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

Notification

Icon
Error

Login


Take the time to read our Privacy Policy.

6 Pages<12345>»
castellan Offline
#41 Posted : Thursday, 27 December 2018 11:38:23 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,249

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 10 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Dr Terry Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Warren Turnbull Go to Quoted Post
You are right the HD does hold the record for sales per month, but these dropped right off after the negative press about the front.


I don't agree Warren. The shape of the HD was very well received in 1965, buyers liked the curved side glass, its 6-seat capacity & its space-age looks. A few poked fun in the 'kidney slicer' shape but I don't believe it had a negative effect on sales.

I think HD was a victim of the huge increase in competition. By 1965 both the Falcon & Valiant were sorted & a lot of newer cars were just being released.

In April 65 Bill Bourke organised the 70,000 mile reliability test at You Yangs & Falcon now had disc brakes, a 3-speed auto plus the new Fairmont. This, along will Bill Bourke's brilliant marketing & re-organised dealer network gave Holden its first serious competition since 1948.

Even with all of this, the HD wasn't disgraced, it still had better sales per month, than HR, FC, FB & EK. Also I believe that the best month was May 65, a time when EH ute & van were in run-out & the HD ute & van were yet to come.

Dr Terry
I remember when my Dad bought a new 179 HD P van and then a new 186 automatic HR special sedan for Mum and I painted all the chrome on the HR with house paint, my Mum was impressed that I did such a good job not getting paint on the body, I still remember Dads face when he seen it, I took off out the back.
I asked my Dad why he bought the HR and not the XR Falcon and he said that he liked the look of the HR better than the XR.
But he liked the HK better than the HR and he had a 186 HK Kingswood wagon and I remember when he bought a VG Valiant ute and he asked me what I liked better the HG ute or the VG and I said the VG, so he bought the VG with the 2 barrel 245 over the 186 Kingswood ute.

It's interesting why people buy the type of car that they do.

Look at the figures Warren put with engine size with sedans and wagons going for the big 186 more so and the ute and p van it's the 161 by far.
Most base models would be 161, Kingswood most must of optioned up to the big 186 and Premiers start with 186. forking out a extra $60 back in 1968 that's more than $600 nowadays for what ? I can't see how a 186 should cost any more than a 161.
A auto at $240, well a mates Dad bought a new HT Premier but deleted the auto that's standard with 3speed manual, so you take $240 off the Premier price and you get a much better car for good value I would think, such is cheaper than a 186 auto Kingswood.
I think that the 307 V8 was good value for money in the HK.
HK1837 Offline
#42 Posted : Thursday, 27 December 2018 12:16:53 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 12,671

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 146 time(s) in 144 post(s)
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Dr Terry Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Warren Turnbull Go to Quoted Post
You are right the HD does hold the record for sales per month, but these dropped right off after the negative press about the front.


I don't agree Warren. The shape of the HD was very well received in 1965, buyers liked the curved side glass, its 6-seat capacity & its space-age looks. A few poked fun in the 'kidney slicer' shape but I don't believe it had a negative effect on sales.

I think HD was a victim of the huge increase in competition. By 1965 both the Falcon & Valiant were sorted & a lot of newer cars were just being released.

In April 65 Bill Bourke organised the 70,000 mile reliability test at You Yangs & Falcon now had disc brakes, a 3-speed auto plus the new Fairmont. This, along will Bill Bourke's brilliant marketing & re-organised dealer network gave Holden its first serious competition since 1948.

Even with all of this, the HD wasn't disgraced, it still had better sales per month, than HR, FC, FB & EK. Also I believe that the best month was May 65, a time when EH ute & van were in run-out & the HD ute & van were yet to come.

Dr Terry


Look at the figures Warren put with engine size with sedans and wagons going for the big 186 more so and the ute and p van it's the 161 by far.
Most base models would be 161, Kingswood most must of optioned up to the big 186 and Premiers start with 186. forking out a extra $60 back in 1968 that's more than $600 nowadays for what ? I can't see how a 186 should cost any more than a 161.
A auto at $240, well a mates Dad bought a new HT Premier but deleted the auto that's standard with 3speed manual, so you take $240 off the Premier price and you get a much better car for good value I would think, such is cheaper than a 186 auto Kingswood.
I think that the 307 V8 was good value for money in the HK.


You'll find those numbers are what GMH built, not what people ordered. The vast majority of cars built were already specified before the purchaser got on the hook, very few were actually ordered. People just bought what GMH (or any manufacturer) built. I do agree that a 186 shouldn't have been hugely more expensive than a 161, they would cost the same to make.

HT Premier and HT V8 Premier were standard with a manual gearbox, 3spd column shift on both models. The only three occasions during HK-HQ where you would have got a gearbox other than a 3spd manual on a Premier were:

1. If you optioned a V8 on HK Premier you'd get a Powerglide early on (column shift), later on it'd be an M21 4spd console shift with mandatory bucket seats; or
2. If you optioned a 307 on a HT V8 Premier (came with Powerglide); or
3. If you optioned a 308 on a HT-HQ V8 Premier you'd get an M21 4spd manual console shift and mandatory bucket seats.

The above is assuming you were ordering a car and not buying from stock, normally the stock order 307/308 cars would be automatic and column shift. In HK post Monaro, you couldn't just choose the V8 engine, you chose a power train combination so the second part of point 1 above is not totally correct as you'd actually have to choose a PTC.

It wasn't until HJ I think that Premier was standard with auto.

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Warren Turnbull Offline
#43 Posted : Thursday, 27 December 2018 1:02:53 PM(UTC)
Warren Turnbull

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered, Veteran
Joined: 10/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 2,235

Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 11 post(s)
GMH built many cars before the owner even walked in, but they built what the knew they could sell. The package cars, like Vacationer, are also put together in this way.

The White Hot Holden is a great example of this, the most common combination in 186 was put together with 253 and hey presto.

Many HK Kingswoods were 186 auto disc heater, This is also reflected in Base model Monaros, many T bar though. Many of these "common" combinations have disappeared.

Even what shall happen in the next model is around buyer trends, to the point that the last of the Commodore and Falcon models were all auto except SV6/SS and XR6/XR8.

The Premier is a very interesting model, from EJ to HZ. EH gets manual option, HR gets bench option, HK gets manual and bench standard, HJ returns to auto and buckets standard, manual optional. This all has to do with the Fairlane, the base fair lane had 200, 3 speed, drum brakes. The Brougham was targeted at the top of the line Fairlane and the Premier at the base model. The HQ Statesman had a base model designed to compete with the base Fairlane, but did not go very well.

There is so much happening behind the scenes that we are often not aware of or simply did not think about, i.e. Terry with why HD sales started to fall.

Warren
HK1837 Offline
#44 Posted : Thursday, 27 December 2018 1:58:27 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 12,671

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 146 time(s) in 144 post(s)
Most of the cars were built as stock orders Warren, I reckon 80% is conservative. But it doesn't mean they build what they knew they could sell. It was what they predicted would sell, which they did not always get right. Two perfect examples being HK Monaro and HK Brougham. In the case of the Monaro there were lots built before a GTS was built, but they got that wrong - buyers wanted the GTS which left mid 1968 assembled Monaros not sold into 1969. I'm sure there were many other examples.

If I could back in time now and Retail Order a few cars the obvious cars would be the Muscle Cars (ie HK-HG 81837 manuals). But how nice would it to be able to go to an influential dealer like Bob Jane and order say a HK Kingswood ute in Silver Mink, V8 manual with air and steer and buckets? Or something along those lines.

Edited by user Thursday, 27 December 2018 2:04:48 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Warren Turnbull Offline
#45 Posted : Thursday, 27 December 2018 2:34:13 PM(UTC)
Warren Turnbull

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered, Veteran
Joined: 10/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 2,235

Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 11 post(s)
Yes that is true Byron they did build more of these than needed, but this was a new market, the same did not happen in HT/G/Q,

I am sure the same might have happened in EJ with the Premier, or the 4 door HB, V8 in HK, VQ Statesman etc. No data on new models but once up and running they have the data.

The HK ute you mention could have been, other than the paint. If you are after something unusual why not go to Suttons in 1971 and buy one of their GTS Panelvans, these are Indy Orange with black Kingswood trim, (10E code on the tag) V8 or 6 cylinder (I know you will have the V8).

Warren

HK1837 Offline
#46 Posted : Thursday, 27 December 2018 7:02:16 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 12,671

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 146 time(s) in 144 post(s)
I’d have been pushing hard for a 350!

I know the HK Kingswood ute mentioned was just a CTV but even that you’d need someone with clout with the Zone Office. Now we are talking hypothetical a HK van in CTV with a V8 manual would have been nice too, especially in N10 dual exhaust, 3.08 Salisbury and 2.85:1 M22 Saginaw. 307 would be adequate, just needed the 327’s intake and carb and would be a rocket. Those Garard HK Monaros as tested by Wheels were both stock 307 with N10 and 3.36 rear axles and both did flat 16s quarters, add the Quadrajet and they’d be doing 15.5’s. The 327 went from 210hp to 240 or 250hp just by changing from the 307’s intake and carb to the 4BBL setup. 307 should have gone from 200hp (US rating) to 230-240hp.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Warren Turnbull Offline
#47 Posted : Thursday, 27 December 2018 8:05:43 PM(UTC)
Warren Turnbull

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered, Veteran
Joined: 10/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 2,235

Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 11 post(s)
Of the 50 odd 307 vans Simon in South Australia has confirmed at least 2 as manual.

I do not know why you would need special clout to order what was available, you would just have to wait.
HK1837 Offline
#48 Posted : Thursday, 27 December 2018 8:20:40 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 12,671

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 146 time(s) in 144 post(s)
Because of the non standard colour. I know it was one of the easiest mods to get done but you still would have needed a dealer to bother, and to be able to get it through for you especially with a colour not intended for say a Kingswood or Belmont like Warwick Yellow, Silver Mink etc.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#49 Posted : Friday, 28 December 2018 12:26:41 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,249

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 10 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Warren Turnbull Go to Quoted Post
GMH built many cars before the owner even walked in, but they built what the knew they could sell. The package cars, like Vacationer, are also put together in this way.

The White Hot Holden is a great example of this, the most common combination in 186 was put together with 253 and hey presto.

Many HK Kingswoods were 186 auto disc heater, This is also reflected in Base model Monaros, many T bar though. Many of these "common" combinations have disappeared.

Even what shall happen in the next model is around buyer trends, to the point that the last of the Commodore and Falcon models were all auto except SV6/SS and XR6/XR8.

The Premier is a very interesting model, from EJ to HZ. EH gets manual option, HR gets bench option, HK gets manual and bench standard, HJ returns to auto and buckets standard, manual optional. This all has to do with the Fairlane, the base fair lane had 200, 3 speed, drum brakes. The Brougham was targeted at the top of the line Fairlane and the Premier at the base model. The HQ Statesman had a base model designed to compete with the base Fairlane, but did not go very well.

There is so much happening behind the scenes that we are often not aware of or simply did not think about, i.e. Terry with why HD sales started to fall.

Warren


I would put a HK 186, 186S, 307V8 Premier VS the XT 221 302V8 Fairmont.
HK 307 Brougham VS ZB 302V8Fairlane500.
1968 327V8 Pontiac and Impala VS 302,390V8 LTD.

My sister had a HK 186 Premier auto with drum brakes, bucket seats.

HQ Statesman started with a 202 then 253 and 308 all with manual or auto, the de Vill was 308 auto. they were up against the ZF Fairlane 250 6 cyl 1V, 302 2V, 351 2V.
I think that the ZF looked more removed from the Falcons and that added to the prestige of the Fairlane's and Fairlane had some what better seats.
The 308 HQ Statesman could out perform even the ZF 351 and handle better.

The ZA Fairlane was the only one that started off with a 200 6cyl, the ZB started off with the 221 6cyl.
castellan Offline
#50 Posted : Friday, 28 December 2018 12:42:20 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,249

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 10 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Most of the cars were built as stock orders Warren, I reckon 80% is conservative. But it doesn't mean they build what they knew they could sell. It was what they predicted would sell, which they did not always get right. Two perfect examples being HK Monaro and HK Brougham. In the case of the Monaro there were lots built before a GTS was built, but they got that wrong - buyers wanted the GTS which left mid 1968 assembled Monaros not sold into 1969. I'm sure there were many other examples.

If I could back in time now and Retail Order a few cars the obvious cars would be the Muscle Cars (ie HK-HG 81837 manuals). But how nice would it to be able to go to an influential dealer like Bob Jane and order say a HK Kingswood ute in Silver Mink, V8 manual with air and steer and buckets? Or something along those lines.

HT Kingswood ute 308 4speed and 3.08 LSD diff in Silver Mink with white roof, then pop dual exhaust on it.
Or a HG Kingswood ute 308 T Bar and air-con LSD 3.08 diff and all above, would be nice in the days.

But would such utes get a Banjo diff ? if not then the XT-W-Y 302 utes 4sp or T Bar with their 2.92 B/W diff would be the go, but for only they only had a 2V carby.
HK1837 Offline
#51 Posted : Friday, 28 December 2018 1:36:55 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 12,671

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 146 time(s) in 144 post(s)
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Warren Turnbull Go to Quoted Post
GMH built many cars before the owner even walked in, but they built what the knew they could sell. The package cars, like Vacationer, are also put together in this way.

The White Hot Holden is a great example of this, the most common combination in 186 was put together with 253 and hey presto.

Many HK Kingswoods were 186 auto disc heater, This is also reflected in Base model Monaros, many T bar though. Many of these "common" combinations have disappeared.

Even what shall happen in the next model is around buyer trends, to the point that the last of the Commodore and Falcon models were all auto except SV6/SS and XR6/XR8.

The Premier is a very interesting model, from EJ to HZ. EH gets manual option, HR gets bench option, HK gets manual and bench standard, HJ returns to auto and buckets standard, manual optional. This all has to do with the Fairlane, the base fair lane had 200, 3 speed, drum brakes. The Brougham was targeted at the top of the line Fairlane and the Premier at the base model. The HQ Statesman had a base model designed to compete with the base Fairlane, but did not go very well.

There is so much happening behind the scenes that we are often not aware of or simply did not think about, i.e. Terry with why HD sales started to fall.

Warren


I would put a HK 186, 186S, 307V8 Premier VS the XT 221 302V8 Fairmont.
HK 307 Brougham VS ZB 302V8Fairlane500.
1968 327V8 Pontiac and Impala VS 302,390V8 LTD.

My sister had a HK 186 Premier auto with drum brakes, bucket seats.

HQ Statesman started with a 202 then 253 and 308 all with manual or auto, the de Vill was 308 auto. they were up against the ZF Fairlane 250 6 cyl 1V, 302 2V, 351 2V.
I think that the ZF looked more removed from the Falcons and that added to the prestige of the Fairlane's and Fairlane had some what better seats.
The 308 HQ Statesman could out perform even the ZF 351 and handle better.

The ZA Fairlane was the only one that started off with a 200 6cyl, the ZB started off with the 221 6cyl.


HQ Statesman was standard with 202 and all boxes available. HQ V8 Statesman was standard with 253 high comp but was optional with 253 low comp, 308 or 350. All boxes available but not manual 350.

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
HK1837 Offline
#52 Posted : Friday, 28 December 2018 1:40:34 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 12,671

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 146 time(s) in 144 post(s)
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Most of the cars were built as stock orders Warren, I reckon 80% is conservative. But it doesn't mean they build what they knew they could sell. It was what they predicted would sell, which they did not always get right. Two perfect examples being HK Monaro and HK Brougham. In the case of the Monaro there were lots built before a GTS was built, but they got that wrong - buyers wanted the GTS which left mid 1968 assembled Monaros not sold into 1969. I'm sure there were many other examples.

If I could back in time now and Retail Order a few cars the obvious cars would be the Muscle Cars (ie HK-HG 81837 manuals). But how nice would it to be able to go to an influential dealer like Bob Jane and order say a HK Kingswood ute in Silver Mink, V8 manual with air and steer and buckets? Or something along those lines.

HT Kingswood ute 308 4speed and 3.08 LSD diff in Silver Mink with white roof, then pop dual exhaust on it.
Or a HG Kingswood ute 308 T Bar and air-con LSD 3.08 diff and all above, would be nice in the days.

But would such utes get a Banjo diff ? if not then the XT-W-Y 302 utes 4sp or T Bar with their 2.92 B/W diff would be the go, but for only they only had a 2V carby.


No, they’d be 3.08 or 3.36 Salisbury with 308 manual. You wouldn’t easily get Silver Mink on a HT though, it’d be Platinum. Any HK-HG 307/308 manual ute with dual exhaust would be a good car.

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
HGV8 Offline
#53 Posted : Saturday, 29 December 2018 11:50:25 AM(UTC)
HGV8

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 28/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 396

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 7 post(s)
Well you learn something new every day. I always thought the HQ Statesman was only available fitted with the 202, 308 and 350. Never thought they had 253’s factory fitted.
j.williams
HK1837 Offline
#54 Posted : Saturday, 29 December 2018 12:09:22 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 12,671

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 146 time(s) in 144 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HGV8 Go to Quoted Post
Well you learn something new every day. I always thought the HQ Statesman was only available fitted with the 202, 308 and 350. Never thought they had 253’s factory fitted.


253HC was standard on 81669 (HQ V8 Statesman), with 3spd manual. Engine number started with 11QR. Dr Terry told me he once saw an 11QS which is a low comp 253 Statesman. Later on the 81669 253 manual or auto became the base stock order Statesman, the 81569 became an order only car and I think the same happened to the 81669 at some stage during HQ. In theory you should have been also able to get an 11QM, a low comp 202 in a HQ Statesman. By far the most common engines that turn up today though are 11QT and 11QU which will be 99% from Devilles as both are not that common in a Statesman. The other HQ "Statesman' that escapes people's attention is the "export" car, the Chevrolet 350 which was a regular production option code 81469 XU7, plated as 84669. This was an export SUP but technically also "exported" to local consulates in Canberra, Perth, Sydney etc.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
HK1837 Offline
#55 Posted : Wednesday, 2 January 2019 1:41:10 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 12,671

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 146 time(s) in 144 post(s)
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Warren Turnbull Go to Quoted Post
I agree Terry, racing a car on the track does not make the best car, but the whole thing comes back to specials built for racing.

But how many of those cars did they sell and how easy was it to buy one, i.e. availability and price.

Sales is what counts to a manufacturer, how many people want to buy them. It is amazing when you look at sales per month of both Ford and Holden product, there are a few surprises in there as to what people were prepared to put their hands in their pocket and buy. These are the cars that hit the market.

But race on Sunday sell on Monday BS has been going around for so long that everyone believes it. Race on Sunday was about the winning at any cost. If you think its about race on Sunday sell on Monday what the hell happened in 1972, XY racing yet XA out for 7 months. remember when someone says, "at least you could buy the cars that raced in the old days" remind them that you could not buy the Ford product in October 1972.

So many good cars have been made that get very little recognition.

The phase IV may not have been released but they did make one and it was faster than the phase III, it is a production car and has to be recognised in automotive history. (the three they call prototypes are built after the production car so are not prototypes but race prepared GTs).

If you look at a lot of the vision being put up on utuibe of this era, you se lots of small cars, VWs, Morris, Datsun, Toyota, Hillmans etc. It was an increasing market that Holden/Ford and Chrysler got heavily involved with, some successfully and others not. They were marketed at a variety of buyers, but mainly women at first, as the second car. Then at the youth with cars like the Cortina GT, it was a complicated and diverse market

There are some statistic of the day on how many of each model were registered in each state. I have recorded the Holden stuff but it has it all. If you get these books, there is a set in the national library, you can then get the real figures. They also break into commercial, sedan and wagon, different engine sizes including V8, etc.


Has this been proven that the XA GT-HO P4 would of been faster ? as far as I know this Phase 4 engine was not as hot with smaller cam, you would not run a Phase 3 engine with 3.0 diff ratio as it would be crap to drive, not to mention the hype about the top speed is just total BS hardtop or sedan.



In Wheels first road test of a PhaseIII they got it to 141mph with the 3.25:1 rear end, and this was hitting the rev limiter at 6150rpm. This was corrected speed too not indicated. They also went to You Yangs and tested what Ford called the PhaseIII+. It was the one dynoed at 230hp at the rear wheels and was (as quoted by Ford) the most powerful PhaseIII they ever built in-house. This was the one with the 850cfm Holley and a different cam to a PhaseIII, also was running a 2.92:1 rear axle. At You Yang they ran it without the rev limiter to 6500rpm in top and that was 160mph. So using a PhaseIII engine in an XA (lower CD) with a 3:1 rear axle would probably still have given a high 14xmph top speed even if the cam was a little different to the PhaseIII. Remember the story about Perkins in the LC XU1 with a stock 308 running to Bathurst at Easter 1972, Harry was following in his HT GTS350M and couldn't stay with the XU1 in top speed - the LC has a far lower CD than the HT.

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
HK1837 Offline
#56 Posted : Wednesday, 2 January 2019 7:00:21 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 12,671

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 146 time(s) in 144 post(s)
Out of interest what exactly were the PhaseII and PhaseIII Cleveland engines?

www.fomoco.com.au says the following:

Well where do we start. Lets go from the top down. The engine was basically a pulled down and reworked 351 4V out of the crate .

Shaker was the same as the GT but with 2 mods. The hot air intake snorkel was removed and blanked off and the cold air intake shut off flap was removed so that there was cold air intake all the time.

Carby was a 780 Vac Secondary Holley specially made for Ford. Part number on carby horn DOZF 9510 Z. A bakelite spacer was used underneath for the PCV valve connection as there was none on the carb.

Intake manifold was standard cast iron dual plane 4V type with 2 modifications. The two front venturi’s were opened out slightly and the exhaust gas heat exchanger holes were blocked off with grub screws.

Distributor was a modified Autolite dual diaphragm, dual advance unit as fitted to the GT and converted to a dual point mechanical advance type

Heads were machined to take screw in studs and 5/16 inch pushrod guide plates. Single groove valves and locks were used in place of the triple grooved ones. Different spring and damper combination was fitted all ready to take the solid stick.

Cam was available in 2 types . One with a theoretical lift of .494 inch and the other with .524 inches. Both were solid tappet cams.

Water pump had a .750 inch diameter dual ball bearing race assembly fitted to improve load carrying ability and it is less sensitive to bearing bore machining variations.

Block had 2 bolt crank caps and not 4 bolt as a lot of people seem to think, as it was just a pulled down 4V remember.

Bottom end was balanced along with the new Boss 351 harmonic balancer . One thou undersized special compound bearings were fitted. Standard capacity sump had one mod . It had a crank scraper type windage tray spot welded at the rear.


This would mean they are just a 1970 US spec M-code as per below plus the above mods? (thanks to Wiki)

The M-code was a high-compression, high-performance variation of the 351C, produced in 1970 and 1971. The M-code engines used the large-port 4V heads with a closed "quench" combustion chamber and large valves.These engines also included cast-aluminum flat-top pistons, stiffer valve springs, a high-performance hydraulic camshaft, and a squarebore Autolite 4300-A carburetor. The 1970 engines were 11.0:1 compression and produced 300 bhp (224 kW; 304 PS) at 5400 rpm, while 1971 versions had a slightly lower compression ratio of 10.7:1, and produced 285 bhp (213 kW; 289 PS) at 5400 rpm. The M-code 351C required premium fuel and was available in the 1970-71 Ford Torino, Mercury Montego, Ford Mustang, and Mercury Cougar.

I always thought Ford used the 1971 R-code "Boss" 351 with specs as follows (again thanks Wiki). This engine looks to be more potent than the factory PhaseIII though.

1971 R-code (Boss 351). The Boss 351 was the most potent high-performance variant of the 351C available only in the 1971 Boss 351 Mustang. Rated at 330 bhp (246 kW), it was fitted with a four-barrel Autolite model 4300-D spreadbore carburetor, an aluminum intake manifold, solid lifters, dual-point distributor, a six-quart oil pan, and cast-aluminum valve covers. Forged domed pistons gave an 11.3:1 nominal (11.1:1 advertised) compression ratio which made premium fuel necessary. It had four-bolt main bearing caps selected for hardness and a premium cast-iron crankshaft selected for hardness (90% nodularity). The cylinder head was modified for better airflow, used screw-in studs with adjustable rocker arms, and except for the water passages were basically the same heads used on the Boss 302. The valvetrain used hardened and ground push rods with guide plates, and single grove-hardened valve split locks. The forged connecting rods were shot-peened and magnafluxed for strength, and used improved durability 180,000 PSI 3/8-inch nuts and bolts.

Why I was looking at this was to try and understand what the PhaseIV engine would have been. The 4V 300hp M code 11:1 engine ended about August 1970, the 1971 M code was lower compression but it finished at the end of 1971 models around August 1971. So what would Ford have done for Phase IV? They must have stockpiled 1970 spec 4V M code engines? The RPO83’s got PhaseIII spec engines by what I can find. Maybe the PhaseIV (coupe version of GT-HO destined for 1973 Series Production) was destined to get a 1972 spec R code (351 HO engine) or the Q code (CobraJet) but still with the big Holley? Someone out there will know!

Edited by user Wednesday, 2 January 2019 9:05:39 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#57 Posted : Thursday, 3 January 2019 11:31:15 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,249

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 10 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Out of interest what exactly were the PhaseII and PhaseIII Cleveland engines?

www.fomoco.com.au says the following:

Well where do we start. Lets go from the top down. The engine was basically a pulled down and reworked 351 4V out of the crate .

Shaker was the same as the GT but with 2 mods. The hot air intake snorkel was removed and blanked off and the cold air intake shut off flap was removed so that there was cold air intake all the time.

Carby was a 780 Vac Secondary Holley specially made for Ford. Part number on carby horn DOZF 9510 Z. A bakelite spacer was used underneath for the PCV valve connection as there was none on the carb.

Intake manifold was standard cast iron dual plane 4V type with 2 modifications. The two front venturi’s were opened out slightly and the exhaust gas heat exchanger holes were blocked off with grub screws.

Distributor was a modified Autolite dual diaphragm, dual advance unit as fitted to the GT and converted to a dual point mechanical advance type

Heads were machined to take screw in studs and 5/16 inch pushrod guide plates. Single groove valves and locks were used in place of the triple grooved ones. Different spring and damper combination was fitted all ready to take the solid stick.

Cam was available in 2 types . One with a theoretical lift of .494 inch and the other with .524 inches. Both were solid tappet cams.

Water pump had a .750 inch diameter dual ball bearing race assembly fitted to improve load carrying ability and it is less sensitive to bearing bore machining variations.

Block had 2 bolt crank caps and not 4 bolt as a lot of people seem to think, as it was just a pulled down 4V remember.

Bottom end was balanced along with the new Boss 351 harmonic balancer . One thou undersized special compound bearings were fitted. Standard capacity sump had one mod . It had a crank scraper type windage tray spot welded at the rear.


This would mean they are just a 1970 US spec M-code as per below plus the above mods? (thanks to Wiki)

The M-code was a high-compression, high-performance variation of the 351C, produced in 1970 and 1971. The M-code engines used the large-port 4V heads with a closed "quench" combustion chamber and large valves.These engines also included cast-aluminum flat-top pistons, stiffer valve springs, a high-performance hydraulic camshaft, and a squarebore Autolite 4300-A carburetor. The 1970 engines were 11.0:1 compression and produced 300 bhp (224 kW; 304 PS) at 5400 rpm, while 1971 versions had a slightly lower compression ratio of 10.7:1, and produced 285 bhp (213 kW; 289 PS) at 5400 rpm. The M-code 351C required premium fuel and was available in the 1970-71 Ford Torino, Mercury Montego, Ford Mustang, and Mercury Cougar.

I always thought Ford used the 1971 R-code "Boss" 351 with specs as follows (again thanks Wiki). This engine looks to be more potent than the factory PhaseIII though.

1971 R-code (Boss 351). The Boss 351 was the most potent high-performance variant of the 351C available only in the 1971 Boss 351 Mustang. Rated at 330 bhp (246 kW), it was fitted with a four-barrel Autolite model 4300-D spreadbore carburetor, an aluminum intake manifold, solid lifters, dual-point distributor, a six-quart oil pan, and cast-aluminum valve covers. Forged domed pistons gave an 11.3:1 nominal (11.1:1 advertised) compression ratio which made premium fuel necessary. It had four-bolt main bearing caps selected for hardness and a premium cast-iron crankshaft selected for hardness (90% nodularity). The cylinder head was modified for better airflow, used screw-in studs with adjustable rocker arms, and except for the water passages were basically the same heads used on the Boss 302. The valvetrain used hardened and ground push rods with guide plates, and single grove-hardened valve split locks. The forged connecting rods were shot-peened and magnafluxed for strength, and used improved durability 180,000 PSI 3/8-inch nuts and bolts.

Why I was looking at this was to try and understand what the PhaseIV engine would have been. The 4V 300hp M code 11:1 engine ended about August 1970, the 1971 M code was lower compression but it finished at the end of 1971 models around August 1971. So what would Ford have done for Phase IV? They must have stockpiled 1970 spec 4V M code engines? The RPO83’s got PhaseIII spec engines by what I can find. Maybe the PhaseIV (coupe version of GT-HO destined for 1973 Series Production) was destined to get a 1972 spec R code (351 HO engine) or the Q code (CobraJet) but still with the big Holley? Someone out there will know!


The so called Phase 4 was going to have a smaller cam and lower compression again due to larger combustion chamber with better flow due to machining around the intake valve in the combustion chamber and maybe around 10:1 comp, making the XA GT-HO a much better car to drive about, it would of lacked the max power of the Phase 3 but would of still killed a XA GT.
The XA GT-HO was to get 4 mains block but it would not of got the USA low comp 4V heads of 8.0:1 etc crap. they would of easy of got the 4V heads casting done with out the USA low comp chambers. but by mid 1974 they stoped casting Cleveland engines and sent it all to Australia, and we first started casting them blocks from Dec 1974 and the Heads from Sep 1971

When the late XY GT and XA GT got the Dot heads, that's when the comp dropped to 10.7:1.

But the Phase 4 would of been finished with the ADR27 law Sep 1973.

If we had a Phase 5 XB GT-HO it would of had 2V heads for sure and another cam to suit ADR27 Laws, like the HJ 308 did and compression of around 10:1 with modified 302 combustion chamber heads I would think and less power again, but better than a XB GT by far.

But only due to hysteria in power that was all canned.

They did not stock pile any engines for our XA GT or the too be XA GT-HO 4 mains because the USA made them to the end, nothing special about the 4 mains blocks, it's just machining.

But then Australia made the special high nodular casting 4 mains from Dec 1974 to Jan 1975, but the USA made the special stronger mains Caps for them and sent them to us to machine, they are called 192540 blocks and they cast them again in 1982 as a pillow block 192540 or some number like that that ID them like that cast on them. remembering just off the top of my head like the Number may be wrong.
HK1837 Offline
#58 Posted : Thursday, 3 January 2019 12:26:21 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 12,671

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 146 time(s) in 144 post(s)
So the XA GT-HO would have gotten the 1972 R-code 351 HO. Specs below from Wiki. 275hp SAE net would be about 325hp roughly, but with a 780 Holley it would have probably been more. This engines cam was slightly lower than the 1971 R spc, which appears to be the same as the stock PhaseIII cam.

1972 R-code (351 HO

The 351C HO "R-code" had a number of changes to help meet emission standards for 1972 compared to the 1971 Boss 351 "R-Code". The camshaft had less duration, but more valve lift, while the mechanical lifters remained unchanged. The forged pistons were changed to flat-top style and the heads to open chamber heads, but retained the same large ports, valves, and adjustable valve train used in 1971. This resulted in a compression ratio decreased to 9.2:1 while the cleaner-burning open-chamber heads helped meet the new emissions regulations. The Ram Air option was no longer available. The engine otherwise remained unchanged from 1971. This engine produced 275 hp (205 kW) using the more realistic SAE net system and was only available in the 1972 Ford Mustang.

The drop to 10.7:1 will be the 1971 M-code engine being supplied to Ford Australia.

Phase 4 would be well gone by 9/73 (ADR27 didn't become mandatory until about 4/74, it was supposed to be 9/73 but Ford and Chrysler weren't ready, GMH were ready early but didn't put it on ADR plates until 4/74). The Phase 5 was not an XB, it was to be the XA coupe. The coupe wasn't ready in time to sell the 300 GT-HO vehicles required to be eligible for Bathurst 1972 so the campaign was to be a sedan as a Phase 4 and coupe as Phase 5. The original Ford documentation dated August 1971 detailing that are published in AMC magazine issue 23. They also state that the Falcon GT-HO's will not be able to be competitive with GMH's new V8 Toranas so they decide to develop a Cleveland powered Cortina. All of this got killed off less than 12 months later as we know.

My point about stockpiling was there were no M-code 351's built for US consumption after about August 1971. The 11:1 4V M-code was 9/69 to 8/70 and the 10.7:1 engine was 9/70 to 8/71. Ford Australia must have stockpiled them if they wanted to continue building PhaseIII style engines for the Phase4, which they must have as RPO83's got them. The only 351C's built for US vehicles after 9/71 were the 1972 R-code (351HO) (test above) and the Q-code Cobrajet (text below, copied off Wiki).

Q-code (351 Cobra-Jet)

The Q-code 351 "Cobra-Jet" (also called 351-CJ, 351-4V) was produced from May 1971 through the 1974 model year. It was a lower-compression design that included open-chamber 4V heads. The open-chamber heads exhibited superior emissions characteristics and were required to meet the more stringent emissions standards for 1972 and beyond. The "351 CJ" high-performance engine included a different intake manifold, high-lift, long-duration camshaft with hydraulic valve lifters, different valve springs and dampers, a 750-CFM spread-bore 4300-D Motorcraft carburetor, dual-point distributor (with four-speed manual transmissions only), and four-bolt main bearing caps. These engines also featured induction-hardened exhaust seats for use with low-lead and unleaded gasoline. This engine was different from the 1970-71 M-code 351C having a more aggressive camshaft, a spread-bore carburetor, a four-bolt block and the lower compression allowed regular fuel to be used. It was rated at 280 bhp (209 kW; 284 PS) for all 1971 applications. For the 1972 model year, the only change to the engine was a retarding the camshaft events by 4°. The engine was rated at 266 hp (198 kW) (SAE net) for 1972 when installed in the Mustang, and 248 hp (185 kW) in the Torino and Montego. An increase in the combustion chamber size and the use of smaller valves occurred in 1973, which reduced horsepower to 246 hp (183 kW) for the four-barrel for the intermediate Fords, though it still retained the higher 266 hp (198 kW) rating in the Mustang. The 351 CJ (now referred to as the "351 4V") was rated at 255 hp (190 kW) in 1974 and was only installed in the Ford Ranchero, Ford Torino, Mercury Montego, and Mercury Cougar.


The HJ 308 wasn't re-designed for ADR27. All of the HQ engines carried through into HJ except the 308 was improved, they made the 308 about 20-25hp and 5lb-ft more powerful than the HQ to overcome the loss of the 350 SBC, primarily for Caprice. The 2BBL 400 that was to replace the HQ's final 350 was less powerful by far than the HJ 308. GMH introduced ADR27 on all vehicles from 9/73 (which is why XU1 ended at that time too). ADR27 has little to do with performance, initially it was all about idle and crankcase emissions but later (1/75 on) it is in conjunction with fuel evaporation control so sealed fuel bowl, sealed fuel tank and carbon canister to capture vapours. All US automatic vehicles got the same thing from the start of 1968 model year (manuals got AIR) and it had zero effect on performance. This is why we got unique Quadrajet carbs after the first HK GTS327's and then got back Chevrolet numbered ones again on 350's past 8/73.

Edited by user Thursday, 3 January 2019 12:43:14 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
abi Offline
#59 Posted : Thursday, 3 January 2019 11:28:09 PM(UTC)
abi

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/07/2010(UTC)
Posts: 55

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Not really related to this thread but 1974 Holden studied the potential for a 3.40 inch stroke 4 inch bore derivative of the Holden V8. I read this only a few nights ago in some online notes from an ex GM Holden engine development engineer. 342 cubic inches.

This would have been a fantastic prospect. A dished piston 9.0 compression version for long wheelbase automatic models and a flattop version with bigger valves for the sporty models, shame it was not pursued.

Edited by user Thursday, 3 January 2019 11:29:26 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

commodorenut Offline
#60 Posted : Friday, 4 January 2019 2:03:00 AM(UTC)
commodorenut

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 2/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 3,093

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 29 time(s) in 28 post(s)
Originally Posted by: abi Go to Quoted Post
Not really related to this thread but 1974 Holden studied the potential for a 3.40 inch stroke 4 inch bore derivative of the Holden V8. I read this only a few nights ago in some online notes from an ex GM Holden engine development engineer. 342 cubic inches.

This would have been a fantastic prospect. A dished piston 9.0 compression version for long wheelbase automatic models and a flattop version with bigger valves for the sporty models, shame it was not pursued.

Interesting to read that.

Some 12-13 years later, HDT offered a very similar stroker in the VL series - I own one. It's well known that HDT had lots of inside help from GMH, and the VL stroker was developed before the split (my car was ordered in the days after the split - the original owner fearing HDT would be closing there & then).

According to the HDT paperwork, it's a 3.375" stroke and a 40" thou overbore to 4.040" = 346ci.
Without the overbore, the capacity would be around 339/340ci - so this is pretty close to the 342ci you mention above.

The 3.375" stroke was the largest stroke they could fit in the block without having to relieve it so the rod bolts/nuts would clear the bottoms of the bores & pan rails.
The later VR onwards HSV strokers were 350ci, but included the additional block clearancing to allow for the longer 3.48" stroke that they ran.

Brock (optimistically) rated the 5.6L at around 231kw, but in reality it wouldn't be up there. It does have plenty of torque, and with counter-balancing on the rear crank flange (as well as the dynamic balancing of the whole rotating assembly including flywheel & pressure plate that I had done during the rebuild) it spins up to 6000rpm as smooth as any jap multivalve short-stroke engine. Despite having the big valve heads, cam, ported manifold etc, it's very well behaved, and very smooth to drive.

Knowing what my stroker is like, GMH really missed an opportunity by not going ahead with that concept in '74 - it certainly would have made for a nice powerful, torquey, and smooth luxo-barge motor, and if fitted with the L34 bits (which is effectively what Brock did - less the cam) - would have given the L34/A9X Toranas an even bigger advantage on the track.

Cheers,

Mick
_______________________________________________________________

Judge a successful man not on how he treats his peers, but on how he treats those less fortunate.
Users browsing this topic
Guest (5)
6 Pages<12345>»
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 © 2003-2019, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 1.955 seconds.