Notification

Icon
Error

Login


Take the time to read our Privacy Policy.

Guest
#1 Posted : Monday, 26 March 2007 4:46:24 PM(UTC)
Guest

Rank: Guest

Groups: Guests
Joined: 2/09/2015(UTC)
Posts: 43,977

Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 5 post(s)

Hi All

Over the years I have seen the exact capacity of Holden 202s referred to as either 3298cc or 3310.
Why the differece, and if there is a slight difference where do the "extra" 12ccs come from? A mate said it has to do with early and late type engines.

Anyone know any better?

Thanks

Jack

HK1837 Offline
#2 Posted : Monday, 26 March 2007 5:10:02 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,898

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 557 time(s) in 532 post(s)
The 202 has always been 3 5/8" bore and 3 1/4" stroke. This works out as 3297.932cc. I don't know where the other figure comes from. Even using +0.005" pistons I still only get 3307cc. I also noticed that the early Scientific publications/Gregorys refer t
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
cloudy Offline
#3 Posted : Tuesday, 27 March 2007 5:47:31 AM(UTC)
cloudy

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 2,047

they seem to round them off to the nearest number, VL 5.0 is 4.9 the old 5.0 is larger than 5.0 only just!
hq ss Offline
#4 Posted : Tuesday, 27 March 2007 7:23:42 AM(UTC)
hq ss

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/08/2006(UTC)
Posts: 671

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
It was the VL that was suppied with a 304 engine wasnt it.So that it could race in the under 5 litre class.It was the crank that was differant in them wasnt it (with a smaller stroke). Is this true.
commodorenut Offline
#5 Posted : Tuesday, 27 March 2007 8:53:02 AM(UTC)
commodorenut

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 2/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 3,135

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 35 time(s) in 33 post(s)
The VK debuted the 304 in 1985.

The 4.9L name was coined to help mechanics, assembly workers & others differentiate between a 308 & 304 at a glance (there were other minor revisions to the emmission system).

It was also a way of sticking it to the F
Cheers,

Mick
_______________________________________________________________

Judge a successful man not on how he treats his peers, but on how he treats those less fortunate.
hq ss Offline
#6 Posted : Wednesday, 28 March 2007 6:52:16 AM(UTC)
hq ss

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/08/2006(UTC)
Posts: 671

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Thanks Commodorenut.So did they have a differant crank?? I was shown one and told it was a 304 crank but cannot remember if it had 304 cast on it or if it was in white paint marker. Is this around the time that they had the exhaust manifold/extractor with
HK1837 Offline
#7 Posted : Wednesday, 28 March 2007 7:08:35 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,898

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 557 time(s) in 532 post(s)
Crank is different. Still had 308 on it though.

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
hq ss Offline
#8 Posted : Wednesday, 28 March 2007 7:32:01 AM(UTC)
hq ss

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/08/2006(UTC)
Posts: 671

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Thanks Byron. That would make it hard to know its a 304 crank.
Guest
#9 Posted : Wednesday, 28 March 2007 8:14:38 AM(UTC)
Guest

Rank: Guest

Groups: Guests
Joined: 2/09/2015(UTC)
Posts: 43,977

Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 5 post(s)
Didn't the 304's have something like 0.5mm less stroke?

Paul: Yep, that was the touring car rules back then...exhaust designs were free from the first join back so most manufacturers just moved the join closer to the manifolds...

Cheers...Dave
hq ss Offline
#10 Posted : Wednesday, 28 March 2007 8:22:46 AM(UTC)
hq ss

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/08/2006(UTC)
Posts: 671

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Im not sure how much, I just remmember being told they were differant.So it was true with the exhaust. Any way to bend the rules was tried I suppose.
Thanks Dave
ozjason Offline
#11 Posted : Wednesday, 28 March 2007 8:27:37 AM(UTC)
ozjason

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 29/06/2005(UTC)
Posts: 287

When Qld Transport pull up my 1975 Torana in their system, it defaults to 3310cc engine size. When they pull up my 1974 HQ, it defaults to 3298cc. Actually... might be Shannons... either Qld Transport or Shannons.

Who knows if there actually was a d
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 © 2003-2025, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.075 seconds.