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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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