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

Notification

Icon
Error

Login


Take the time to read our Privacy Policy.

3 Pages123>
Jul71-Oct74 Offline
#1 Posted : Tuesday, 29 January 2019 12:24:00 AM(UTC)
Jul71-Oct74

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 22/01/2010(UTC)
Posts: 120

Hi All
I came across this article about the HQhttps://startsat60.com/d...n-hq-car-1970s-john-reid
An interesting perspective on the HQ, but there is one comment here that I would like some views on. In terms of engine choice the author claims that when choosing between the 202 trimatic and the 253 trimatic " Except for the V-8 burble. there was little advantage in choosing the bigger engine over the smaller"
I would of thought the 253 would of been a way better choice, but interestingly I have a Modern Motor road test from the period and the author of that said very much the same thing. I have never driven a stock 253 trimatic, so can't say first hand, but what do you guys think.? In stock 1971 form, is there much difference?
Cheers

Richard
HK1837 Offline
#2 Posted : Tuesday, 29 January 2019 5:36:32 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 12,694

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 146 time(s) in 144 post(s)
Depends. If you were plodding around town in a sedan with only the driver maybe not. But if you were in a utecarrying a load or doing lots of highway miles you’d certainly notice the difference. Or if both had air and steer it’d be noticeable. Remember a stock 6cyl HQ model with a 202 in most cases had front drums and a 3.36 rear axle. A stock V8 model HQ had front discs and a 2.78 rear axle in most cases. At highway speeds the two were like chalk and cheese, or if you had a ute, van or wagon loaded up or you were towing you’d really notice it.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
justgm Offline
#3 Posted : Tuesday, 29 January 2019 7:08:36 AM(UTC)
justgm

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 30/04/2005(UTC)
Posts: 310
Man
New Zealand

Was thanked: 9 time(s) in 9 post(s)
Hi ,Here in NZ my father had a new HQ Kingswood wagon 253 Trimatic, at the time it was a big deal to have a' V8' as most Hq's were 173/202. I believe, though wrecking lots of them that GMNZ spec was 253 & Trimatic with 3.08 LSD . So this made a good tow vehicle of the time . ( I cannot find any GMNZ literature to back up the 3.08 std spec as it seems GMNZ did not want to tell anyone what the diff ratio was in the brochure? ) Thanks Mark.
life is good in "Wine & Holden Marlborough "
HK1837 Offline
#4 Posted : Tuesday, 29 January 2019 7:24:32 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 12,694

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 146 time(s) in 144 post(s)
In Australia HT-HJ 253/4.2 normally have 3.08 with manual or 2.78 with auto, except of course for cab-chassis which would normally be 3.55 or sometimes 3.36. You could option other ratios but that is very rare.

Edited by user Tuesday, 29 January 2019 7:25:15 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
HK1837 Offline
#5 Posted : Tuesday, 29 January 2019 7:55:17 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 12,694

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 146 time(s) in 144 post(s)
The other thing to remember is all the 253’s the Press got to test were single exhaust. If you optioned one with dual exhaust plus got the performance rear axle they may have thought differently. Although not an auto, a HQ SS is both dual exhaust and performance rear axle (3.36), and one of those is as quick as a stock 308 in the same body (308, M21, 3.36 and single exhaust).
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
HGV8 Offline
#6 Posted : Tuesday, 29 January 2019 9:57:36 AM(UTC)
HGV8

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 28/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 397

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 7 post(s)
In August 71 we purchased a HQ kingswood wagon. 253 trimatic with dual exhaust and sports rims. No air or steer. It was a heavy slow pig of a thing around town but nice on the open road. It had a 2.78 diff. Later bought a HX 202 3 speed manual kingswood sedan with pollution gear disconnected. Went surprisingly well and I have a feeling it would of been quicker to 100 Kay’s but the 253 would of caught up eventually. 253 definitely sounded nicer though.
j.williams
HK1837 Offline
#7 Posted : Tuesday, 29 January 2019 10:37:05 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 12,694

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 146 time(s) in 144 post(s)
I just read the article, lots of major errors in it too. Here are a few:

It wasn't penned in house at GMH, and not by Leo Pruneau. Leo's job was to finish the nose of the cars when he first got here in the late 60's. The designs came from the USA, pretty much complete after the original HQ plans (based upon HK) were dropped. GMH were given the designs for the Sedan (which became the Statesman), a coupe (pretty much as it was), a wagon (as it was) and a utility. This is why the Statesman, wagon and utility share the same wheelbase and tail-lights. GMH designed the HQ sedan from the coupe, which is why they share a wheelbase and the tail-lights. They also put a HG roof on the utility to make a van, and then they did the cab-chassis by changing the quarter panels on the ute and extending the chassis.

It wasn't the last car to have four doors, bench seats, carry size people, have a 6cyl and 3spd and have simple mechanicals. HJ, HX and HZ did all this. And you could also get a WB Deville with bench seat and column shift, but it was a V8 auto. Ford, Chrysler and Leyland could all claim this too , even into the 80's.

Roberts had little to do with the HK's tyres, that would have all been locked in before he even arrived except for the availability of Michelin XAS or Pirelli radials on some HK's they were always going to be crossplies. He hated the GTS particularly the GTS327, not the HK. Yes he influenced the HQ but not the HK.

Pre-HQ weren't in the main, mono-construction. The front frames were removable. Torana and Commodore were mono-construction. Yes his point was the HQ's frame to body mount had more rubbers mounting it than HK-HG, but the HK-HG still had rubbers between the engine plus front suspension to the body, however the transmissions had less rubber insulation than the HQ. None of this was GMH's doing though, this was how the whole thing was designed in the USA and it was how they built them over there.

He has totally left out the availability of the 350ci engine. And in HQ the 3spd manual was still more common than an auto behind 6cyl or 253. It wasn't until HX or HZ that the trimatic became more common than the 3spd manual.

HQ wasn't really "larger" or "heavier" than HK-HG (model and driveline dependant) they aren't all that much different car to car. The 6's were low-tech, especially by the end of the 70's, but they weren't pathetic in fuel economy. The flavour of today are big heavy dual cabs like Hilux and Ranger, but an auto one of these with a diesel weighs 2 tonnes or more and won't do much better than 25mpg Imperial (about 11.5L/100kM) on fuel that is sometimes 25% more expensive than petrol. The flavour back in HQ would have been a Kingswood ute, 202 and auto. One of these was a lot lighter (like 650kg lighter) and returned in the region of 25mpg. If you close the more powerful version (253) you might only see 20mpg, but compare to the more powerful engine in say a Hilux (V6), one of these will do around 20-21mpg on E10 too. So really it is a silly statement to call all HQ 6's "pathetic" in economy. Sure they aren't as good as a 35mpg Kia, but in reality they were more than acceptable.

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#8 Posted : Tuesday, 29 January 2019 11:36:40 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,260

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 10 post(s)
A 202 auto in a Kingswood is just crap, a town runabout that's about all it's good for.
Look at a Falcon 200 most people got the 250 with a auto as the 200 was a slug.
202 auto vs 253 auto, well there is a big difference the 253 was a great car and the 202 was a dog. fuel consumption big deal nothing much in it to worry about, but in QLD you had to fork out more for rego and that's about the only thing one could have against the 253.
No one would drive a 253 HQ auto and then say I think I made the wrong choice, I think I should of got the 202 auto.

On the highway I got 22mpg out of my 253 auto easy average not looking to drive for fuel economy but floating along at 60 to 70 mph like and I got 22 mpg out of my 308 4sp and auto and only around town the 253 could be better, 202 not really any better around town because it's such a great lump to push around.
I had a 173 then a 202 both 3speed manual and my mum had a HJ 202 auto the auto just killed the car what a slug it was to drive just a boring pile of junk, she had a XR Falcon before that and it performed better, I did a big end in her JH and put a HQ 202 in it and it performed just the same.

A Builder I worked for would buy a new car every year and in 1980 had a new WB 3.3L auto Kingswood ute, he was taking me to the next town and that thing got along well, it was doing 185KM/H I could not believe it went so well.
castellan Offline
#9 Posted : Tuesday, 29 January 2019 11:45:50 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,260

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 10 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
I just read the article, lots of major errors in it too. Here are a few:

It wasn't penned in house at GMH, and not by Leo Pruneau. Leo's job was to finish the nose of the cars when he first got here in the late 60's. The designs came from the USA, pretty much complete after the original HQ plans (based upon HK) were dropped. GMH were given the designs for the Sedan (which became the Statesman), a coupe (pretty much as it was), a wagon (as it was) and a utility. This is why the Statesman, wagon and utility share the same wheelbase and tail-lights. GMH designed the HQ sedan from the coupe, which is why they share a wheelbase and the tail-lights. They also put a HG roof on the utility to make a van, and then they did the cab-chassis by changing the quarter panels on the ute and extending the chassis.

It wasn't the last car to have four doors, bench seats, carry size people, have a 6cyl and 3spd and have simple mechanicals. HJ, HX and HZ did all this. And you could also get a WB Deville with bench seat and column shift, but it was a V8 auto. Ford, Chrysler and Leyland could all claim this too , even into the 80's.

Roberts had little to do with the HK's tyres, that would have all been locked in before he even arrived except for the availability of Michelin XAS or Pirelli radials on some HK's they were always going to be crossplies. He hated the GTS particularly the GTS327, not the HK. Yes he influenced the HQ but not the HK.

Pre-HQ weren't in the main, mono-construction. The front frames were removable. Torana and Commodore were mono-construction. Yes his point was the HQ's frame to body mount had more rubbers mounting it than HK-HG, but the HK-HG still had rubbers between the engine plus front suspension to the body, however the transmissions had less rubber insulation than the HQ. None of this was GMH's doing though, this was how the whole thing was designed in the USA and it was how they built them over there.

He has totally left out the availability of the 350ci engine. And in HQ the 3spd manual was still more common than an auto behind 6cyl or 253. It wasn't until HX or HZ that the trimatic became more common than the 3spd manual.

HQ wasn't really "larger" or "heavier" than HK-HG (model and driveline dependant) they aren't all that much different car to car. The 6's were low-tech, especially by the end of the 70's, but they weren't pathetic in fuel economy. The flavour of today are big heavy dual cabs like Hilux and Ranger, but an auto one of these with a diesel weighs 2 tonnes or more and won't do much better than 25mpg Imperial (about 11.5L/100kM) on fuel that is sometimes 25% more expensive than petrol. The flavour back in HQ would have been a Kingswood ute, 202 and auto. One of these was a lot lighter (like 650kg lighter) and returned in the region of 25mpg. If you close the more powerful version (253) you might only see 20mpg, but compare to the more powerful engine in say a Hilux (V6), one of these will do around 20-21mpg on E10 too. So really it is a silly statement to call all HQ 6's "pathetic" in economy. Sure they aren't as good as a 35mpg Kia, but in reality they were more than acceptable.

All of them petrol Hilux types of junk 4x4 or 2wd utes were total crap on fuel.

Most HQ 202's and 253's I came across were autos.
HK1837 Offline
#10 Posted : Tuesday, 29 January 2019 12:00:57 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 12,694

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 146 time(s) in 144 post(s)
They aren’t all crap on fuel. I’ve owned two of them, and both ran about 13.5-14L/100 (about 21mpg) average on E10. That is for a 2000kg car, and includes towing. I’m the person that would always buy the V8 Holden or Torana, never the 6cyl or Starfire 4, hence why I will always buy a petrol modern car.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
wbute Offline
#11 Posted : Tuesday, 29 January 2019 8:15:00 PM(UTC)
wbute

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 25/01/2010(UTC)
Posts: 846

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 8 post(s)
Bit unfair really. They strangled those red 253’s with the carburettor. If they had put the quadrajet on them from the beginning they would have been taken more seriously.
There is no comparison between a 6 and a 253 in a standard car. I realise that you can make a red 6 go like a scalded cat too, but in stock form I would pick the 253 first.
commodorenut Offline
#12 Posted : Tuesday, 29 January 2019 10:41:10 PM(UTC)
commodorenut

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 2/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 3,097

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 29 time(s) in 28 post(s)
The problem with articles like this, written mostly from jaded memories, is they fail to convey the real feeling and the market at the time. Vehicle development has come a long way, and driving more modern cars has tainted the memories of these "journalists" who have quickly forgotten that these were market leaders in their day, and very popular for good reason.

Back in 1971 a 253 with a wheezy carby was a damn good thing - remember that it was only released some 3-4 years earlier. The 202 was quite respectable in its own right too, and a very popular 'upgrade' over the 173 - to the point where I can't remember any of my relatives or friends parents owning a red 173, and only a couple of blue 173 commodores.
Growing up & going to school in the early 80s most of the H-series cars in the carpark were 202 Trimatics - the old 202/Tri badge on the boot of a HQ was a common sight. Occasionally there would be a 253 or even a 308 Prem, but the vast majority of the working class were happy with a 202 well into the early 80s.

I remember the difference putting a Commodore 253 into a HZ made - replacing the red 253 as an interim measure until the 308 was ready.
You could have sworn it was a stock 308 conversion - the 4 barrel went so much better on the 253 - but it was still some 9 years away in 1971.

If someone wants to write a story, at least get the basic facts right, and leave jaded memories tainted by modern experiences out of it.
Cheers,

Mick
_______________________________________________________________

Judge a successful man not on how he treats his peers, but on how he treats those less fortunate.
HK1837 Offline
#13 Posted : Wednesday, 30 January 2019 4:38:54 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 12,694

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 146 time(s) in 144 post(s)
It wasn't just the carb that held the 253 back in performance. The fact that 95% of them from HT-HJ were fitted with either a 3.08 rear axle (manual) or 2.78 (auto) didn't help at all. Sure 308 auto were also 2.78 but the manual were fitted with a 3.36. Plus the bulk of them had single exhaust. This made the 253 a great highway cruiser but performance wise it didn't help at all. The only exposure the general public got to what they could actually do was the HQ SS with dual exhaust and 3.36 rear axle standard. Even in Torana where the manual cars also had a 3.08 rear axle but 13" tyres which geared them a bit better for performance, the dual exhaust if fitted had tiny tailpipes. Those who had bought 253 HQ-HJ cab-chassis certainly knew how nippy they were especially if an alloy tray had been specified, those had 3.55 rear axles and with an alloy tray only weighed about 1350kg!

To draw a comparison, a SBC 327 in a 1967 Camaro produced 210hp, these had the same carby as a 307. The 1967 4BBL 327 was identical other than a Quadrajet and the intake to suit, plus adjusted timing in the dizzy. These were 240hp. That is a 30hp or 14.3% increase. So doing the same % increase on a 185hp 253 sees about 210hp. Combine with dual exhaust and would be a nice thing, but as Mick says we all know how well a blue 4.2L went. GMH even dropped the 308 from VC Commodore making it Police order only as they deemed it not necessary, it was only later in VC they made it available again. WB 4.2L cab-chassis were very good off the mark with the 4BBL 4.2L and a 3.55 or 3.36 rear axle.

The real shame is GMH killed off the HQ GTS coupe before production started. This was to be a 202S engine, would have been a stroked 186S. A 186S feels like a little V8 compared to a stock 186, and the 202 feels the same. The cars that would have benefited greatly would have been the LJ GTR and the LH SL/R, both of those with 3300S engines would have been good performers.

Edited by user Wednesday, 30 January 2019 4:42:08 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#14 Posted : Wednesday, 30 January 2019 1:20:16 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,260

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 10 post(s)
253 Performance wise is mainly in the exhaust, you need a 2 1/4 free flowing single and that's all, with a 253.

A mate had a 308 HQ with stock dual exhaust but someone put the 253 Stromberg on it, but it went surprisingly well, just that the top end of the rev range lacked over the 4 barrel, but it had good grunt. I thought it would be crap like the 302 fords were that had the same 2 barrel Stromberg, not to mention the Carter 2 Barrel that was a bigger CFM and I never seen any 2 Barrel 302 perform well and that HQ of my mate had would kill them.

I had a HG Premier 253 auto 2.78 diff with just 2 1/4 free flowing exhaust and had many drags. one was a stock XC 5.8L auto with dual exhaust and 2.75 diff and they were neck and neck all the way to 110mph all the time. I met a bloke some years ago who came out with Kenny in that XC and he thought that I had a 327 in my Premier, that was just old Kenny telling porky pies just to try to save face.
I tried 3.55 and a 3.36 ratio diffs in that 253 and them ratios were rubbish such just killed it's performance there was nothing good about them ratios at all, I would of liked to try a 3.08 ratio but they were like hens teeth to find back in the day. Kenny would flog my 253 with 3.55 and 3.36 ratios.
One of the tricks to make the auto 253 perform better was to drop the rev when it changes up mine was 5500rpm when it changed up, so I would have to take the foot off and hit it again about 4500 to 4800 at most on a stock engine is all you need.
you can adjust a cable to make it not rev so high and on newer Holden's they have a kick down sensor, I dust toss that away, you do not need it as they change up at 4500 rpm anyway and drop back just the same regardless and if I needed to go over 4500 I just used the T Bar for that. easy as piss.

I don't think that a stock 253 needs any thing more than a 2V 350 Holley, using a big carby is just BS as the size of the engine will only use x amount of CFM so going above that is just stupid. one has to remember that measuring CFM is different between 2 barrel and 4 barrel, so a 500 CFM 2V carby will flow much more than a 4V of the same 500 CFM.

If the Holden 202 did come out as a 202 'S' 2V Stromberg I think that they would of had to use bigger valves to take better advantage of such. a mate had a stock 202 HQ as mine was both with 2 1/2 exhaust and extractors but he put a 350 Holley on it and yes it did drag mine off but not by that much really at all, just walking away like, so I never put a 350 Holley on mine, I was thinking a 2V Stromberg would be good.
I think a 202 with a small cam of 20/60 and a YT Head and 2V Stromberg will be a good strong stock type of engine that no one could bag at all, as it will have all the torque down low and more than stock and good useable stock range power all the way past what a stock could make and matching it with the stock factory run of the mill 253 that got about.
castellan Offline
#15 Posted : Wednesday, 30 January 2019 1:44:03 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,260

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 10 post(s)
Originally Posted by: commodorenut Go to Quoted Post
The problem with articles like this, written mostly from jaded memories, is they fail to convey the real feeling and the market at the time. Vehicle development has come a long way, and driving more modern cars has tainted the memories of these "journalists" who have quickly forgotten that these were market leaders in their day, and very popular for good reason.

Back in 1971 a 253 with a wheezy carby was a damn good thing - remember that it was only released some 3-4 years earlier. The 202 was quite respectable in its own right too, and a very popular 'upgrade' over the 173 - to the point where I can't remember any of my relatives or friends parents owning a red 173, and only a couple of blue 173 commodores.
Growing up & going to school in the early 80s most of the H-series cars in the carpark were 202 Trimatics - the old 202/Tri badge on the boot of a HQ was a common sight. Occasionally there would be a 253 or even a 308 Prem, but the vast majority of the working class were happy with a 202 well into the early 80s.

I remember the difference putting a Commodore 253 into a HZ made - replacing the red 253 as an interim measure until the 308 was ready.
You could have sworn it was a stock 308 conversion - the 4 barrel went so much better on the 253 - but it was still some 9 years away in 1971.

If someone wants to write a story, at least get the basic facts right, and leave jaded memories tainted by modern experiences out of it.


Look what HQ racing can do with that little 1V Stromberg carby and the right setup.
My Dad had a HQ Kingswood 173 3sp manual my brother had one and I had one as well, but when I got the big 202 manual she had much more torque then I got the 253 auto and that was a highway 90mph easy cruse good all round car that would not frighten a lot of people but a good 308 would be too much for in experienced to drive. my Mum drove my 308 once and my Dad said never to let her drive my car again.

With a good 308 pre ADR27A crusing speed was 180km/h with a 3.08 ratio diff after that the secondary's start to open.
commodorenut Offline
#16 Posted : Wednesday, 30 January 2019 5:32:25 PM(UTC)
commodorenut

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 2/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 3,097

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 29 time(s) in 28 post(s)
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
Look what HQ racing can do with that little 1V Stromberg carby and the right setup.

And 20+ years of aftermarket development in engine improvements, advances in machining accuracy & tolerance, a much better understanding of airflow through an engine, coupled with massive technological leaps in tyres, and even suspension components, plus many other parts.

None of which was available in 1971.

Apples are not oranges.... you're comparing 1990s candy apples to 1970s oranges....

The article and follow-on discussion was comparing the 2 engines of the era - in that era, not 20 years on. And in their era, they didn't have 20+ years of development to help them.

Holden couldn't get more than about 140hp out of the last incarnation of the 253, yet the Commodore cup guys were putting out 300hp control engines some 10-15 years later.
Again, development and technology - it didn't exist when they were new cars.

Cheers,

Mick
_______________________________________________________________

Judge a successful man not on how he treats his peers, but on how he treats those less fortunate.
castellan Offline
#17 Posted : Thursday, 31 January 2019 9:27:12 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,260

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 10 post(s)
Originally Posted by: commodorenut Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
Look what HQ racing can do with that little 1V Stromberg carby and the right setup.

And 20+ years of aftermarket development in engine improvements, advances in machining accuracy & tolerance, a much better understanding of airflow through an engine, coupled with massive technological leaps in tyres, and even suspension components, plus many other parts.

None of which was available in 1971.

Apples are not oranges.... you're comparing 1990s candy apples to 1970s oranges....

The article and follow-on discussion was comparing the 2 engines of the era - in that era, not 20 years on. And in their era, they didn't have 20+ years of development to help them.

Holden couldn't get more than about 140hp out of the last incarnation of the 253, yet the Commodore cup guys were putting out 300hp control engines some 10-15 years later.
Again, development and technology - it didn't exist when they were new cars.



Had a mate in 1984 with a worked 202 in a LH Torana with only twin Stromberg's and no triple carby came near him, f that thing went and was good on fuel.
Get the right cam and all set up just right and all is good.

The HQ 202 racing are not chasing max HP out of a engine, it's just a combination that works well with what they have to deal with.

Some people had there head screwed on back in the 70's and 80's, one can look at the Holden 308 in Repco racing, or street able 308's with 330hp were no problem, nothing has advanced anymore with a carby really, cam tec and head work have moved forward but not all people were stupid like most just trying to make max peek power or porting like a idiot or dumb as to getting cams right for the job. most just tossed together a setup without understanding what they were truly doing.

I remember a bloke in the late 70's with a 308 HQ that was that powerful that it twisted the chassis and it was street geared, not drag car rubbish, that thing was eating all the worked 350's and 351's around easy.
There were people around that knew what they truly were doing back in the days but not many were in that league at all, some were good but not masters like that.

It's a lot to do with getting the combination together right and just look at the gearing as well and see that a stock red 202 can do 185km/h with a 3.08 diff and out perform a 3.36 from like 60km/h on, so when one looks into such you can see what works better or not in some ways by looking into such.
Just by looking as stock engines and figuring how diff ratios truly work etc and then expanding on such knowledge you can have the edge on others.

I would race dirt bikes and I would look at the track working out the gearing as I was riding and think ok I am going to use x combination and see if it works.
A mate of mine went out to the MX track on a DRZ400 and he was 45yo and blew all the best younger riders in that town off, on a bloody milk crate DRZ400 !

My elder brother had a stock HQ 3SP manual 173 and his mate had a stock Zodiac Mk III auto, now that Zodiac would blow the 173 HQ away and that got me thinking as to how the bloody hell could this be so, I believed it to have to be in the gearing. and then when I got really blown away in my stock 202 HQ by a stock HD Holden full of coons down the street from 60km/h on, I thought hang on ! what the f ! it was all in the gearing.

I had a mate with the same VY SS and both performed the same but then he dropped the diff ratio fro 3.46 to 3.9 and I worked out the advantages and dis advantage, one would think that the lower would have all the advantages but I did not, he could get me off the line 1st and 2ed but from then on nothing was in it really and from 210km/h I just wiped the floor with him. there were some other advantages as well with the lower gearing to be sure, but it's all interesting to me.
HK1837 Offline
#18 Posted : Thursday, 31 January 2019 4:06:40 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 12,694

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 146 time(s) in 144 post(s)
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
253 Performance wise is mainly in the exhaust, you need a 2 1/4 free flowing single and that's all, with a 253.

A mate had a 308 HQ with stock dual exhaust but someone put the 253 Stromberg on it, but it went surprisingly well, just that the top end of the rev range lacked over the 4 barrel, but it had good grunt. I thought it would be crap like the 302 fords were that had the same 2 barrel Stromberg, not to mention the Carter 2 Barrel that was a bigger CFM and I never seen any 2 Barrel 302 perform well and that HQ of my mate had would kill them.

I had a HG Premier 253 auto 2.78 diff with just 2 1/4 free flowing exhaust and had many drags. one was a stock XC 5.8L auto with dual exhaust and 2.75 diff and they were neck and neck all the way to 110mph all the time. I met a bloke some years ago who came out with Kenny in that XC and he thought that I had a 327 in my Premier, that was just old Kenny telling porky pies just to try to save face.
I tried 3.55 and a 3.36 ratio diffs in that 253 and them ratios were rubbish such just killed it's performance there was nothing good about them ratios at all, I would of liked to try a 3.08 ratio but they were like hens teeth to find back in the day. Kenny would flog my 253 with 3.55 and 3.36 ratios.
One of the tricks to make the auto 253 perform better was to drop the rev when it changes up mine was 5500rpm when it changed up, so I would have to take the foot off and hit it again about 4500 to 4800 at most on a stock engine is all you need.
you can adjust a cable to make it not rev so high and on newer Holden's they have a kick down sensor, I dust toss that away, you do not need it as they change up at 4500 rpm anyway and drop back just the same regardless and if I needed to go over 4500 I just used the T Bar for that. easy as piss.

I don't think that a stock 253 needs any thing more than a 2V 350 Holley, using a big carby is just BS as the size of the engine will only use x amount of CFM so going above that is just stupid. one has to remember that measuring CFM is different between 2 barrel and 4 barrel, so a 500 CFM 2V carby will flow much more than a 4V of the same 500 CFM.

If the Holden 202 did come out as a 202 'S' 2V Stromberg I think that they would of had to use bigger valves to take better advantage of such. a mate had a stock 202 HQ as mine was both with 2 1/2 exhaust and extractors but he put a 350 Holley on it and yes it did drag mine off but not by that much really at all, just walking away like, so I never put a 350 Holley on mine, I was thinking a 2V Stromberg would be good.
I think a 202 with a small cam of 20/60 and a YT Head and 2V Stromberg will be a good strong stock type of engine that no one could bag at all, as it will have all the torque down low and more than stock and good useable stock range power all the way past what a stock could make and matching it with the stock factory run of the mill 253 that got about.



I agree that the 308 with the 2BBL will be OK. It will lose power (as you witnessed) but will have good low end torque. I had a 307 in an FJ40 that was pretty much stock except it was bored to 4" (327ci) and had a 500 Holley 2BBL on it. Was awful. I pulled the 2BBL off and put a 4BBL manifold and 600 vac sec 4BBL Holley on it. Went well with heaps more power but didn't have the low end torque needed. In the end I put an original 307 manifold and 2BBL Rochester on it, was brilliant. When I converted my Nissan Patrol MQ ute to a 302 SBC and TH400 I fitted a WW Stromberg 2BBL initially, but it wasn't good. I actually fitted a 4BBL intake and a VK Quadrajet, was perfect, had low end grunt and revved out well with good power production. So when you put a Quadrajet on a 253, and set it up like GMH did for the VC/WB they do go really well. A 308's Quadrajet isn't setup right for a 253. Thebest 253 I ever drove was a sweet little motor. Nothing special, was a later one (HZ/VB) with the dome top (9.4:1) pistons. It was fitted with earlier HQ heads and 308 intake with a blue 4.2L Quadrajet. It had HEI ignition, extractors and a single system, and was fitted with the better HJ onwards 308 cam. It was a 5spd manual with a 3.55 rear end. Was a sweet car to drive. Engine was nothing special, but was just right for a daily driver.

A 202S would go better with big valves, but GMH would never have done that in 1970 era. They were a big volume auto producer, just like GM. They built stuff to be used wherever practical across the board. Remember GMH had Perfectune do the XU1 and L34 heads, they didn't do it in house. Pretty much the same for the bigger cams done for race teams to fit themselves, they were done by outside suppliers. As it was a 186S had 145hp, that is 15hp more than a stock HT 186 from the identical engine specs bar induction, headers and timing (HT onwards 186 used the 186S cam in most applications, earlier HK and HR 186 had a smaller cam and was 19hp less than the 186S). All GMH would have done with the 202S was to fit the same stuff the 186S had: better bearings, valves and springs, the induction and headers. Using the same % gain for the 186S over the 186 (same cam between them) this would put the 202S at 151hp (stock HQ 202 was 135hp). It'd probably have been actually higher with the 186S cam, the stock HQ 202 cam was the original 161 cam: 35/75 70/40. The 186S was 43/85 95/48 (these are both including ramps, but you can see the comparison). So if a stock 202 went from 135hp to 151hp with the small 161 cam, with a 186S cam it might have seen 160hp. Add big valves and porting maybe closer to 165-170hp. Getting way too close to the claimed 185hp 253 and thus the HQ GTS would have made a HQ V8 GTS manual with single exhaust and 3.08 rear axle feel slow compared with the GTS's 202S with the same ratio aussie 4spd and a 3.55 rear axle. Plus the 202 would be less restricted with the single exhaust than the 253.

Mick is right about modern technology especially cams. GMH did exactly what GM did with cams, just had a handful and used them across the board. For the later 60's and 70's GM only had 3 production SBC cams, two hydraulics and a solid. The one hydraulic cam was used from 8:1 truck engines through to 10.25:1 300hp 350, this was the same grind as the HJ-VL 308/304. Their next hydraulic was used in the L79 327 350hp (Corvette, was 325hp in others) and 350hp 350 in Corvette. The solid (Duntov cam) was used in the 365hp L76 327, 375hp L84 327 and in Z28 302 plus the 1970 LT1 360hp/370hp engine. As I said, GMH did the same, they developed a better cam for the 308 right at the start (the HJ onwards 308 cam) but saved their pennies and used the 253's cam and retarded it, this was simply done to reduce costs and to have one less part. When they wanted more power they stuck the other cam in and it stayed there on all production GMH 308/304 vehicles until the end of VL (Group A engines excluded). Today with modern roller cams, you can wring huge increases over flat tappet cams especially hydraulics. Modern head chamber designs (plus modern porting practices) also make a huge difference. A simple look at the power output from stock alloy LT1 Corvette heads from the 80's or stock cast 350 Vortec heads compared to the old big port, closed chamber, big valve fuelies of the 60's shows you that the newer heads function far better than the old ones. EFI 304 heads compared to the older heads especially with the 5.7L/350ci versions is another example. Look at LS engines, they are a simple old fashioned pushrod engine, that will outperform old 350ci and 377ci engines with factory componentry, it is all in the heads and roller cam. Put modern alloys and a roller cam on an old rebuilt 350 and it'll perform just as well. I bet those Commodore Cup 253 engines have some hard work gone into their cam designs! If you read the last bit of this article, it shows what they got out of a repro L84 by simply using a modern cam grind versus the original solid cam:

http://www.superchevy.co...ie-motor-on-engine-dyno/

Edited by user Thursday, 31 January 2019 4:19:03 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
HK1837 Offline
#19 Posted : Friday, 1 February 2019 7:23:48 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 12,694

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 146 time(s) in 144 post(s)
I also meant to mention, imagine the LJ GTR and to a lesser extent the LH SL/R with a 3300S rather than a stock small cam 135hp 3300. One of the magazines of the day speculated what GMH were doing (prior to XU1 release) and stuck a 145hp 186S into an LC GTR, it was very quick. Imagine this as a 3300S with another 15hp or so (assuming a 202S would get the 186S cam). The LH Gpack with its 3.36 rear axle would have been quick too. Neither of them XU1 quick but still would have been far better car than the stock 3300 cars.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
8D11PCH2 Offline
#20 Posted : Friday, 1 February 2019 7:48:23 AM(UTC)
8D11PCH2

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/09/2016(UTC)
Posts: 86
Australia
Location: OZ

Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 8 post(s)
GMH did put a 3300S into the LJ GTR. It's called RPO XU1.
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
3 Pages123>
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 0.525 seconds.