would have to go with for a sedan.
Yes I drove one of them 2.8L Supra 5sp it was just quick enough to have some fun flogging the guts out of it.
HK1837 Offline
#10 Posted : Sunday, 28 March 2021 1:52:22 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,572

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 255 time(s) in 246 post(s)
Agree the blue 3.3 was streets ahead of the red equivalent. I drove both when they were new or near new. Drove a new WB 3.3 4spd van when on my L plates. But in a car like a VH SLE, it was archaic compared to the Cressida. If it was for me I wouldn’t have even considered a blue 3.3, in the WB or the VH I’d have bought a V8.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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 0.405 seconds.