Yes but that accounts for more than one of the five. HZ Holden and HZ Statesman. The other two are far more obscure.

Hz SL/E

Ahh, WB statesman?

Australian built ? or NZ car ? or imported ? or not original ?

I'll bite. The ap5 definitely wins the horsepower battle, I've not driven one, but similar have had a vc 225 3 on the tree (later converted to v8). It was better in 6 cyl guise than 186 ht I had for general drivability.

You're right Ford coupe is pretty and unique really in the market of the day. If just after looks, you would buy this everyday.

Ya recon the EH was more durable, I think that Valiant had it over Holden for Auto and diff and the Falcon diff being a B/W over a Holden banjo.
Manual box I think Val and Falcon B/W maybe better.
I think the Valiant front end is stronger and the XM Falcon is as well, but the sump on them both sticks out to be hit and the EH is better protected sump.
I recon the EH to HG front end is as weak as piss, them lower wishbones .
What seats were better ?
Did the AP5 wagon get a better setup when folded down, the Holden had that stupid bottom seat sticking up in the way, can't remember the XM Falcon was like the EH, but I am sure that the XR Falcon wagon floor was flat all the way and Holden only got that with the HQ and then Falcon lead the way with the wagon rear door that you could fold down or open from the side.

We can see how backward Holden was back in the days to Ford and Valiant.
Look at the grey motor by 1960 it was still running standard fuel but Ford and Valiant ran Super, they could of upped the compression of the grey to 8.7:1 like ford had at least.

Look at how Falcon got the V8 9/1966 and a GT 5/1967 way before Holden even came out with a 307 and then the GTS327, valiant had the big 273 V8 first of the lot with finned drum brakes T Bar and bucket seats, Holden only gets T Bar with HK and Falcon in the XT I believe.
Look at how advances the Leyland P76 was with a all alloy V8 1973 and Holden 1998.

But look at how Holden advanced and why Valiant failed, if Valiant never had the Hemi 6cyl it was the only thing that they really had going for them, if they only had a Ford or Holden 6 in them they would of failed and gave up on the VH. the Charger was the only thing that they had going for them by then.
If Ford never made the X Flow 6 they would of failed by the end of the XC and then they put the Alloy head on it and saved the day for them.
I recon the Blue 6 went a lot better than the red 6 but the blue v8 was nothing even in 4.2L with 4BBL.

That's just a start for debate.

253 V8 nothing really changed apart from the 4BBL carby on the Blue. I do not think that points are a problem at all as to making power.
I remember every 253 Blue I had been in and I was thinking my HG 253 would have them and a mates stock VB 4.2L 4sp vs a VH SS 4.2L another mate owned, well the VB clearly went better to us all, we were shocked the VB owner was going to buy the VH SS 4sp in top nick it was and all, looked like new, but he hung on to the VB and put a worked 5.0L in it.

I have been surprised by stock 3.3L Blue that would give 253 a good run. the 3.3L auto could do 185KM/H in WB ute and VC Commodores and I never seen any stock 253 go over 185KM/H ever.

Holden only came into the 1960's with the EH one could say and then with the HD X2 made something more than just transport sort of somewhat, until the HR 186S 4sp the first Holden to be worthy of a drivers car. then we have the HK become much more with The V8's Something that one could be proud of driving and that no one could truly look down their nose at.

I think that the 253 Holden was a worthy car for family man car or anyone over all.
The 6 cyl were town or city hacks or the wife's car type of thing.

When the EFI 3.3L came out that was a fine performing car for most noting to sniff at and then when the Nissan EFI 3.0L came even better but lacked torque down low but could do the job on the highway fine.
And the V6 got up and went well out performing most V8 before them with 218KM/H easy in a VS V6 auto or manual.

I remember my dad looking to buy a new ute it came down to a HG 186 manual or a VG Valiant 245 2 BBL manual, he asked me what I liked the best and I said the Valiant. I don't recall going and seeing a Falcon ute, maybe we did. I think that the Austin 1800 ute was out on the market, but who would buy such as that ? that's what I am getting at, who buys what and what for. look at all the Toyota Datsun ect cars that were about, my dad did not like the Japs at all and knew Pommy cars leaked oil crap reliability as he owed a Jag.
I have heard many People bag our Aussie cars but we were much better off with them than the rest, just think what we would of got without our Holden's and Fords and Valiant's.

5.0L blue were flat out making 195KM/H

The big 2V Stromberg fed 302 V8 Fords as well.

I would think that the 4V Rochester was a bit too big for a stock 253.
185KM/H HQ 253 dual exhaust 4sp 3.08 diff.
185KM/H 253 VB Commodore 4sp 3.08 diff stock that's all that they will do.
HG Premier 253 auto 2.78 diff 2 1/4 free flow exhaust 112MPH manly to 115mph at times.
185KM/H XD Falcon 4.1L 4sp alloy head with 2.92 diff.

A mate had a HQ 308 4sp dual exhaust with 3.08 diff but someone put a 2V Stromberg on it before he bought it and it did 200KM/H I think, I remember floating along for miles sitting on 180KM/H taking it easy and remember cops on the side of the highway with radar and then Pete flattened it and I heard the carby change note and I remember on one corner that the arse came adrift must of come so close to a guide post and I was siting in the back thinking f that was close, old box head up front passenger made a grunt nneeerrh.

I have heard people making such claims of 253 blue doing 200KM/H never seen it tho, one claim was a WB 1 Tonne auto, I have been in it with the next owner who was cutting loose doing donuts and then lost it smashed into a bank with back wheels up off the ground, and I was thinking oh well it a fair walk back to town, but lucky the local cop came out to take us home, it had a Statesman front on it to. old mate had had a fight with his wife after he locked the pub up and came and got us out of bed not to mention when he took off he went around the back yard and ran over a big flash steel wire chair and then was going to cut loose on the golf course, but he did not but he was set to enter, something held him back Pete and I never said a word, because if we said yes he would and if we said no he would. I don't think that it went that well, but Swill who owned it before claimed it flew.

I would think that if you put a small cam in a 253 blue say 20/60 it would go well and make 200KM/H I am sure.
But that Publicans blokes brother had a well worked 253 and It was in and I think it was doing 200KM/H in 3rd gear, I remember seeing 7000RPM old radar was saying look and I was saying yep but watch the f ing road, it was at night.

They didn’t drop the L36 with VK, they remained until the end of 1984 in WB. I agree though that a red 253 won’t keep up with a blue one. Unless you get the higher comp 9.4:1 red 4.2 (pollution), throw the intake in the bin where it belongs and fit a decent intake to it like a Performer or the KC multifit XT5 copy, and a Quadrajet tuned to suit the engine. Then they are pretty much the same thing with the red engine having a small amount of extra compression.
The HQ SS did show what a 253 was capable of though, by nature of it getting a 3.36 rear axle and dual exhaust. It was almost as quick accelerating as a stock HQ 308 manual sedan or coupe which also had a 3.36 rear axle but was hobbled with a single exhaust.

Here are some road tests top speeds:

HT 253 manual (3.08 rear axle):
Modern Motor, August 1969: 111.2mph (185km/h)
Wheels, August 1969: 111.2mph
Sports Car Road Tests No6: 112mph.

HQ 253 LS, Modern Motor April 1972 (I think auto 2.78): 112mph.

HQ SS, Modern Motor January 1973 (3.36): 110.5mph.

HQ 253 manual. Wheels June 1973 114mph.

Apart from any aero differences HJ is the same car as HQ when fitted with the 4.2 engine.

I don't have the HX and HZ figures at hand but given that apart from the first handful of HX 4.2 fitted with 3.08 rear axle standard, the standard rear axle was changed to 3.55 everywhere except Premier which was auto standard. It remained this way until mid HZ when it was changed to 3.36. Neither 3.55 or 3.36 behind a manual 4.2 is going to have a higher top speed.

I do have HQ 308 manual GTS (3.36 rear axle, single exhaust) in Modern Motor February 1973 at 119mph which shows you the extra power/torque of the strangled (with single exhaust) 308 will push the HQ through the air harder than a 253 ever could, when the HQ SS with dual exhaust and 3.36 rear axle only managed 110.5mph.

Found HX Sandman ute and van in Motor Manual October 1976. Both with 3.08 rear axle and single exhaust. Ute was M41 and van M21. Doesn't actually give a top speed for the van, just says NA but it did 140km/h in 3rd. The ute says "off the clock" in 3rd which is hard to believe as these had a 220km/h dash, so I think they didn't take into account a speedo error that is reported at 30km/h at 110 (110kmh actual reading 140kmh). Using that same % error at 220km/h+ means it could at least do 173km/h. Van shows spot on.

Found HZ Sandman van in Motor Manual January 1978, 5.0L manual (3.08 rear axle and single exhaust), top speed 170km/h. Not bad for a big heavy lump. 4.9 manual XC Sundowner with 2.92 rear axle gets to 160km/h, as does the Drifter with 4.3L 6cyl, manual with 2.92 rear axle.

There is a road test of a HJ GTS that escaped GMH with dual exhaust in proper tune, I haven't got it yet but it was very quick.

There is a very interesting road test in Motor Manual in May 1974 where somehow GMH let slip the very first SLR5000 in proper tune to the Press, and fitted with the optional 3.08 rear axle (and 13" tyres). It never really appeared again afterwards, and all road test cars after that were far slower and fitted with 2.78 rear axles, this sort of thing happened before where the odd car got to the Press in proper tune. It pulled a top speed of 125mph and standing 1/4 mile of 14.9s. Remember this is with a tiny dual exhaust not much larger overall than a single 2" pipe and with the lower power HQ type engine. It is that close to PhaseIII and HG GTS350 times it doesn't matter. Really shows you how quick a later LH or early LX 5.0L with the proper 250hp engine optioned with 3.08 rear axle would have been. Give it 2" tailpipes and a proper tune and it'd be a weapon.

Edited by user Monday, 27 April 2020 10:26:07 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Not poor tune, just no optimal tune. All it takes is the Quadrajet's secondaries opening only 90% and there is your 20hp performance loss. They always did it (or similar) with the quickest cars from about HK. GM had a strict no racing policy, and GMH didn't want to be seen to be flaunting that with cars that were perceived to be too fast (Ford did not have this problem, they were fully involved in racing and win at all costs was the mantra). GMH's market share was too great to risk it from a PR perspective either. The HK was such a leap in performance too compared to what came before it. At the HK Press release and the drive day at Lang Lang the prior week (to meet magazine deadlines) it was all very orchestrated. The 307 Monaros were all auto with 2.78 rear axles (like all prior V8 HK), single exhaust etc, no manual cars. The GTS327's (most (possibly all) with 3.08 rear axles) were not allowed to be driven without a GMH staffer in the car and no-one was allowed to exceed the tacho's 5500rpm redline. All the magazine tests of the car were from these days. Only Rob Luck didn't believe it, and got a private car to test which was tuned right and had a 3.36 rear axle. That test is public record, 15.4s and 130mph top speed. GMH didn't want that publicity - they made money from vanilla cars, not the few hundred 327's. Winning with the car at Bathurst was what mattered, not on the street. When the HT came about, it was so much quicker again that every car presented to the Press for testing never made maximum power (simple Quadrajet adjustment), except for two of them (one HT by Mel Nichols and a HG with Peter Robinson) but proper tests were never done, only 0-100mph by Mel Nichols. The time it becomes really obvious is when the Press tested HQ 350 manual and auto GTS side by side, and the auto trounced the manual to 100mph, plus out accelerated it. Same engine, same exhaust, same 3.08 rear axle, and the auto being a power robbing TH400. The manual was again fiddled with, impossible not to be. They even commented on it. This continued too, with cars like the L34 not allowed to be tested by the Press plus it was so de-tuned as a road car it was not super fast anyway, until you made the few right mods it was designed for (cam, carby and exhaust). It is very rare also to find road tests anywhere of a 308/5.0L manual pre-pollution Holden car (HT to HJ) with dual exhaust (proper 2" dual exhaust, not the Torana pea shooters), as far as I know there was only that HJ GTS test I mentioned. After HJ the 5.0L performance dropped off significantly (lost about 34hp I think it was 250hp down to 216hp) so it didn't matter if they had dual exhaust standard. By the time Commodore and V5H came around the world had caught up and it wasn't so much an issue.

Just think about it though, if an A9X with a 216hp 5.0L and a 2.6 rear axle with 14" tyres can do a 16s flat quarter, imagine how fast a well tuned pre 6/76 LX SS hatchback or SLR5000 with the 250hp 5.0L, optional 3.08 rear axle and 13" tyres would be? If the 227hp LH SLR5000 with optional 3.08 rear axle could do a 14.9s quarter, what does an extra 23hp get you? My guess is 14.5 or thereabouts, that is quicker than a stock PhaseIII (but not a fair comparison as it is an optional rear axle, give the PhaseIII an optional 3.5 rear axle and it goes quicker again). Take the engine fan off and give it the A9X's electric fans and maybe even better?

I just remembered, they were even at it with HX and HZ. See that those HX and HZ manual 5.0L Press test Sandman vans I mentioned in the prior post also had optional 3.08 rear axles? This would slow them down dramatically than the standard car with 3.36. GMH were very careful with the whole image, every car in the press fleet was carefully chosen with certain options for various reasons. I have thousands of HQ to HZ’s recorded and L31, M21, GU4 is rarely seen and my guess is GMH didn’t build any for sale, the only ones built were ordered that way. An M21 with a 3.08 in a commercial is a horrible thing too, the magazine comments that the van pulled like a train but was heavy clutched (which a HX half cable clutch mech is) and hard to get off the line. Even with the 3.08 rear axle they say that it will still blow away most cars on the road from the lights, they timed it at 16.9s over the quarter mile. For what other reason than to take some edge off would they fit 3.08 rear axles to these Press test Sandmans? I’ll go looking, wouldn’t be surprised if it wasn’t more commonplace in earlier Holden.

Edited by user Tuesday, 28 April 2020 7:35:30 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified