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

Notification

Icon
Error

Login


Take the time to read our Privacy Policy.

7 Pages«<34567>
castellan Offline
#81 Posted : Tuesday, 6 April 2021 3:28:02 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)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
You missed the key word Smitty - STANDARD. N10 dual exhaust was available as an option on lots of V8 Holden, but was only standard on GTS327 and GTS350 until HQ SS, but it wasn’t a 5.0L. HX GTS was standard with dual exhaust this it was the first Holden to get dual exhaust standard with a 5.0L. About the only place you couldn’t option N10 was HQ-WB commercial, and the jury is out on HQ-HZ wagon and Statesman, evidence of those exist but not in where it counts like order procedures or POA documents. I can’t recall if any Brougham could be had with N10 either.


I am sure that no dual exhaust was on the Broughams at all, such was not fitting in with the whole concept at the time to make such a car the quietest car in the world. them HK-T-G GTS mufflers were not as quiet as the HQ duel exhaust and I have 204hp DIN from a South African HG GTS308 and 196hp NET from a HQ 308 with N10 dual exhaust due to such being more restricted.


I am sure that the HZ Statesman had duel exhaust standard as a bloke I worked with his was dual pipes from new.
Next door old man had a HX Statesman with duals exhaust looked factory.

I think that the HQ N10 had smaller tail pipes then the HX-Z did. I am sure they were LH Torana size tail pipes.

Look at the tail pipe of the HQ 202 I think they were the same size as the N10.

Look at the HQ-J-X-Z 202 they were all small and then the 202 Commodore came out the tail pipe was bigger and look at the WB ute with 3.3L they had a much bigger diameter tail pipe than the HQ 202.

I am sure that the HQ-J-X-Z V8 single was bigger diameter than the 202 but not as big as the WB 3.3L ute I think that the 4.2L WB ute was the same diameter as the WB 3.3L.

look at the HK-T-G 6 CYL exhaust they are more restricted than the HQ 6 CYL.

look at the HD-R X2 and 186s the wagon and ute P van tail pipe is bigger diameter than the sedan gets, I think that they get the V8 diameter tail pipe. maybe such is because the Premier sedan in that they are trying to keep the noise down.

I do not remember any HQ-J-X-Z wagon with dual pipes being factory N10.

I believe that the HQ 350 Statesman came out with a single but could be optioned dual.


I just checked the POA docs and the following is in there:

HQ - N10 Standard only on 81837, XV2 (SS) and XW8 (GTS350 sedan). Only available on XV4 (GTS sedan), 80269, 80437, 80469, 81269 with L31 engine and PK6 or QEV tyres (both ER70H14). Only available on 81237 or 81669 (V8 Statesman) with L30 or L31 with PK6 or QEV tyres. Revised in early 1974 that no dual exhaust with canister fitted cars (must be export only or trial?). So the ONLY place you could get dual exhaust on a HQ 253 was on SS.

HJ - N10 now available with L31, L32 or L33. Only on Belmont, Kingswood and Premier sedans, LS coupe, GTS sedan, GTS coupe and Caprice. Not available with canister fitted cars. Limited tyre choices again.

HX - N10 Standard on GTS. Available with 4.2 or 5.0L only on Belmont, Kingswood or Premier sedans. Limited tyre choices again.

HZ - N10 Standard on GTS, Deville and Caprice. Available with 4.2 and 5.0L on Kingswood and Premier sedan and wagon, however it appears only to have been available on wagon after release of XT5 engines and this appears to be recorded March 1979. They may be referring to the modified red V8 engines around VB release?


All the dual exhaust fitted from HQ to HZ were 2" pipes with a step down to a smaller 1.875" muffler. The single systems on V8 were 2" with the same step down muffler. HQ-HZ 6cyl used 1.875" pipe at the front and a 1.625" tailpipe. There were additional resonators on HZ Statesman with dual exhaust which also used larger mufflers (presume proper 2" in and out).

N10 was priced for all HK-HG, but appears in the HK POA as not available outside 81837. Sizing for HK is 1.875" for 6cyl (except GTS) with 1.5" tailpipe. 307 and GTS (186S) was 2" pipe with 1.75" tailpipes. N10 was all 2". HT-HG only changes so that all 186S (not just GTS) get the 2" pipes with 1.75" tailpipes.

HR were 1.875" pipe with tailpipes at 1.759" for the front bit and 1.5" for the rear. 186S 2" pipe with 1.875" for the front bit dropping to 1.75" at the rear (except 215A/225A/235A with 186S used a 1.5" rear of tailpipe.

HD was 1.75" pipe with 1.5" tailpipe. X2 used 1.87" tailpipes, it doesn't give the pipe size at the front.

Have you got the 3.3L blue exhaust size, I have a blue 3.3L engine in the back yard of a place up the road and the dual exhaust pipes in the manifold are big, not to mention so is the 2 holes in the intake manifold looks bigger than a 186s would be overall. their is a XC 3.3l and a XC 4.1L engine sitting their to be taken a way and 2 Austin 1800 land crabs the bloke who lived their died and the bloke cleaning the place up wants them all taken away for nothing. One HQ 202 25TH anniversary went and a XC Fairmont wagon and a VJ Regal wagon and 2 Jeeps as well all gone and a old caravan with VW wheels.
The dude cleaning up the place said he gets $50.000 to clean out the place, so if anyone wants any of the crap he is only to happy to let anyone have it, because it only cost him money to get rid of it all. I think it all goes tomorrow.
One Land crab is not all that bad, but they are worth nothing now even in good nick.
HK1837 Offline
#82 Posted : Tuesday, 6 April 2021 3:34:28 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)
I don’t have the Engineering specs for anything past HZ. WB definitely had a bigger exhaust, my dad bought a 3.3 4spd van new and the tail pipe was a lot larger than a HZ. Probably close to 2”.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Smitty2 Offline
#83 Posted : Wednesday, 7 April 2021 9:14:33 AM(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)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Platinum metallic.

Do you have an old engine or chassis number for it Smitty? If you do we may be able to find its details for you.


... thanks for the offer

back then, I never kept details of any of the cars I had.
Don't even recall the full rego number for it... from memory KHG something
not very helpful d'oh!

Club circuit racing...the best fun you can have with your pants on
Smitty2 Offline
#84 Posted : Wednesday, 7 April 2021 4:22:23 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)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
I don’t have the Engineering specs for anything past HZ. WB definitely had a bigger exhaust, my dad bought a 3.3 4spd van new and the tail pipe was a lot larger than a HZ. Probably close to 2”.



.. I would think that the XT5 engines in WB would have gotten better/improved exhausts
as part of the engine upgrade (over XT4)

Club circuit racing...the best fun you can have with your pants on
castellan Offline
#85 Posted : Thursday, 8 April 2021 12:49:04 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)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
I don’t have the Engineering specs for anything past HZ. WB definitely had a bigger exhaust, my dad bought a 3.3 4spd van new and the tail pipe was a lot larger than a HZ. Probably close to 2”.


I think you are correct it must of been around 2in on the WB 3.3L and 4.2L as well.

I seen people put smaller diameter exhaust on HQ-Z 6 cyl than was factory, so some company must of made such junk. maybe the same was put on the WB as well. most people only looked at getting the cheapest replacement exhaust they could find.

It's a good thing that the factory exhaust from about 1990 on last well easy 10 years to 15 from a Holden at least. the Fords exhaust were not as good quality I think.
Maybe it was when unleaded came in 1986 that Holden improved the quality of exhaust so as to last longer. as I think unleaded rust a system out more so than leaded and E10 is worse than unleaded in that regard I think. maybe someone knows the facts about all that.

Some cars only got 3 years out of an exhaust system back in the 70's 80's before they rusted out.

Not to mention with EFI that if you tamper with the exhaust from original standard you should reprogram the computer to suit what you have fitted to get the best performance, I have seen them loose a lot of power in fact by fitting extractors and a free flowing exhaust with the standard tune.
HK1837 Offline
#86 Posted : Friday, 9 April 2021 6:40:02 AM(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)
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
I don’t have the Engineering specs for anything past HZ. WB definitely had a bigger exhaust, my dad bought a 3.3 4spd van new and the tail pipe was a lot larger than a HZ. Probably close to 2”.


I think you are correct it must of been around 2in on the WB 3.3L and 4.2L as well.

I seen people put smaller diameter exhaust on HQ-Z 6 cyl than was factory, so some company must of made such junk. maybe the same was put on the WB as well. most people only looked at getting the cheapest replacement exhaust they could find.

It's a good thing that the factory exhaust from about 1990 on last well easy 10 years to 15 from a Holden at least. the Fords exhaust were not as good quality I think.
Maybe it was when unleaded came in 1986 that Holden improved the quality of exhaust so as to last longer. as I think unleaded rust a system out more so than leaded and E10 is worse than unleaded in that regard I think. maybe someone knows the facts about all that.

Some cars only got 3 years out of an exhaust system back in the 70's 80's before they rusted out.

Not to mention with EFI that if you tamper with the exhaust from original standard you should reprogram the computer to suit what you have fitted to get the best performance, I have seen them loose a lot of power in fact by fitting extractors and a free flowing exhaust with the standard tune.


There is a significant power difference between the 6cyl and 4.2L XT4 and XT5 engines looking at figures between VB and VC. Bugger all difference between XT4 and XT5 5.0L though. Given the 4.2L and 5.0L engines shared the same heads and exhaust manifolds it mostly has to be in the induction. Very similar in the 6cyl engines too, although the heads are different they are the same basic engines. Very hard to tell exactly what is going on though as they are not SAE Gross but DIN figures, so they are not directly comparable as you don't know exactly what is going on, for example if there is a slight difference in the exhaust between tests it will show up in the figures.

Red 4.2 XT4: 87kW@4000rpm 271Nm@2000rpm (single). 96kW@4400 275Nm@2400 (dual).
Blue 4.2 XT5: 100kW@4200rpm 269Nm@2000rpm (single). 115kW@4400 289Nm@3200 (dual).

Red 5.0 XT4: 114kW@4000rpm 344Nm@2200rpm (single). 125kW@4200 352Nm@2600 (dual).
Blue 5.0 XT5: 117kW@4000rpm 336Nm@2400rpm (single). 126kW@4400 361Nm@2800 (dual).

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Smitty2 Offline
#87 Posted : Friday, 9 April 2021 8:42:08 AM(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)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
....................
Red 4.2 XT4: 87kW@4000rpm 271Nm@2000rpm (single). 96kW@4400 275Nm@2400 (dual).
Blue 4.2 XT5: 100kW@4200rpm 269Nm@2000rpm (single). 115kW@4400 289Nm@3200 (dual).

Red 5.0 XT4: 114kW@4000rpm 344Nm@2200rpm (single). 125kW@4200 352Nm@2600 (dual).
Blue 5.0 XT5: 117kW@4000rpm 336Nm@2400rpm (single). 126kW@4400 361Nm@2800 (dual).



the 4.2/253 difference is easily explained, going from XT4 to XT5 'Improved Performance'

First....
throw over the left shoulder, the horrid 2bbl carb/restricted intake manifold used on red motors since Holden first made the 253
and replace with a properly jetted 4BBL Quaddie and matching inlet manifold.

Also add in a swap from points ignition to Bosch HEI and now ...the 4.2 is a quite decent engine (especially with N10) Applause


Club circuit racing...the best fun you can have with your pants on
Dr Terry Offline
#88 Posted : Friday, 9 April 2021 8:56:44 AM(UTC)
Dr Terry

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 5,697

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 114 time(s) in 106 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Smitty2 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
....................
Red 4.2 XT4: 87kW@4000rpm 271Nm@2000rpm (single). 96kW@4400 275Nm@2400 (dual).
Blue 4.2 XT5: 100kW@4200rpm 269Nm@2000rpm (single). 115kW@4400 289Nm@3200 (dual).

Red 5.0 XT4: 114kW@4000rpm 344Nm@2200rpm (single). 125kW@4200 352Nm@2600 (dual).
Blue 5.0 XT5: 117kW@4000rpm 336Nm@2400rpm (single). 126kW@4400 361Nm@2800 (dual).



the 4.2/253 difference is easily explained, going from XT4 to XT5 'Improved Performance'

First....
throw over the left shoulder, the horrid 2bbl carb/restricted intake manifold used on red motors since Holden first made the 253
and replace with a properly jetted 4BBL Quaddie and matching inlet manifold.

Also add in a swap from points ignition to Bosch HEI and now ...the 4.2 is a quite decent engine (especially with N10) Applause




SPOT ON !!

Dr Terry
If at first you don't succeed, just call it Version 1.0
 1 user thanked Dr Terry for this useful post.
Smitty2 on 9/04/2021(UTC)
HK1837 Offline
#89 Posted : Friday, 9 April 2021 11:46:59 AM(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)
Originally Posted by: Smitty2 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
....................
Red 4.2 XT4: 87kW@4000rpm 271Nm@2000rpm (single). 96kW@4400 275Nm@2400 (dual).
Blue 4.2 XT5: 100kW@4200rpm 269Nm@2000rpm (single). 115kW@4400 289Nm@3200 (dual).

Red 5.0 XT4: 114kW@4000rpm 344Nm@2200rpm (single). 125kW@4200 352Nm@2600 (dual).
Blue 5.0 XT5: 117kW@4000rpm 336Nm@2400rpm (single). 126kW@4400 361Nm@2800 (dual).



the 4.2/253 difference is easily explained, going from XT4 to XT5 'Improved Performance'

First....
throw over the left shoulder, the horrid 2bbl carb/restricted intake manifold used on red motors since Holden first made the 253
and replace with a properly jetted 4BBL Quaddie and matching inlet manifold.

Also add in a swap from points ignition to Bosch HEI and now ...the 4.2 is a quite decent engine (especially with N10) Applause




Yes, which is the exact point I was making! However due to the figures not being SAE Gross it isn’t a perfect comparison as there may be other things in the DIN figures skewing the results.. For example the red 6 DIN figure is probably strangled even more by a smaller exhaust. The 4.2 XT5 engine did also get a revised camshaft and timing gear but you don’t get to see the full effects of it as there is so many other changes. The cam and cam timing will almost certainly to take advantage of the 4BBL intake and Quadrajet. I remember reading that they originally had problems with the 253 in development with fuel distribution, and they did fart around with different camshafts during ADR27A, and then again for XT5. However the 308/304 kept the same cam all along except for that early HT to HQ period when they compromised and used a retarded 253 cam.

Edited by user Friday, 9 April 2021 1:05:06 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Smitty2 Offline
#90 Posted : Friday, 9 April 2021 7:52:52 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)
HK1837 wrote:
..................... The 4.2 XT5 engine did also get a revised camshaft and timing gear but you don’t get to see the full effects of it as there is so many other changes. The cam and cam timing will almost certainly to take advantage of the 4BBL intake and Quadrajet. I remember reading that they originally had problems with the 253 in development with fuel distribution, and they did fart around with different camshafts during ADR27A, and then again for XT5. However the 308/304 kept the same cam all along except for that early HT to HQ period when they compromised and used a retarded 253 cam.


ugghh ... did not want to bring that up as it slightly muddies the waters of this part of the topic
but you are correct. GMH did change the camshaft, camshaft timing via different cam gear on 4.2 XT5s
and
I have no confirmation, only guesses.. its to do with extra output in compliance with ADR/EPA numbers
with XT5 4.2 litre engines

Overall ....
What GMH did was unusual... yes, new 4BBL Quaddie to suit the XT5 blue 253 which has leaner primaries (needles and jets) than
the 308 which is understandable...BUT richer (very much) secondary jetting. The secondary rod hanger is the same for both 253 and
308 XT5 Quaddies but the rods differ... a lot. The 253 uses CX rods* ( a finer so richer rod when they lift) and 308 used DP rods.

The 253 4BBL Quaddie is therefore richer at higher revs (both use the same secondary jets) or WOT compared to a 308 . Strange..!
and also remember back then, the Quaddie for both used the same core, same fuel bowl body and was a 750cfm casting...
(late 308s used the desirable 800cfm casting)

but
back to the camshaft... HK1837 is correct, 4.2 XT5 engines got a revised camshaft... which curiously was more aggressive than previous
with the longer duration, marginally higher lift (.005") and tighter LSA BUT ... and here is the weird bit. The new cam gear when installed
RETARDS the cam timing (which is why you NEVER use this cam gear on any other Holden V8)

More aggressive cam .. but installed 'retarded' means an engine with that setup is more responsive at high revs which suits the 253 Quaddie
jetting but for a street engine that has to comply with driveability and pollution standards???

In a word... weird ! (...for a car company like GM/GMH) And interesting! Think



*CX rods these days are the desired ones for Holden V8s... street, strip or track, they are the ones to get. You cannot buy them here
but Summit, JEGS and other USA parts places - Quadrajet Parts sell them. I have a number of sets of CX rods and run them in the race
Quaddies I put together for the racecar.

The yank carb builders seem to prefer AY secondary rods for Quaddies going on SBC ... look at their carb build parts lists and AY (or CE)
seem to be a favourites. AY is just about the same as CX except leaner on secondary valve initial opening...

Edited by user Friday, 9 April 2021 7:54:33 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Club circuit racing...the best fun you can have with your pants on
HK1837 Offline
#91 Posted : Friday, 9 April 2021 8:13:35 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 HT to HQ timing gear (also used on LH 308 up to HJ release) also retards the cam, which is the 253 cam just retarded. They moved the new 308 cam for HJ (same cam up until VL except GroupA VK) back to upright. I suspect it was done in the XT5 4.2 to improve peak power. Remember the 4.2 was supposed to be the biggest engine in Commodore with 5.0L only in Statesman and in Police Commodore. In Fred James’s report on the HT 308 he said they experimented with different camshafts for the 308 but went for the 253’s cam retarded to meet the power goal. Commonality of parts won out in the end. They achieved 227hp SAE Gross and Advertised it as 240hp. The part number for the HJ-VL 308 cam sits neatly right near the end of the Holden V8 developed for HT.


When you look at 308 Quadrajets side by side with 350 examples they have some curious differences. I have yet to find Quadrajets in the USA identical to the Holden V8 spec carbs.

Edited by user Friday, 9 April 2021 8:25:17 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
 1 user thanked HK1837 for this useful post.
Smitty2 on 9/04/2021(UTC)
castellan Offline
#92 Posted : Saturday, 10 April 2021 1:25:00 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)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
The HT to HQ timing gear (also used on LH 308 up to HJ release) also retards the cam, which is the 253 cam just retarded. They moved the new 308 cam for HJ (same cam up until VL except GroupA VK) back to upright. I suspect it was done in the XT5 4.2 to improve peak power. Remember the 4.2 was supposed to be the biggest engine in Commodore with 5.0L only in Statesman and in Police Commodore. In Fred James’s report on the HT 308 he said they experimented with different camshafts for the 308 but went for the 253’s cam retarded to meet the power goal. Commonality of parts won out in the end. They achieved 227hp SAE Gross and Advertised it as 240hp. The part number for the HJ-VL 308 cam sits neatly right near the end of the Holden V8 developed for HT.


When you look at 308 Quadrajets side by side with 350 examples they have some curious differences. I have yet to find Quadrajets in the USA identical to the Holden V8 spec carbs.


When using Gross HP figures not all Gross figures are measured in the same way you know, their is advertised Gross and other Gross curves they call them A curve and a B curve etc etc can be in the game.

And also we have Net figures that differ using what they called different curves and then DIN and ECE that Holden used 2005 on. ford kept the DIN.

So I think you will find that 227hp is real gross and 240hp is the gross advertised, they are not made up our of the blue it's the same engine.
Ford has the same thing with XB 250 advertised gross HP at 155 and another figure stating the XB 250 at 123hp I think it was about that, but in gross C curve and then another with Net 108hp B curve.
I have displayed the rating on this forum. or maybe not the C curve, if you want I will look to find it for you.
castellan Offline
#93 Posted : Saturday, 10 April 2021 1:52:52 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)
Originally Posted by: Smitty2 Go to Quoted Post
HK1837 wrote:
..................... The 4.2 XT5 engine did also get a revised camshaft and timing gear but you don’t get to see the full effects of it as there is so many other changes. The cam and cam timing will almost certainly to take advantage of the 4BBL intake and Quadrajet. I remember reading that they originally had problems with the 253 in development with fuel distribution, and they did fart around with different camshafts during ADR27A, and then again for XT5. However the 308/304 kept the same cam all along except for that early HT to HQ period when they compromised and used a retarded 253 cam.


ugghh ... did not want to bring that up as it slightly muddies the waters of this part of the topic
but you are correct. GMH did change the camshaft, camshaft timing via different cam gear on 4.2 XT5s
and
I have no confirmation, only guesses.. its to do with extra output in compliance with ADR/EPA numbers
with XT5 4.2 litre engines

Overall ....
What GMH did was unusual... yes, new 4BBL Quaddie to suit the XT5 blue 253 which has leaner primaries (needles and jets) than
the 308 which is understandable...BUT richer (very much) secondary jetting. The secondary rod hanger is the same for both 253 and
308 XT5 Quaddies but the rods differ... a lot. The 253 uses CX rods* ( a finer so richer rod when they lift) and 308 used DP rods.

The 253 4BBL Quaddie is therefore richer at higher revs (both use the same secondary jets) or WOT compared to a 308 . Strange..!
and also remember back then, the Quaddie for both used the same core, same fuel bowl body and was a 750cfm casting...
(late 308s used the desirable 800cfm casting)

but
back to the camshaft... HK1837 is correct, 4.2 XT5 engines got a revised camshaft... which curiously was more aggressive than previous
with the longer duration, marginally higher lift (.005") and tighter LSA BUT ... and here is the weird bit. The new cam gear when installed
RETARDS the cam timing (which is why you NEVER use this cam gear on any other Holden V8)

More aggressive cam .. but installed 'retarded' means an engine with that setup is more responsive at high revs which suits the 253 Quaddie
jetting but for a street engine that has to comply with driveability and pollution standards???

In a word... weird ! (...for a car company like GM/GMH) And interesting! Think



*CX rods these days are the desired ones for Holden V8s... street, strip or track, they are the ones to get. You cannot buy them here
but Summit, JEGS and other USA parts places - Quadrajet Parts sell them. I have a number of sets of CX rods and run them in the race
Quaddies I put together for the racecar.

The yank carb builders seem to prefer AY secondary rods for Quaddies going on SBC ... look at their carb build parts lists and AY (or CE)
seem to be a favourites. AY is just about the same as CX except leaner on secondary valve initial opening...

Lets say for argument that the HT-G-Q 308 Camshaft was a 20/60 and a 253 was set 5deg retarded making such a 15/65. now by rights the 253 should rev out a bit better and the same if the 308 was set 5deg retarded, now I think the LH L34 had this setup std factory but you got the big camshaft in the boot to fit if you wanted to.
So that would make the factory L34 a bit more revving over the L31 not to mention the bigger valves and higher compression etc.

So if we were to have a stock L31 and retard the cam timing by 5 deg we would have an engine with less running compression volume efficancy so if we were to try and make a gain in performance I would not retard a stock L31 at all as you will gain noting and loose mid range torque. but if you had more compression like 9.7:1 maybe you may pick up a bit more top end rive ability and better mid range than with 9.0:1

The L34 308 Torana with better flowing heads with such must of been worked out by Holden as the best way to go with such as was.

As for this 253 why they did such well the heads flow real well for one and it was promoted as a fire breathing thing for the masses that was predicted to hope sell the most engines.
castellan Offline
#94 Posted : Saturday, 10 April 2021 3:01:21 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)
Originally Posted by: Smitty2 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
....................
Red 4.2 XT4: 87kW@4000rpm 271Nm@2000rpm (single). 96kW@4400 275Nm@2400 (dual).
Blue 4.2 XT5: 100kW@4200rpm 269Nm@2000rpm (single). 115kW@4400 289Nm@3200 (dual).

Red 5.0 XT4: 114kW@4000rpm 344Nm@2200rpm (single). 125kW@4200 352Nm@2600 (dual).
Blue 5.0 XT5: 117kW@4000rpm 336Nm@2400rpm (single). 126kW@4400 361Nm@2800 (dual).



the 4.2/253 difference is easily explained, going from XT4 to XT5 'Improved Performance'

First....
throw over the left shoulder, the horrid 2bbl carb/restricted intake manifold used on red motors since Holden first made the 253
and replace with a properly jetted 4BBL Quaddie and matching inlet manifold.

Also add in a swap from points ignition to Bosch HEI and now ...the 4.2 is a quite decent engine (especially with N10) Applause




I would not say that the 253 had a horrid small carby at all. this carby feeds ford 302 V8's and I bigger than what the stock 250 Falcon 6 had back in the day.
A mate had such a carby on his HQ 308 and surprised me at how well it performed, it would float along at 180KM/H with ease and I think it could still do 200KM/H not as much grunt as with the big 4V.

I think the 4V is too big CFM for the stock 253.
Lets look at the VB-VC
VB 4.2L 86kw 4000 271nm 2000 single.
VB 4,2L 98kw 4000 271nm 2400 dual.

VC 4.2L 100KW 4200 269NM 2000 single.
VC 4.2L 115KW 4400 289NM 3200 dual.

look at that be good if we had a Holden graph we may see the VB making more torque down low and mid range with single stock exhaust that most had.

look at the VB VC 5.0L
VB 5.0L 107KW 4000 321NM 2200 S
VB 5.0L 126KW 4250 336NM 2500 D

VC 5.0L 117KW 4000 336NM 2400 S
VC 5.0L 126KW 4400 361NM 2800 D
only spark and better tuned timing is truly in this difference between both the 5.0L, so looking at the gains if the VC 4.2L was only a 2V, the gains in torque of the 5.0L = 4.5% with single and 7% with dual. we have lost with the 4.2L single.
Smitty2 Offline
#95 Posted : Saturday, 10 April 2021 5:42:17 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)
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Smitty2 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
....................
Red 4.2 XT4: 87kW@4000rpm 271Nm@2000rpm (single). 96kW@4400 275Nm@2400 (dual).
Blue 4.2 XT5: 100kW@4200rpm 269Nm@2000rpm (single). 115kW@4400 289Nm@3200 (dual).

Red 5.0 XT4: 114kW@4000rpm 344Nm@2200rpm (single). 125kW@4200 352Nm@2600 (dual).
Blue 5.0 XT5: 117kW@4000rpm 336Nm@2400rpm (single). 126kW@4400 361Nm@2800 (dual).



the 4.2/253 difference is easily explained, going from XT4 to XT5 'Improved Performance'

First....
throw over the left shoulder, the horrid 2bbl carb/restricted intake manifold used on red motors since Holden first made the 253
and replace with a properly jetted 4BBL Quaddie and matching inlet manifold.

Also add in a swap from points ignition to Bosch HEI and now ...the 4.2 is a quite decent engine (especially with N10) Applause




I would not say that the 253 had a horrid small carby at all. this carby feeds ford 302 V8's and I bigger than what the stock 250 Falcon 6 had back in the day.
A mate had such a carby on his HQ 308 and surprised me at how well it performed, it would float along at 180KM/H with ease and I think it could still do 200KM/H not as much grunt as with the big 4V.

I think the 4V is too big CFM for the stock 253.
Lets look at the VB-VC
VB 4.2L 86kw 4000 271nm 2000 single.
VB 4,2L 98kw 4000 271nm 2400 dual.

VC 4.2L 100KW 4200 269NM 2000 single.
VC 4.2L 115KW 4400 289NM 3200 dual.

look at that be good if we had a Holden graph we may see the VB making more torque down low and mid range with single stock exhaust that most had.

look at the VB VC 5.0L
VB 5.0L 107KW 4000 321NM 2200 S
VB 5.0L 126KW 4250 336NM 2500 D

VC 5.0L 117KW 4000 336NM 2400 S
VC 5.0L 126KW 4400 361NM 2800 D
only spark and better tuned timing is truly in this difference between both the 5.0L, so looking at the gains if the VC 4.2L was only a 2V, the gains in torque of the 5.0L = 4.5% with single and 7% with dual. we have lost with the 4.2L single.



you obviously have not had the displeasure of actually driving a VB or HZ with a red 253 and that horrid 2BBL carb,

Appalling fuel economy plus strangled performance were the order of the day (with auto or manual trans) with this combo.
And to make it worse... high speed surging caused by the carb just not able to feed the engine properly.

Same issue that also haunts 500cfm 2BBL Holleys on small V8 engines


you also say - I think the 4V is too big CFM for the stock 253.

you forget that the whole point of the 4BBL 4MV Quaddie is that the same basic carb can feed a 200ci engine or a 500ci engine!
Properly jetted the Quaddie works .. because it feeds the engine (big or small) at low or high revs the correct air/fuel mix. Its off idle
and primary power circuit doing most of the day to day to driving... but if you need LARGE amounts of air/fuel mix, the very large
secondary circuits kick arse. CFM is not an issue with a Quaddie... not too much, not too little, just right.

I use a Quaddie on my VK club race car for 2 reasons.... its a killer out of corners (especially low speed ones) throttle response and
acceleration is amazing (it walks away from Holley equipped cars but for the record, not Weber ones) and above 4200-4500 at WOT
when the secondary air valves flop open... yeeehaa! all the way to 7000

even HDT used them on their VK race cars....

Edited by user Saturday, 10 April 2021 5:42:57 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Club circuit racing...the best fun you can have with your pants on
wbute Offline
#96 Posted : Saturday, 10 April 2021 6:35:08 PM(UTC)
wbute

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 25/01/2010(UTC)
Posts: 960

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 13 time(s) in 12 post(s)
Blue 253 was light years better than the red 253. All due to the carb and ignition.
castellan Offline
#97 Posted : Sunday, 11 April 2021 4:30:16 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)
Originally Posted by: Smitty2 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Smitty2 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
....................
Red 4.2 XT4: 87kW@4000rpm 271Nm@2000rpm (single). 96kW@4400 275Nm@2400 (dual).
Blue 4.2 XT5: 100kW@4200rpm 269Nm@2000rpm (single). 115kW@4400 289Nm@3200 (dual).

Red 5.0 XT4: 114kW@4000rpm 344Nm@2200rpm (single). 125kW@4200 352Nm@2600 (dual).
Blue 5.0 XT5: 117kW@4000rpm 336Nm@2400rpm (single). 126kW@4400 361Nm@2800 (dual).



the 4.2/253 difference is easily explained, going from XT4 to XT5 'Improved Performance'

First....
throw over the left shoulder, the horrid 2bbl carb/restricted intake manifold used on red motors since Holden first made the 253
and replace with a properly jetted 4BBL Quaddie and matching inlet manifold.

Also add in a swap from points ignition to Bosch HEI and now ...the 4.2 is a quite decent engine (especially with N10) Applause




I would not say that the 253 had a horrid small carby at all. this carby feeds ford 302 V8's and I bigger than what the stock 250 Falcon 6 had back in the day.
A mate had such a carby on his HQ 308 and surprised me at how well it performed, it would float along at 180KM/H with ease and I think it could still do 200KM/H not as much grunt as with the big 4V.

I think the 4V is too big CFM for the stock 253.
Lets look at the VB-VC
VB 4.2L 86kw 4000 271nm 2000 single.
VB 4,2L 98kw 4000 271nm 2400 dual.

VC 4.2L 100KW 4200 269NM 2000 single.
VC 4.2L 115KW 4400 289NM 3200 dual.

look at that be good if we had a Holden graph we may see the VB making more torque down low and mid range with single stock exhaust that most had.

look at the VB VC 5.0L
VB 5.0L 107KW 4000 321NM 2200 S
VB 5.0L 126KW 4250 336NM 2500 D

VC 5.0L 117KW 4000 336NM 2400 S
VC 5.0L 126KW 4400 361NM 2800 D
only spark and better tuned timing is truly in this difference between both the 5.0L, so looking at the gains if the VC 4.2L was only a 2V, the gains in torque of the 5.0L = 4.5% with single and 7% with dual. we have lost with the 4.2L single.



you obviously have not had the displeasure of actually driving a VB or HZ with a red 253 and that horrid 2BBL carb,

Appalling fuel economy plus strangled performance were the order of the day (with auto or manual trans) with this combo.
And to make it worse... high speed surging caused by the carb just not able to feed the engine properly.

Same issue that also haunts 500cfm 2BBL Holleys on small V8 engines


you also say - I think the 4V is too big CFM for the stock 253.

you forget that the whole point of the 4BBL 4MV Quaddie is that the same basic carb can feed a 200ci engine or a 500ci engine!
Properly jetted the Quaddie works .. because it feeds the engine (big or small) at low or high revs the correct air/fuel mix. Its off idle
and primary power circuit doing most of the day to day to driving... but if you need LARGE amounts of air/fuel mix, the very large
secondary circuits kick arse. CFM is not an issue with a Quaddie... not too much, not too little, just right.

I use a Quaddie on my VK club race car for 2 reasons.... its a killer out of corners (especially low speed ones) throttle response and
acceleration is amazing (it walks away from Holley equipped cars but for the record, not Weber ones) and above 4200-4500 at WOT
when the secondary air valves flop open... yeeehaa! all the way to 7000

even HDT used them on their VK race cars....



look a loss of torque it look like with the VC 4.2L single.
My mate had a VB 4.2L 4sp 3.08 diff all we did to that was bash a hole in the muffler from the tail pipe end and he called it a Monaro muffler it went fine for a 4.2L and that prick drove around flat out every where, we went to trade that VB in for a VH SS 4.2L 4sp a bloody nice car that was owed by another mates relation, but it was gutless as, had the std dual pipes and all, but the VB would kill it. I do not know why it was so gutless we were so surprised. we were so eager that this VH SS would get up and go better than his VB.

A mate had a WB 4.2L auto from new I did not think anything of it at all and it had extractors and dual exhaust. my HG 253 auto Premier would eat it. in fact a old builder had a new WB 3.3L auto that went real good, he took me to work once and he was doing 185KM/H I am sure that my mates WB 4.2L would have a hard time to blow that away. I could not believe how fast that 3.3L got up and went.

I am a fan of the quad. but the stock 253 is fine with the 2V Stromberg.

This 253 you are on about is not stock, revving to 7000RPM so yes I am all for the Rochester quad with a hot 253 for sure.

I had a 650 DP Holley on a 308 and loved it, also a Rochester quad as well but the key to such is all in the jetting etc.

I drove a QLD VH Highway patrol 5.0L auto boy was that gutless even by 4.2L standards.
castellan Offline
#98 Posted : Sunday, 11 April 2021 4:40:37 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)
Originally Posted by: wbute Go to Quoted Post
Blue 253 was light years better than the red 253. All due to the carb and ignition.


I believe as to a stock 253 the best value for performance is single 2 1/4 free flow exhaust and that's about it.

I had heaps of drags with my HG 253 auto Premier 2.78 diff. it went well people thought I had a 327 chev in it, someone was claiming that crap, I think it was Kenny, his mums XC GXL 5.8L auto with dual exhaust it was always neck and neck all the way from start to 115MPH and that was it top speed for both of us.
we wreck 81837s only Offline
#99 Posted : Sunday, 11 April 2021 4:57:55 PM(UTC)
we wreck 81837s only

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered, Veteran
Joined: 4/03/2008(UTC)
Posts: 2,146

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Smitty2 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Smitty2 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
....................
Red 4.2 XT4: 87kW@4000rpm 271Nm@2000rpm (single). 96kW@4400 275Nm@2400 (dual).
Blue 4.2 XT5: 100kW@4200rpm 269Nm@2000rpm (single). 115kW@4400 289Nm@3200 (dual).

Red 5.0 XT4: 114kW@4000rpm 344Nm@2200rpm (single). 125kW@4200 352Nm@2600 (dual).
Blue 5.0 XT5: 117kW@4000rpm 336Nm@2400rpm (single). 126kW@4400 361Nm@2800 (dual).



the 4.2/253 difference is easily explained, going from XT4 to XT5 'Improved Performance'

First....
throw over the left shoulder, the horrid 2bbl carb/restricted intake manifold used on red motors since Holden first made the 253
and replace with a properly jetted 4BBL Quaddie and matching inlet manifold.

Also add in a swap from points ignition to Bosch HEI and now ...the 4.2 is a quite decent engine (especially with N10) Applause




I would not say that the 253 had a horrid small carby at all. this carby feeds ford 302 V8's and I bigger than what the stock 250 Falcon 6 had back in the day.
A mate had such a carby on his HQ 308 and surprised me at how well it performed, it would float along at 180KM/H with ease and I think it could still do 200KM/H not as much grunt as with the big 4V.

I think the 4V is too big CFM for the stock 253.
Lets look at the VB-VC
VB 4.2L 86kw 4000 271nm 2000 single.
VB 4,2L 98kw 4000 271nm 2400 dual.

VC 4.2L 100KW 4200 269NM 2000 single.
VC 4.2L 115KW 4400 289NM 3200 dual.

look at that be good if we had a Holden graph we may see the VB making more torque down low and mid range with single stock exhaust that most had.

look at the VB VC 5.0L
VB 5.0L 107KW 4000 321NM 2200 S
VB 5.0L 126KW 4250 336NM 2500 D

VC 5.0L 117KW 4000 336NM 2400 S
VC 5.0L 126KW 4400 361NM 2800 D
only spark and better tuned timing is truly in this difference between both the 5.0L, so looking at the gains if the VC 4.2L was only a 2V, the gains in torque of the 5.0L = 4.5% with single and 7% with dual. we have lost with the 4.2L single.



you obviously have not had the displeasure of actually driving a VB or HZ with a red 253 and that horrid 2BBL carb,

Appalling fuel economy plus strangled performance were the order of the day (with auto or manual trans) with this combo.
And to make it worse... high speed surging caused by the carb just not able to feed the engine properly.

Same issue that also haunts 500cfm 2BBL Holleys on small V8 engines


you also say - I think the 4V is too big CFM for the stock 253.

you forget that the whole point of the 4BBL 4MV Quaddie is that the same basic carb can feed a 200ci engine or a 500ci engine!
Properly jetted the Quaddie works .. because it feeds the engine (big or small) at low or high revs the correct air/fuel mix. Its off idle
and primary power circuit doing most of the day to day to driving... but if you need LARGE amounts of air/fuel mix, the very large
secondary circuits kick arse. CFM is not an issue with a Quaddie... not too much, not too little, just right.

I use a Quaddie on my VK club race car for 2 reasons.... its a killer out of corners (especially low speed ones) throttle response and
acceleration is amazing (it walks away from Holley equipped cars but for the record, not Weber ones) and above 4200-4500 at WOT
when the secondary air valves flop open... yeeehaa! all the way to 7000

even HDT used them on their VK race cars....



^^^ 2 dudders above....

Smitty2 Offline
#100 Posted : Monday, 12 April 2021 12:42:01 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)
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: wbute Go to Quoted Post
Blue 253 was light years better than the red 253. All due to the carb and ignition.


I believe as to a stock 253 the best value for performance is single 2 1/4 free flow exhaust and that's about it.

....................


I bought (GMH employee purchase) my missus this.... VH Vacationer wagon
with blue 253, N10, other xtras and M20 4 speed ( + HD axle and 4 wheel disc brakes)



and after a couple of years... chucked the exhaust system, added a set of
extractors (Lukey) and also a 2 1/4" into 2 1/2" y pipe system also from Lukey ...
(similar to what Lukey provided for the VK Grp A SS)

Why Lukey? my brother was Holden car line product manager there at Lukey Moorabbin
he was the one in a moment of madness who arranged this...



ps... that VH wagon sure got up and went after the exhaust mod Applause

Edited by user Monday, 12 April 2021 12:43:46 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Club circuit racing...the best fun you can have with your pants on
Users browsing this topic
Guest
7 Pages«<34567>
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 0.680 seconds.