Anyone have a clue why they made the HG 350 with only a 2 speed power glide?

[quote=HK1837;175082]Not for Bathurst 1968, it was ARDC controlled. It was different homologation to regular CAMS controlled Series Production. What I stated is correct. GMH also had to scramble to show they had built 200 HK Kingswood sedans with 186S, 4spd and bucket seats so that car 35C could compete. I always wondered why they raced this car with an Opel 4spd when both an all synchro 3spd and Saginaw 4spd were available - my guess is there were nowhere near 200 of either made in a 186S HK Kingswood sedan, especially with bucket seats for the all synchro version.


Yes, the ARDC as organiser of the event had to have it's own supplementary rules and regulations but these supplementary R&R's had to be approved by the Confederation of Australian Motorsport, and such supplementary R&R's could not be in conflict with the International Sporting Code of the FIA and the National Competitions Rules of the Confederation of Australian Motorsport under which all motorsport in Australia is conducted, with the exception of karting and drag racing.

Edited by user Thursday, 11 October 2018 8:34:28 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Byron, I have no doubt the ARDC was unduly ANAL with they way they ran their events but fact is the ARDC could not override the International Sporting Code or the National Competition Rules. All vehicles competing in motorsport competitions must comply with one of the categories of vehicles as set down in Appendix C of the NCR.

If the Ford GT you spoke of with the automatic transmission was log booked for Group E Series Production then according to the 1968 Group E Series Production Rules that car was 100% legal to compete.

Any info on what become of some of these great HK GTS 327s after the 1968 Bathurst race, There is a bit of info about the HDT 3 Monaro's but what about the winning car of McPhee/Mullholland 13d or the West/Marks 14d or Roberts/Watson 15d - Where did they end up?

I think the cars themselves may have been mixed up then as they went to GMH for race preparation. Suttons supplied a Pagewood car, Pattersons a Dandenong car and Midway the old Elizabeth development car.

The ARDC rules were supplementary to the National Competition Rules.
If any car competed in any motorsport competition/event in Australia (other than Karting or Drag racing) without a Log Book then it was because The C.A.M.S allowed it to.

Have a read of a 1968 CAMS Manual of Motorsport if you can find one.

Edited by user Friday, 12 October 2018 7:43:49 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

When I get the time sheets in front of me and have time I will see if I can pick the it stop laps.
We do know that the 1968 race had mandatory pit stops and that the GTS327’s did it with 2 stops where the GT’s needed at least 3 (you can work this out by fuel consumption somewhere between 5-10mpg for GTS and GT and fuel tank sizes too).

McPhee did use buffed tyres but 14D and 24D may have used one set too, just not buffed. Driver changes were slow (race footage highlights are on YouTube) and they all had to have front pad changes (McPhee said he did).

Yes I know the classes at the time.
As an endurance class race what does ratios really have to do with such, it's stupid as it's a race track, what works best on the road does not count on the track.

No wonder the XT GT with 2,93 ratio had a hard time against a HK GTS327 with a 3.36 ratio.
Not to mention that the XT GT carby is only 441 CFM 4BBL vs the 600 plus CFM of the Holden, so when we look at the 441 CFM 4 BBL what does that work out to be in 2 BBL CFM ? not much at all. will have to do the math on that.

They had a TH400 but it would never have fitted the old HD-HG floor pan. The new TH350 was only introduced in 1969, and the HG was well locked in by that time.

Closer to the truth will be fact that the HG isn't truly a different model, it is more of a "SeriesII HT". It was only created as GMH thought the HT would end up running for way too long as the HQ was delayed terribly by GM US's decision to have GMH kill off the HK based HQ and replace it with a US design, which GMH had to finalise. Thus the "gap filler" HG was created.

If you ignore the softening of the HG (examples removal of stainless, the softer nose and tail-lights and softening of suspension in more variants) there isn't all that much difference between a HT and a HG. Sure GMH's rejig of the European TH180 into the Trimatic was part of HG, but it was probably destined to be introduced with HQ anyway.

At the end of the day, the amount of re-work to fit a TH400 for less than 200 cars only for HG wouldn't be worth it. Plus the cost would be prohibitive and it is unlikely that the GM parent would even supply the TH400 transmission for the LM1 engine in that size car anyway. TH350 yes, but it wasn't available when the HG was designed.

The XT were 3:1 rear axle I believe but had a taller first greater than the HK's M21 Saginaw (2.87 vs 2.54). Most of the HK's were 3.08 rear axle, only two were 3.36 I believe but the 3.08 equipped HK's still pulled away easily, just the 3.36 equipped cars did it even better again. They ran the same tyres too ie 185x14, although the HK was standard with D70x14. As you say though it was the engine power than let them down, 230hp vs 250hp. A properly tuned dead stock GTS327 with 3.36 rear axle was a low 15 second car, and did 130mph. The XT was near a second slower and could only do 124mph.