I am just looking at this lot contending, forget about the XU-1 that's a side dish.

Just when did the LC GTR come on the market Jun 1970 ?
The Ford GT V6 Capri we got was 25/2/1970 on the market.

So the GT V6 Capri contended with the LC GTR 161S 4sp and then in July 1971 the big 173s and Aussie M20 both running the 3.08 diff and 13in wheels and then when the LJ Torana came out it was dealing with a Stock big 202 6 cyl with 3.08 diff.

Looks to me that the price of the Capri is much higher than the Torana's ?
If I am correct the GT V6 4sp is as of Jun 1970 $3230
If I am correct the GTR as of Jun 1970 was $2766 but maybe tax is not added to the Holden figures ? and Ford is ?

I do not like the ford V6 I think it was a chaff cutter but it had a 2bbl carby and being a V6 could help it handle better.

I remember a mates mum down the road had a GT V6 Capri 4sp with option driving lights and sports wheels and steering wheel and radio from new. so such things were optional as well and it was Red and black.

The GT V6 Capri must of been a much better car than the Torana GTR ? what do you think ?

The last production of the Capri was 11/1972 and the 1972 got high bucket seats.

A GT V6 Capri would hose off any GTR ? maybe the LJ 202 .

As to the 161S and the big 173S stock back in the day the 4sp ratios are different and the 173 has to contend with the big Aussie box ? for a start, then the 173 maybe a little harsher when revving it out and not just as sweet as the 161 ? that being said now for the big 202 GTR well I am sure it would flog both the 161S and 173S easy as with all that torque, I am sure it would be a good goer in stock form for most people and overall better to drive car, It would kill a 202 HQ and HK-T-G GTS186S Monaro.

I did not mind the HG Premier 253 I had auto and 2.78 diff with Air, it was a good overall car performance was fine and good highway car, the LC-J Torana can not make such a claim as that but was a good runabout to flog about and go to the next town like, most people could not handle a HT-G GTS308 back in the days really remember the tyres were total shit back in the day, so you could easy get into trouble hooking in.

I was just thinking that such little shit boxes were not all that bad in the day with such rubbish tyres maybe they had a place of worth. as it's not all about max power that people are chasing, I thought the 253 was clearly the car for the masses over all if they knew better and the 308 was for real men pre ADR27A.

I am just thinking that the V6 GT Capri was not a bad little run about car. with a 3.22 diff and 13in wheels that's about 3.5 ratio with 14in wheels so not really a highway car as say 3000rpm at 100KM/H they claim 195KM/H is flat out ? well I am not convinced of that because it would be revving at about 5800rpm and max HP is only at 4750rpm is about 160KM/H.

Just as the Falcon norm was the 250 6 cyl and the Valiant was the 245 norm, well sadly the 202 was the norm in the Holden's ok on manual sort of but with an automatic they were just a shit cart to drive really. but how about a V6 GT Capri auto ? one could live with that ? and not say it's just a gutless shit box. I am sure it would flog a falcon 250 6cyl and maybe even give a 302 a go ?

I bought my then missus a M20 4 speed 2850S 4 door... that in its day was a nice gigger

Personally I did not mind the weird sit in the C/J Torries.. just stick ya elbow out the window. All comfy then

That Torrie was quicker than my neighbours 2600S LC GTR , maybe a bit more grunt?
box ratios? with a single spinner diff, it would torch seriously a rear wheel

I bought one for myself... but one that had an engine bay/under dash wiring fire. $50 and
the resources of GMP&A (was working at the Bend).. where could I go wrong?
(that is another story for another time, the result was quicker than any Ford every built)

Edited by user Monday, 26 July 2021 8:38:34 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

I would think that the 161s would rev sweeter than a 173s by rights.
My elder brother had a HQ 173 and then got a 161 HR, he would try and blow up that 173 revving it out all the way to valve bounce and holding it their in 1st or 2ed and could not blow it up. the 161 had twin carby's and he would flog that as well and it was sweeter revving for sure.
I am surer some red six engines are better balanced than others of the same size as well and that is easy to see by just looking at the conrods as the weights are totally shitful that such is it's a blight. but having said that the fact is that a fully balanced 202 is harsher than a 186 when being revved out to 7000RPM and for sure the 173 would be smother and the 161 a bit smoother again.

As for the early 6cyl LC 4sp box ratios I have a calculated performance figures place to go to that give such results.
LC GTR 161s 173s XU-1 XU-1 XU-1 Bathurst LJ GTR
0-40MPH 5.1sec 5.2 3.9 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.7
50 7 7.1 5.3 5.7 6 5.6 6.8
60 10.1 10.0 7.5 8.0 7.9 7.6 9.2
70 13.6 13.2 9.9 10.5 10.6 9.8 12.4
80 18.2 18.5 13.1 14.2 13.8 12.9 17.2
90 26.6 25.1 18.0 18.6 18.4 16.9 23.6
100 25.4 26.6 26.1 22.5
Opel M20 Opel M20 M21 M20 M20
1/4 17.5 17.5 15.8 17.1
1st 34 39 34 38 46 52 35 MPH to redline for such a engine type ?
2ed 55 54 54 53 63 73 50 MPH
3rd 86 78 85 77 93 106 72 MPH
Diff 3.08 3.08 3.36 3.36 3.36 3.36 3.08 Ratio

Look at how well the XU-1 Opel box goes against the M20 XU-1 not bad for an Opel box.
Then look at the M20 VS M21
The Bathurst XU-1 186 has more powerful engine.

2850S and 2600S are essentially the same bottom end and same head, intake and exhaust. The difference is the bore is 1/8" bigger in the 2850S. The bigger bore engine should always rev out more. Like a 307 vs 327. Or a 302 vs 283.

They weren’t even plated M20 Smitty, XU1 were blank on the body plate once the plate fitted had the driveline codes. Means the same thing, ie the XU1 box wasn’t option M21 as if it was the plates would have M21 stamped but they were blank meaning there was no gearbox option code applied. I have seen M21 on the body plate of one 6cyl car though, but that was a VB Commodore.

That is probably more to do with the heads limiting the 5.0L than anything else. There is 55ci between a 253 and 308 using the same heads allows the 4.2 to breathe better. The 173 is only 12ci bigger than the 161. If you put heads that work good on a 307 (1.72/1.5 and small ports) onto a 350 they don’t rev either, but fit bigger intake valve (1.94/1.5) fuelies and they do. I bet the same 5.0L you had in the VH SS if you fitted V5H heads to it it’d rev.

A 6 CYL red if it's not fully balanced will not rev past 6200rpm with any cam grind, they will just get so harsh that it's a joke.
Had one bloke with a 173 torana with a big cam it went well but was not balanced and I said listen you should of got the engine fully balanced and you would have a sweet motor to flog the piss and pick handles out of it with pride with anyone in it with him, it was tragic as it stood, if only he knew before hand the difference that balancing makes.
Another mate had a 186 with a 40/80 grind but not balanced and he did a rod bearing and got it recoed but the fool did not get it fully balanced, the engine rebuilder was an old moron, no one would build such a hot engine and not fully balance it. that 186 would only rev to 6200 and the strain you could feel was huge shocking rubbish.

A mate with a worked 202 fully balanced would be nice to 6200 and then go through the shakes crap to 6400 and then rev sweet to 7000rpm and at that point you could not rev it past 7000 because it had std thickness rings and they just can not hold compression after that but their is no point in revving past 6200rpm anyway as their is no true value in doing so, bar if you were on a race track do to a spot on the track that may make it worthy to do so. Maybe 6600 could be good but for the harmonic problem becoming a sore point that you want to avoid, unless you are a drug dealer with money to splash about with no regards at all.
Box heads worked red 202 made good power at 7000rpm tho but the point was only for showing off truly. the only thing that he came across was splitting the blocks. they claim the 3 ribbed blocks are better castings for such power as it limits the flex. I think engine mounts may play a part in such cracking as well as if they are getting soft they top out on the latch that stops them from ripping apart and sending the fan up to cut off the top radiator hose.

If I were to go by the 202 fully balanced and the 186 fully balanced as to smoothness or sweetness they are both good but not as sweet as a 161 due to the lighter pistons.

Box heads 202 I could feel through my feet would hammer through the ground as you stood as it went by revving up to 7000 when we were doing test tuning out on back roads.
He never did a harmonic balancer that I know of, some of them were just shit regardless letting go on old farts cars who just plodded about and sat on 80KM/H at most if ever. My dad had a HR 186 from new to over 250,000 miles up with the stock balancer caked in old grubby oil and he and mum flogged the piss and pick handles out of it flat out on the highway flat up the road from cold, it never even did chew up the fibber cam gear. but my sisters HK that was owned by a old plodder chewed a balancer before 60.000miles and then a fibber cam gear at about 64.000 miles.
My brothers 173 only went through alt's and dreaded 1st to 2ed link 3 on the tree crap and exhaust manifold gaskets at the pipe.

Stock red v8's could only rev to 5500 through the gears and in top gear 5000rpm as I believe due to the time frame in top the springs get into a shimmy state so then they can not hold 5500rpm for long.
That shimmy point of the spring would not be good for the collets I would think, and when one has got the engine to hot like driving with a crappy radiator on the brink of boiling much of the time or they have busted a hose getting the engine too hot then the valve springs become weaker and I have driven a 202 that valve bounced at 4500, so what is crap like that going to do with the collets, let alone them collets had a %rate of dodgy ones, just like the rod bolts and nut that were not the best quality standards, so the bolt would stretch and then you ended up hammering a rod bearing.