Have just sent some pictures to Griffo, So hopefully see them up shortly
Cars currently in storage with doors off for some rust repairs, Hopefully get some time before the weekend to get over and do some more investigating.
Just picked up my master-cylinder from being refurbished

Oh and the engine number I previously stated was the QT802610, this is what I can decipher from what is under the pen scribble.

I'll keep this updated with my findings.
Cam

P.S. Updated first page with photos

Hidden clutch pedal in the background

Edited by user Wednesday, 5 July 2017 2:06:58 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

I don't think it is QT802610, a 0 doesn't have a flat bottom - when you look close at the VID Certificate look where the 0 would be. Don't know what character it is though. This car was completed on 31/10/77 and sold on the 9/11/77 so I doubt it went through an engine swap that quickly. Unless it had an engine problem after leaving the plant, and a team from Fisherman's Bend had to change it out (this was how it was done).

You can also see where the X has been overstamped by a Z on the VID certificate - obviously a typo. Same with the 6 in the body number.

I reckon it has been written down wrongly and fixed, however it could be something else.

If you can find out who CARS PTY LTD was it might give you a clue as to the car's original purpose. I Googled the address and it is a new building now swallowed by next door.

QT901953 is 100% the engine number the dealer reported it to GMH as being in it when it was sold new.

Ok so I couldn't help myself, so I decided to go for a drive tonight and give things another look over.
Firstly, QT901953 is the engine number in the car now, However (and this is why I was originally suspect on it not being original) Its a 74 cast date block.
So its been re-stamped with original number.

Secondly, It's not even a TH400.
After checking the top bolts, I found that they were right up near the inlet manifold and not further down like they should be for a TH400.
So i put it on axle stands only to confirm its a trimatic.





While it was on stands I also confirmed the second exhaust hanger on driver side

Pretty sure its just the block as its still got an EGR inlet manifold and pollution carb.

So to cut a very long story short, My plans are now to install an M21 and as much original parts as possible, Paint it and get it on the road.
Once registered I have plans for a 383, 9" and auto (unknown now) and keep an original driveline for rainy day.

Value wise, Would my car be worth any more than a standard HZ premier???

Some interior pics

Edited by user Wednesday, 5 July 2017 9:17:29 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

I'm still somewhat sceptical about the FX code meaning WB V8 4.44. I've heard that before but there really should be no such thing, 4,44 was introduced during early HJ IIRC - it was a result of 6cyl tonners having so many clutches changed under warranty. There was even a National competition to see who could change a 6cyl tonner clutch on the fastest time. There is zero evidence in any Engineering docs of 4.44 being allowed behind V8. Having said that I haven't seen the WB docs in full as yet, so it is possible there was a special order application for it - and this does ring true a little bit as remember there was no V8 3spd in WB, and a V8 3spd has a far more useable reverse gear than a V8 M20.

HJ Features manual shows that 6cyl in top gear with 4.44:1 rear axle and F78-14LT tyres does 28.1kmh/1000rpm. So at 100kmh the engine (manual) would be doing 3559rpm, auto somewhat higher due to converter slip. So yes it'd do it but I doubt it'd be real happy. A HJ's 202 peak rated gross power is 110hp@4000rpm so you'd be below peak power, but peak torque is 190lbft@1600rpm and you are way past that.

My records show that an 'FX' Trimatic is for a WB 4.2 V8 column shift. No mention of the 4.44 rear axle.

Dr Terry

World class car what does that really mean ? but I hear it a lot nowadays.

All the Torana's were not that good, sure they had one good thing and that was they were light, as a high speed highway car over 180KM/H on they were crap they floated about and the wind noise was shocking no matter what you did with the window frames they would suck out.

VB Commodore were a much better car in every way.

Even the Holden HK on were a better car to drive flat out on the highway than any Torana for say a trip of 100KM or more, yes I liked my SL/R 5000 but I knew that even my 5.0L Sandman van was a much better car to drive at 200KM/H on a trip of 400 to 500km like so it's the van any day that's the pick. at 180KM/H a 308 is just cruising along taking it easy very relaxed and good on fuel in the big Holden's but the Torana's it's not and when you go to 200KM/H it's just not fun to do over a long trip because it wears you out because it's skipping about all the time and light in the arse. drive one from Camoonweal to the 3ways and you will know they are no world class high speed highway touring car.

Yes I liked the SL/R5000 and A9X but they are not as great as most think they are the same can be said for the XY GT-HO they are way over rated to what they really are nowadays.
Hell by the year 2000 you could drive a stock Commodore gen 3 VT SS at 250KM/H set on cruise control and sit like a rock on the road with air-con on thinking yep this is makes all them old cars look like crap.

Not much point comparing a 70's car with a 21st century car.
The A9X had something that a VB Commodore will never have. It looked good. It was reported at the time that it was an excellent handling car with the improved RTS update. Plus the bigger Salisbury diff. It has an awesome body kit from the factory. If it had just had the L34 engine it would have blown all the other Australian available cars into the weeds. That puts it on a playing field with whatever else was comparable from Europe and North America. That's what a world class car is. A VB Commodore comparable with a A9XHatchback? To some maybe. Not to me.
As for high speed antics, I definitely do not rate a WB ute at over 200. I guess a van would be not much better. They float all over the joint and if they had wings they would take off.

You have to remember that a standard A9X drives pretty much the same as a UC Sunbird or any other UC. Sure the A9X had better brakes, more power and more rubber (E sized tyres rather than B sized) but that is what the car was. If GMH had continued with a 5.0L and manual in UC no-one would even speak about LX A9X today, it would have had one run at Bathurst and lost. 1978 and 1979 would have been UC A9X and it would be the car to have. Every person wanting a "replica" would be paying stupid $ for UC hatchbacks and building UC A9X replicas. It is also pretty harsh comparing a VB to an A9X, you really have to compare a VB with a standard LX, say a stock LX SS which isn't a very nice looking car at all as a standard car- the ugly stripes, 13" wheels with those plastic hubcaps and that ugly dash. Compare to a nice VB SL/E. If you compare an A9X to anything it really has to be to the HDT Commodores - a VC or VH HDT is a nice looking car, certainly not ugly compared to an A9X. I agree A9X's are good looking cars, but they are not and were never designed to be performance cars. Basically the SLR5000 finished and so did 5.0L on SS. From that time they were almost all A9X if they were 5.0L, and they had bits added for homologation purposes only, that was their sole purpose. The cars were never intended to race, in fact many of the 1977 and 1978 race cars were L34's with A9X homologations added. The rest were special build LX race shells, with afaik the odd few road cars by privateers. The real hidden muscle car in all of that era is an early LX SS manual hatchback. From what I've been researching some of those early cars got a bigger exhaust than the standard Torana twin peashooter, we think they fitted them with the same pipe size as the Holden twin system. Combine that with the 250hp pre ADR27A 5.0L and the cars were rockets. Road testers of the day were stunned with how quick the cars were, they were expecting them to be the same as the original SLR5000's with the HQ engines. Articles even comment about having to go back and compare to the acceleration times they recorded with the GTS350's and GT Falcons.
A9X with an L34 engine wouldn't be that much different to a HJ engine - either would be far better though than the stock ADR27A engine it got. But A9X was never intended to be anything other than a homologation mule and the L34 engine was already homologated. The L34 engine as standard wasn't all that much better as installed than a HJ engine was. It is effectively the same engine as a V5H VH-VH 308 engine - the L34 had higher compression and had better exhaust "manifolds", but the V5H had the better cam but with around 1/2 point lower compression. Both had hogged out inlets, both had a better spark system. The V5H got a better breathing air cleaner. The V5H in Commodores got a better exhaust system from the manifolds back than the L34. When you look at stock rear wheel kW they are about the same give or take a few kW. Sure the L34 engine had the advantage once you put a bigger cam in and changed the exhaust from the "manifolds" back but HDT did the same thing with their engines and got similar power upgrades.

Edited by user Friday, 7 July 2017 11:44:11 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified