Rank: Veteran
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  Originally Posted by: HK1837 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. Look at the LC Torana as one example of power to weight type of idea as a HK got a 161 and 186 and a 186S, now the Torana got this funny little 138 and the 161 and then a 161S and then the rocket ship 186 XU-1. The thing is this little 138 red motor why make that, it must have to do with some power to weight principle and she is still their in the LJ but gone in the bigger LH. Same thing with the big 202, the HQ weight called for the big 202 and 161 became a 173. This proves that GMH use some type of figures that justify what they do. Look at the 4 CYL Torana's 1.2L 1.6L in LC-J and 1.3L 1.76L in the TA and then only the big Opel 1.9L power house in the LH would do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
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: detective ...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 !! The thing with the automatic 351C is that they came with such a high 2.75 ratio diff and that makes them feel more like you say. I knew of a HQ 350 Statesman with 2.78 diff and stock single exhaust it was like a barge. I always hear people bagging how HQ handled, sure they understeered but set up right with good shocks they were not bad, better than the Falcons of them years with that garbage leaf sprung rear end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
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 [quote=detective;166053]I always hear people bagging how HQ handled, sure they understeered but set up right with good shocks they were not bad, better than the Falcons of them years with that garbage leaf sprung rear end. Bravo, the most sensible comment I've heard in years. Dr Terry |
If at first you don't succeed, just call it Version 1.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 16/04/2014(UTC) Posts: 768  Location: Victoria Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 49 time(s) in 47 post(s)
|
https://youtu.be/rRUI3kbN8oc
Worth a look if you haven't seen it. Watch the Falcons exiting Mcphillamy Park at 3:24 onwards, and wonder no more why they had excessive tyre wear. Edited by user Friday, 2 October 2015 11:25:40 PM(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Moderator, Registered
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 6,058
Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 203 time(s) in 184 post(s)
|
I spoke to Harry Firth about that several years ago. He said the HO's achilles heel was the fact that they had 164 litres of fuel beautifully positioned about 3-feet behind the rear axle, acting like a pendulum when cornering.
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: 14,717
Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 512 time(s) in 488 post(s)
|
I would have said the biggest problem was the Geoghegans and Al Turner letting old Harry go, and their biggest asset was Bruce McPhee. |
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords? |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 16/04/2014(UTC) Posts: 768 Location: Victoria Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 49 time(s) in 47 post(s)
|
Originally Posted by: Dr Terry I spoke to Harry Firth about that several years ago. He said the HO's achilles heel was the fact that they had 164 litres of fuel beautifully positioned about 3-feet behind the rear axle, acting like a pendulum when cornering.
Dr Terry That makes sense. That, lots of squat off corners, and a Detroit locker made them an "interesting" thing to drive on the limit, particularly with corner exit understeer. They need to be pretty straight before you boot them. The 25 gallon Monaro tanks are better placed from a fore and aft standpoint, but the extra height above the roll centre means everything isn't beer and skittles. There is a baffle in the tank, which usually breaks off after a while since it is spot welded into the tank on two faces only, but you certainly feel the fuel slosh when you turn in. That, and the likelihood of emptying the tank contents out the filler neck in right hand corners, since the filler neck is submerged with more than 80 litres in the tank. At least the tanks don't stay full for very long.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/12/2015(UTC) Posts: 18 ![Australia]( "Australia") Location: Victoria
|
I been talking to HK1837 and just joined the forum. Some points I wanted to make/share that I have read is that I believe that in 1966' Flint stored a years supply of four barrel intakes for camaro etc and hence I believe that this might have been sent elsewhere because it must have been replaced on the same site. So Saginaw might have supplied early year 67 engine four barrel intakes to McKinon until tooling went elsewhere. I can't prove this but a survey was done by a car club cos of judging requirements for intakes etc. Also I think I got a truck 327 motor, which was called a "high torque 327". I think I got one of these. It only has a number 15393 k#### on the stamp pad. Anyway I found it interesting cos it had blue valve covers, which were green in 66 models, but I'm not sure if the c10 to c30 Aussie trucks kept green or went to grey like the states? Canadian ones had script on pre 1966 and plain after 1966. I am wondering if anyone has had or seen many original 327 torque engines. See mine has thick valve stems and double valve springs. Here's the strong 5477 forged crank too. Any info would be appreciated. Plenty of vins on Canadian trucks have ce1539 as part of the numbers, with 1 being tonnage, 5 cab chassis, 3 wheelbase and 9 indicating stake/flat tray. My 3 looks to be stamped different to the other ones. I also entertained the idea that it could have been a police car Biscayne replacement engine for a 6cyl with the "153" model code being Biscayne and the "39" super sport but why a low compression for a police car lol. Just thought I'd share cos its obviously low volume McKinnon.     The intake and engine were cast at Flint we think, McKinnon 75cc heads. Edited by user Thursday, 10 December 2015 6:08:01 PM(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
