I think the delete buckets and console shift on WB Deville was only when Trimatic was available, so it is only 1982-1984/5 models. ‘80 and ‘81 should all be console shift.

I found those Statesman build totals, it is an archival document generated on 14/12/84 for the history file. The rarest is HQ 6cyl at 749 followed by HX Caprice at 1526 and HQ V8 Statesman at 1587. The most common is HQ Deville at 15760 followed by WB Deville at 9717. The rest all sit between 2500-ish and 6000-ish. You can see why they dropped the Statesman at the end of HQ as Deville was about 9x more made. I bet Monaro was dropped at the end of HQ for similar reasons.

To my knowledge these were NZ market only, but rare just the same.

Dr Terry

Yeah I am aware of all that. The bloke that had it built is distantly connected to my wife. Then it ended up with another owner in my home town. It had a 5 post bullbar and all the Aggie accessories of the day on it then. I checked it out not long before he sold it, when it was parked in the Orange Ag car park. I have also spoken to the current owner.
Apparently it sat in the HDT workshop for a long time before they ended up building it.
I was only saying it was coincidental that the only Magnum ute had this terrible interior put in it too.
Did anyone ever work out why the column shift WB Statesman had the different three spoke steering wheel?

Edited by user Sunday, 11 August 2019 8:44:30 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Look at how long it took Ford to come up with the XG, so you have a crappy gutless 4.1L XF carby with no EFI option ute and p van in 1988, when you had the EA Falcon ect with OHC 3.2L and 3.9L and the MPI EFI.

Now I would think Fords reasoning was for keeping the 4.1L crap was, 1 the OHC lacked low down torque of the OHV or 2 they claim that people who buy such things are not into modern tec things. but I gave them a hard time back in 1992 about the 4.1L saying I am not buying that gutless fuel using crap, not to mention that they all sprung up and started talking to each other about what I said in earnest.

When you look at the old Log 6 engines still being in Transit's and F100's till mid/1978 until they got the up dated X Flow engines.
One wonders why, well the Log six has a bit more torque right down low off the mark maybe one reason, not to mention that they did not need to run ADR27A on them, until the X Flow went in.
Then you have only low compression log 200 in Transit's and high compression 250 in the F100's.

They would of had to stock pile X amount of them old log engines to hold out for 2 years or maybe they still were casting them ?

The same thing with the XF ute from 1988 to 1992 with the X Flow, that's 4 years of stock pile, but I do believe that they were still making the 4.1L as they were making the OHC, because if I remember correctly I think that they get a up rated crank and new up rated oils seals fitted as to the old XF sedan sometime after, I think with the new 4.0L using the same pistons and maybe up rated rods.

But Ford stockpiled the V8's from 1982 to 1885 = 3 years stock pile for the F100's and not to mention the De Tomaso's got them 5.8L as well in them years.

But as for the WB running till they came out with the VG Commodore ute, sure it would of been fine but the been counters ect must off kicked that in the guts, a EFI 3.3L was a good performing engine, it had much better low down torque than the VL Nissan 3.0L and with a 5sp manual it would of been fine and it would not of been hard for Holden to make it run on unleaded, with seat inserts and better quality valves, compression would of dropped to 8.5:1 so I would of lost a bit more power. but what 5sp could they use ? or just use the 4sp manual.

I don't mind the Nissan 3.0L but a WC ute would need a lower 1st gear to get it off the mark when loaded up than the VL.

The column-shift WB sedan used a VC-VK two-spoke Commodore wheel. I haven't ever gotten a clear answer to why; the best clue I have is a document called 'WB Features' issued periodically by GM-H Engineering.

In that document the (aborted) WB Kingswood and Premier are described, with line drawings of relevant features eg nose/tail detail, door card trim detail. One of those drawings was for steering wheels; the Kingswood and Premier were to get the VC Commodore wheel. My guess is that GM-H decided that given the six-seater would be in some way a fleet special (as Dr Terry described) perhaps giving it a base Commodore steering wheel - which they knew would fit -- would be better than a premium single spoke wheel as used in 5-seat DeVille and Caprice.

Can’t remember where exactly but I recall GMH figures stating that ONE hydramatic bodied EK ute was built

The SL/E wheels are 15x6 and the standard wheels are 14 x 6, so would make no difference as the rolling diameter of a 14 and 15 are the same. I think you will find N67 alloy wheels were optional on sedan and wagon, Mick will be able to confirm.

These were a dealer special and were only available through 28 Melbourne and Geelong dealers. These would have been all ordered before the advertisements were done as each dealer would have nominated how many each wanted, hence the strange number.

Will go well with the top 30. Maybe a VC royal or anniversary are needed as well, being the only two Commodores to be numbered by Holden, royal also came with personalize plates that match the built number.

Cheers guys. yes you may well be right. Who knows..? Whats that saying, 'theres my version, and theres your version, and somewhere in the middle, is the truth..'

I just dug out his post again and had another read, and it appears he was talking more about the tyres than the wheels. More to do with the availability of load rated tyres. So I may have misquoted him a bit.

Anyway heres his post, in case youre interested to see if it makes any sense.

there was NO program.. simply, all VC SL/E wagosn were never approved by the
GMH Product Committee or the GMH board of directors

I was there at the time as part of the Forward Models group (who had to approve
ALL GMH new models before they were sent to the Product Approval Committee)
and
when news that Manufacturing had made them... the S H I T REALLY hit the fan inside
GMH (the talk even got to junking ALL of them.. but ouch $ wise) Sales were also
hung out to dry for ask the VAP guys to make them..

Officially there is NO VC SL/E.. all were tagged 8VL35 deliberately (and not 8VX35)

my recollection was.. tyres (NOT wheel size as some say)

All Holden wagons are assumed to be load carriers (from way back to VF) and so have different rear suspensions
and different tyres (higher load ratings*, 6 ply versus 4 ply etc)

Back then, no tyre supplier made a 15" low profile tyre (like fitted to the SL/e sedans) that had a higher load rating as well
as being a 'stronger' tyre... so no 15" wheel/tyre combo for 8VK35 styles = no SL/e version

Hence the big POO fight internally with GMH, as Manufacturing made a car that did not pass Engineering
min specs. The cars really should not have been given an 'approved' GMH build plate.... because
they were not 'approved'

Edited by user Friday, 6 September 2019 1:14:37 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Tyres still doesn't account for the fact you could get the alloys on VC SL wagons (and VH SL/X).
Early commodores were light enough not to be encroaching on any load rating, even when fully loaded with a V8 and power options.
(and bear in mind everything in the way of mod-cons in the VC SL/E wagon was available at extra cost on the VH SL/X wagon just a year later too), with the exception of the tailgate applique.

The 8VL35 coding is common knowledge, especially as the VL Calais wagon had the same 8VL35, with the option pack of A9Y stamped additionally on the plate.
Although I have read posts on that very forum in the early 2000s with people claiming to have VH wagons with 8VX35 on the tags.....

I'm still not buying that it snuck out and was stopped. Look at the wagon tailgate applique around the lock - it's an Opel part, and requires special holes to be drilled. It would have had to be engineered as no other wagon had it. The special trim done by Ashlors - as mentioned in the brochure too. And the brochure! These were well known about at many levels to have come that far along.

I still agree with Norm Darwin's musings that costs are what killed it - they under-estimated just how expensive all the unique processes and parts would be, and the cost accountants are the ones who had it tanked.