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

Notification

Icon
Error

Login


Take the time to read our Privacy Policy.

7 Pages«<4567>
HK1837 Offline
#101 Posted : Wednesday, 30 September 2015 9:30:12 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,717

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 512 time(s) in 488 post(s)
I think you'll find it was big dealers like Southern Motors who were doing the importing and converting. The stuff GMH sold was always one spec fits all, although for example in 1968 we had Impala sedan, Impala sports sedan and Parisienne (I think) sports sedan. As they were all CKD it wouldn't be easy to bring over all different spec vehicles. The only variables generally were colour and trim.

You'll also find the GMH vehicles were generally better equipped and better built than imported stuff. My '57 210 had Connolly leather trim and Westminster carpet - the imported cars of the same lux level had none of that. The car still drives beautifully today with untouched engine, box and diff after nearly 60 years. It is used as a wedding car today.

Although a heavier car and a powerglide I still wouldn't underestimate the capabilities of a 1968 GMH Pontiac or Impala. In a HK (as I already said yes a lighter manual car and with a 3.36:1 diff) it was easily capable of 130mph. Des West's car was clocked well over 130mph on Conrod in 1968. Rob Luck (Racing car news) did tests on a standard private un-fiddled HK GTS327 in the 19 second bracket for 0-100mph. When Dave Bennett's GTS327 was 9 days old he removed the exhaust (back half I think) and clocked 14.46s over the Calder quarter with its original D70 tyres and 3.36:1 rear axle. For the Pontiac/Impala add 0-100 time and take off some top speed (3.55:1 rear axle but 15" tyres) still leaves them not bad for a big old boat! While these big boats were never going to out accelerate a torquey big block, but as a point to point cruiser they were certainly a capable car. Plus a torquey 327 that loved to rev with a powerglide and 3.55:1 rear axle they'd still go OK. I used to have a 308 HQ Deville in the 80's and it was a pretty impressive car over long distances (and without requirement for good handling!) and a 1968 Impala or Parisienne would have eaten it. In the 70's and early 80's they were cheap too, and easy to replace the 327 with say an LT1 spec engine, or simply to change to heads and get an instant 25-30hp increase.

Just as an interesting aside, Modern Motor did actually test a 1966 GTO with the 389ci 335hp standard engine, they recorded 0-100mph in 19.4 seconds, top speed 126.7mph and standing quarter [email protected]. Pretty impressive for a big car running on Aussie fuel and tested in Aussie conditions. As you say a shame we didn't get cars like this!

Edited by user Wednesday, 30 September 2015 6:18:10 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Changed diff ratio

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#102 Posted : Wednesday, 30 September 2015 10:04:38 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,641

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 27 time(s) in 25 post(s)
You maybe correct with what you say about your 1957 but as to better equipped in the last 3 years of the Aussie Impala Pontiac no way, just look at the backward dash we got and then look at the yank job with inter con air and all the rest.

I could just see a cashed up Yank back in the day, coming to Aus and eye the local offering off and reeling back in horror, then go back to the USA and inform them all how we have bastardised their GM cars.

How about a VB commodore and a German who had just the same car back home, jump behind the wheel of a big 3.3L I wonder how impressed he would have been.
Ark te leben !! zher must be a dead rat stuck in the air filter onta she feel like it's running on 5 cylinders over 4500RPM no.
HK1837 Offline
#103 Posted : Thursday, 1 October 2015 6:57:41 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,717

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 512 time(s) in 488 post(s)
GMH didn't bastardise them, they are simply Canadian spec vehicles (as opposed to American). It is exactly how they were built in Canada except for 1966-1967 we got a COPO engine, the base engine was a 2BBL 283 or for 1968 the 307 that went into the HK, and then jumped to a 275hp 327 (same engine as ours with fuellie heads). We got an in between engine that was a COPO option in 1966-7 and part of USA Chevrolet options in 1968 for full size. The 230/240hp engine was a COPO option for regular fuel as the 275hp engine was 10:1 and it was a made mainstream for 1968 (as 250hp).

The base engine in a VB was actually a 2.85 and I reckon the Germans if not impressed with the 3.3L version would certainly be impressed by a 5.0L one, when the biggest engine in one of these back home was a 2.5L 85kW carbied engine (was the same thing with EFI and 96kW later on like GMH did with the VK). This engine as a 2.6L EFI engine was fitted to Asian export VR-VS Holdens, I saw one on Langkawi a few years back. The one they'd scoff at would have been the big block Starfire in subsequent series. Maybe the South Africans would have something to laugh at as their versions got the 230 and 250ci Chev 6cyl.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#104 Posted : Thursday, 1 October 2015 10:25:34 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,641

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 27 time(s) in 25 post(s)
Ok Canada bastardise them.

Our VB-C-H-K-L commodore is Their Opel Senator ? they had a 134kw @ 5800 EFI OHC 3.0L with IRS and it could do 210KM/H.

What about that rattle trap V6 we got in the VN-P-R that was a joke.

The only thing they would be sure to remember is the fuel that the carby fed 5.0L chewed.
castellan Offline
#105 Posted : Thursday, 1 October 2015 11:10:35 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,641

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 27 time(s) in 25 post(s)
I don't know why people rant and rave about the Chev engines we got hear in our Holdens, they were manly gutless just like most of the fords 351.

The old Holden 308 red could hose of any 307 we got any day, the thing is the old 308 does not like the restricted exhaust but once you oped for the twin exhaust they did go very well, that even a HQ 350 was flat out keeping ahead of them just like the ford 351 from XB on rubbish was.

Sure the HT-G 350 went maybe as well as a XY-A GT and they could keep the mighty 308 at bay.

The 307 we got was just a good torque engine.
The 327 we got was just a low compression job sadly but went a lot better than a 307.
The HT-G 350 we got was a high compression but sadly small cam version, even smaller than a 4V GT cam.
The HQ 350 was low compression torque slug, nothing could be said high performance about it.

Just remember I am on about stock engines here.

I had a lot of experience in running against such cars years ago to know how they did perform 1/4 mile runs and top end.
I had a stock 308 and never had any 351 bar a 4V GT hose me off and I knew dudes who had 350 HQ's that would be all in fear of running against 308's because they knew only too well that their HQ 350's were slugs.
HK1837 Offline
#106 Posted : Thursday, 1 October 2015 12:54:33 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,717

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 512 time(s) in 488 post(s)
Yes stock engines, but be fair - compare a 307 manual HK with dual exhaust (you could option this if you tried hard) against a HQ with a 308 4spd and dual exhaust. I think you'd be very surprised. Take them both back to single exhaust and the result wouldn't be that much different. In fact there was no 307 manual HK GTS at the Monaro launch and press test. There was a very good reason for that - it'd have been quicker than the GTS327 they had there for testing. It wasn't until a reporter from RCN called Rob Luck who didn't buy the performance of the press test cars blew the lid on the performance potential of the 327 that the truth was exposed. GMH repeated the exact same thing with HT, HG and HQ press test 350 manuals. For both HT and HQ the auto test cars were quicker with taller rear axles and loaded with air and steer as they weren't fiddled with. The only time a manual version of one of these cars escaped in proper tune was the one Mel Nichols drove and he commented on how quick the car was. When he got the car back to do performance tests though a week or so later it went just like the original press test cars - he stated "it had gone off-song". Peter Robinson didn't believe Mel until he got to drive one himself, and that is also reported on in magazine articles. He even went on to say in the June 1971 Wheels issue that he was no longer of the opinion that the best local GT-type car was the Falcon. In fact magazine testers were not allowed to test the cars without a GMH staffer in the car. Wheels and RCN managed on these press test cars with a GMH staffer in the car 0-100mph in 18.9 and 1/4 mile in 15.6sec@92mph. These are almost identical figures to what Rob Luck obtained with a private, tuned to factory specs GTS327 which had 50hp less - which is obviously not possible. The real figures on unfiddled cars (and very hard data to find from the day) show the HT-HG GTS350 manual was a very quick car, it was faster than any non-HO XW-XA, 0-100mph in 16.0s, standing quarter in 14.8sec. Those figures are not far off an XW/XY GT-HO. People who bought and owned them in the day will attest to this fact.
Road test HQ's were the same, road tests of the day by Modern Motor, Sports Car World and Wheels showed the auto GTS350 almost 4 seconds faster to 100mph than the 4spd, and the quarter mile times both saw 15.8sec@97mph. We all know that this cannot be the case - that any standard 308 4spd car is faster accelerating than the same engine with a TH400. The 350 HQ would be the same if the engines are in the same state of tune - remember the engines and their fitment into HQ were identical, same dizzy, same carb (other than vacuum advance port), same exhaust, same 3.08:1 rear axle except manual was LSD auto open, same size tyres. What these HQ tests also show you is the HQ auto is a true result. HQ manual in proper tune should be faster, you'd say maybe 15.3-5sec 1/4, which also shows the 15.6 press test car results for the HT-G manual is also dodgy.

Note that the GTS327 engine isn't "low compression". It is in fact the same compression ratio as a HT-HQ 308 ie 9:1. It might be lower by US specs, but we always got US engines as 9:1 or lower compression. The only reason the HT-HG GTS350 got a 10.25:1 engine is that was the only 350 engine at the time, others didn't come until later.

HT-HG engines use the same camshaft as just about all SBC's of the day, it was simply called the general performance camshaft. Same cam for 327 from 210hp through to I think even 300hp - only the heads and induction changed (and pistons on the 300hp engine). Same with the 350 engines, it wasn't until you got up into Z28 350 that the cam got more aggressive. The HQ 350 engine was exactly the same GM L48 specification engine as HT-HG GTS350 manual, GM simply changed the compression ratio of the engine to suit the US fuel of the 70's by using dished pistons and larger chamber heads. Same cam, same valves, same ports, same manifold and carb settings. GM retarded the ignition heaps on 1971 onwards L48 but GMH used the same distributor spec as used on HK GTS327 and HT-HG GTS350 engines for HQ (dizzy changed later in HQ).

Edited by user Thursday, 1 October 2015 1:05:13 PM(UTC)  | Reason: spelling and more

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Dr Terry Offline
#107 Posted : Thursday, 1 October 2015 1:16:42 PM(UTC)
Dr Terry

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 6,058

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 203 time(s) in 184 post(s)
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post


Ok Canada bastardise them.

Our VB-C-H-K-L commodore is Their Opel Senator ? they had a 134kw @ 5800 EFI OHC 3.0L with IRS and it could do 210KM/H.

What about that rattle trap V6 we got in the VN-P-R that was a joke.

The only thing they would be sure to remember is the fuel that the carby fed 5.0L chewed.I don't know why people rant and rave about the Chev engines we got hear in our Holdens, they were manly gutless just like most of the fords 351.

The old Holden 308 red could hose of any 307 we got any day, the thing is the old 308 does not like the restricted exhaust but once you oped for the twin exhaust they did go very well, that even a HQ 350 was flat out keeping ahead of them just like the ford 351 from XB on rubbish was.

Sure the HT-G 350 went maybe as well as a XY-A GT and they could keep the mighty 308 at bay.

The 307 we got was just a good torque engine.
The 327 we got was just a low compression job sadly but went a lot better than a 307.
The HT-G 350 we got was a high compression but sadly small cam version, even smaller than a 4V GT cam.
The HQ 350 was low compression torque slug, nothing could be said high performance about it.

Just remember I am on about stock engines here.

I had a lot of experience in running against such cars years ago to know how they did perform 1/4 mile runs and top end.
I had a stock 308 and never had any 351 bar a 4V GT hose me off and I knew dudes who had 350 HQ's that would be all in fear of running against 308's because they knew only too well that their HQ 350's were slugs.


Did we get out of our bed on the wrong side this morning, did we ? A lot of aggression showing.

A few points.

What was "bastardised" ?

Our Commodore, was made out of an Opel Rekord body, with Senator front panels attached. Similar to, but not as expensive & not quite the same.

What was wrong with the Small Block Chevs (283/307/327) of the mid-late 60s, why were they any worse than Ford's 289/302 or Chrysler's 273/318 ?

What other Aussie car to do put up against a HT/G 350, surely not an HQ 308 ? I'll agree that a dual exhaust HQ 308 would give a HQ 350 a good run though, but it would be close.

The lo comp 351 (XB on) was the start of emissions reduction, these can't be directly compared to those of a few years earlier.

What's wrong with VP-VR V6s, I know a lot of owners of these that got 300,000- 400,000 km with no dramas & they were reliable, economical & performed very well for such an old OHV design.

The early VN V6, while rougher than the later motors, blew away the EA offerings of the time. When released in '88 the EA had 3 engines, a 3.2 TBI, 3.9 TBI & a 3.9 MPI, which was standard in the upper models. Holden's V6 introduced later that year was a better performer than Ford's top line unit & had them on the hop. They discontinued the 3.2 almost immediately & by EBII the 3.9 CFI & MPI were history & a 4.0 MPI was introduced, just to keep up. On top of that Holden had the 5.0 EFI as an option, which in stock form was a very good engine in its day.

Dr Terry
If at first you don't succeed, just call it Version 1.0
castellan Offline
#108 Posted : Thursday, 1 October 2015 7:04:42 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,641

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 27 time(s) in 25 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Dr Terry Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post


Ok Canada bastardise them.

Our VB-C-H-K-L commodore is Their Opel Senator ? they had a 134kw @ 5800 EFI OHC 3.0L with IRS and it could do 210KM/H.

What about that rattle trap V6 we got in the VN-P-R that was a joke.

The only thing they would be sure to remember is the fuel that the carby fed 5.0L chewed.I don't know why people rant and rave about the Chev engines we got hear in our Holdens, they were manly gutless just like most of the fords 351.

The old Holden 308 red could hose of any 307 we got any day, the thing is the old 308 does not like the restricted exhaust but once you oped for the twin exhaust they did go very well, that even a HQ 350 was flat out keeping ahead of them just like the ford 351 from XB on rubbish was.

Sure the HT-G 350 went maybe as well as a XY-A GT and they could keep the mighty 308 at bay.

The 307 we got was just a good torque engine.
The 327 we got was just a low compression job sadly but went a lot better than a 307.
The HT-G 350 we got was a high compression but sadly small cam version, even smaller than a 4V GT cam.
The HQ 350 was low compression torque slug, nothing could be said high performance about it.

Just remember I am on about stock engines here.

I had a lot of experience in running against such cars years ago to know how they did perform 1/4 mile runs and top end.
I had a stock 308 and never had any 351 bar a 4V GT hose me off and I knew dudes who had 350 HQ's that would be all in fear of running against 308's because they knew only too well that their HQ 350's were slugs.


Did we get out of our bed on the wrong side this morning, did we ? A lot of aggression showing.

A few points.

What was "bastardised" ?

Our Commodore, was made out of an Opel Rekord body, with Senator front panels attached. Similar to, but not as expensive & not quite the same.

What was wrong with the Small Block Chevs (283/307/327) of the mid-late 60s, why were they any worse than Ford's 289/302 or Chrysler's 273/318 ?

What other Aussie car to do put up against a HT/G 350, surely not an HQ 308 ? I'll agree that a dual exhaust HQ 308 would give a HQ 350 a good run though, but it would be close.

The lo comp 351 (XB on) was the start of emissions reduction, these can't be directly compared to those of a few years earlier.

What's wrong with VP-VR V6s, I know a lot of owners of these that got 300,000- 400,000 km with no dramas & they were reliable, economical & performed very well for such an old OHV design.

The early VN V6, while rougher than the later motors, blew away the EA offerings of the time. When released in '88 the EA had 3 engines, a 3.2 TBI, 3.9 TBI & a 3.9 MPI, which was standard in the upper models. Holden's V6 introduced later that year was a better performer than Ford's top line unit & had them on the hop. They discontinued the 3.2 almost immediately & by EBII the 3.9 CFI & MPI were history & a 4.0 MPI was introduced, just to keep up. On top of that Holden had the 5.0 EFI as an option, which in stock form was a very good engine in its day.

Dr Terry


No aggression at all, but just the facts and sure I like a healthy debate.

Bastardised ? from a yank's perspective I would think it was.

Our VB commodore was a lot different.

Nothing wrong with any of the engines, they all have their points.

As for HT-G 350 GTS they are on par with a GT falcon performance wise and I never said a 308 would go them did i.

XB 351 1973 to 1976 against a HQ-J 308 yes them 351 like the 350 had more torque but could not hose off a 308.

Sure the VN V6 could do as you say but it was a noisy chaff cutter.
Yep 5.0L VN was a good engine, but the VN looked like a toad.
castellan Offline
#109 Posted : Thursday, 1 October 2015 7:36:02 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,641

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 27 time(s) in 25 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Yes stock engines, but be fair - compare a 307 manual HK with dual exhaust (you could option this if you tried hard) against a HQ with a 308 4spd and dual exhaust. I think you'd be very surprised. Take them both back to single exhaust and the result wouldn't be that much different. In fact there was no 307 manual HK GTS at the Monaro launch and press test. There was a very good reason for that - it'd have been quicker than the GTS327 they had there for testing. It wasn't until a reporter from RCN called Rob Luck who didn't buy the performance of the press test cars blew the lid on the performance potential of the 327 that the truth was exposed. GMH repeated the exact same thing with HT, HG and HQ press test 350 manuals. For both HT and HQ the auto test cars were quicker with taller rear axles and loaded with air and steer as they weren't fiddled with. The only time a manual version of one of these cars escaped in proper tune was the one Mel Nichols drove and he commented on how quick the car was. When he got the car back to do performance tests though a week or so later it went just like the original press test cars - he stated "it had gone off-song". Peter Robinson didn't believe Mel until he got to drive one himself, and that is also reported on in magazine articles. He even went on to say in the June 1971 Wheels issue that he was no longer of the opinion that the best local GT-type car was the Falcon. In fact magazine testers were not allowed to test the cars without a GMH staffer in the car. Wheels and RCN managed on these press test cars with a GMH staffer in the car 0-100mph in 18.9 and 1/4 mile in 15.6sec@92mph. These are almost identical figures to what Rob Luck obtained with a private, tuned to factory specs GTS327 which had 50hp less - which is obviously not possible. The real figures on unfiddled cars (and very hard data to find from the day) show the HT-HG GTS350 manual was a very quick car, it was faster than any non-HO XW-XA, 0-100mph in 16.0s, standing quarter in 14.8sec. Those figures are not far off an XW/XY GT-HO. People who bought and owned them in the day will attest to this fact.
Road test HQ's were the same, road tests of the day by Modern Motor, Sports Car World and Wheels showed the auto GTS350 almost 4 seconds faster to 100mph than the 4spd, and the quarter mile times both saw 15.8sec@97mph. We all know that this cannot be the case - that any standard 308 4spd car is faster accelerating than the same engine with a TH400. The 350 HQ would be the same if the engines are in the same state of tune - remember the engines and their fitment into HQ were identical, same dizzy, same carb (other than vacuum advance port), same exhaust, same 3.08:1 rear axle except manual was LSD auto open, same size tyres. What these HQ tests also show you is the HQ auto is a true result. HQ manual in proper tune should be faster, you'd say maybe 15.3-5sec 1/4, which also shows the 15.6 press test car results for the HT-G manual is also dodgy.

Note that the GTS327 engine isn't "low compression". It is in fact the same compression ratio as a HT-HQ 308 ie 9:1. It might be lower by US specs, but we always got US engines as 9:1 or lower compression. The only reason the HT-HG GTS350 got a 10.25:1 engine is that was the only 350 engine at the time, others didn't come until later.

HT-HG engines use the same camshaft as just about all SBC's of the day, it was simply called the general performance camshaft. Same cam for 327 from 210hp through to I think even 300hp - only the heads and induction changed (and pistons on the 300hp engine). Same with the 350 engines, it wasn't until you got up into Z28 350 that the cam got more aggressive. The HQ 350 engine was exactly the same GM L48 specification engine as HT-HG GTS350 manual, GM simply changed the compression ratio of the engine to suit the US fuel of the 70's by using dished pistons and larger chamber heads. Same cam, same valves, same ports, same manifold and carb settings. GM retarded the ignition heaps on 1971 onwards L48 but GMH used the same distributor spec as used on HK GTS327 and HT-HG GTS350 engines for HQ (dizzy changed later in HQ).


Problem with the testers was they were dills, most likely revving a 350 351 308 out too much in 1st and 2ed gear and maybe 3rd, like a wood duck. I know a lot of people do it.

4000 in first then snap 2ed and change at 4500 and you will see a big improvement in times.
Most morons will rev them to 5500 or 6000 because they have little understanding of what torque or HP is or does.Shhh

Just remember I did not bag the 327 or HT-G 350 engines, but the USA got better ones and I am sure a yank would agree.

But anyroad I am not one to be prejudice towards a brand make of car, but mainly a Holden man but saying that I will point out any fault they had directly be it make or model.

I don't idolise brands, I have a stupid mate down the road who believes Holdens are the best regardless, I said see this model Holden and Ford have the same gear box and diff, made at the same place as well, but he still claim's the ford ones are just total rubbish Huh
gm5735 Offline
#110 Posted : Friday, 2 October 2015 1:17:16 AM(UTC)
gm5735

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 16/04/2014(UTC)
Posts: 768
Man
Location: Victoria

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 49 time(s) in 47 post(s)
I thought GM had a corporate rule of 1 HP per 10lbs of vehicle mass for everything except the Corvette.
The HT GTS 350 has a kerb mass of 3316lbs, which limits the maximum BHP to 331. That would have been the real issue with maximum engine choice.
Why do these discussions degenerate into 1/4 times and 0-100mph times? The reality is that the HK327 and HT and HG350 are usable and well balanced drivers cars, even now, albeit with inadequate brakes for sustained use. I had one as a daily driver for 10 years. That's their real strength. Some of us like to go around corners too, not just drive on a dragstrip.
And I think they look good too.
HK1837 Offline
#111 Posted : Friday, 2 October 2015 6:06:52 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,717

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 512 time(s) in 488 post(s)
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Yes stock engines, but be fair - compare a 307 manual HK with dual exhaust (you could option this if you tried hard) against a HQ with a 308 4spd and dual exhaust. I think you'd be very surprised. Take them both back to single exhaust and the result wouldn't be that much different. In fact there was no 307 manual HK GTS at the Monaro launch and press test. There was a very good reason for that - it'd have been quicker than the GTS327 they had there for testing. It wasn't until a reporter from RCN called Rob Luck who didn't buy the performance of the press test cars blew the lid on the performance potential of the 327 that the truth was exposed. GMH repeated the exact same thing with HT, HG and HQ press test 350 manuals. For both HT and HQ the auto test cars were quicker with taller rear axles and loaded with air and steer as they weren't fiddled with. The only time a manual version of one of these cars escaped in proper tune was the one Mel Nichols drove and he commented on how quick the car was. When he got the car back to do performance tests though a week or so later it went just like the original press test cars - he stated "it had gone off-song". Peter Robinson didn't believe Mel until he got to drive one himself, and that is also reported on in magazine articles. He even went on to say in the June 1971 Wheels issue that he was no longer of the opinion that the best local GT-type car was the Falcon. In fact magazine testers were not allowed to test the cars without a GMH staffer in the car. Wheels and RCN managed on these press test cars with a GMH staffer in the car 0-100mph in 18.9 and 1/4 mile in 15.6sec@92mph. These are almost identical figures to what Rob Luck obtained with a private, tuned to factory specs GTS327 which had 50hp less - which is obviously not possible. The real figures on unfiddled cars (and very hard data to find from the day) show the HT-HG GTS350 manual was a very quick car, it was faster than any non-HO XW-XA, 0-100mph in 16.0s, standing quarter in 14.8sec. Those figures are not far off an XW/XY GT-HO. People who bought and owned them in the day will attest to this fact.
Road test HQ's were the same, road tests of the day by Modern Motor, Sports Car World and Wheels showed the auto GTS350 almost 4 seconds faster to 100mph than the 4spd, and the quarter mile times both saw 15.8sec@97mph. We all know that this cannot be the case - that any standard 308 4spd car is faster accelerating than the same engine with a TH400. The 350 HQ would be the same if the engines are in the same state of tune - remember the engines and their fitment into HQ were identical, same dizzy, same carb (other than vacuum advance port), same exhaust, same 3.08:1 rear axle except manual was LSD auto open, same size tyres. What these HQ tests also show you is the HQ auto is a true result. HQ manual in proper tune should be faster, you'd say maybe 15.3-5sec 1/4, which also shows the 15.6 press test car results for the HT-G manual is also dodgy.

Note that the GTS327 engine isn't "low compression". It is in fact the same compression ratio as a HT-HQ 308 ie 9:1. It might be lower by US specs, but we always got US engines as 9:1 or lower compression. The only reason the HT-HG GTS350 got a 10.25:1 engine is that was the only 350 engine at the time, others didn't come until later.

HT-HG engines use the same camshaft as just about all SBC's of the day, it was simply called the general performance camshaft. Same cam for 327 from 210hp through to I think even 300hp - only the heads and induction changed (and pistons on the 300hp engine). Same with the 350 engines, it wasn't until you got up into Z28 350 that the cam got more aggressive. The HQ 350 engine was exactly the same GM L48 specification engine as HT-HG GTS350 manual, GM simply changed the compression ratio of the engine to suit the US fuel of the 70's by using dished pistons and larger chamber heads. Same cam, same valves, same ports, same manifold and carb settings. GM retarded the ignition heaps on 1971 onwards L48 but GMH used the same distributor spec as used on HK GTS327 and HT-HG GTS350 engines for HQ (dizzy changed later in HQ).


Problem with the testers was they were dills, most likely revving a 350 351 308 out too much in 1st and 2ed gear and maybe 3rd, like a wood duck. I know a lot of people do it.

4000 in first then snap 2ed and change at 4500 and you will see a big improvement in times.
Most morons will rev them to 5500 or 6000 because they have little understanding of what torque or HP is or does.Shhh

Just remember I did not bag the 327 or HT-G 350 engines, but the USA got better ones and I am sure a yank would agree.

But anyroad I am not one to be prejudice towards a brand make of car, but mainly a Holden man but saying that I will point out any fault they had directly be it make or model.

I don't idolise brands, I have a stupid mate down the road who believes Holdens are the best regardless, I said see this model Holden and Ford have the same gear box and diff, made at the same place as well, but he still claim's the ford ones are just total rubbish Huh


I get that, I like them all too, Holden cars the best as well.

With revs it was the opposite with HK though, the way to make those quick was to use their full 6500rpm capability not the 5500rpm limit on the tacho that was put there for the 6cyl. This is why the 3.36:1 GTS327's at Bathurst were quicker during the race in 1968 than the rest with a 3.08:1 rear axle as the engine did better when revved!

You are right there were better 327 engines in the USA but not so for the 350 (outside of Corvette, GMH probably wouldn't have been allowed Corvette's unique engines even if they wanted them!) - it was the premium 350 SBC in 1968-9, the Z28 LT1 didn't appear until calendar year 1970 (hence why these are called 1970.5 models) and only in 1970 was the Z28's 350 a far superior engine than the 1968-70 L48, after that the Z28 lost compression and was really a shadow of the 1971 engine. The 1970 LT1 Z28 engine was looked at and Harry Firth wanted to build the car as it would have destroyed any competition power wise in 1971, but the HG's brakes were not adequate for the engine and the HQ was to be out soon plus GMH decided the Torana was the race car.
The L73 250hp 327 was used for many factors, but as Geoff says GM had at the time a 1HP per 10lb limit and as it was the GTS327 was close to that. The car was being built to compete in the ATCC and Series Production which was banned by GM, so they were going out on a limb as it was. Giving it 275hp (the 1968 L30 engine) or 300hp (Corvette 327) would have attracted unwanted attention. The 250hp engine made it a far superior car to the competition for 1968 anyway and GMH knew that. Bathurst 1968 proved them correct.

Note that apart from the 1968 L30 (275hp 327 10:1) GMH probably couldn't have used the higher performance small blocks anyway as they more than likely would have struggled to run on Aussie Super grade fuel. The L79 327 was 11:1. The L46 350ci 350hp from Corvette in 1969 was also 11:1. The 1970 LT1 was 11:1 also and used a solid lifter camshaft and Holley carb - it may have been OK as the dynamic compression on the fairly wild solid cam may have been low enough to survive on 97 Octane fuel. As stated above Harry and GMH looked at this engine after GMH's penny pinching on valves and springs cost them a possible Bathurst 1970 win, but the LT1 was around into 1970 in the USA and it was less than 12 months away that GMH would pull the pin on HG GTS350. It would have been lovely to seen the closure of the final chapter for the original Monaro in 1971 with a HG GTS350 winning Bathurst with an LT1, M22 Muncie and 12 bolt rear end but it wasn't to be. With an L48 equipped HT-HG GTS350 being damn close to a PhaseII/III in performance stakes, imagine how an LT1 equipped car would have gone? Also imagine how Ford would have reacted and what they'd have built - the XR GT and the GT-HO's were built as reactions to what GMH were doing, so imagine what might have come if a GMH product had won Bathurst in 1971 or even 1970? Maybe Bill Bourke's vision of a 428 engine in an XY would have been on the cards?

Edited by user Friday, 2 October 2015 8:10:56 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Added Corvette info

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Dr Terry Offline
#112 Posted : Friday, 2 October 2015 6:56:10 AM(UTC)
Dr Terry

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 6,058

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 203 time(s) in 184 post(s)
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post

Just remember I did not bag the 327 or HT-G 350 engines, but the USA got better ones and I am sure a yank would agree.


That's how I read this though:- "I don't know why people rant and rave about the Chev engines we got hear in our Holdens, they were manly gutless just like most of the fords 351"

Have I taken that out of context ?

Dr Terry
If at first you don't succeed, just call it Version 1.0
castellan Offline
#113 Posted : Friday, 2 October 2015 10:15:37 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,641

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 27 time(s) in 25 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Dr Terry Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post

Just remember I did not bag the 327 or HT-G 350 engines, but the USA got better ones and I am sure a yank would agree.


That's how I read this though:- "I don't know why people rant and rave about the Chev engines we got hear in our Holdens, they were manly gutless just like most of the fords 351"

Have I taken that out of context ?

Dr Terry


I understand your point.

I am pointing out that the only GMH powered Chev engines that were anything to crow about was the 327 and HT-G 350.

So back in the day a dude bought a HK 327GTS or HT-G 350GTS was in a class of it's own the ducks nuts in performance GMH cars.

The 283 307 and 350 in the HQ were not in the same league, nothing wrong with them though.

Just like someone saying he has or had a 308, witch one ? because some were just gutless rubbish, just so is the case with the 351 fords.
castellan Offline
#114 Posted : Friday, 2 October 2015 10:27:19 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,641

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 27 time(s) in 25 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Yes stock engines, but be fair - compare a 307 manual HK with dual exhaust (you could option this if you tried hard) against a HQ with a 308 4spd and dual exhaust. I think you'd be very surprised. Take them both back to single exhaust and the result wouldn't be that much different. In fact there was no 307 manual HK GTS at the Monaro launch and press test. There was a very good reason for that - it'd have been quicker than the GTS327 they had there for testing. It wasn't until a reporter from RCN called Rob Luck who didn't buy the performance of the press test cars blew the lid on the performance potential of the 327 that the truth was exposed. GMH repeated the exact same thing with HT, HG and HQ press test 350 manuals. For both HT and HQ the auto test cars were quicker with taller rear axles and loaded with air and steer as they weren't fiddled with. The only time a manual version of one of these cars escaped in proper tune was the one Mel Nichols drove and he commented on how quick the car was. When he got the car back to do performance tests though a week or so later it went just like the original press test cars - he stated "it had gone off-song". Peter Robinson didn't believe Mel until he got to drive one himself, and that is also reported on in magazine articles. He even went on to say in the June 1971 Wheels issue that he was no longer of the opinion that the best local GT-type car was the Falcon. In fact magazine testers were not allowed to test the cars without a GMH staffer in the car. Wheels and RCN managed on these press test cars with a GMH staffer in the car 0-100mph in 18.9 and 1/4 mile in 15.6sec@92mph. These are almost identical figures to what Rob Luck obtained with a private, tuned to factory specs GTS327 which had 50hp less - which is obviously not possible. The real figures on unfiddled cars (and very hard data to find from the day) show the HT-HG GTS350 manual was a very quick car, it was faster than any non-HO XW-XA, 0-100mph in 16.0s, standing quarter in 14.8sec. Those figures are not far off an XW/XY GT-HO. People who bought and owned them in the day will attest to this fact.
Road test HQ's were the same, road tests of the day by Modern Motor, Sports Car World and Wheels showed the auto GTS350 almost 4 seconds faster to 100mph than the 4spd, and the quarter mile times both saw 15.8sec@97mph. We all know that this cannot be the case - that any standard 308 4spd car is faster accelerating than the same engine with a TH400. The 350 HQ would be the same if the engines are in the same state of tune - remember the engines and their fitment into HQ were identical, same dizzy, same carb (other than vacuum advance port), same exhaust, same 3.08:1 rear axle except manual was LSD auto open, same size tyres. What these HQ tests also show you is the HQ auto is a true result. HQ manual in proper tune should be faster, you'd say maybe 15.3-5sec 1/4, which also shows the 15.6 press test car results for the HT-G manual is also dodgy.

Note that the GTS327 engine isn't "low compression". It is in fact the same compression ratio as a HT-HQ 308 ie 9:1. It might be lower by US specs, but we always got US engines as 9:1 or lower compression. The only reason the HT-HG GTS350 got a 10.25:1 engine is that was the only 350 engine at the time, others didn't come until later.

HT-HG engines use the same camshaft as just about all SBC's of the day, it was simply called the general performance camshaft. Same cam for 327 from 210hp through to I think even 300hp - only the heads and induction changed (and pistons on the 300hp engine). Same with the 350 engines, it wasn't until you got up into Z28 350 that the cam got more aggressive. The HQ 350 engine was exactly the same GM L48 specification engine as HT-HG GTS350 manual, GM simply changed the compression ratio of the engine to suit the US fuel of the 70's by using dished pistons and larger chamber heads. Same cam, same valves, same ports, same manifold and carb settings. GM retarded the ignition heaps on 1971 onwards L48 but GMH used the same distributor spec as used on HK GTS327 and HT-HG GTS350 engines for HQ (dizzy changed later in HQ).


Problem with the testers was they were dills, most likely revving a 350 351 308 out too much in 1st and 2ed gear and maybe 3rd, like a wood duck. I know a lot of people do it.

4000 in first then snap 2ed and change at 4500 and you will see a big improvement in times.
Most morons will rev them to 5500 or 6000 because they have little understanding of what torque or HP is or does.Shhh

Just remember I did not bag the 327 or HT-G 350 engines, but the USA got better ones and I am sure a yank would agree.

But anyroad I am not one to be prejudice towards a brand make of car, but mainly a Holden man but saying that I will point out any fault they had directly be it make or model.

I don't idolise brands, I have a stupid mate down the road who believes Holdens are the best regardless, I said see this model Holden and Ford have the same gear box and diff, made at the same place as well, but he still claim's the ford ones are just total rubbish Huh


I get that, I like them all too, Holden cars the best as well.

With revs it was the opposite with HK though, the way to make those quick was to use their full 6500rpm capability not the 5500rpm limit on the tacho that was put there for the 6cyl. This is why the 3.36:1 GTS327's at Bathurst were quicker during the race in 1968 than the rest with a 3.08:1 rear axle as the engine did better when revved!

You are right there were better 327 engines in the USA but not so for the 350 (outside of Corvette, GMH probably wouldn't have been allowed Corvette's unique engines even if they wanted them!) - it was the premium 350 SBC in 1968-9, the Z28 LT1 didn't appear until calendar year 1970 (hence why these are called 1970.5 models) and only in 1970 was the Z28's 350 a far superior engine than the 1968-70 L48, after that the Z28 lost compression and was really a shadow of the 1971 engine. The 1970 LT1 Z28 engine was looked at and Harry Firth wanted to build the car as it would have destroyed any competition power wise in 1971, but the HG's brakes were not adequate for the engine and the HQ was to be out soon plus GMH decided the Torana was the race car.
The L73 250hp 327 was used for many factors, but as Geoff says GM had at the time a 1HP per 10lb limit and as it was the GTS327 was close to that. The car was being built to compete in the ATCC and Series Production which was banned by GM, so they were going out on a limb as it was. Giving it 275hp (the 1968 L30 engine) or 300hp (Corvette 327) would have attracted unwanted attention. The 250hp engine made it a far superior car to the competition for 1968 anyway and GMH knew that. Bathurst 1968 proved them correct.

Note that apart from the 1968 L30 (275hp 327 10:1) GMH probably couldn't have used the higher performance small blocks anyway as they more than likely would have struggled to run on Aussie Super grade fuel. The L79 327 was 11:1. The L46 350ci 350hp from Corvette in 1969 was also 11:1. The 1970 LT1 was 11:1 also and used a solid lifter camshaft and Holley carb - it may have been OK as the dynamic compression on the fairly wild solid cam may have been low enough to survive on 97 Octane fuel. As stated above Harry and GMH looked at this engine after GMH's penny pinching on valves and springs cost them a possible Bathurst 1970 win, but the LT1 was around into 1970 in the USA and it was less than 12 months away that GMH would pull the pin on HG GTS350. It would have been lovely to seen the closure of the final chapter for the original Monaro in 1971 with a HG GTS350 winning Bathurst with an LT1, M22 Muncie and 12 bolt rear end but it wasn't to be. With an L48 equipped HT-HG GTS350 being damn close to a PhaseII/III in performance stakes, imagine how an LT1 equipped car would have gone? Also imagine how Ford would have reacted and what they'd have built - the XR GT and the GT-HO's were built as reactions to what GMH were doing, so imagine what might have come if a GMH product had won Bathurst in 1971 or even 1970? Maybe Bill Bourke's vision of a 428 engine in an XY would have been on the cards?


I agree, but for the Phase 2 and 3, they are in the LT1 league with compression cam carby.
The HT-G 350 is on par with the XW-Y-A GT 4V Engines.
castellan Offline
#115 Posted : Friday, 2 October 2015 10:44:11 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,641

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 27 time(s) in 25 post(s)
Originally Posted by: gm5735 Go to Quoted Post
I thought GM had a corporate rule of 1 HP per 10lbs of vehicle mass for everything except the Corvette.
The HT GTS 350 has a kerb mass of 3316lbs, which limits the maximum BHP to 331. That would have been the real issue with maximum engine choice.
Why do these discussions degenerate into 1/4 times and 0-100mph times? The reality is that the HK327 and HT and HG350 are usable and well balanced drivers cars, even now, albeit with inadequate brakes for sustained use. I had one as a daily driver for 10 years. That's their real strength. Some of us like to go around corners too, not just drive on a dragstrip.
And I think they look good too.


Spot on.

It can come down to talking about Bathurst, and that's a fine conversation that I like to indulge in, but that's not what the cars are all about at all.

1/4 and 100 MPH times and more is all fine as well.

But at the end of the day.
HK1837 Offline
#116 Posted : Friday, 2 October 2015 12:26:05 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,717

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 512 time(s) in 488 post(s)
I just checked, I think it was 10lb per cubic inch hence for the projected curb weight of the HK GTS327 of 3250lb the 327 just fit. This was an area that received a reasonable level scrutiny from GM. There was no need to use the L30 327 as the HK GTS327 was never going to be outclassed by the XT's 302 in Series Production and in the ATCC they could run whatever 327 engine they liked.

The other magical limit as Geoff says was 10lb per hp, HK was just over 13lb/hp and HT was to be just over 11lb/hp. This wasn't a corporate ruling as such, but 10lb/hp was the benchmark for very high performance vehicles.

By 1969 it changed to maximum of 400ci and this is how the HT fit into the GM rules.

Edited by user Friday, 2 October 2015 12:31:55 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
gm5735 Offline
#117 Posted : Friday, 2 October 2015 1:09:09 PM(UTC)
gm5735

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 16/04/2014(UTC)
Posts: 768
Man
Location: Victoria

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 49 time(s) in 47 post(s)
I think all of this needs to be put into context.

-In Q3 1969 the average weekly wage was $59. In Q3 2015 it is $1136.

-A $4000 car (like HT GTS 350) in 1969 is the equivalent of a $77,000 car today. As standard there were no power windows, power steering, electric seats, electric mirrors, automatic transmissions, air conditioning or any of the creature comforts you would expect for your $77,000 today.
(EDIT - and definitely no cup holders)

-In 1969 a litre of fuel cost you 9.15c, the equivalent of $1.76 per litre now.

-Holden built around 195,000 HTs, of which arguably about 14,000 were Monaros, and of those less than 1000 were GTS 350, while Ford built around 105,000 XWs, of which less than 3000 were GT and GTHO models.

The point is the production volume of these performance cars was miniscule compared to the total model build, they were very expensive to own and operate and without the bread and butter models would not have existed. GM-H and Ford were in business to make money, after all.

To the vast majority of people putting their money on the line the high end cars were unattainable, hence the low volumes.
Adding a special manifold and carburettor here, a dual exhaust there and any other tweak that might seem obvious now would have made the cars even more unaffordable.

Before bucketing the lesser cars as gutless/rattly/useless/rubbish or any other derogatory adjective you choose, remember that without the "lesser lights" the high end cars would not have existed, and the same situation remains today, at least until local production ends.

Edited by user Friday, 2 October 2015 1:10:42 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Added options

gm5735 Offline
#118 Posted : Friday, 2 October 2015 1:21:02 PM(UTC)
gm5735

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 16/04/2014(UTC)
Posts: 768
Man
Location: Victoria

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 49 time(s) in 47 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
I just checked, I think it was 10lb per cubic inch hence for the projected curb weight of the HK GTS327 of 3250lb the 327 just fit. This was an area that received a reasonable level scrutiny from GM. There was no need to use the L30 327 as the HK GTS327 was never going to be outclassed by the XT's 302 in Series Production and in the ATCC they could run whatever 327 engine they liked.

The other magical limit as Geoff says was 10lb per hp, HK was just over 13lb/hp and HT was to be just over 11lb/hp. This wasn't a corporate ruling as such, but 10lb/hp was the benchmark for very high performance vehicles.

By 1969 it changed to maximum of 400ci and this is how the HT fit into the GM rules.



I have read that the 1hp/10lbs rule was "ironclad corporate policy" in several places, but obviously it is hard to prove based on evidence from GM, as there probably isn't any.
Given the sort of power vs capacity outputs of the time of around 1HP per cubic inch, it amounts to nearly the same thing.
we wreck 81837s only Offline
#119 Posted : Friday, 2 October 2015 7:23:48 PM(UTC)
we wreck 81837s only

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered, Veteran
Joined: 4/03/2008(UTC)
Posts: 2,151

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
as much as I am a GM man through and through, 10 x LT1 350's and hk 327 and HT whatever they were still dont come nowhere near a 351 4V in a HO, and yes I still regulary drive a 351 ZD and its magnificent and my best mate has a 351 XA as a daily in rusty orig condition and its a beauty.
sorry GM, you lose in the HP stakes
detective Offline
#120 Posted : Friday, 2 October 2015 7:40:00 PM(UTC)
detective

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/01/2013(UTC)
Posts: 307

Thanks: 7 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 11 post(s)
...a bit off topic....back in the day about 1980 when i was a kid, I was driving the HQ GTS350 coupe in earnest...fanging around, going fast in the wet around bends, dragging motorbikes from the lights etc., etc....

...an ol' mate had an XW auto with Cleveland...(about a 1970 model i guess?). The difference between the two cars was profound. The 350 was like a greyhound in its agility and acceleration, whereas the GT was like a bloody great draught horse...tons of torque, that clunky Detroit locker and an extremely solid feel to the whole thing...

....just an observation, but his interior was black, and mine is white with houndstooth inserts ....even that made them feel so different !!
Users browsing this topic
Guest (12)
7 Pages«<4567>
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 © 2003-2024, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.192 seconds.