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

Notification

Icon
Error

Login


Take the time to read our Privacy Policy.
9 Pages«<23456>»
L31 308 specs
Options Go to last post Go to first unread
Previous Topic Next Topic
gm5735 Offline
#61 Posted : Friday, 12 February 2016 2:42:32 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 agree Warren.
According to several sources the GM corporate policy was 1 cubic inch per 10lbs of weight, at least in the mid 1960s.
The GTS327 has a stated kerb weight of 3295lbs, which makes it seem like a real fattie compared to everything else. Obviously 327 x 10 = 3270lbs, so the GTS 327 just makes it inside the corporate rules.
No one would suspect that the stated weight was more than what it really was, so I wonder what a GTS327 really weighs in "kerb weight" trim, particularly since "kerb weight" is a manufacturers estimate?

There was an additional GM rule in the mid 1960s of nothing bigger than 330 cubic inches in anything less than a full size car - which was bigger than a HK, for example.
Pontiac got around this with the GTO by offering it as a limited volume option package.
This would have gone out the window when the 350 came along, and I believe the rule was replaced by a limit of 1hp per 10lb weight.

GMH didn't need to hide the GTS 327 from the GM mothership, as it complied with the rules, but only just.
They did need to hide their racing intentions, however.

Edited by user Friday, 12 February 2016 2:44:04 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified
Back to top
HK1837 Offline
#62 Posted : Friday, 12 February 2016 3:57:29 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)
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
SAE set a standard of 0.004 lift for the cam figures so Holden may be that without the ramps, I have heard of 0.002 ?
Most cam company used 0.006 in the days before the modern way of 0.050 now used.

7434871 cam is used in the HT, HG, HQ 308 and the 253, but the 253 is retarded -5 degrees as was the LH Torana 308
using the cam gear PN 7434699. the other cam gear is PN 2808386 and this is zero deg.

2825882 is a HJ to VL 308 cam it has one ring cast on it to ID it, it's timing gear PN 7434699 = - 5 deg and is in 28/72 = 280 duration with ex 78/30 = 288 dur and if you use the PN 2808386 timing gear you will improve power with this cam.

The HJ to VH 253 cam is 92000944 but the cam gear PN is 7434699 on HJ to HZ but the VB to VH has PN 9936255.

So I have some other Holden PN cams
92029026 = VK HDT-SS
92060099 = VL SS GROUP A
92061392 = VN to VS
92063314 = VT
92063624 = VT 195KW and the 5.7L 215KW


Is 7434699 5deg retarded, or is it actually 0deg and 2808386 5deg advanced?

The reason I ask is L34 (and LH 308 engines prior to HT24413) have the following timing figures and use 2808386, the 253 and the 308 engines past HT24412 use 7434699:

32/58-270
76/14-270

Subtract 5 deg from the opening and add 5 deg to the closing and you have the timing figures quoted for HJ 253 (which use the 7434699 sprocket).

Note that from HT release 2808386 was the 308 sprocket and 7434699 was the 253 sprocket. My guess is the 308 was run 5 degrees advanced on the same cam, but once the new cam came in for HJ engines they reverted to the 0deg sprocket.

Edit, just found the answer. LH service manual lists the cam timing as follows:

253: 27/63-270, 71/19-270 46 overlap
308: 32/58-270, 76/14-270 46 overlap.

So the 308 has its cam advanced 5deg using 2808386 and the 253 cam sits at 0deg using 7434699. Once the 308 gets a new cam at HJ engine start it goes back to 0deg.

Edited by user Friday, 12 February 2016 4:02:16 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Back to top
HK1837 Offline
#63 Posted : Friday, 12 February 2016 6:03:21 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)
Originally Posted by: Warren Turnbull Go to Quoted Post
I do not think it would be GM corp that would have kicked up stink about Holden manufacturing a high performance version of the GTS, (after all by 1968 GM divisions were making some pretty awesome muscle cars in the US) more the public as to why Holden was making something so fast.

The more I think about the reason for the world wide ban on motor sport for GM divisions, the production of GM Muscle cars in the mid to late 60s, the whole hide the fact we are making a muscle car here makes no sense. As I have pointed out before, the GTS 327 gets a separate model number, not just an option like the SLR5000, GTRXU1. People say this is to hide the fact, but the same was applied to the Brabham Torana, so were they must have also hiding that from GM due to its possible high performance repercussions. As it has its own model number then it is clear as day that you are making a high performance model, as it comes up in the model list. The GTRXU1 and SLR5000 do not come up in any model list. If you were given all the model information on the first HB Torana a novice would need to do a bit of reading to find there was a Brabham high performance option, when it becomes a separate model it is right there on page 1. So making a separate model does everything but hide it.

The "American Muscle Car" thing here had only started the year before with the XR GT. Before that it was all British thinking, small nimble car with a little more poke. In 1967, pre XR GT, a V8 was simply a luxury item, or for those towing. There was a small US Muscle thing starting and some dealers were importing GTOs etc.

Then Ford goes and makes the GT and hammers Bathurst. Up until then its all British, Cortina, Mini etc. My theory/opinion is a Ford US heavy came out here, saw what they were doing with the Cortina GT and said, hey you need to build a V8 "Muscle car" version like we do in the good old US of A.

Had Holden hit back with a car that was way superior in 1968 it may have been a case of too much too soon. They knew the Ford "Official figures" and they probably said "lets make ours about the same". (you only need to win by a car length)

Mind you Ford may have been doing the same with their cars, especially after that idiot took a photo of the speedo at 140MPH, bring on the supercar scare.

Warren


You are forgetting Warren that Ford built the XR GT because they had insider knowledge about the upcoming HK GTS "Special". The HK GTS327 was responsible for the XR GT, and Ford built the GT-HO because of the same car.

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Back to top
Warren Turnbull Offline
#64 Posted : Friday, 12 February 2016 7:55:00 PM(UTC)
Warren Turnbull

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered, Veteran
Joined: 10/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 2,357

Thanks: 2 times
Was thanked: 28 time(s) in 27 post(s)
I am not forgetting that, I was not aware that Ford knew enough about the GTS327 to make a GT model 6 months before the HK release.
Back to top
HK1837 Offline
#65 Posted : Friday, 12 February 2016 8:10:33 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)
Originally Posted by: Warren Turnbull Go to Quoted Post
I am not forgetting that, I was not aware that Ford knew enough about the GTS327 to make a GT model 6 months before the HK release.


They did.

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Back to top
castellan Offline
#66 Posted : Friday, 12 February 2016 8:41:52 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
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
SAE set a standard of 0.004 lift for the cam figures so Holden may be that without the ramps, I have heard of 0.002 ?
Most cam company used 0.006 in the days before the modern way of 0.050 now used.

7434871 cam is used in the HT, HG, HQ 308 and the 253, but the 253 is retarded -5 degrees as was the LH Torana 308
using the cam gear PN 7434699. the other cam gear is PN 2808386 and this is zero deg.

2825882 is a HJ to VL 308 cam it has one ring cast on it to ID it, it's timing gear PN 7434699 = - 5 deg and is in 28/72 = 280 duration with ex 78/30 = 288 dur and if you use the PN 2808386 timing gear you will improve power with this cam.

The HJ to VH 253 cam is 92000944 but the cam gear PN is 7434699 on HJ to HZ but the VB to VH has PN 9936255.

So I have some other Holden PN cams
92029026 = VK HDT-SS
92060099 = VL SS GROUP A
92061392 = VN to VS
92063314 = VT
92063624 = VT 195KW and the 5.7L 215KW


Is 7434699 5deg retarded, or is it actually 0deg and 2808386 5deg advanced?

The reason I ask is L34 (and LH 308 engines prior to HT24413) have the following timing figures and use 2808386, the 253 and the 308 engines past HT24412 use 7434699:

32/58-270
76/14-270

Subtract 5 deg from the opening and add 5 deg to the closing and you have the timing figures quoted for HJ 253 (which use the 7434699 sprocket).

Note that from HT release 2808386 was the 308 sprocket and 7434699 was the 253 sprocket. My guess is the 308 was run 5 degrees advanced on the same cam, but once the new cam came in for HJ engines they reverted to the 0deg sprocket.

Edit, just found the answer. LH service manual lists the cam timing as follows:

253: 27/63-270, 71/19-270 46 overlap
308: 32/58-270, 76/14-270 46 overlap.

So the 308 has its cam advanced 5deg using 2808386 and the 253 cam sits at 0deg using 7434699. Once the 308 gets a new cam at HJ engine start it goes back to 0deg.


Funny that the Torana 308 was timed different to the HQ 308 as they retarded the cam timing as such, I would think as such, one is looking to increase top end power by doing such at the experience of loosing low torque a bit, the lighter car may be deemed safer to do as such by Holden ?

I don't know about the L34 timing setup if it was at 0 or -5 and as we know the came change from HT24413 to 2825882, not to mention the race L34 cam option at all here.

HT-G-Q 308 7434871 cam is in 27/63 ex is 71/19 over lap is 46
LH Torana 308 I have 32/16 58/28 in my book.

ADR27A mainly created a cam that was retarded by around 6 deg this is to heat up the exhaust to burn the unburnt fuel off better generally is the rule that they claim that works.

Look at the so called HJ cam 2825882 308 cam on the exhaust she has more duration then the intake, now the cam timing does not tell the whole story because we have other factors of the cam at play, we have the lob centreline to factor in, but I don't know what it is on the Holden cams, so this can effect the compression of an engine running at different points through out the rev range in reality and this may be why the 9.7:1 static compression was created and then 9.4:1 in the HX-Z as to the position of came timing sprocket may of changed.
Now hang about this HJ-X-Z cam with more exhaust duration could cause less true compression as the engine is running, calling into play volume efficiency and Holden just raise the compression to compensate.

As a cam is retarded the spark timing goes advance more so as we mainly seen up to 6 deg at idle on a pre ADR but come ADR27A you then seen 12 deg being common.

The book I am going by is not the bees knees on facts I would say but something in the right direction to go on.

I don't know the dizzy spec settings of the HJ or HX-Z and so on, that may point to what is going on with the cam setups, the torana setup must be different to the HT to HQ 308 ? it must tell the story.

I have buggered around with my 20/60 cam in my 308 and I retarded it by 6 deg and she lost a lot of performance and at 0 she just went so much better.
As a rule adv = more mid power and retarding = more top and less mid, so they say as a rule.
Back to top
castellan Offline
#67 Posted : Friday, 12 February 2016 9:10:08 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
Originally Posted by: Warren Turnbull Go to Quoted Post
I do not think it would be GM corp that would have kicked up stink about Holden manufacturing a high performance version of the GTS, (after all by 1968 GM divisions were making some pretty awesome muscle cars in the US) more the public as to why Holden was making something so fast.

The more I think about the reason for the world wide ban on motor sport for GM divisions, the production of GM Muscle cars in the mid to late 60s, the whole hide the fact we are making a muscle car here makes no sense. As I have pointed out before, the GTS 327 gets a separate model number, not just an option like the SLR5000, GTRXU1. People say this is to hide the fact, but the same was applied to the Brabham Torana, so were they must have also hiding that from GM due to its possible high performance repercussions. As it has its own model number then it is clear as day that you are making a high performance model, as it comes up in the model list. The GTRXU1 and SLR5000 do not come up in any model list. If you were given all the model information on the first HB Torana a novice would need to do a bit of reading to find there was a Brabham high performance option, when it becomes a separate model it is right there on page 1. So making a separate model does everything but hide it.

The "American Muscle Car" thing here had only started the year before with the XR GT. Before that it was all British thinking, small nimble car with a little more poke. In 1967, pre XR GT, a V8 was simply a luxury item, or for those towing. There was a small US Muscle thing starting and some dealers were importing GTOs etc.

Then Ford goes and makes the GT and hammers Bathurst. Up until then its all British, Cortina, Mini etc. My theory/opinion is a Ford US heavy came out here, saw what they were doing with the Cortina GT and said, hey you need to build a V8 "Muscle car" version like we do in the good old US of A.

Had Holden hit back with a car that was way superior in 1968 it may have been a case of too much too soon. They knew the Ford "Official figures" and they probably said "lets make ours about the same". (you only need to win by a car length)

Mind you Ford may have been doing the same with their cars, especially after that idiot took a photo of the speedo at 140MPH, bring on the supercar scare.

Warren


You are forgetting Warren that Ford built the XR GT because they had insider knowledge about the upcoming HK GTS "Special". The HK GTS327 was responsible for the XR GT, and Ford built the GT-HO because of the same car.


Come off it, the XR GT 289 came out in 1967 and the XT 302 GT came out Feb 1968 I think and the XW GT-HO Windsor was to take on the HT GTS 350 and the XW GT-HO P2 was to kill the HT350 off and the XY GT-HO P3 was to be a bit more street drivable with the lower lift cam, but the Bathurst race car used the XW higher lift cam, but both were 40/80 dur and then the XA GT-HO was to have a bit smaller cam again because it had the market to it's self then.

Sadly the ALP gov lost the plot with the media doing what it does best, ranting on about something it knows bugger all truly about and winding the people up..
Back to top
HK1837 Offline
#68 Posted : Saturday, 13 February 2016 6:33:16 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
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
SAE set a standard of 0.004 lift for the cam figures so Holden may be that without the ramps, I have heard of 0.002 ?
Most cam company used 0.006 in the days before the modern way of 0.050 now used.

7434871 cam is used in the HT, HG, HQ 308 and the 253, but the 253 is retarded -5 degrees as was the LH Torana 308
using the cam gear PN 7434699. the other cam gear is PN 2808386 and this is zero deg.

2825882 is a HJ to VL 308 cam it has one ring cast on it to ID it, it's timing gear PN 7434699 = - 5 deg and is in 28/72 = 280 duration with ex 78/30 = 288 dur and if you use the PN 2808386 timing gear you will improve power with this cam.

The HJ to VH 253 cam is 92000944 but the cam gear PN is 7434699 on HJ to HZ but the VB to VH has PN 9936255.

So I have some other Holden PN cams
92029026 = VK HDT-SS
92060099 = VL SS GROUP A
92061392 = VN to VS
92063314 = VT
92063624 = VT 195KW and the 5.7L 215KW


Is 7434699 5deg retarded, or is it actually 0deg and 2808386 5deg advanced?

The reason I ask is L34 (and LH 308 engines prior to HT24413) have the following timing figures and use 2808386, the 253 and the 308 engines past HT24412 use 7434699:

32/58-270
76/14-270

Subtract 5 deg from the opening and add 5 deg to the closing and you have the timing figures quoted for HJ 253 (which use the 7434699 sprocket).

Note that from HT release 2808386 was the 308 sprocket and 7434699 was the 253 sprocket. My guess is the 308 was run 5 degrees advanced on the same cam, but once the new cam came in for HJ engines they reverted to the 0deg sprocket.

Edit, just found the answer. LH service manual lists the cam timing as follows:

253: 27/63-270, 71/19-270 46 overlap
308: 32/58-270, 76/14-270 46 overlap.

So the 308 has its cam advanced 5deg using 2808386 and the 253 cam sits at 0deg using 7434699. Once the 308 gets a new cam at HJ engine start it goes back to 0deg.


Funny that the Torana 308 was timed different to the HQ 308 as they retarded the cam timing as such, I would think as such, one is looking to increase top end power by doing such at the experience of loosing low torque a bit, the lighter car may be deemed safer to do as such by Holden ?

I don't know about the L34 timing setup if it was at 0 or -5 and as we know the came change from HT24413 to 2825882, not to mention the race L34 cam option at all here.

HT-G-Q 308 7434871 cam is in 27/63 ex is 71/19 over lap is 46
LH Torana 308 I have 32/16 58/28 in my book.

ADR27A mainly created a cam that was retarded by around 6 deg this is to heat up the exhaust to burn the unburnt fuel off better generally is the rule that they claim that works.

Look at the so called HJ cam 2825882 308 cam on the exhaust she has more duration then the intake, now the cam timing does not tell the whole story because we have other factors of the cam at play, we have the lob centreline to factor in, but I don't know what it is on the Holden cams, so this can effect the compression of an engine running at different points through out the rev range in reality and this may be why the 9.7:1 static compression was created and then 9.4:1 in the HX-Z as to the position of came timing sprocket may of changed.
Now hang about this HJ-X-Z cam with more exhaust duration could cause less true compression as the engine is running, calling into play volume efficiency and Holden just raise the compression to compensate.

As a cam is retarded the spark timing goes advance more so as we mainly seen up to 6 deg at idle on a pre ADR but come ADR27A you then seen 12 deg being common.

The book I am going by is not the bees knees on facts I would say but something in the right direction to go on.

I don't know the dizzy spec settings of the HJ or HX-Z and so on, that may point to what is going on with the cam setups, the torana setup must be different to the HT to HQ 308 ? it must tell the story.

I have buggered around with my 20/60 cam in my 308 and I retarded it by 6 deg and she lost a lot of performance and at 0 she just went so much better.
As a rule adv = more mid power and retarding = more top and less mid, so they say as a rule.


I'll see what I can find. The lobe centreline of the HJ cam will be easy to find, it will be the same as the Chevrolet cam. By the part number I think I know why it was developed too.

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Back to top
HK1837 Offline
#69 Posted : Saturday, 13 February 2016 6:38:44 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
Originally Posted by: Warren Turnbull Go to Quoted Post
I do not think it would be GM corp that would have kicked up stink about Holden manufacturing a high performance version of the GTS, (after all by 1968 GM divisions were making some pretty awesome muscle cars in the US) more the public as to why Holden was making something so fast.

The more I think about the reason for the world wide ban on motor sport for GM divisions, the production of GM Muscle cars in the mid to late 60s, the whole hide the fact we are making a muscle car here makes no sense. As I have pointed out before, the GTS 327 gets a separate model number, not just an option like the SLR5000, GTRXU1. People say this is to hide the fact, but the same was applied to the Brabham Torana, so were they must have also hiding that from GM due to its possible high performance repercussions. As it has its own model number then it is clear as day that you are making a high performance model, as it comes up in the model list. The GTRXU1 and SLR5000 do not come up in any model list. If you were given all the model information on the first HB Torana a novice would need to do a bit of reading to find there was a Brabham high performance option, when it becomes a separate model it is right there on page 1. So making a separate model does everything but hide it.

The "American Muscle Car" thing here had only started the year before with the XR GT. Before that it was all British thinking, small nimble car with a little more poke. In 1967, pre XR GT, a V8 was simply a luxury item, or for those towing. There was a small US Muscle thing starting and some dealers were importing GTOs etc.

Then Ford goes and makes the GT and hammers Bathurst. Up until then its all British, Cortina, Mini etc. My theory/opinion is a Ford US heavy came out here, saw what they were doing with the Cortina GT and said, hey you need to build a V8 "Muscle car" version like we do in the good old US of A.

Had Holden hit back with a car that was way superior in 1968 it may have been a case of too much too soon. They knew the Ford "Official figures" and they probably said "lets make ours about the same". (you only need to win by a car length)

Mind you Ford may have been doing the same with their cars, especially after that idiot took a photo of the speedo at 140MPH, bring on the supercar scare.

Warren


You are forgetting Warren that Ford built the XR GT because they had insider knowledge about the upcoming HK GTS "Special". The HK GTS327 was responsible for the XR GT, and Ford built the GT-HO because of the same car.


Come off it, the XR GT 289 came out in 1967 and the XT 302 GT came out Feb 1968 I think and the XW GT-HO Windsor was to take on the HT GTS 350 and the XW GT-HO P2 was to kill the HT350 off and the XY GT-HO P3 was to be a bit more street drivable with the lower lift cam, but the Bathurst race car used the XW higher lift cam, but both were 40/80 dur and then the XA GT-HO was to have a bit smaller cam again because it had the market to it's self then.

Sadly the ALP gov lost the plot with the media doing what it does best, ranting on about something it knows bugger all truly about and winding the people up..


Nope, 100% fact and confirmed by head people at Ford who were in a position to know. Ford got wind of what GMH were developing, not total understanding of what they were doing but enough to develop the XR GT rather than continue with the Cortina. Bill Tuckey talks about this is one of his books too. Remember the HK GTS that we know as the GTS327 was pretty much locked in concept wise by 1966, the first coupe bodies were built during 1967. Ford had a mole within GMH, and GMH later resorted to tactics to countermeasure like the 350Z moniker on the HQ which had a 400ci engine in it.

Harry Firth was responsible for much of the development of the GT-HO and it was because of what happened at Bathurst 1968. Ford didn't build the GT-HO to the level Harry wanted and when he was Boss at HDT the next year he poked fun at the Fords because of it.

The PhaseII wouldn't have killed off the GTS, the 1970 race was way slower than the 1969 race and the 1969 race had a big crash on the first lap that held it up. The GTS350's from 1969 would have had a whole year of extra development up their sleeves as well, plus Harry had the two lead HDT cars in 1969 only doing what they needed to do to win - this was the reason he yanked Brock out of the Monaro in 1969 as he was driving too hard against instructions (Brock didn't drive a Monaro again until many months into 1970). I know it is crystal balling but if HDT had used GTS350's in 1970 the race would have been very close and the eventual winner probably would be the car or team who made the least mistakes and calculated properly - as we know Harry Firth had the upper hand in this area. As it ended up Don Holland (3rd in XU1) was on the same lap as the PhaseII's of Moffat and McPhee, the official ARDC records of him being a lap down are incorrect - this has been known for a long time. Harry Firth and GMH were working on a new car for 1970 anyway that was canned due to cost, and GMH wanted to use the cheaper Torana. The under-developed 1970 XU1 Torana couldn't hold a candle to a HT-HG GTS350. The 1970 Monaro if it ran should have been what Harry was working on, it would have had an LT1 engine, Muncie and 12 bolt rear axle, and with the extra 60hp and more durable driveline would have been significantly faster that the 1970 race, probably by a similar amount the 1969 race was over the 1968 race due to the superior speed of the HT over the 1969 HK.

Edited by user Saturday, 13 February 2016 8:07:02 AM(UTC)  | Reason: spelling

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Back to top
castellan Offline
#70 Posted : Saturday, 13 February 2016 1:02:32 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
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Warren Turnbull Go to Quoted Post
I do not think it would be GM corp that would have kicked up stink about Holden manufacturing a high performance version of the GTS, (after all by 1968 GM divisions were making some pretty awesome muscle cars in the US) more the public as to why Holden was making something so fast.

The more I think about the reason for the world wide ban on motor sport for GM divisions, the production of GM Muscle cars in the mid to late 60s, the whole hide the fact we are making a muscle car here makes no sense. As I have pointed out before, the GTS 327 gets a separate model number, not just an option like the SLR5000, GTRXU1. People say this is to hide the fact, but the same was applied to the Brabham Torana, so were they must have also hiding that from GM due to its possible high performance repercussions. As it has its own model number then it is clear as day that you are making a high performance model, as it comes up in the model list. The GTRXU1 and SLR5000 do not come up in any model list. If you were given all the model information on the first HB Torana a novice would need to do a bit of reading to find there was a Brabham high performance option, when it becomes a separate model it is right there on page 1. So making a separate model does everything but hide it.

The "American Muscle Car" thing here had only started the year before with the XR GT. Before that it was all British thinking, small nimble car with a little more poke. In 1967, pre XR GT, a V8 was simply a luxury item, or for those towing. There was a small US Muscle thing starting and some dealers were importing GTOs etc.

Then Ford goes and makes the GT and hammers Bathurst. Up until then its all British, Cortina, Mini etc. My theory/opinion is a Ford US heavy came out here, saw what they were doing with the Cortina GT and said, hey you need to build a V8 "Muscle car" version like we do in the good old US of A.

Had Holden hit back with a car that was way superior in 1968 it may have been a case of too much too soon. They knew the Ford "Official figures" and they probably said "lets make ours about the same". (you only need to win by a car length)

Mind you Ford may have been doing the same with their cars, especially after that idiot took a photo of the speedo at 140MPH, bring on the supercar scare.

Warren


You are forgetting Warren that Ford built the XR GT because they had insider knowledge about the upcoming HK GTS "Special". The HK GTS327 was responsible for the XR GT, and Ford built the GT-HO because of the same car.


Come off it, the XR GT 289 came out in 1967 and the XT 302 GT came out Feb 1968 I think and the XW GT-HO Windsor was to take on the HT GTS 350 and the XW GT-HO P2 was to kill the HT350 off and the XY GT-HO P3 was to be a bit more street drivable with the lower lift cam, but the Bathurst race car used the XW higher lift cam, but both were 40/80 dur and then the XA GT-HO was to have a bit smaller cam again because it had the market to it's self then.

Sadly the ALP gov lost the plot with the media doing what it does best, ranting on about something it knows bugger all truly about and winding the people up..


Nope, 100% fact and confirmed by head people at Ford who were in a position to know. Ford got wind of what GMH were developing, not total understanding of what they were doing but enough to develop the XR GT rather than continue with the Cortina. Bill Tuckey talks about this is one of his books too. Remember the HK GTS that we know as the GTS327 was pretty much locked in concept wise by 1966, the first coupe bodies were built during 1967. Ford had a mole within GMH, and GMH later resorted to tactics to countermeasure like the 350Z moniker on the HQ which had a 400ci engine in it.

Harry Firth was responsible for much of the development of the GT-HO and it was because of what happened at Bathurst 1968. Ford didn't build the GT-HO to the level Harry wanted and when he was Boss at HDT the next year he poked fun at the Fords because of it.

The PhaseII wouldn't have killed off the GTS, the 1970 race was way slower than the 1969 race and the 1969 race had a big crash on the first lap that held it up. The GTS350's from 1969 would have had a whole year of extra development up their sleeves as well, plus Harry had the two lead HDT cars in 1969 only doing what they needed to do to win - this was the reason he yanked Brock out of the Monaro in 1969 as he was driving too hard against instructions (Brock didn't drive a Monaro again until many months into 1970). I know it is crystal balling but if HDT had used GTS350's in 1970 the race would have been very close and the eventual winner probably would be the car or team who made the least mistakes and calculated properly - as we know Harry Firth had the upper hand in this area. As it ended up Don Holland (3rd in XU1) was on the same lap as the PhaseII's of Moffat and McPhee, the official ARDC records of him being a lap down are incorrect - this has been known for a long time. Harry Firth and GMH were working on a new car for 1970 anyway that was canned due to cost, and GMH wanted to use the cheaper Torana. The under-developed 1970 XU1 Torana couldn't hold a candle to a HT-HG GTS350. The 1970 Monaro if it ran should have been what Harry was working on, it would have had an LT1 engine, Muncie and 12 bolt rear axle, and with the extra 60hp and more durable driveline would have been significantly faster that the 1970 race, probably by a similar amount the 1969 race was over the 1968 race due to the superior speed of the HT over the 1969 HK.

GH-H were not going to put the chev engine in the HK as that was for the Holden V8, only they had too because the great Holden engine was not sorted yet.

Forget about race tracks a XW GT-HO P2 and XY GT-HO are more powerful than any Monaro.

As for racing that's all about the track and setup of the car, Fifth knows this and he is one that works it all out how to go about winning the race because he was a master in all this working.

The XU-1 was a bit of a slug on the highway compared to a GT-HO but on a track due to it's weight this became an advantage.

On the highway the XU-1 is a bucket of puss, what a shit box to drive and the Monaro is just so much better to drive and not only looks much better.

The GT-HO P2 P3 were not as nice to drive on the highway as the Monaro GTS 350 and especially around town they were a dog too most people to drive.
But that being said the P2 P3 had more power.

The old wog E49 chariot was nothing on the highway too a GTS 350 or GT let alone GT-HO Wink Woot

Fifth had bugger all to do with the Phase 2 and was just pissing on because he got the arse.
Back to top
HK1837 Offline
#71 Posted : Saturday, 13 February 2016 1:45:45 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)
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Warren Turnbull Go to Quoted Post
I do not think it would be GM corp that would have kicked up stink about Holden manufacturing a high performance version of the GTS, (after all by 1968 GM divisions were making some pretty awesome muscle cars in the US) more the public as to why Holden was making something so fast.

The more I think about the reason for the world wide ban on motor sport for GM divisions, the production of GM Muscle cars in the mid to late 60s, the whole hide the fact we are making a muscle car here makes no sense. As I have pointed out before, the GTS 327 gets a separate model number, not just an option like the SLR5000, GTRXU1. People say this is to hide the fact, but the same was applied to the Brabham Torana, so were they must have also hiding that from GM due to its possible high performance repercussions. As it has its own model number then it is clear as day that you are making a high performance model, as it comes up in the model list. The GTRXU1 and SLR5000 do not come up in any model list. If you were given all the model information on the first HB Torana a novice would need to do a bit of reading to find there was a Brabham high performance option, when it becomes a separate model it is right there on page 1. So making a separate model does everything but hide it.

The "American Muscle Car" thing here had only started the year before with the XR GT. Before that it was all British thinking, small nimble car with a little more poke. In 1967, pre XR GT, a V8 was simply a luxury item, or for those towing. There was a small US Muscle thing starting and some dealers were importing GTOs etc.

Then Ford goes and makes the GT and hammers Bathurst. Up until then its all British, Cortina, Mini etc. My theory/opinion is a Ford US heavy came out here, saw what they were doing with the Cortina GT and said, hey you need to build a V8 "Muscle car" version like we do in the good old US of A.

Had Holden hit back with a car that was way superior in 1968 it may have been a case of too much too soon. They knew the Ford "Official figures" and they probably said "lets make ours about the same". (you only need to win by a car length)

Mind you Ford may have been doing the same with their cars, especially after that idiot took a photo of the speedo at 140MPH, bring on the supercar scare.

Warren


You are forgetting Warren that Ford built the XR GT because they had insider knowledge about the upcoming HK GTS "Special". The HK GTS327 was responsible for the XR GT, and Ford built the GT-HO because of the same car.


Come off it, the XR GT 289 came out in 1967 and the XT 302 GT came out Feb 1968 I think and the XW GT-HO Windsor was to take on the HT GTS 350 and the XW GT-HO P2 was to kill the HT350 off and the XY GT-HO P3 was to be a bit more street drivable with the lower lift cam, but the Bathurst race car used the XW higher lift cam, but both were 40/80 dur and then the XA GT-HO was to have a bit smaller cam again because it had the market to it's self then.

Sadly the ALP gov lost the plot with the media doing what it does best, ranting on about something it knows bugger all truly about and winding the people up..


Nope, 100% fact and confirmed by head people at Ford who were in a position to know. Ford got wind of what GMH were developing, not total understanding of what they were doing but enough to develop the XR GT rather than continue with the Cortina. Bill Tuckey talks about this is one of his books too. Remember the HK GTS that we know as the GTS327 was pretty much locked in concept wise by 1966, the first coupe bodies were built during 1967. Ford had a mole within GMH, and GMH later resorted to tactics to countermeasure like the 350Z moniker on the HQ which had a 400ci engine in it.

Harry Firth was responsible for much of the development of the GT-HO and it was because of what happened at Bathurst 1968. Ford didn't build the GT-HO to the level Harry wanted and when he was Boss at HDT the next year he poked fun at the Fords because of it.

The PhaseII wouldn't have killed off the GTS, the 1970 race was way slower than the 1969 race and the 1969 race had a big crash on the first lap that held it up. The GTS350's from 1969 would have had a whole year of extra development up their sleeves as well, plus Harry had the two lead HDT cars in 1969 only doing what they needed to do to win - this was the reason he yanked Brock out of the Monaro in 1969 as he was driving too hard against instructions (Brock didn't drive a Monaro again until many months into 1970). I know it is crystal balling but if HDT had used GTS350's in 1970 the race would have been very close and the eventual winner probably would be the car or team who made the least mistakes and calculated properly - as we know Harry Firth had the upper hand in this area. As it ended up Don Holland (3rd in XU1) was on the same lap as the PhaseII's of Moffat and McPhee, the official ARDC records of him being a lap down are incorrect - this has been known for a long time. Harry Firth and GMH were working on a new car for 1970 anyway that was canned due to cost, and GMH wanted to use the cheaper Torana. The under-developed 1970 XU1 Torana couldn't hold a candle to a HT-HG GTS350. The 1970 Monaro if it ran should have been what Harry was working on, it would have had an LT1 engine, Muncie and 12 bolt rear axle, and with the extra 60hp and more durable driveline would have been significantly faster that the 1970 race, probably by a similar amount the 1969 race was over the 1968 race due to the superior speed of the HT over the 1969 HK.

GH-H were not going to put the chev engine in the HK as that was for the Holden V8, only they had too because the great Holden engine was not sorted yet.

Forget about race tracks a XW GT-HO P2 and XY GT-HO are more powerful than any Monaro.

As for racing that's all about the track and setup of the car, Fifth knows this and he is one that works it all out how to go about winning the race because he was a master in all this working.

The XU-1 was a bit of a slug on the highway compared to a GT-HO but on a track due to it's weight this became an advantage.

On the highway the XU-1 is a bucket of puss, what a shit box to drive and the Monaro is just so much better to drive and not only looks much better.

The GT-HO P2 P3 were not as nice to drive on the highway as the Monaro GTS 350 and especially around town they were a dog too most people to drive.
But that being said the P2 P3 had more power.

The old wog E49 chariot was nothing on the highway too a GTS 350 or GT let alone GT-HO Wink Woot

Fifth had bugger all to do with the Phase 2 and was just pissing on because he got the arse.


No argument, the GT-HO II and III were the most powerful factory built Aussie cars until 25-30 years later. But as you say power doesn't mean success, the HT-HO was faster around Bathurst than the PhaseII - the proof is in history.

I didn't say PhaseII with Harry, it was the GT-HO he had a lot to do with but the car he designed was more than what the GT-HO ended up as.

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Back to top
HGV8 Offline
#72 Posted : Saturday, 13 February 2016 3:58:26 PM(UTC)
HGV8

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 28/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 420

Thanks: 3 times
Was thanked: 10 time(s) in 9 post(s)
Here's my evaluation of different model Holden's our family members have had over the years. All new or close to new and unmodified. (VK might of been modified for Vic police?)

1st- HT kingswood (white hot) 253 3 speed column we had when new was a surprising performer for what it was. (You could really wind this little 253 out on the open road). Kept an eye on this car over the years, ended up at Caves Beach NSW and I often seen it into the 1980's cruising around with roof racks, $50 paint job, roof painted blue, jelly bean mags and rust holes in every panel.

2nd- New 253 trimatic HQ kingswood wagon aug 71. A real slug

3rd- Traded up to a HQ SS in 72, didn't feel as quick as the previous HT despite having the advantage of a 4 Speed.

4th- Traded the HQSS for a LH torana SLR/4.2 4 speed. Was nimble but nothing exciting. (Ridiculously heavy clutch)

5th- LX SLR 5000 trimatic. A slug. Changed it to a manual M21. Still a slug, not much quicker then the LH 4.2, if at all.

6th- HZ 4.2 4 speed M20 van, dual exhaust? Extremely disappointing, all noise and no action (The noisy whizzing sound of the radiator fan nearly drove me nuts)

7th- VC SL/E 308 auto performed really nice. Quicker then the LX SLR 5000. This car was eventually lowered a tad and was a nice drivers car. ( I still have a soft spot for this car. I don't know why)

8th- VH SS 5.0 4 speed, solid performer.

9th- VK 5.0 4 speed. Ex Vic Hwy patrol with 40,000 clicks. Knocked my socks of this car. You could flog this car all day long and not be disappointed. The quickest and most enjoyable drivers car of this lot by a country mile.

Edited by user Saturday, 13 February 2016 4:49:07 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

j.williams
Back to top
HK1837 Offline
#73 Posted : Monday, 15 February 2016 11:52:58 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: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
SAE set a standard of 0.004 lift for the cam figures so Holden may be that without the ramps, I have heard of 0.002 ?
Most cam company used 0.006 in the days before the modern way of 0.050 now used.

7434871 cam is used in the HT, HG, HQ 308 and the 253, but the 253 is retarded -5 degrees as was the LH Torana 308
using the cam gear PN 7434699. the other cam gear is PN 2808386 and this is zero deg.

2825882 is a HJ to VL 308 cam it has one ring cast on it to ID it, it's timing gear PN 7434699 = - 5 deg and is in 28/72 = 280 duration with ex 78/30 = 288 dur and if you use the PN 2808386 timing gear you will improve power with this cam.

The HJ to VH 253 cam is 92000944 but the cam gear PN is 7434699 on HJ to HZ but the VB to VH has PN 9936255.

So I have some other Holden PN cams
92029026 = VK HDT-SS
92060099 = VL SS GROUP A
92061392 = VN to VS
92063314 = VT
92063624 = VT 195KW and the 5.7L 215KW


Is 7434699 5deg retarded, or is it actually 0deg and 2808386 5deg advanced?

The reason I ask is L34 (and LH 308 engines prior to HT24413) have the following timing figures and use 2808386, the 253 and the 308 engines past HT24412 use 7434699:

32/58-270
76/14-270

Subtract 5 deg from the opening and add 5 deg to the closing and you have the timing figures quoted for HJ 253 (which use the 7434699 sprocket).

Note that from HT release 2808386 was the 308 sprocket and 7434699 was the 253 sprocket. My guess is the 308 was run 5 degrees advanced on the same cam, but once the new cam came in for HJ engines they reverted to the 0deg sprocket.

Edit, just found the answer. LH service manual lists the cam timing as follows:

253: 27/63-270, 71/19-270 46 overlap
308: 32/58-270, 76/14-270 46 overlap.

So the 308 has its cam advanced 5deg using 2808386 and the 253 cam sits at 0deg using 7434699. Once the 308 gets a new cam at HJ engine start it goes back to 0deg.


Funny that the Torana 308 was timed different to the HQ 308 as they retarded the cam timing as such, I would think as such, one is looking to increase top end power by doing such at the experience of loosing low torque a bit, the lighter car may be deemed safer to do as such by Holden ?

I don't know about the L34 timing setup if it was at 0 or -5 and as we know the came change from HT24413 to 2825882, not to mention the race L34 cam option at all here.

HT-G-Q 308 7434871 cam is in 27/63 ex is 71/19 over lap is 46
LH Torana 308 I have 32/16 58/28 in my book.

ADR27A mainly created a cam that was retarded by around 6 deg this is to heat up the exhaust to burn the unburnt fuel off better generally is the rule that they claim that works.

Look at the so called HJ cam 2825882 308 cam on the exhaust she has more duration then the intake, now the cam timing does not tell the whole story because we have other factors of the cam at play, we have the lob centreline to factor in, but I don't know what it is on the Holden cams, so this can effect the compression of an engine running at different points through out the rev range in reality and this may be why the 9.7:1 static compression was created and then 9.4:1 in the HX-Z as to the position of came timing sprocket may of changed.
Now hang about this HJ-X-Z cam with more exhaust duration could cause less true compression as the engine is running, calling into play volume efficiency and Holden just raise the compression to compensate.

As a cam is retarded the spark timing goes advance more so as we mainly seen up to 6 deg at idle on a pre ADR but come ADR27A you then seen 12 deg being common.

The book I am going by is not the bees knees on facts I would say but something in the right direction to go on.

I don't know the dizzy spec settings of the HJ or HX-Z and so on, that may point to what is going on with the cam setups, the torana setup must be different to the HT to HQ 308 ? it must tell the story.

I have buggered around with my 20/60 cam in my 308 and I retarded it by 6 deg and she lost a lot of performance and at 0 she just went so much better.
As a rule adv = more mid power and retarding = more top and less mid, so they say as a rule.


I'll see what I can find. The lobe centreline of the HJ cam will be easy to find, it will be the same as the Chevrolet cam. By the part number I think I know why it was developed too.



Here is the specs for the Chevy version of the HJ cam, almost certainly will be identical:

GM base L48 cam #3896929

Intake Lift = .390
Exhaust Lift = .410
Intake Duration = 310
Exhaust Duration = 320
LSA = 114
Rocker Ratio = 1.50
Hydraulic Lifter

Part Number = 3896929
Casting Number = 3896930

Crane give the 0.050" timing at the tappet as (Crane part number 968711):

(10.5)/25.5 - 195
37/(15) - 202
Figures in brackets are negative or ATDC and BTDC respectively.

Comp cams reckon the LSA is 112. So does this site:
http://www.lategreatchev...dralic-small-block.html

Unfortunately Crane do not give an advertised duration for this cam, but similar Crane camshaft 113971 has advertised duration of 248/260 (192/204 50 thou) on 112 lobe centre and Crane measure at 0.004" lift for advertised. SAE is 0.006" lift. As GM quote 280/288 without ramps you'd think it might be quoted at 0.002" lift.



_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Back to top
castellan Offline
#74 Posted : Monday, 15 February 2016 12:14:40 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)
Ian Tate Dyno has
HQ 308 198HP
HQ 350 209HP
HT 350 214HP
HG 350 224HP
H Frith Bathurst Monaro 244HP
Mick Webb said the best GT-HO Dynoed was 350HP

Motor Manual Dec 1978 did a test on there own HZ 5.0L manual Monaro they had a HJ 5.0L manual Monaro that they traded after owning it for 3 years and 48300KM for the new HZ and they put extractors and full twin exhaust on it and then put it on a Dyno and got a best of 125HP@RW @ 4500 RPM she had P/S and they clocked 0 to 80KM/H in 6.2 sec and 0 to 100KM/H in 11.1 sec. gutless if you ask me.
But they say this now got up and went better than their old HJ 5.0L ?

When they first Dynoed the HZ she pumped out 92KW@RW @ 3500 and 0 to 80KM/H in 7.9 sec and 0 to 100KM/H in 14.3 sec now that's a joke I would think.

A test in the same book has a 173 VB Commodore 0 to 80KM/H in 7.8sec and 0 to 100KM/H in 12sec.
Back to top
castellan Offline
#75 Posted : Monday, 15 February 2016 12:36:02 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
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
SAE set a standard of 0.004 lift for the cam figures so Holden may be that without the ramps, I have heard of 0.002 ?
Most cam company used 0.006 in the days before the modern way of 0.050 now used.

7434871 cam is used in the HT, HG, HQ 308 and the 253, but the 253 is retarded -5 degrees as was the LH Torana 308
using the cam gear PN 7434699. the other cam gear is PN 2808386 and this is zero deg.

2825882 is a HJ to VL 308 cam it has one ring cast on it to ID it, it's timing gear PN 7434699 = - 5 deg and is in 28/72 = 280 duration with ex 78/30 = 288 dur and if you use the PN 2808386 timing gear you will improve power with this cam.

The HJ to VH 253 cam is 92000944 but the cam gear PN is 7434699 on HJ to HZ but the VB to VH has PN 9936255.

So I have some other Holden PN cams
92029026 = VK HDT-SS
92060099 = VL SS GROUP A
92061392 = VN to VS
92063314 = VT
92063624 = VT 195KW and the 5.7L 215KW


Is 7434699 5deg retarded, or is it actually 0deg and 2808386 5deg advanced?

The reason I ask is L34 (and LH 308 engines prior to HT24413) have the following timing figures and use 2808386, the 253 and the 308 engines past HT24412 use 7434699:

32/58-270
76/14-270

Subtract 5 deg from the opening and add 5 deg to the closing and you have the timing figures quoted for HJ 253 (which use the 7434699 sprocket).

Note that from HT release 2808386 was the 308 sprocket and 7434699 was the 253 sprocket. My guess is the 308 was run 5 degrees advanced on the same cam, but once the new cam came in for HJ engines they reverted to the 0deg sprocket.

Edit, just found the answer. LH service manual lists the cam timing as follows:

253: 27/63-270, 71/19-270 46 overlap
308: 32/58-270, 76/14-270 46 overlap.

So the 308 has its cam advanced 5deg using 2808386 and the 253 cam sits at 0deg using 7434699. Once the 308 gets a new cam at HJ engine start it goes back to 0deg.


Funny that the Torana 308 was timed different to the HQ 308 as they retarded the cam timing as such, I would think as such, one is looking to increase top end power by doing such at the experience of loosing low torque a bit, the lighter car may be deemed safer to do as such by Holden ?

I don't know about the L34 timing setup if it was at 0 or -5 and as we know the came change from HT24413 to 2825882, not to mention the race L34 cam option at all here.

HT-G-Q 308 7434871 cam is in 27/63 ex is 71/19 over lap is 46
LH Torana 308 I have 32/16 58/28 in my book.

ADR27A mainly created a cam that was retarded by around 6 deg this is to heat up the exhaust to burn the unburnt fuel off better generally is the rule that they claim that works.

Look at the so called HJ cam 2825882 308 cam on the exhaust she has more duration then the intake, now the cam timing does not tell the whole story because we have other factors of the cam at play, we have the lob centreline to factor in, but I don't know what it is on the Holden cams, so this can effect the compression of an engine running at different points through out the rev range in reality and this may be why the 9.7:1 static compression was created and then 9.4:1 in the HX-Z as to the position of came timing sprocket may of changed.
Now hang about this HJ-X-Z cam with more exhaust duration could cause less true compression as the engine is running, calling into play volume efficiency and Holden just raise the compression to compensate.

As a cam is retarded the spark timing goes advance more so as we mainly seen up to 6 deg at idle on a pre ADR but come ADR27A you then seen 12 deg being common.

The book I am going by is not the bees knees on facts I would say but something in the right direction to go on.

I don't know the dizzy spec settings of the HJ or HX-Z and so on, that may point to what is going on with the cam setups, the torana setup must be different to the HT to HQ 308 ? it must tell the story.

I have buggered around with my 20/60 cam in my 308 and I retarded it by 6 deg and she lost a lot of performance and at 0 she just went so much better.
As a rule adv = more mid power and retarding = more top and less mid, so they say as a rule.


I'll see what I can find. The lobe centreline of the HJ cam will be easy to find, it will be the same as the Chevrolet cam. By the part number I think I know why it was developed too.



Here is the specs for the Chevy version of the HJ cam, almost certainly will be identical:

GM base L48 cam #3896929

Intake Lift = .390
Exhaust Lift = .410
Intake Duration = 310
Exhaust Duration = 320
LSA = 114
Rocker Ratio = 1.50
Hydraulic Lifter

Part Number = 3896929
Casting Number = 3896930

Crane give the 0.050" timing at the tappet as (Crane part number 968711):

(10.5)/25.5 - 195
37/(15) - 202
Figures in brackets are negative or ATDC and BTDC respectively.

Comp cams reckon the LSA is 112. So does this site:
http://www.lategreatchev...dralic-small-block.html

Unfortunately Crane do not give an advertised duration for this cam, but similar Crane camshaft 113971 has advertised duration of 248/260 (192/204 50 thou) on 112 lobe centre and Crane measure at 0.004" lift for advertised. SAE is 0.006" lift. As GM quote 280/288 without ramps you'd think it might be quoted at 0.002" lift.




When it comes to cams company's do not want to copy another cam as to copyrights, so you will get a cam that comes close to the same spec if they claim you are looking for.
Such company's will not reveal the total spec of their product.

Even if one cam may read the same spec at 0.006 that does not mean it is the same at all because their is a lot more to it than that.

I don't know what Holden quote it at all, but only assume it is 0.002 or 0.004 because that is what I have heard I only know that most performance cam company's used 0.006 to Quote the spec in the days before they started all using 0.050.
So I had a 20/60 cam at 0.006 Waggot cam and this is a way we talked only gave a sort of description of what you had and the lift, You could have a 30/70 cam with high lift or low and so on and on.
But when I comes up saying he has a 280 duration cam it gives a bit of a description only and another with a 280 could be totally a different thing.
Back to top
castellan Offline
#76 Posted : Monday, 15 February 2016 12:55:28 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)
I have a L34 Cam PN 9937699
Back to top
castellan Offline
#77 Posted : Monday, 15 February 2016 1:05:04 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
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
All

I just noticed an anomaly with red 308's.

HT-HG are essentially the same engine with same basic components and 9.0:1 compression, although later HQ got the leaner idle 704 Quadrajet. Early LH are the same.

At HJ release a far superior 9.7:1 308 was released and also went into later LH and early LX.

HX-HZ seem to be quoted still at 9.7:1, however VB Commodore seems to be 9.4:1. It is that way in the VB Service manual, Scientific Publications and even Dr Terry has it at 9.4:1.

HX-HZ at 9.7:1 is in parts catalogues, Scientific Publications and also Features manuals.

The V8 engines did change to the new "blue" type block at VB release so maybe the 308 did drop in compression at that time but it was never documented in HZ anywhere that I can find. I have the service letters for the whole year where the block changed and there is no mention of a change in HZ's 308 specs.

Are there 2 x different 308's from VB release until 1980 or is the VB info simply wrong?

Unfortunately the late LX parts catalogues still have both 4.2 and 5.0 as 9.0:1.

Far superior HJ 308 come off it, it has a cam for pollution and a intake that is squared off.
And the HJ 253 has a smaller cam for pollution then the early ones did.
Sadly power was rated at nonsense figures.


I believe all blue engines all got improved strength pistons and this may of started before the blue engines came out.

What's different with the V8 blocks in the blue ?

I have seen original red block with 3.3L casting on the block of a late HZ ute and it had the blue motor exhaust valve rotators and the head was a little different casting near the in and ex manifolds to early HZ-X.

The HZ 6 CYL gets the better rods and bolts when the great starfire 4 comes out.
The Starfire 4 gets UN cast on the block and the VC on they get a 1.9 casting.

Funny they get the UN casting at the start of the starfire 4, just like the early 179 gets HP and the early 308 gets HP, and I have seen a NP cast on a 202 block.


HJ 308 is superior in performance to a HQ 308, 100% fact. They jump from 9:1 to 9.7:1 with no other changes. That is a huge jump in compression, similar US engines see up around 25hp gain from similar compression hikes, however in the HQ-HJ case the heads didn't change so you'd expect something around 12-15hp gain. There was no cam changes. Power was definitely not nonsense figures, in fact gross hp figures are the only sensible figures as they are all conducted in the same fashion, same temperature, same humidity on an undressed engine so are easily comparable between engines. GMH didn't adjust their hp figures for the HJ engine unfortunately but the cars were significantly quicker, the best evidence if you can find it is in LH figures for the early cars with the HQ engine and the later cars (or early LX's) with the HJ engine.

V8 blocks from VB release have the longer valley head bolt bosses.



The HJ 308 cam is PN 2825882 it has one ring cast into the cam, this cam is the same cam up to the VL Commodore the spec may sound bigger than the HT to HQ V8 cam PN 7438871 but it does not perform as well because it's an emission cam just like the HJ to VH 253 cam PN 92000944 with 2 rings cast on it, the reason why they made a 253 and a 308 cam was due to emission standards even before ADR27A.

HT to HQ 253 and 308 had the same cam.

Holden spec on the cam is old backward rubbish spec done at 0.002 or so that makes it very hard to read in reality when 0.006 is a much better way or the modern day at 0.050 reading a cam spec not to mention all the other things one can look into with a cam.

I don't swallow that the 308 HJ went any better than a HQ, as for the car test back in the day they were mainly hopeless idiots that could not drive for jack and the idiots did not have well prepared tuned cars let alone inform use of the diff ratio of the car tested, so that all makes it bloody hard to work it all out in reality.

I remember a mate of my dads talking at the pub maybe in 1979 he had a yellow HJ 308 GTS auto and he said it did not go better than a GTS HQ 308 auto.

The old SAE gross HP ratings is a sad joke, it's just rubbish, The USA got rid of such out dated rubbish in 1972 and went to more of a reality figures, just look at the wild claims we had in the 70's a XY GT-HO is rated as the same HP as the GT ? and anyone knows that is not true at all, now don't they.

I will put it to you that a XB 250 falcon had 155 HP but in Net HP figures that's around 111 HP.

Look at the B/S we had put forward with the XB Falcon V8 302 stating 240HP and the 351 with 260HP now both have a 2BBL carby, now in reality the XB 302 is 159HP and the 351 is 183HP and the 351 4BBL rated at 290HP truly was only 214HP.
Now that's the facts.


I just found the cam data.

HT-HQ 253 and 308 both use the same cam 7434871. HJ 4.2L uses the same cam. ADR27A HJ (and I assume HX) uses 9936253 and HZ changes to another cam with an M number, M38192. Blue 4.2L uses 92000944. This is from parts catalogues so can be deceiving sometimes.
HJ-WB 308 and VK-VL standard carbied 304 engines use 2825882.

7434871 specs are:
Excluding Ramps: inlet 27/63-270, exhaust 71/19-270, 46 overlap.
Including Ramps: inlet 43/91-314, exhaust 87/47-314, 90 overlap.

2825882 specs are:
Excluding Ramps: inlet 29/71-280, exhaust 79/29-288, 58 overlap. (shown for HX-HZ as 28/72-280, 78/30-288, so shown 1 deg advanced in HJ).
Including Ramps: inlet 39/91-310, exhaust 89/51-320, 90 overlap. (shown for HX-HZ as 38/92-310, 88/52-320,so shown 1 deg advanced in HJ).

You may recognise 2825882 as the same cam as the Chevrolet general performance hydraulic camshaft that was used in HK, HT and HQ engines.

HX emissions cam I assume to be 9936253 is:
Excluding Ramps: inlet 8/42-230, exhaust 15/15-210, 23 overlap.
Including Ramps: inlet 30/78-288, exhaust 47/51-288, 81 overlap.

The emissions cam listed for later 4.2L HZ, I assume this is the M38192 part number:
Excluding Ramps: inlet 14/60-254, exhaust 42/32-254, 46 overlap.
Including Ramps: inlet 32/80-298, exhaust 60/58-298, 90 overlap.


I thought the excl. ramps figures were 6 thou lift for all GM engines, but I can't find where I read that.

The above does show that GMH used a more aggressive camshaft in 308 from HJ, probably to take advantage of the extra compression.




I assume the M38192 is a catalogue for a HZ ?
Back to top
HK1837 Offline
#78 Posted : Monday, 15 February 2016 1:07:49 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)
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
Ian Tate Dyno has
HQ 308 198HP
HQ 350 209HP
HT 350 214HP
HG 350 224HP
H Frith Bathurst Monaro 244HP
Mick Webb said the best GT-HO Dynoed was 350HP

Motor Manual Dec 1978 did a test on there own HZ 5.0L manual Monaro they had a HJ 5.0L manual Monaro that they traded after owning it for 3 years and 48300KM for the new HZ and they put extractors and full twin exhaust on it and then put it on a Dyno and got a best of 125HP@RW @ 4500 RPM she had P/S and they clocked 0 to 80KM/H in 6.2 sec and 0 to 100KM/H in 11.1 sec. gutless if you ask me.
But they say this now got up and went better than their old HJ 5.0L ?

When they first Dynoed the HZ she pumped out 92KW@RW @ 3500 and 0 to 80KM/H in 7.9 sec and 0 to 100KM/H in 14.3 sec now that's a joke I would think.

A test in the same book has a 173 VB Commodore 0 to 80KM/H in 7.8sec and 0 to 100KM/H in 12sec.


Some of the Tate dyno figures don't make sense, do you know where they came from?
The 10hp difference between a HT-HG GTS350 has to be the Tonawanda HT/HG GTS350M and the HG must be the McKinnon HG GTS350M engine. This is pretty much in line with what AMC recorded at the back wheels for a dead stock unopened McKinnon HG GTS350, I think they recorded 215hp at the back wheels but a different dyno - close enough though. The 244hp HT GTS350 is probably one of the 3 x 1969 Bathurst cars with a Flint engine in it, the Woelders car had the most powerful engine, followed by the West car then the Bond car. She'd be a pretty well modded GT-HO to get 350hp at the wheels! The road tested versions were nowhere near that powerful at the wheels. Sure it isn't engine hp?

I'll see if I can find the HJ 308 4spd manual road test or the LH-LX SLR5000 with the same engine. They are not slow cars, much faster than any other 308's of their era. Not easy to find though.

Edited by user Monday, 15 February 2016 1:10:37 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Back to top
HK1837 Offline
#79 Posted : Monday, 15 February 2016 1:12:22 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)
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post

I assume the M38192 is a catalogue for a HZ ?


Yes, cam part number M38192 from the HZ parts catalogue.

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Back to top
HK1837 Offline
#80 Posted : Monday, 15 February 2016 1:27:13 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)
Here is a good read online by Joe Kenwright. He has made some little errors with regards to the auto HT-HG and HQ engines but essentially the HT-HG GTS350 manual stuff is all correct.

http://www.tradeuniqueca...rs/1307/holden-gts-350/
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Back to top
Users browsing this topic
Guest (11)
9 Pages«<23456>»
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 0.330 seconds.