Rank: Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/08/2005(UTC)
Posts: 309
|
Hi guys just wondering what defines a 202 as High compression, I have just bought one out of a HQ and it has a sticker on the tappet cover (20 High Compression) and was wondering if it was head or pistons or some other majical formula they used to obtain the HC rating, and does it make any difference? are there any changes over a regular 202? what is the advantage of H.C.?
Matt
Looking for Old Caravans!!!! especially 1950's ply ones! Thanks! |
1962 EK Wagon - Chev SBC & T700, 1962 EK Sedan - Chev SBC & T700,EK Ute - V6 Buick & 5 speed = LOOKING FOR A 1962 EK VAN |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 2,047
|
these figures are from a HQ owner manual .
202HC 9.4 to 1 , 135hp @4400, torque lbs/ft 194 @2000 for the 202LC 7.8 to 1 ,129hp @4400, torque lbs/ft 190 @2000 figures for the bore and stroke are the same. majority of HQ`s would be HC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
Groups: Guests
Joined: 2/09/2015(UTC)
Posts: 43,977
Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 5 post(s)
|
Hi Matt,
In the 173/202 range, Holden used different pistons to achieve their various compression ratios. in the earlier motors, the heads were different.
The high compression motors are a little more powerful than the low compression versions but w
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/08/2005(UTC)
Posts: 309
|
Thanks for that info - most informative!
Matt
Looking for Old Caravans!!!! especially 1950's ply ones! Thanks! |
1962 EK Wagon - Chev SBC & T700, 1962 EK Sedan - Chev SBC & T700,EK Ute - V6 Buick & 5 speed = LOOKING FOR A 1962 EK VAN |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Moderator, Registered
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 6,068
Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 207 time(s) in 188 post(s)
|
Hi Guys.
Just to clarify that. The High Comp motor is the 'normal' 202.
The Lo-comp 202 is the rare option.
Dr Terry |
If at first you don't succeed, just call it Version 1.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,742
Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 516 time(s) in 492 post(s)
|
Interesting on the 173. I always believed these were made low compression by using a 202 head ie the short motors are the same apart from the engine number prefix. Might be wrong though. |
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords? |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Moderator, Registered
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 6,068
Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 207 time(s) in 188 post(s)
|
Hi Guys.
Yes Byron, Qute is not quite correct re: the 173/202 thing.
He is correct about 186 & 202, where the lo-comp version was created by further dishing the pistons & retaining the original large chamber head. All the other lo-comp motors (149, |
If at first you don't succeed, just call it Version 1.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
Groups: Guests
Joined: 2/09/2015(UTC)
Posts: 43,977
Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 5 post(s)
|
Ah! Thanks for clearing that up Dr Terry...I originally thought that was how the low compression 173 was made but was convinced otherwise or I got confused...one of the two.
Cheers...Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
