To be fair they don't really count the David McKay lead HDRT. It wasn't counted as a 'Factory' team.

The HDT from Firth days onwards is/was regarded as a true 'Factory' team, even though it was at arms length.

Dr Terry

Yes, I agree but all of these teams were organised by individuals in some way or other. Beechey ran his thing & I believe Bill Paterson instigated the 1963 EH thing. But what they were trying to do was make it a genuine 'dealer' thing from 1969 onwards. Yes it was really Harry Firth, & yes it was financed thru the back door, but this was the 1st time the term Holden Dealer Team was used. David McKay was still Scuderia Veloce.

I always thought that the 1963 'change of mind' was because of the ARDC's attitude towards GM-H. They made it too difficult & GM-H said" bugger off" & left it to Ford.

Dr Terry

The GM racing ban is interesting, as it was explained at a seminar that I attended here in Brisbane with a fellow Pontiac. The way it was explained there would be no reason for GMH to worry about it, as it was to do with US sales. As GMH was not recognised in the US then no problem. And GMH was heavily involved in motor racing unless rally is not considered motor racing.

As Terry said, I think it was more to do with the ARDC and Holden, the tension between the two is well documented

I am not saying that there was not a ban, but the ban really did not apply to Australia. And Holden was very much involved in supporting and reporting rally results.

There have even been suggestions that the 81837 model was issued to "hide" the car. This is questionable as the 81837 model now appeared hundreds of times in the engineering report, if it was left as an option it would have only appeared a few times. (what ever the reason it must also apply to the Brabham, which was also given a separate model code in 1968).

My guess is GMH used dealer teams as the bosses were US origin and this happened a lot in the US.

Edited by user Sunday, 13 October 2019 6:07:05 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Agree. In reality 1968 was a higher level of GMH involvement than any other year up until probably the 90's.

Rallying was not considered to be "racing" and Rallying was how the XU1 was sold to the powers that be.

Joe Felice even talks about the whole thing in the attached interview. He even talks about the change to Harry Firth for 1969 as David McKay was hard to deal with.

https://www.tradeuniquec...0zxTb7l9YhOXYSJR8ICKd7c

The car that was officially second and crossed the line 2nd in 1968 (24D) was an ex-GMH on-line pilot, it is the car Phil West used for development to get the suspension etc correct at Lang Lang. Phil West told me a matter of weeks ago that 24D was "an insurance policy", it was the other two cars that they thought were the outright contenders. I think it was the only HDRT car to have a 3.36 rear axle too.

Warren, the ban applied worldwide to all GM operations. It was all tied up in concern about Antitrust, and as you say GM were worried about sales too as they had a lot more to lose than any other manufacturer. GMH were very worried about the GTS327 being seen as another GTO, but until really late it was never meant to be a race car to be raced in standard form, it should only ever have been given the standard GTS suspension. It was Ford's win at Bathurst 1967 that made them change their minds and race tune the car. Giving it its own model code rather than as option codes on an 0737 would have hidden it better, but it appears this was just a part of a bigger whole in early 1968 where the Brougham and the Kingswood ute were also given their own model codes.

Edited by user Sunday, 13 October 2019 9:21:09 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

A very quick check and it was around 67 that the GTO, SS and 442 all got their own model numbers instead of an option pack. I guess Pontiac, Chevrolet and Oldsmobile did not want GM head office to know they were making these cars.

This is a really good historical article on what happened in the USA that led up to GM's Corporate ban, and then also shows how GM setup a "dealer" funded system where all factory race parts came through a sponsor dealer to each team. Slightly different to how GMH did it but happening around the same timeframe so won't be a co-incidence.

https://www.chevyhardcor...ng-on-off-and-on-again/

Here is another local article published not long after Harry Firth passed away that talks about the HDT's setup:

https://www.smh.com.au/s...ams-20140429-zr1ew.html

GMH were part of GM Warren, and affected by the Corporate no racing ban. Whether or not it actually did apply to them is probably lost in history, but they certainly believed it. Why else would they set up a dealer team front in 1968 in basically the same way GM were doing something similar at roughly the same time? Everything was done in house, why else would it be hidden behind a smokescreen of a Dealer Team? Ford didn't have a ban worldwide, and they were blatant about the factory effort and the cars themselves.

Even though GMH was far from GM US, the people weren't. Bill Mitchell (GM had great interest in the Holden coupe, and the people here hands on involved in designing it were fresh out of GM US like Joe Schemansky, John Schinella, and Ted and Marg Schroeder. The HK was the first new Holden to be designed in the new state of the art Tech Centre and the hero coupe was big news not just here. This is 1964, not 1967. The same model-year John DeLorean and friends released the Pontiac GTO with an engine far larger than the Corporate governance for that vehicle size. GM's policy limited the Intermediate A-body size to 330ci which was a weight based cubic capacity limit. Pontiac whacked a 389ci engine into it. This was Pontiacs way of keeping their performance image after GM canned their "super duty" program for them.

The A-body intermediate is slightly bigger in wheelbase than a HK (115" vs HK's 11"). The 327 fitted nicely under 330ci plus it also sat just on the l0lb per cubic inch weight capacity limit. GMH wasn't trying to hide the car per-se, but not to draw unwanted attention to it that would see it canned. The engine was massive in size and power output compared to what was powering Holdens at the time (149 and big block 179), despite it being the lowest power 4BBL 327 available. The GTS327 was an image car, but also aimed at the ATCC where any big power 327 could be used. Plus any more power than what it got would not only cost far more as probably Muncies and definitely 12-bolts would be required, plus it'd again draw unwanted attention to its performance and away from its image. If I could post it up here I'd put up the road test on Dave Bennett's car with essentially an L76/79 327 in it, would have created headlines if GMH built the GTS327 with that engine!

Warren, 1964-1965. When the HK was in development and when the GTO was new. Not once it was all basically said and done. Once the car was signed off and in the schedule with parts on the way from the USA there was no need to worry as much. You keep using "hide", and have this fixation on model codes which really is not that relevent.

GM still had capacity limits in place in 1968, but they appear to have been raised after no big noise was made about the GTO. From memory it was 400ci for the F/X size and the platforms the 442 and GS400 were based upon.

I agree that GMH were very concerned about public and especially press reactions to the cars, this is why all road test big engined manual cars were carefully dissguised as to their performance. This carried on right up into HJ. A few escaped like Mel Nichols and a HG GTS350 and the first Press Test LH SLR5000. They were right too, Evan Green proved it for them. The big worry about negative press was worry about GM Corporate. They did not want the press reaction to be that they were building a factory race car, just like GM in the USA didn't want to be seen to be involved in factory support of racing. Yet out the back door they were supporting the Black Widow program. This is just like GMH supporting the HDRT and HDT out the back door. A big shell game.

I don't think there was any sense in the HDRT unless there was a racing ban and the desire to be seen to be abiding by it.

You are the one who mentioned changing the model number in this thread (post 8) and later mentions, not me. All I said (in post 10) was the following which is totally correct:

Giving it its own model code rather than as option codes on an 0737 would have hidden it better, but it appears this was just a part of a bigger whole in early 1968 where the Brougham and the Kingswood ute were also given their own model codes.

I never once mentioned muscle cars or GM disliking them or being upset about them, that again was you. GM was worried about the US Government and how they percieved GM, a worldwide monster Company. Racing support was to be hidden, the whole thing looks like a smokescreen. Even by 1970 the Nascar support was provided THROUGH INDIVIDUAL DEALERS, not direct GM to race team. This was setup through GM Performance parts via the dealers. They had even previously setup the COPO system so that engines bigger than 400ci could be ordered in Camaro etc so the aftermarket industry eg Yenko could obtain such stuff, but not via regular production.

Sure by 1969-1971 some of the factory cars had some pretty wicked performance even compared with the pre-ban monsters of 1962-3 like the Z11 Chevrolets, and made the GTO look tame. Cars like the LS6 Chevelles, LT1 Camaro and Ram air Pontiacs. But things had moved on a little, Kennedy was long gone, the world didn't end when the GTO appeared etc. GM still kept up the pretence of the ban though it was far more obvious what some of the cars were meant for (Z/28 Camaro for example, still given a misleading power output though).

I have not been inconsistent at all in this thread.

Sorry Byron we seem to be getting caught here on how we are pitting thins up.

Yes I do talk about the model code as you and several others have suggested that changing it from 80737 with code XT2 to 81837 would have hidden it better. So yes I do talk about hiding it from who? I have always believed that the change was someone's idea as the Brabham did it at the same time. Holden has done this in the past with the Business sedan, and as you pointed out the Brougham changed from Premier Brougham. And now that I see the GTO and several others had a change at around the same time it makes sense that this was a GM wide thing, more models and less option packages.

My point about GM happy with Muscle cars was to point out that there was no reason for GMH to hide anything about a Muscle car being built here from GM. You stated that GMH was worried the the GTS327 would be seen as another GTO.

Yes it was 1964 when the HK coupe was first given the green light, but Norm Darwin points out in his book that GMH had been designing coupes for many models, it was just not until the HK that the final approval was given. Do we know the date of option XT2 introduction?

I did not say that you were inconsistent, I just pointed out that the theories have inconsistency.

So in summary,

I am no longer totally convinced GMH had any reason to stick to the GM world wide ban on motor sport as it was about the US government breaking up GM over monopoly of market in the US and the result was GM removed involvement in motor sport in an effort to lower sales. Any motor sport results here, by Holden badged cars, would have no impact on US sales.

I agree dealer teams are a better option that works teams.

I no longer see any reason to hide the fact that GMH were making a GTO style vehicle. And the GTS327 did fit into the rules set by GM as far as engine size and weight go.

I agree that GMH put a lot of funding into HDRT and this is the beginning of GMH's full on involvement in motor sport. Which was your first point.

I now believe GMH was more worried about public opinion on these cars and used the dealer teams so as to be seen by the public as not being overly involved, not GM. GMH had a conservative image in the 1960s and this is what I believe they were trying to protect this image.

I am also of the understanding that GMH and the ARDC were not on good terms and this would also add to the weight of using a dealer team.

I could be wrong on all points here, and I doubt we will ever see a memo on all the true answers.

Edited by user Tuesday, 15 October 2019 10:37:14 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified