Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Login


Take the time to read our Privacy Policy.

2 Pages12>
castellan Offline
#1 Posted : Friday, 3 December 2021 10:50:28 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,606

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 26 time(s) in 24 post(s)
Anyone have the Numbers of what the Red Holden 6 flows in CFM IN and EXH in valve lifts up each 100 thou.
I am just thinking stock Head numbers.

Then we could start from their if anyone wants to address such an issue.
I do not give a rats as to stupid numbers that most people talk about claiming 300hp etc as that content is every where.

Mainly if one could talk within what is needed for an application for a road going car, say something around stock lines but better or smarter content as to why one would or should do such a thing.

Maybe a near stock 202 red needs Blue head valves for one and a clean up in a few areas to be neat and truly efficient.

A engine that Holden should of built like thing ?

Holden went to the trouble of making different camshafts grinds for automatic and the manuals we could bring on that topic.

If one just did a few things to the old stock sort of HQ 202 you could make a hell of an impression on others who drove such a thing, just like most people believe the HQ handles like a bag of shit, but that does not have to be the case at all, with a little know how, one would be greatly impressed to drive such.

Look at a HQ Racing for one, just a 202 with a single old Stromberg and look at the lap times around Bathurst. you would not believe it.
HK1837 Offline
#2 Posted : Saturday, 4 December 2021 10:03:54 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,050

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 352 time(s) in 339 post(s)
I can't help you with the flow figures for the different generations of red-blue-black 6 heads. However GMH would never have built a far better 202 for a Holden as it would have been too close to a 253 in performance. I'm almost certain the reason the HQ GTS was cancelled was a 202S would have performed that close to a 253 at a far lower price. They in fact waited until the 253/4.2 was cancelled to build the fuel injected 3.3 in VK.

If you compare the two dead standard HT GTS models it is quite clear. Remember this is a 186S, M20 and 3.36 rear axle versus 253, M21 and 3.08 rear axle:

First figure is the GTS, second figure is the V8 GTS. The 6cyl car is actually a HK GTS (but essentially the same thing) from Motor Manual 10/68. The V8 GTS is Modern Motor and Wheels both from August 1969.

0-30mph 3.5s, 3.6s
0-40mph 6.2s, 5.1s
0-50mph 8.3s, 7.7s
0-60mph 11.5s, 10.2s
0-70mph 15.7s, 13.6s
0-80mph 20.3s, 18.5s
0-90mph NTR, 29.0s

Top speed 102mph, 111.2mph

Standing 1/4 18.3, 17.6

Economy for the test 21mpg, 22mpg

Cost $3007, $3423.

So step forward a few years, the HQ V8 GTS remains pretty much unchanged performance wise, same 253, now an M20 Aussie 4spd and still a 3.08 rear axle. The HQ GTS however would have had an extra 16ci and another (estimate) 25hp courtesy of a 202 with the S camshaft, intake, carb and exhaust headers and the V8 exhaust. The stock 202 with 161 camshaft and standard intake and exhaust manifold was rated at 135hp, the 253 at 185hp (this is without exhaust), so the 202S would be exactly half way between the HQ 202 and the HQ 253 in hp.

So given a stock HK 186 is [email protected] and [email protected], this engine has a bigger camshaft than a HQ 202 but smaller than the S camshaft. The HK-HG 186S was [email protected] and [email protected], again this is an advertised figure but it is on a dyno. The in-car figure would favour the S engine even further as it used the V8 exhaust. If you consider the camshafts used (detailed below) you might even figure that the standard HK 186 might drop to below 120hp if it had the 161 (aka 202) camshaft fitted, so you might even estimate that the HQ 202S might have been advertised at 30hp more than the HQ 202 at 165hp.

161/202 camshaft:
15/45 50/10

186 (HK and trimatic HT-HG):
35/68 89/40

S camshaft:
43/85 95/48

Camshaft figures are 2thou I think and without ramps, but at least allow comparison.

Considering all that it becomes clear that a HQ 202S especially in a HQ GTS where it would have got a 3.36 rear axle (rather than 3.55) might have overshadowed the HQ V8 GTS and other HQ Holden V8 models other than the GTS350, noting I'm talking standard models - all HQ Holden V8 standard models were 253 with single exhaust and either 3.08 or 2.78 rear axle, just forget the HQ SS for the sake of the argument (with its dual exhaust and 3.36 rear axle). Forget the 80260 as well - in any case it would be a 3.55 rear axle and if you could have optioned the 202S in an 80160 it'd probably have a 3.55 rear axle too.

Edited by user Saturday, 4 December 2021 12:14:24 PM(UTC)  | Reason: spelling

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#3 Posted : Saturday, 4 December 2021 12:43:16 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,606

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 26 time(s) in 24 post(s)
First I had a stock HQ 173 3sp manual 3.55 diff.
Then I got a good stock HQ 202 3sp manual 3.55 diff with 2in quiet exhaust and cheap extractors.
I had a good stock HG 253 auto 2.78 diff and 2 1/4 single free flow Exhaust.

The 202 over the 173 was a huge improvement in torque.
The 253 over the 202 was a huge improvement in torque once again.
Then I got a 308 and the improvement in Torque was huge once again.

When measuring potential of an engine torque is were it is all about truly and then HP comes in 2ed for a stock engine I would say overall.
When I had a XB Falcon 351 auto and my dad had a 400ci V8 LTD I loaded up the 351 with sand and held it flat up a hill, then I got dads 400 with a trailer full of sand and did the same, oh boy that made the 351 look weak.

You can pull a 2.78 diff with a 253 auto and they are fine with that but try that with a 202 auto, no chance !

The Manual figures of the 202 vs the Auto 202 HJ to VB looks like Holden valued torque right off the lower end of the rev range for the manual but worked out to not bother with such with an auto because the torque converter takes care of such on take off. so such is not an issue with the auto so they add a bit more cam duration to power up the loss of the auto looses, smart thinking I say. The same deal is done for the 173 Torana auto and manual.

So in looking at the 202 red I would say that Holden was more interested in the range of 500rpm to about 3000rpm as that is were a car is used the most. So does the need of bigger valves come into their main concept, maybe not, maybe bigger would hurt that most valued range ?

But with the Blue 3.3L priority's had changed somewhat people were demanding more from a product because of competition with the Jap cars etc. such inspired RTS as well to keep face, as average old Australians were like a stick stuck in the mud, they loved their drum brakes and dog understeering boring junk to drive. I am amazed that they took to synchro 1st gear not to mention the 3 on the tree was loved as was the bench seat and stupid big steering wheel placement of the FJ and hated the VB Commodore RTS because they were used to driving rubbish. most wheel alignment people have what they call a "fix" to the HZ WB, so as to make it handle like a pig HQ for numb skulls. and I am like No no ! f off ! and they are like, Yes this fixes the problem ? what problem ! their was no problem with the Holden spec settings HZ WB at all as it was spot on, and nowadays they want to bastardise what makes a HZ WB best point is all about.
HK1837 Offline
#4 Posted : Saturday, 4 December 2021 1:13:22 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,050

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 352 time(s) in 339 post(s)
I think you missed my point. I was getting at a small part of your original post about GMH making the 202 better. The point was there was no point, in a Holden anyway as the 253 was there to fill that slot right up until the end of WB. What I said about the HQ GTS being dropped prior to volume production has to have come down to the 202S being in the same performance window as a 253 in a HQ and also in the upcoming LH. The 2850S was dropped from LJ GTR at the same time, and replaced with the only standard 6cyl engine GMH had with similar (same ballpark) performance in an LJ as a 2850S.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#5 Posted : Sunday, 5 December 2021 1:16:51 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,606

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 26 time(s) in 24 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
I think you missed my point. I was getting at a small part of your original post about GMH making the 202 better. The point was there was no point, in a Holden anyway as the 253 was there to fill that slot right up until the end of WB. What I said about the HQ GTS being dropped prior to volume production has to have come down to the 202S being in the same performance window as a 253 in a HQ and also in the upcoming LH. The 2850S was dropped from LJ GTR at the same time, and replaced with the only standard 6cyl engine GMH had with similar (same ballpark) performance in an LJ as a 2850S.


The Blue motor was all about that making claiming the 2.8L become what the 3.3L class once was and the 3.3L become what was the 4.2L class was and the 4.2L taking over as the 5.0L position. or at least that was the spin at the time and oh the 1.9L was going to become the top selling car Holden claimed.

Now could they fill such shoes ? well yes sort of but not truly. well maybe a single exhaust 4.2L red VB HZ vs a VC WB 3.3L.

Now I remember my first drive in a new WB 3.3L auto, I was very impressed 185KM/H well that's 4.2L stuff.

Well yes I do believe that the Torana LJ GTR with the stock 202 would out perform the LC 173S GTR, all over out shine that 173s.
I think for the time the LJ GTR stock 202 was a fast car for the average dude back in the day and the shit tyres that they had would make such a beast for sure.

As for the red 202 I think that if it went past the 135 gross HP and started pulling more revs well then the rod bolts would need up grading at least and the rods as well to be serious and they did that with the blue 3.3L.

As to the 186s or 173s or 161s the stroke was the same, but with the big stroke of the 202 well that puts more strain on the rods and bolts, that's one key point anyway. but say as to pos engines into a class as Holden did do, in regards to making a 138 red 6 for the Torana Aussie market shows such values are at play, as to power to weight typically.

Holden went to the trouble of making the red S 6 have stronger valve springs and all.

Then we can see that the S heads ports were not tampered with as a 161 or 173 or 186 may not really need such, but a big 202 would be restricted more so and not play out so well, to the little cam and std ports and valve size. that's another consideration and if Holden was to improve such well the added cost would play out badly and inflation was on the rise in 1972.

I am sure that a 202S would of ate into the 253 market at the time. but the cost of such a 202 to a 253 would be close, I would go the 253 in a HQ and go dual exhaust myself regardless.

253 and 308 v8'S can swim in water far better than the 6cyl the 6 is crap in water especially back in the days how the roads were. I use to drive through water for miles and my HG Premier was the king of such, never missed a beat, Ford V8's however have the dizzy up front so they are not that good for swimming in water.

I had a dude stuck on a flood plain road in a Toyota FJ 55 4X4 I pulled up and he asked if I had CRC, I said what's that Whistle and took off going as fast as I could angel wings shooting up directly, that he could see me for 400m I wonder what he was thinking. haha.
HK1837 Offline
#6 Posted : Sunday, 5 December 2021 2:19:10 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,050

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 352 time(s) in 339 post(s)
You have stumbled onto GMH’s strategy with the XT5 engines. The idea was to restrict the 5.0L to Deville and Caprice. When VC and WB were released there was no 5.0L vehicles, only available as a Fleet Order for Police. The XT5 were superior in power and torque across all engines except the 5.0L where they were pretty much line ball in power and torque figures give or take a bit either way, not big gains like all the rest. My Dad bought a WB van new, it was a stock 3.3 4spd, it was a streets better engine than the same thing in a HZ. At the end of the day if you could mix and match it all you’d probably want a HQ body with HJ U17 dash, HZ chassis, WB buckets, HJ 5.0L with dual exhaust, gearbox of choice and maybe the HZ’s rear discs on the passenger vehicles. Maybe the WB Caprice’s 15” wheels too. Talking local driveline too, you’d have the HT-HG 350 and the HQ’s Muncie if you could.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Smitty2 Offline
#7 Posted : Sunday, 5 December 2021 8:05:03 PM(UTC)
Smitty2

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/07/2019(UTC)
Posts: 232
Australia
Location: bayside Melbourne

Thanks: 143 times
Was thanked: 15 time(s) in 15 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
You have stumbled onto GMH’s strategy with the XT5 engines. The idea was to restrict the 5.0L to Deville and Caprice. When VC and WB were released there was no 5.0L vehicles, only available as a Fleet Order for Police. The XT5 were superior in power and torque across all engines except the 5.0L where they were pretty much line ball in power and torque figures give or take a bit either way, not big gains like all the rest. My Dad bought a WB van new, it was a stock 3.3 4spd, it was a streets better engine than the same thing in a HZ. At the end of the day if you could mix and match it all you’d probably want a HQ body with HJ U17 dash, HZ chassis, WB buckets, HJ 5.0L with dual exhaust, gearbox of choice and maybe the HZ’s rear discs on the passenger vehicles. Maybe the WB Caprice’s 15” wheels too. Talking local driveline too, you’d have the HT-HG 350 and the HQ’s Muncie if you could.


well yes ...and no.

Most people forget that XT5 was scheduled to be fitted to VB but the extraordinary engineering demands of the so called global VCar program in Australia
meant that simply was not possible... and yet, GMH still got VB wrong with tie rods recalls, cracking floors, upside down aircon units (my field service baby)
and massive brake failures from new design master cylinders (mate of mine was part of a team at PBR dealing with this.. pedal to the floor meant he got a call 24/7)
and
the feedback from VB buyers rolled in.. the cars are nervous, twitchy, TOO responsive even! The Marketing guys kicked back on this at the Product review meetings
and VC was slower, safer in the suspension and duller. XT5 was good but the press hated the chassis changes while lauding the new engine range. Sales fell ...

GMH were jumping all over the place... internally arguments raged. Do we introduce UD Torana?, WA (VA?) Holden AND continue with VCar? Sales/Marketing wanted a hero
car ...Chuck wanted a hivolume family seller and the arguments continued, do we support the fleets ? (RTA, police and large fleets... Telstra etc)
Internally, Brock was a hero and his VB race program was in the gutter too...

There was no real strategy in the end .... all kneejerk stuff. Torana got killed off... then Holden. Then it was resurrected.. then killed off. Then LeoP thru up the Caprice
and sales liked it. It was a dog to make.. the grille ate up most of the profit (horribly expensive to make) Then the body side mouldings were added to make it look
.. different. Then the Stato was raised... one for the taxis and govt car fleets (only the PM gets the Caprice!)

Meantime, Ford was killing them in the new car market...



Club circuit racing...the best fun you can have with your pants on
HK1837 Offline
#8 Posted : Sunday, 5 December 2021 8:35:15 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,050

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 352 time(s) in 339 post(s)
Some of the XT5 stuff happened with VB. The V8 blocks introduced with VB had the longer valley bolt bosses, and the 5.0L compression dropped from 9.7 to 9.4 (although XT5 was 9.2).
What I think was the real shame was GMH’s decision to drop the V8 prior to unleaded and plan to use only the two Nissan 6’s. I think this was the final nail for the WB commercials as neither of those engines nor their boxes would have suited commercial duty. If they had planned to keep the V8 all along they may well have continued WB into WD? first using the later re-vamped VL V8 then the injected version. A 1989 or 1990 WB with injected 4.9, 4L60 box and Borg Warner diff would have been a good car. Ford did it keeping the XF going into XG and XH.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#9 Posted : Tuesday, 7 December 2021 12:12:13 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,606

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 26 time(s) in 24 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Some of the XT5 stuff happened with VB. The V8 blocks introduced with VB had the longer valley bolt bosses, and the 5.0L compression dropped from 9.7 to 9.4 (although XT5 was 9.2).
What I think was the real shame was GMH’s decision to drop the V8 prior to unleaded and plan to use only the two Nissan 6’s. I think this was the final nail for the WB commercials as neither of those engines nor their boxes would have suited commercial duty. If they had planned to keep the V8 all along they may well have continued WB into WD? first using the later re-vamped VL V8 then the injected version. A 1989 or 1990 WB with injected 4.9, 4L60 box and Borg Warner diff would have been a good car. Ford did it keeping the XF going into XG and XH.


Longer valley bolts in the V8 came about with the HJ I believe.

EFI 3.3l WB ute etc would of been a good thing, but I believe feed back from most people is that they do not want such a ute p van 1 tonne, Ford held back with the 4.0L ute and p van till 1993. but yes the right down low torque of the OHC 4.0L was not as good as the OHV 4.1L.
But the WB 3.0L could of done well easy with a 3.9:1 diff ratio or even a 4.44:1 as you have over drive on a manual and auto. But the cost vs the Falcon XF ute and p van could not justify such at all.
HK1837 Offline
#10 Posted : Tuesday, 7 December 2021 12:33:57 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,050

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 352 time(s) in 339 post(s)
No, longer valley bolt bosses came basically with the start of VB V8 engines. I even have the engine numbers where the change happened in Holden/Statesman, Commodore and Nasco sequences.

Not sure if they would ever have considered the EFI 33 in WB. Remember WB ran a long way into VK and although they never. painted them black the WB engines were essentially black engines in many ways but not all.

That Nissan driveline wouldn’t have worked in a commercial, especially a cab-chassis. They may well have done what they did to the engine in GQ Patrol and put a carby on it plus a better lot of gearboxes. It wasn’t really up to the duty of a Patrol though - the 4.2L engines were far better, and my guess is if GMH had not axed the V8 only to resurrect it later in VL, they may well have developed the 4.2L in parallel with the 5.0L initially as a ULP carb engine then injected. If they had done that there was probably no need to build the 3.8 V6 and simply run a 4.2 and 5.0 from VN into VG/VQ through to the end of VS.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#11 Posted : Tuesday, 7 December 2021 12:59:44 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,606

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 26 time(s) in 24 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Smitty2 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
You have stumbled onto GMH’s strategy with the XT5 engines. The idea was to restrict the 5.0L to Deville and Caprice. When VC and WB were released there was no 5.0L vehicles, only available as a Fleet Order for Police. The XT5 were superior in power and torque across all engines except the 5.0L where they were pretty much line ball in power and torque figures give or take a bit either way, not big gains like all the rest. My Dad bought a WB van new, it was a stock 3.3 4spd, it was a streets better engine than the same thing in a HZ. At the end of the day if you could mix and match it all you’d probably want a HQ body with HJ U17 dash, HZ chassis, WB buckets, HJ 5.0L with dual exhaust, gearbox of choice and maybe the HZ’s rear discs on the passenger vehicles. Maybe the WB Caprice’s 15” wheels too. Talking local driveline too, you’d have the HT-HG 350 and the HQ’s Muncie if you could.


well yes ...and no.

Most people forget that XT5 was scheduled to be fitted to VB but the extraordinary engineering demands of the so called global VCar program in Australia
meant that simply was not possible... and yet, GMH still got VB wrong with tie rods recalls, cracking floors, upside down aircon units (my field service baby)
and massive brake failures from new design master cylinders (mate of mine was part of a team at PBR dealing with this.. pedal to the floor meant he got a call 24/7)
and
the feedback from VB buyers rolled in.. the cars are nervous, twitchy, TOO responsive even! The Marketing guys kicked back on this at the Product review meetings
and VC was slower, safer in the suspension and duller. XT5 was good but the press hated the chassis changes while lauding the new engine range. Sales fell ...

GMH were jumping all over the place... internally arguments raged. Do we introduce UD Torana?, WA (VA?) Holden AND continue with VCar? Sales/Marketing wanted a hero
car ...Chuck wanted a hivolume family seller and the arguments continued, do we support the fleets ? (RTA, police and large fleets... Telstra etc)
Internally, Brock was a hero and his VB race program was in the gutter too...

There was no real strategy in the end .... all kneejerk stuff. Torana got killed off... then Holden. Then it was resurrected.. then killed off. Then LeoP thru up the Caprice
and sales liked it. It was a dog to make.. the grille ate up most of the profit (horribly expensive to make) Then the body side mouldings were added to make it look
.. different. Then the Stato was raised... one for the taxis and govt car fleets (only the PM gets the Caprice!)

Meantime, Ford was killing them in the new car market...




VB the only thing that truly got up peoples nose was the feel of the steering of centre took some getting used to and was just a tad to heavy to move it just initially off that direct ahead point.

Yes the VB brake peddle would do a lot of movement but they had crap brake pads as well at the time.

When the Blue 5.0L came about she had a more of a torque advantage then the HZ Statesman but the WB She was a heaver car. the engines spark advantage was the main point. but the 4.2L got the 4bbl to add top end performance.

I believe Holden got it right with getting rid of the WB range at the time and the UC Torana. as to the bean counters and all, it makes sense. not that I wanted the WB to go myself at the time.

As to Ford out doing Holden at the time, I think most people wanted a big car, but in reality the Commodore was a better car by far even with 3 in the back seat and the boot was far better than Fords crap shallow boot, not to mention the read seat was shocking if you sat in the middle point hard as a rock total peace of shit. Try siting in a ZH Fairlane rear seat now that was f ing magic.
I think that the Alloy head 6 was good and the 4.1L 6 won most people over in being a 6cyl, who bought the 3.3L ?
Most people had a fear of a V8 status, thinking that such would chew the fuel and rego in QLD you were stung for a V8.

Not to mention I worked at a Service Station and the amount of people having a spack attack about people driving V8's was astounding back in around 1977 etc, it was just like the Covid Jab people ranting demanding everyone to get the Jab or else.


Everyone knows that a 4.1L falcon is the deal that cuts it as a reasonable car for the masses. Just as they do that the 4.2L is in the Holden, but the 3.3L is a boring Kingswood to VB Commodore. Not to mention the 3.3L in such does not handle as well as a 4.2L does because the 3.3L is to gutless to throw around to really enjoy or to explore that area of using your right foot to steer the car through corners.
castellan Offline
#12 Posted : Tuesday, 7 December 2021 1:29:13 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,606

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 26 time(s) in 24 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
No, longer valley bolt bosses came basically with the start of VB V8 engines. I even have the engine numbers where the change happened in Holden/Statesman, Commodore and Nasco sequences.

Not sure if they would ever have considered the EFI 33 in WB. Remember WB ran a long way into VK and although they never. painted them black the WB engines were essentially black engines in many ways but not all.

That Nissan driveline wouldn’t have worked in a commercial, especially a cab-chassis. They may well have done what they did to the engine in GQ Patrol and put a carby on it plus a better lot of gearboxes. It wasn’t really up to the duty of a Patrol though - the 4.2L engines were far better, and my guess is if GMH had not axed the V8 only to resurrect it later in VL, they may well have developed the 4.2L in parallel with the 5.0L initially as a ULP carb engine then injected. If they had done that there was probably no need to build the 3.8 V6 and simply run a 4.2 and 5.0 from VN into VG/VQ through to the end of VS.


I seen them longer valley castings in the HJ blocks.
The HT-G-Q V8 valley were the same, but the HJ made the change to the 4 longer castings into the valley.

I do not know why they put them 3.0L in them Patrols, but they worked.

Once you got them VL 3.0L going off the line they were fine, with a lower diff ratio they would do well in a WB ute I am sure and a 1 tonne easy as and much better than any 3.3L I tonne with 4.44 diff and stupid M22 4 sp box. a mate had that combo totally pathetic what were Holden thinking. old mate put a Toyota 5sp in his and then tossed the diff ratio as well for a 3.36 and he towed the biggest trailer you could being a Builder full of all his gear. but she chewed the fuel, so I said get a 5.0L V8 for it and you will save fuel and he found a WB Statesman and put it in with a Holden 5sp manual and yep he saved on the fuel, he pointed this out to his dad who had a 3.3L WB 1 tonne as well and he just said directly, Bull shit ! and son said no it's true you stupid old c--- ! Now son drove 200km a day easy, so he knew it for a fact. but remember he is towing and that makes a hell of a difference and you do not drive with your foot flat.
HK1837 Offline
#13 Posted : Tuesday, 7 December 2021 4:45:05 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,050

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 352 time(s) in 339 post(s)
The only way to get those longer bosses in a HJ is if it isn’t the original engine.

3.0L VL engine would've be useless in a builders ute in the late 80’s. They’d have been junk once the first two oil changes were missed or they put 2 tonne on the tray and the auto gearbox shat itself or the manual for that matter, unless something stronger was used like the turbo engine's boxes.

The wide ratio M20 (later coded M22) was standard in HQ 6cyl commercials. The standard rear axle was 3.55 in any of them, although you could get a 3.9 in a ute or van. The 4.44 was introduced during HJ to solve clutch issues, you couldn’t reverse them loaded with a 3.55 without frying clutch. The 3spd wasn't as bad as the M20 4spd on clutches in the 3.55 rear axle vehicles as reverse in a 3spd is the same ratio as the M22 1st and reverse. However they still had major clutch issues. Even a 253 M20 tonner was bad enough with its 3.55 rear axle and there was no lower ratio available as 4,44 was limited to 6cyl. The absolute worst of the lot (and I have recorded a few) are L20 M40 GM9 cab-chassis. The Trimatic with a 4.44 rear axle would have been a total pig.

Edited by user Tuesday, 7 December 2021 4:51:11 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
 1 user thanked HK1837 for this useful post.
Smitty2 on 8/12/2021(UTC)
castellan Offline
#14 Posted : Wednesday, 8 December 2021 10:01:33 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,606

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 26 time(s) in 24 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
The only way to get those longer bosses in a HJ is if it isn’t the original engine.

3.0L VL engine would've be useless in a builders ute in the late 80’s. They’d have been junk once the first two oil changes were missed or they put 2 tonne on the tray and the auto gearbox shat itself or the manual for that matter, unless something stronger was used like the turbo engine's boxes.

The wide ratio M20 (later coded M22) was standard in HQ 6cyl commercials. The standard rear axle was 3.55 in any of them, although you could get a 3.9 in a ute or van. The 4.44 was introduced during HJ to solve clutch issues, you couldn’t reverse them loaded with a 3.55 without frying clutch. The 3spd wasn't as bad as the M20 4spd on clutches in the 3.55 rear axle vehicles as reverse in a 3spd is the same ratio as the M22 1st and reverse. However they still had major clutch issues. Even a 253 M20 tonner was bad enough with its 3.55 rear axle and there was no lower ratio available as 4,44 was limited to 6cyl. The absolute worst of the lot (and I have recorded a few) are L20 M40 GM9 cab-chassis. The Trimatic with a 4.44 rear axle would have been a total pig.


Nothing wrong with the Nissan 5sp manuals or the 4 sp auto not to mention the Nissan 3.0L is reliability is spot on.

I could do the homework on the ratios with the 5sp and the 4sp auto and work out if they would of been any good, with the 4.44 or 3.9 as such ratios can be used easy as for Holden.
5sp box and 4.44 diff and 1st gear would be fine and 5th would be fine I am sure.

A 4sp auto with 4.44 would be fine in taking off and you could run it in 3rd and still be much better than any 3.3L was, as this is the same ratio 1.00 be it 4th in the Nissan manual or 3rd in the Nissan Auto. that rev at 100KM/H and beyond would work out better performance than the 3.3L any day.

Look at the Turbo 3.0L for example and the 5sp box no problems their at all, and my mates had the wick wound all the way up and 3in exhaust and it flew, such a Turbo is gutless as a 149 below 3000rpm but at 3000rpm it kicked in and hauled arse. and no Holden 5.0L V8 was that quick off the showroom floor ever even a VN Group A.

They had Turbos with Autos as well and anyone knows that if you work a auto hard you put a oil cooler on them.

The Holden I Tonne with 4.44 diff with a M22 box 1st gear was like a creeper gear, not worthy of being called 1st, but a 3sp box with a creeper gear, much like F100 4sp box, who uses 1st gear in an F100 anyway to take off, unless you were towing a big load. my dads F100 had a 250 6cyl and 3.5 diff with the big std wheels and I could start the bastard in 1st gear, just turn the ignition in 1st and it took off, the F100 302 and 351 had a lower diff ration 4.1:1

Work it out what rpm is a 4.44 diff 1 tonne doing in top at 100KM/H and what KM/H is that in 1st with a M22 1000RMP to 6000RPM. 1st = maybe 40KM/H at 6000RPM ? a Starfire 4 could pull a house down with that low a 1st gearing.
Dr Terry Offline
#15 Posted : Wednesday, 8 December 2021 11:57:26 AM(UTC)
Dr Terry

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 5,862

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 148 time(s) in 137 post(s)
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post

Nothing wrong with the Nissan 5sp manuals or the 4 sp auto not to mention the Nissan 3.0L is reliability is spot on.


Except for the electronics, which were rubbish.

Airflow meters, crank sensors, ignition modules, coolant temp sensors, oxygen sensors, ECUs, the list was endless. Many of these are still big sellers today.

The electronics of the V6s was better, with the possible exception of the early VNs.

Dr Terry
If at first you don't succeed, just call it Version 1.0
HK1837 Offline
#16 Posted : Thursday, 9 December 2021 6:06:02 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,050

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 352 time(s) in 339 post(s)
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
The only way to get those longer bosses in a HJ is if it isn’t the original engine.

3.0L VL engine would've be useless in a builders ute in the late 80’s. They’d have been junk once the first two oil changes were missed or they put 2 tonne on the tray and the auto gearbox shat itself or the manual for that matter, unless something stronger was used like the turbo engine's boxes.

The wide ratio M20 (later coded M22) was standard in HQ 6cyl commercials. The standard rear axle was 3.55 in any of them, although you could get a 3.9 in a ute or van. The 4.44 was introduced during HJ to solve clutch issues, you couldn’t reverse them loaded with a 3.55 without frying clutch. The 3spd wasn't as bad as the M20 4spd on clutches in the 3.55 rear axle vehicles as reverse in a 3spd is the same ratio as the M22 1st and reverse. However they still had major clutch issues. Even a 253 M20 tonner was bad enough with its 3.55 rear axle and there was no lower ratio available as 4,44 was limited to 6cyl. The absolute worst of the lot (and I have recorded a few) are L20 M40 GM9 cab-chassis. The Trimatic with a 4.44 rear axle would have been a total pig.


Nothing wrong with the Nissan 5sp manuals or the 4 sp auto not to mention the Nissan 3.0L is reliability is spot on.

I could do the homework on the ratios with the 5sp and the 4sp auto and work out if they would of been any good, with the 4.44 or 3.9 as such ratios can be used easy as for Holden.
5sp box and 4.44 diff and 1st gear would be fine and 5th would be fine I am sure.

A 4sp auto with 4.44 would be fine in taking off and you could run it in 3rd and still be much better than any 3.3L was, as this is the same ratio 1.00 be it 4th in the Nissan manual or 3rd in the Nissan Auto. that rev at 100KM/H and beyond would work out better performance than the 3.3L any day.

Look at the Turbo 3.0L for example and the 5sp box no problems their at all, and my mates had the wick wound all the way up and 3in exhaust and it flew, such a Turbo is gutless as a 149 below 3000rpm but at 3000rpm it kicked in and hauled arse. and no Holden 5.0L V8 was that quick off the showroom floor ever even a VN Group A.

They had Turbos with Autos as well and anyone knows that if you work a auto hard you put a oil cooler on them.

The Holden I Tonne with 4.44 diff with a M22 box 1st gear was like a creeper gear, not worthy of being called 1st, but a 3sp box with a creeper gear, much like F100 4sp box, who uses 1st gear in an F100 anyway to take off, unless you were towing a big load. my dads F100 had a 250 6cyl and 3.5 diff with the big std wheels and I could start the bastard in 1st gear, just turn the ignition in 1st and it took off, the F100 302 and 351 had a lower diff ration 4.1:1

Work it out what rpm is a 4.44 diff 1 tonne doing in top at 100KM/H and what KM/H is that in 1st with a M22 1000RMP to 6000RPM. 1st = maybe 40KM/H at 6000RPM ? a Starfire 4 could pull a house down with that low a 1st gearing.


The standard Nissan VL gearboxes were notorious for breaking, the autos were not that strong. Gearboxes and rear axles were not rated just for power and torque - the third factor was duty, that is the weight of the vehicle they were used and the expected total vehicle mass. You can see that applied in a Torana where a nodular banjo was good enough for a 5.0L engine however in a cab-chassis even a 173 got a Salisbury as did all V8 HQ-WB. They even had to beef up the Salisbury in a cab-chassis with a bigger uni, stronger axles and wider bearing retainers. The Nissan boxes were fine for normal VL road duty but ask any of the guys who modified standard VL's and gave the boxes a hard time. No different to Aussie 4spd in that regard really. Although I doubt they ever contemplated using those drivelines in a WB style commercial range and if they had they would more than likely have used the heavier duty boxes that the turbo VL had, especially in the cab chassis. Just like they did with 4spd 6cyl HK-HT commercial where they fitted the wide ratio Saginaw as the M20 shearpin wouldn't have been up to the duty. However the smart buyer would be no different to those earlier on, they'd have said no to a 6cyl and bought a 4.2L cab-chassis or a 5.0L one, either in auto and optioned the 4.2L with the economy (3.36) rear axle. My mate's WB cab-chassis had an injected VN/P engine with a 3.36 rear axle although he was running 15" rear wheels. It was a Muncie not an auto but it was a really good tow vehicle despite the very tall 1st gear. Not quite as strong torque wise than the prior HQ which was a fuelie headed 327 but it still went well and was economical unlike the carbied 327.

The M22 and GM9 combination was all about clutch life, for cab-chassis that were used on construction or mine sites or similar. It was never intended for a car you'd drive at highway speeds.

The standard cab-chassis (F78-14LT tyres) with a 4.44 rear end did 35.7rpm per km/h in 4th gear. So that is 3570rpm at 100. All you have to do is multiply that by 3.74 for 1st gear which is 133.52rpm per km/h. So at 60kph in 1st that is 8011rpm. 40kph is 5340rpm.

Edited by user Thursday, 9 December 2021 6:43:51 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#17 Posted : Thursday, 9 December 2021 10:22:14 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,606

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 26 time(s) in 24 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
The only way to get those longer bosses in a HJ is if it isn’t the original engine.

3.0L VL engine would've be useless in a builders ute in the late 80’s. They’d have been junk once the first two oil changes were missed or they put 2 tonne on the tray and the auto gearbox shat itself or the manual for that matter, unless something stronger was used like the turbo engine's boxes.

The wide ratio M20 (later coded M22) was standard in HQ 6cyl commercials. The standard rear axle was 3.55 in any of them, although you could get a 3.9 in a ute or van. The 4.44 was introduced during HJ to solve clutch issues, you couldn’t reverse them loaded with a 3.55 without frying clutch. The 3spd wasn't as bad as the M20 4spd on clutches in the 3.55 rear axle vehicles as reverse in a 3spd is the same ratio as the M22 1st and reverse. However they still had major clutch issues. Even a 253 M20 tonner was bad enough with its 3.55 rear axle and there was no lower ratio available as 4,44 was limited to 6cyl. The absolute worst of the lot (and I have recorded a few) are L20 M40 GM9 cab-chassis. The Trimatic with a 4.44 rear axle would have been a total pig.


Nothing wrong with the Nissan 5sp manuals or the 4 sp auto not to mention the Nissan 3.0L is reliability is spot on.

I could do the homework on the ratios with the 5sp and the 4sp auto and work out if they would of been any good, with the 4.44 or 3.9 as such ratios can be used easy as for Holden.
5sp box and 4.44 diff and 1st gear would be fine and 5th would be fine I am sure.

A 4sp auto with 4.44 would be fine in taking off and you could run it in 3rd and still be much better than any 3.3L was, as this is the same ratio 1.00 be it 4th in the Nissan manual or 3rd in the Nissan Auto. that rev at 100KM/H and beyond would work out better performance than the 3.3L any day.

Look at the Turbo 3.0L for example and the 5sp box no problems their at all, and my mates had the wick wound all the way up and 3in exhaust and it flew, such a Turbo is gutless as a 149 below 3000rpm but at 3000rpm it kicked in and hauled arse. and no Holden 5.0L V8 was that quick off the showroom floor ever even a VN Group A.

They had Turbos with Autos as well and anyone knows that if you work a auto hard you put a oil cooler on them.

The Holden I Tonne with 4.44 diff with a M22 box 1st gear was like a creeper gear, not worthy of being called 1st, but a 3sp box with a creeper gear, much like F100 4sp box, who uses 1st gear in an F100 anyway to take off, unless you were towing a big load. my dads F100 had a 250 6cyl and 3.5 diff with the big std wheels and I could start the bastard in 1st gear, just turn the ignition in 1st and it took off, the F100 302 and 351 had a lower diff ration 4.1:1

Work it out what rpm is a 4.44 diff 1 tonne doing in top at 100KM/H and what KM/H is that in 1st with a M22 1000RMP to 6000RPM. 1st = maybe 40KM/H at 6000RPM ? a Starfire 4 could pull a house down with that low a 1st gearing.


The standard Nissan VL gearboxes were notorious for breaking, the autos were not that strong. Gearboxes and rear axles were not rated just for power and torque - the third factor was duty, that is the weight of the vehicle they were used and the expected total vehicle mass. You can see that applied in a Torana where a nodular banjo was good enough for a 5.0L engine however in a cab-chassis even a 173 got a Salisbury as did all V8 HQ-WB. They even had to beef up the Salisbury in a cab-chassis with a bigger uni, stronger axles and wider bearing retainers. The Nissan boxes were fine for normal VL road duty but ask any of the guys who modified standard VL's and gave the boxes a hard time. No different to Aussie 4spd in that regard really. Although I doubt they ever contemplated using those drivelines in a WB style commercial range and if they had they would more than likely have used the heavier duty boxes that the turbo VL had, especially in the cab chassis. Just like they did with 4spd 6cyl HK-HT commercial where they fitted the wide ratio Saginaw as the M20 shearpin wouldn't have been up to the duty. However the smart buyer would be no different to those earlier on, they'd have said no to a 6cyl and bought a 4.2L cab-chassis or a 5.0L one, either in auto and optioned the 4.2L with the economy (3.36) rear axle. My mate's WB cab-chassis had an injected VN/P engine with a 3.36 rear axle although he was running 15" rear wheels. It was a Muncie not an auto but it was a really good tow vehicle despite the very tall 1st gear. Not quite as strong torque wise than the prior HQ which was a fuelie headed 327 but it still went well and was economical unlike the carbied 327.

The M22 and GM9 combination was all about clutch life, for cab-chassis that were used on construction or mine sites or similar. It was never intended for a car you'd drive at highway speeds.

The standard cab-chassis (F78-14LT tyres) with a 4.44 rear end did 35.7rpm per km/h in 4th gear. So that is 3570rpm at 100. All you have to do is multiply that by 3.74 for 1st gear which is 133.52rpm per km/h. So at 60kph in 1st that is 8011rpm. 40kph is 5340rpm.


I know of people who have claimed that the 6sp manual Gen 3 on are rubbish as they have busted gears as well, but I say that's got to do with they being hopeless, as a fool will always destroy anything.

My mate with the Turbo VL and that f wit was flat out every were in that thing, but as to talking about cars I would keep to cares under 10 years old and not done over 200.000km as such as that is another story all together with reliability, but lets say under 100.000km and up to 5yeas old is the real deal to be realistic as to a cars true reliability's.

The Banjo behind the 5.0L Torana haha that's a Joke, what a spastic combination, weak as piss. oh yes with fine spline and nodular case was a must please.

The 173 1 tonne well that big diff has to do with the weight on the axle bearings, nothing to do with power.

As for Aussie M22-M21-M20 they are all the same torque rating.

As for the 4sp box in the HR-K-T-G that box is as weak as piss, so no wonder them utes got the HD 4sp box.
HK1837 Offline
#18 Posted : Thursday, 9 December 2021 7:21:16 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,050

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 352 time(s) in 339 post(s)
As I said the turbo VL had different boxes in both manual and auto. If GMH had ever considered that 3.0L engine for any WB update they would almost certainly have used the turbo boxes at least in cab-chassis.

What's more of a joke is the same V8 banjo in all auto 5.0L (307 or 308) HK-HG except GTS after about the end of July 1968, and it was a coarse spline. I reckon that if you optioned dual exhaust on any of these the cost should have come with a 3.08 Salisbury at least instead of the 2.78 banjo or the optional 3.08 banjo.

That is exactly what I said, the 3rd factor is the duty, the weight of the vehicle and its gross (loaded) weight. That is why the cab-chassis had a Salisbury, but its also why it got a bigger tailshaft and bigger unis - the same as what were used in GTS350. It was also that way due to the torque multiplication in the ultra low geared M22.

Aussie M20, M21 and M22 do not have the same torque rating. The wide ratio M22 has the lowest due to the size and the amount of teeth on the input shaft vs the counter gear interface, and is why there was no V8 version. This is the same for Saginaw and Muncie where the wider ratio box has a lower torque rating. I reckon it is why the HT V8 3spd is a close ratio box and not the same as the HK-HZ 6cyl box (just with longer input shaft) like the HG-HZ V8 3spd was. Either GMH was cautious about the durability of the 6cyl box (and decided it was fine for the 253 by the end of HT) or they had initially intended the 3spd be fitted behind 308 from the release of HK and into HT but decided not to do it.

Yes the HR-HG M20 is not strong, and thus wasn't used in HK-HT commercials. However in the lighter LC XU1 it was used behind a far more powerful engine that a 161 that was intended to see racing duty, but it was also a far lighter car. Again that 3rd factor - torque, power AND duty.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#19 Posted : Friday, 10 December 2021 12:32:21 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,606

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 26 time(s) in 24 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
As I said the turbo VL had different boxes in both manual and auto. If GMH had ever considered that 3.0L engine for any WB update they would almost certainly have used the turbo boxes at least in cab-chassis.

What's more of a joke is the same V8 banjo in all auto 5.0L (307 or 308) HK-HG except GTS after about the end of July 1968, and it was a coarse spline. I reckon that if you optioned dual exhaust on any of these the cost should have come with a 3.08 Salisbury at least instead of the 2.78 banjo or the optional 3.08 banjo.

That is exactly what I said, the 3rd factor is the duty, the weight of the vehicle and its gross (loaded) weight. That is why the cab-chassis had a Salisbury, but its also why it got a bigger tailshaft and bigger unis - the same as what were used in GTS350. It was also that way due to the torque multiplication in the ultra low geared M22.

Aussie M20, M21 and M22 do not have the same torque rating. The wide ratio M22 has the lowest due to the size and the amount of teeth on the input shaft vs the counter gear interface, and is why there was no V8 version. This is the same for Saginaw and Muncie where the wider ratio box has a lower torque rating. I reckon it is why the HT V8 3spd is a close ratio box and not the same as the HK-HZ 6cyl box (just with longer input shaft) like the HG-HZ V8 3spd was. Either GMH was cautious about the durability of the 6cyl box (and decided it was fine for the 253 by the end of HT) or they had initially intended the 3spd be fitted behind 308 from the release of HK and into HT but decided not to do it.

Yes the HR-HG M20 is not strong, and thus wasn't used in HK-HT commercials. However in the lighter LC XU1 it was used behind a far more powerful engine that a 161 that was intended to see racing duty, but it was also a far lighter car. Again that 3rd factor - torque, power AND duty.


I know the Turbo VL box is stronger than the STD.

HK 307 2sp auto had the banjo 2.78, it's ok because 1st is so high geared that it is gutless to take off the line, Oh yes HG Brougham 3sp auto 2.78 but Net Power was much lower than a HG GTS because the single exhaust restricted power so much that the Banjo could be used and who flogs a Brougham.

Yes the input shaft on the manual box is one point like you say but over all it's the same thing, I have busted teeth off the M21 input shaft. but also shagged the Lay shaft bearings and they is all the same thing in the Aussie box.

Sure the LC XU-1 is correct as to you say, The more weight you have to deal with becomes the factor.

Look at the HQ rear housing it's got longer axels and I am sure that because of this is why they snap axels more easy than the HK-T-G or HR or LH.
I have snapped a LH fine spline axel in 2ed gear on my SL/R 5000 not even flat out when she broke and I never did a burnout in that car ever for fear of the weak rear she had a 3.08 LSD but 14in wheels and all L34 body kit.
HK1837 Offline
#20 Posted : Friday, 10 December 2021 5:09:22 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,050

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 352 time(s) in 339 post(s)
Not true. All HK to HJ were single exhaust, including HG 308 GTS, the only exceptions being 81837 and HQ XV2. V8 banjo was the standard rear axle in all 307 or 308 auto HK-HG except for GTS after the end of July 1968 - those 307/308 GTS were 3.36 Salisbury standard with a 3.08 Salisbury optional. All the rest of the 307/308 were 2.78 banjo and 3.08 banjo with some being optional with a 3.36 Salisbury. GMH would have had to factor in the use of dual exhaust on those combinations as it was optional on most of them. I have seen a few 308 auto with 3.36 Salisbury Premier especially HG and I suspect for these cars GMH would mostly have fitted the 3.36 rear axle behind anything they fitted with a dual exhaust.

Yes the Aussie 4spds are pretty much the same parts internally, but the weakest points ie the bits that break the most (not parts that wear out) are the teeth on the input shaft and the matching gear on the counter/cluster gear. That is the weak point, and it gets weaker as the box ratio gets wider. It is why wide ratio Saginaw were not used in higher power applications, same with the M22 in a Holden.

HQ's never really snapped banjo axles or even broke them as only 6cyl had them and there wasn't even a spirited 6cyl like a 186S in the range. The only one with big load issues was the cab-chassis and these all had Salisbury rear axles. If you were going to do any real heavy duty work with any HQ 6cyl you could always option a Salisbury anyway.

I broke a fine spline axle in my LX auto hatchback when it had an interim standard 186 in it as the original 3.3 had died. It was a V8 fine spline banjo, not even LSD. It was an easy thing to do, the key being I had 265/50/14 tyres on it. The saving grace for the 5.0L LH-LX is they had a tiny pair of exhaust pipes on it. The pipes were so small that the combined cross-sectional area of the pair was barely more than the single 2" system on a Holden.

Edited by user Friday, 10 December 2021 8:49:40 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF | YAF © 2003-2022, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.334 seconds.