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

Notification

Icon
Error

Login


Take the time to read our Privacy Policy.

smithy Offline
#1 Posted : Sunday, 16 July 2017 7:46:01 AM(UTC)
smithy

Rank: Newbie

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/06/2017(UTC)
Posts: 2
Location: qld

Hi

wondering if anyone can answer.

I have found a hj gts monaro to buy in the bush.

It has an Adelaide built body according to the plate. But the Chasis no. begins with BHJ.

Is this original or swapped over and would it still be worth buying.

Seems in ok condition with contessa gold colour and black interior. Correct high comp. 253.

owner thinks it worth $18 000- $20 000

Thanks
HK1837 Offline
#2 Posted : Sunday, 16 July 2017 8:01:47 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 11,614

Was thanked: 65 time(s) in 63 post(s)
The B in BHJ is the ADR revision. The assembly plant letter is on the end of the chassis number. If the chassis number is original to the tags it will appear on the Safety Compliance plate.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
commodorenut Offline
#3 Posted : Sunday, 16 July 2017 12:42:35 PM(UTC)
commodorenut

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 2/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 2,784

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 18 time(s) in 17 post(s)
Hey Byron,

I once had a guy try to tell me AVHxxx was an Adelaide VH, BVHxxx was a Brisbane one, and DVHxxx was a Dandenong build.
Despite pointing out that the prefixes are ADR revisions, that the plant code is the last letter (being A, B, M & S for Commodore) and what the hell would CVH be?, he still wouldn't believe me.

I'm wondering if a similar person has created the confusion here - with AHJ & BHJ, and the chassis number still does end in an A.
Cheers,

Mick
_______________________________________________________________

Judge a successful man not on how he treats his peers, but on how he treats those less fortunate.
HK1837 Offline
#4 Posted : Sunday, 16 July 2017 1:02:02 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 11,614

Was thanked: 65 time(s) in 63 post(s)
There is still people out there who perpetuate myths. Some of the people who were around when these were built are alive, and documentation is still out there to find but after 30-40 years the BS still persists. Makes you wonder sometimes how people can put so much faith in not just stories but the context of actual words from 2000 odd years ago that have been translated at least 2-3 times......
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
DaveEH Offline
#5 Posted : Tuesday, 18 July 2017 11:05:49 PM(UTC)
DaveEH

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 13/07/2014(UTC)
Posts: 7

"Makes you wonder sometimes how people can put so much faith in not just stories but the context of actual words from 2000 odd years ago that have been translated at least 2-3 times....."


Hey there, I can't help responding to this as someone who is both a qualified mechanic and an ordained reverend.
I think of the trustworthiness or otherwise of 2000 years old words as the difference between the workshop manual and what the guy down the pub tells you.(I'm only talking about the New Testament here)

A workshop manual is written by either the engineers and designers of the vehicle, or by those whom they relay the information to.
In the case of 2000 yr old words , the Gospels were written by those who were either there (Matthew and John), or by those whom the original witnesses relayed the information to (Mark and Luke). All were written down and distributed during the lifetime of the original witnesses, so they were around to verify the accuracy of what was written. (Same as those who wrote about the HJ's when new who are still alive today).
Whether you believe what they actually said is up to you, but the written account we have is almost certain the same as the original texts of the NT. Even when thousands of hand written ancient copies made of the original documents are lined up and compared, the errors of mis-copying or mis-translation are minor enough as not to have a negative effect on the overall message and we can work out with almost 100% confidence of what the original text was.
That's why we believe workshop manuals and the authority of honest researchers and historians, biblical or mechanical.

The myth that the guy tells down the pub is a popular but unverifiable account ( ie build plate numbers or stories of red motors in late EJ's, or so-called Gospels that say Jesus was married with kids) that sounds interesting and which some see as authoritative but in the end can't be proven, or should be overlooked due to lack of evidence or the availability of other stronger evidence from witnesses or honest and qualified researchers.
The right information is there, you just need to be willing to take heed of the official accounts and genuine research over the ear tingling amateur 'experts'.
Cheers Dave
HK1837 Offline
#6 Posted : Wednesday, 19 July 2017 8:27:31 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 11,614

Was thanked: 65 time(s) in 63 post(s)
No offence Dave and not really the place to discuss it, but given how many times the 2000 year old info was translated (which always loses context regardless of what anyone says), when it was all actually recorded, who has actually been involved in perpetuating or supressing the information (the Catholic Church and the Court of King James I as examples) I simply do not believe that much of it is what it once was or even close to accurate. I see similar but far shorter timeframe phenomena in GMH research which is why I drew the parallel. The amount of times so called established facts have been proven to be wrong is astounding, and when you eventually sometimes find the point at which the BS started it will often come down to an article written in a magazine less than a decade after the fact, but that wrong information persists and becomes fact. Sometimes it is simply a Journalist's misinterpretation of facts presented to him/her, sometimes it is the Journalist putting 2 and 2 together and getting 7. Sometimes it appears to be deliberate, for example it was actually GMH hiding certain facts and misleading the Press. The difference here other than the timescale is the original factual and irrefutable information still exists and can be found with hard work.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
ExportHolden Offline
#7 Posted : Wednesday, 19 July 2017 9:32:53 AM(UTC)
ExportHolden

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 18/12/2009(UTC)
Posts: 81

Thanks: 2 times
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
No offence Dave and not really the place to discuss it, but given how many times the 2000 year old info was translated (which always loses context regardless of what anyone says), when it was all actually recorded, who has actually been involved in perpetuating or supressing the information (the Catholic Church and the Court of King James I as examples) I simply do not believe that much of it is what it once was or even close to accurate. I see similar but far shorter timeframe phenomena in GMH research which is why I drew the parallel. The amount of times so called established facts have been proven to be wrong is astounding, and when you eventually sometimes find the point at which the BS started it will often come down to an article written in a magazine less than a decade after the fact, but that wrong information persists and becomes fact. Sometimes it is simply a Journalist's misinterpretation of facts presented to him/her, sometimes it is the Journalist putting 2 and 2 together and getting 7. Sometimes it appears to be deliberate, for example it was actually GMH hiding certain facts and misleading the Press. The difference here other than the timescale is the original factual and irrefutable information still exists and can be found with hard work.


Yep I agree with this. Especially when errors occur in print and taken as factual. These days we have the 'Net and the ability to correct stories, but with print... well, once 20,000, 40,000 or however many magazines have been printed, it's too late. Sometimes the error was made because the journo was lazy, there was a trusted source (who won't be trusted again) or the journo made a mistake. They are not God, just human like the rest of us, and don't wake up in the morning and say, 'Let confuse the shit out of readers with a few random errors today'. Long gone are the days of the safety net of fact-checking subs. In fact, in car magazines I doubt there ever was such a thing. As for car companies creating or perpetuating myths or errors... my god, it happens more than you think and is incredibly frustrating to deal with when you have a deadline and are trying to present the facts. This is especially the case with technical stuff – you don't often get access to engineers, just the PR and marketing types who wouldn't know a whitworth spanner from a window winder.

Dr Terry Offline
#8 Posted : Wednesday, 19 July 2017 10:01:59 AM(UTC)
Dr Terry

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 5,214

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 43 time(s) in 41 post(s)
My favourite topic, how myths are perpetuated.

How many Holden myths are out there ?

I think that I'll begin a new thread just for fun.

Dr Terry
If at first you don't succeed, just call it Version 1.0
DaveEH Offline
#9 Posted : Wednesday, 19 July 2017 10:40:03 PM(UTC)
DaveEH

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 13/07/2014(UTC)
Posts: 7

Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
No offence Dave and not really the place to discuss it, but given how many times the 2000 year old info was translated (which always loses context regardless of what anyone says), when it was all actually recorded, who has actually been involved in perpetuating or supressing the information (the Catholic Church and the Court of King James I as examples) I simply do not believe that much of it is what it once was or even close to accurate. I see similar but far shorter timeframe phenomena in GMH research which is why I drew the parallel. The amount of times so called established facts have been proven to be wrong is astounding, and when you eventually sometimes find the point at which the BS started it will often come down to an article written in a magazine less than a decade after the fact, but that wrong information persists and becomes fact. Sometimes it is simply a Journalist's misinterpretation of facts presented to him/her, sometimes it is the Journalist putting 2 and 2 together and getting 7. Sometimes it appears to be deliberate, for example it was actually GMH hiding certain facts and misleading the Press. The difference here other than the timescale is the original factual and irrefutable information still exists and can be found with hard work.


Hey no offense taken.Your analogy of comparing Holden myths to 2000 year old texts does work in regard to entities like the Catholic Church (in which I was originally raised) who distorted the original message and made salvation based on good deeds, rather than a personal faith commitment to Christ which is what the NT texts state.
Also, modern translations use better and older source texts and better translation methods than those behind the King James Bible of 1611, so they are probably more accurate than the old KJ version was.

The NT texts that we have are probably more accurate than any Holden press releases or motor magazine articles so don't be put off reading the NT because you fear it is inaccurate.
There is a difference between the accuracy of the original texts and the myths perpetuated about them. You may form the opinion that the original writers were deluded or lying 2000 years ago but we almost certainly know what words they actually wrote down back then. They may actually be telling the truth, so no-one should use doubts about accuracy to miss out on what may really be the words of life. The texts were written down a historically short time after the events by witnesses or from witness accounts, and though their interpretation may have been distorted by individuals or churches at times, we have multiple ancient copies written in the original Greek trade language of the day that they were composed in which has helped the scholars at the Munster Institute in Germany piece together over many years what they now think is the closest we have to the original Gospels and the writings of Paul.
Just didn't want you to live your life ignoring what might be the best thing you ever read!
That's all I wanted to say in response, and thanks for your graciousness.
Now to get back to reading the new thread just started about Holden myths.
Dave
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 © 2003-2017, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.330 seconds.