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

Notification

Icon
Error

Login


Take the time to read our Privacy Policy.

2 Pages<12
Smitty2 Offline
#21 Posted : Saturday, 11 December 2021 7:16:25 AM(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
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.
..........................


not disagreeing with any of that but a comment -
I can't work out and no-one at GMH could tell me why... the 253 was hobbled from the start with the ridiculous 2bbl/intake combo that was fitted. No performance !
plus ridiculous fuel usage was the result

Best and easiest hipo upgrade for a 253 is to put a 4bbl dual plane manifold (anything factory is ok) with a suitably jetted Quaddie.. things even use less fuel
when you do that.

Club circuit racing...the best fun you can have with your pants on
HK1837 Offline
#22 Posted : Saturday, 11 December 2021 8:38:24 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,037

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 350 time(s) in 337 post(s)
Maybe because the 253 with 4BBL was then too close to a 308 in performance? The HQ XV2 Belmont (SS) had a standard 253 (2BBL) but with dual exhaust and the performance rear axle (3.36). A stock HQ V8 Belmont sedan optioned with 308 (so L31 M21 3.36 and single exhaust) would be all but shown up by those XV2. Give the 253 a 4BBL and it'd be a lot more powerful. Yes you could put a dual exhaust on a 308 and make it quicker again but why would you when the 253 was not far off and more economical when you wanted it to be. I reckon it is the same logic as to why the HQ GTS (and this the 202S) was cancelled, it was going to be too close to a 253 in performance. You can see clearly GMH dropped the 5.0L from WB Holden and VC Commodore as the 4BBL 4.2 was good enough to replace it in those vehicles, with the 5.0L reserved for SVO on VC (later changed as we know).

In late 1974 all you had to do to your 4.2 is fit the appropriate 308 intake and a properly tuned Quadrajet and it'd improve out of sight. Change its cam out for a HJ 5.0L cam and fit dual exhaust and in a small car like an LH it'd be more than enough for most and would probably frighten most stock 308 especially the earlier LH and HT-HQ engines with the smaller cam and still sporting their factory exhausts. The 253 would have made much better use of the stock heads and the stock exhausts.

All of this was the same with the HK and HT 307. That engine was only ever available anywhere as a 2BBL as we got it. However at the end of the day, the only difference between the HK 327 and our 307 is 1/8" bore size. Everything else was the same excluding the intake and carb. All you have to do to a 307 to make it go nearly as hard as a HK 327 is fit the intake and carb, plus the 327's dual exhaust of course. A manual 307 almost always had a 3.36 rear axle, HK 327 were 3.08 or 3.36 alternately so the 327 would have to work hard to outdo a 307 modified as stated especially if it had a 3.08 rear axle. I know that is only 20ci whereas the 253-308 is over 50ci but you can see the similarities to the comparison.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
 1 user thanked HK1837 for this useful post.
Smitty2 on 11/12/2021(UTC)
castellan Offline
#23 Posted : Saturday, 11 December 2021 10:29:32 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,605

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
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.
..........................


not disagreeing with any of that but a comment -
I can't work out and no-one at GMH could tell me why... the 253 was hobbled from the start with the ridiculous 2bbl/intake combo that was fitted. No performance !
plus ridiculous fuel usage was the result

Best and easiest hipo upgrade for a 253 is to put a 4bbl dual plane manifold (anything factory is ok) with a suitably jetted Quaddie.. things even use less fuel
when you do that.


The 253 V8 responded well to a single 2 1/4 free flow system or as the HQ SS dual system.
If we were to look at Net power figures we would see the reality of the torque curve and HP in reality, fitting a 4BBL on a stock 253 single exhaust would be f all difference.
It's the open system and a small Holly 350 2 BBL improves them, or a 480 CFM 4 BBL I think they are does well.
One mate had a worked 253 I think it had a 600 Holy and it did 7000rmp in 3rd gear, yes it went well but totally lacked the torque of the 308's.

I have driven a mates stock HQ 308 with stock like dual exhaust and a 2BBL Stromberg on it, went surprisingly well but for top end lacking somewhat, but still cruised at 180KM/H no problem and could do 195km/h it had 3.08 diff. Old mate would sit on 180km/h cruising late at night coming home from Bundaberg heading south. one time the cops were out sitting side of road with radar and old Peat just put the foot down flat and the carby noise started to growl.
The Torque was still their in the 308 with 2BBL Stromberg. I was doing burnouts in it and all.

I do not see any fuel economy issues with the 2BBL Stromberg.
I found the 308 better on fuel economy than the 253 at speeds over 160km/h, you could cruse at 180 with a 308 and the 253 would be flat out.
Same with the 202 The 253 is better on fuel on or over 140km/h easy.
HK1837 Offline
#24 Posted : Saturday, 11 December 2021 4:40:49 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,037

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 350 time(s) in 337 post(s)
I think you'll find a 253/4.2 responds far better to mods when it had either the single exhaust or the standard Torana dual exhaust than a 308/5.0L did.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#25 Posted : Sunday, 12 December 2021 9:51:07 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,605

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 26 time(s) in 24 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
I think you'll find a 253/4.2 responds far better to mods when it had either the single exhaust or the standard Torana dual exhaust than a 308/5.0L did.


What mods ?
The 253 needs 2 1/4 free flow or dual that was in the SS and that's the key to making them perform well or fine and the rest is just f all with a stock engine.

308's however it's all about the freer exhaust to make it perform best, oh and the air filter and then it's about the Jetting.
You need at least what was the dual HQ system for a start with a 308 or it's a total shit box of an engine, that so many complain about the 308 being so gutless.
When I got my first 308 it had dual 2in system with extractors, then I went dual 2 1/4 real free flow and loud as and it improved even more. Copes got me and all the exhaust shops ranted like you would not believe that a single 2 1/2 will make much more power than what I had, well f ing bull shit ! that killed it's performance hugely.

As to the EFI 5.0L I have seen extractors and free flow 3in and big cat go backwards in fact in performance, proven with a mate and my car stock hosed it off, but once he got it chipped it blew mine into the weeds. I am talking 3rd gear trials, so it's clear fact.
So jetting can come into it.

Just remember that a 2BBL carby CFM is not based of the same readings foundations as a 4BBL CFM. so a 2 BBL with 350CFM and a 4BBL if it was rated at 350CFM would not feed the engine as well as a 350CFM 2BBL.

When people make claims of the ZC Fairlane with 351w having a 4BBL carby and standing in awe about such, well it's only a 480CFM.

Not to mention that the 307 HK 2BBL CFM is bigger than a 2BBL Stromberg's CFM.

look at the XB 2V 302 and 2V 351 they have 351CFM 2BBL carby. so I doubt that the 480CFM 4BBL is truly any bigger really.
HK1837 Offline
#26 Posted : Sunday, 12 December 2021 10:26:37 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,037

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 350 time(s) in 337 post(s)
Because its a smaller engine and has less exhaust requirement for optimal flow. Just like the 186S engine in HK-HG had more than enough exhaust using the 307's single system, it will respond to mods better than a 307 will with the same exhaust. The 253 would show better gains than the 308 would using the same single system. Yes it is still restricted but not as much as a 307 or 308. Simple maths.

The SS's system was the same exhaust that was optional on all other HQ V8 sedan or coupe, it just happened to be part of the XV2 package.

Quadrajet is the way to go with a 253, just needs to be setup right in the primaries, secondaries aren't as important - GM use the same Quadrajet with the identical tune across 250hp 327, 255hp 350, 275hp 327, 295hp 350 and 300hp 350. They all vary in compression from 8.5:1 through to 10.25:1 and all use the same camshaft. The distributors were all different though. A really good starting point for a sweet 253 is the HX or HZ engine with the dome top pistons that gave it 9.4:1 compression (or aftermarket replacements). Standard HT-HJ heads with a HT-HJ 4BBL intake, or WB-VK heads with the matching intake, or any HT-VK heads with aftermarket intake. Decent cam with 0-2deg advance dial in, lifters and springs to match. HEI dizzy. XT5 4.2 Quadrajet rebuilt properly and a performance air cleaner. Decent exhaust. Or get even more modern and fit a Holley Sniper Quadrajet with the matching Hyperspark dizzy and HEI coil. I'd run exhaust manifolds to eliminate stupid noises. Will be a sweet little engine in a lighter car. Same applies to a 283 or even a 307, in a light car like a HK-HQ (remember a V8 HK-HQ only weighs about 1400kg, and LH-LX about 1300kg with a 4.2, if you use alloy intake and water pump on a SBC not much more.

I don't think the HK 2-jet flows more than a WW Stromberg. They are pretty much the same throat size and they are the same base - I used to run a WW Stromberg on a 283/302 in my MQ Patrol, using a HK 307 intake on it. Carby is a straight bolt on. GM used the same carby as the HK on the standard Camaro V8 in 1967-8. It was a 327 rated at 210hp. The identical engine with the bigger 2BBL was 235hp. and again the identical engine with a Quadrajet was 240hp in 1967 and 250hp in 1968 (heads changed in 1968 to 69cc raising compression to 9:1 fro 8.75:1 in 1967). So it shows that the little HK 2BBL was a big restriction.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#27 Posted : Monday, 13 December 2021 11:01:26 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,605

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 26 time(s) in 24 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Because its a smaller engine and has less exhaust requirement for optimal flow. Just like the 186S engine in HK-HG had more than enough exhaust using the 307's single system, it will respond to mods better than a 307 will with the same exhaust. The 253 would show better gains than the 308 would using the same single system. Yes it is still restricted but not as much as a 307 or 308. Simple maths.

The SS's system was the same exhaust that was optional on all other HQ V8 sedan or coupe, it just happened to be part of the XV2 package.

Quadrajet is the way to go with a 253, just needs to be setup right in the primaries, secondaries aren't as important - GM use the same Quadrajet with the identical tune across 250hp 327, 255hp 350, 275hp 327, 295hp 350 and 300hp 350. They all vary in compression from 8.5:1 through to 10.25:1 and all use the same camshaft. The distributors were all different though. A really good starting point for a sweet 253 is the HX or HZ engine with the dome top pistons that gave it 9.4:1 compression (or aftermarket replacements). Standard HT-HJ heads with a HT-HJ 4BBL intake, or WB-VK heads with the matching intake, or any HT-VK heads with aftermarket intake. Decent cam with 0-2deg advance dial in, lifters and springs to match. HEI dizzy. XT5 4.2 Quadrajet rebuilt properly and a performance air cleaner. Decent exhaust. Or get even more modern and fit a Holley Sniper Quadrajet with the matching Hyperspark dizzy and HEI coil. I'd run exhaust manifolds to eliminate stupid noises. Will be a sweet little engine in a lighter car. Same applies to a 283 or even a 307, in a light car like a HK-HQ (remember a V8 HK-HQ only weighs about 1400kg, and LH-LX about 1300kg with a 4.2, if you use alloy intake and water pump on a SBC not much more.

I don't think the HK 2-jet flows more than a WW Stromberg. They are pretty much the same throat size and they are the same base - I used to run a WW Stromberg on a 283/302 in my MQ Patrol, using a HK 307 intake on it. Carby is a straight bolt on. GM used the same carby as the HK on the standard Camaro V8 in 1967-8. It was a 327 rated at 210hp. The identical engine with the bigger 2BBL was 235hp. and again the identical engine with a Quadrajet was 240hp in 1967 and 250hp in 1968 (heads changed in 1968 to 69cc raising compression to 9:1 fro 8.75:1 in 1967). So it shows that the little HK 2BBL was a big restriction.


Simple maths yes but then again their is more to it, as to the flow of the carby fed V8 heads the 253 flow real well on the exhaust, so you do not make the valve bigger or you will loose performance on a stock 253. So different story with the 308 on that point and this makes a bit of difference, so even if you worked out the flow rating to equal what is best with a 253 to a 308 you still have that difference, the 308 regardless loves to be un restricted but the 253 not so much so.
Just like with chev V8 the exhaust ports are not designed as well as the Holden and the 302 Windsor heads exhaust ports at the time are shit compared with a Holden. That's why they put Cleveland heads on Windsor 302 and even the Cleveland heads exhaust are shit designed to a Holden.

If we want to talk about EFI 5.0L heads well if they did have a 4.2L EFI they would have to use different heads, as the EFI heads flow to much for a 4.2L to perform best in a stock form. they would of had to make smaller ports and smaller valves, to make the 253 perform from right down in the rev range and up.

Most people only talk about max HP but such talk is just shit tossing on and nothing to do with practical reality over all.

I remember that the 307 2BBL is a bigger CFM than the 253 Stromberg. I think the 253 is about 280CFM and the other around 320CFM I think of the top. I have it written down some were.

As to your point about any intake on HT to VK is total BS, one should look out for crap intakes that flow to much, I have seen such with a open,that's not a two plain, being total shit on a worked 308 only a moron would use such on a street driven car.
You try and get away with the smallest intake system that you can get away with and never something that's to big on a street driven car. a little smaller is better than too big. because it's not all about top end.

If you look to 2 stroke MX bikes before reed valves and then come the 1975 with the Suzuki RM125n to the RM125s it's clear, big ports are shit, yes the power up top is their but with the RM125a and RM125b if you have ever ridden them you can see why chasing max HP was just shit in reality, so with the B we got more performance through the range that made better times and much easy to ride than a S.
Nowadays people would not have the balls to ride an S because it was so savage, you had all out power or nothing, it was like riding a scrub bull.

Drive a XW GT-HO same thing and then they tamed that down with the XY GT-HO by using a smaller lift camshaft and the XA GT-HO was going to have a smaller camshaft grind again and able to run a 3.0:1 diff. You can not run a XW or XY GT-HO Camshaft with 3.0:1 diff. you can hardly drive a GT-HO P2 P3 on the street for a start, A grandmother could not even get such off the line and if she did maybe wrap it around a tree.

So it's not all about the bigger intake or bigger valves or most compression or biggest exhaust at all or 0.060 over bore, that crap is for wood ducks.

If I were to build a healthy like near stock 202 from when we only had unleaded 91 octane or when 95 got too expensive for most people, the highest compression you could run would be about 8.8:1 max. with the stock cam 8.6:1 max to be safe.
HK1837 Offline
#28 Posted : Monday, 13 December 2021 11:28:03 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,037

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 350 time(s) in 337 post(s)
Read it again. Where did I say ANY intake. I said ANY HT-VK heads with aftermarket intake, meaning the KC copy of the stock XT5 intake that is designed for any of the carby heads.

Yes, if GMH had designed an EFI 4.2 they would have used different heads, that is logical. GM always did that and GMH would be no different. They would have had smaller ports, valves and possibly chambers too. It would have been a lot cheaper for GMH to do this rather than switch to the V6, I bet it was the I’ll-fated dalliance with the Nissan engines that stopped it from ever happening.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#29 Posted : Monday, 13 December 2021 7:39:41 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,605

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 26 time(s) in 24 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Read it again. Where did I say ANY intake. I said ANY HT-VK heads with aftermarket intake, meaning the KC copy of the stock XT5 intake that is designed for any of the carby heads.

Yes, if GMH had designed an EFI 4.2 they would have used different heads, that is logical. GM always did that and GMH would be no different. They would have had smaller ports, valves and possibly chambers too. It would have been a lot cheaper for GMH to do this rather than switch to the V6, I bet it was the I’ll-fated dalliance with the Nissan engines that stopped it from ever happening.


Do you think the 4.2L V8 would of been a better option than the V6 ?

Well I never liked the VN-P-R V6 due to it being a chaffcutter, but then again it was a good performing thing. not to mention it too on the role of the 6 cyl market.

After the Holden 202 being the number one selling Holden and then we got the 3.0L for the call and then the V6 3.6L took that on and Holden explained all that being a better option on fuel ect ect, so the 4.2L V8 would not of cut that call, yes the 3.9L and 4.0L Falcon is about, but we know that they use more fuel than the V6.
HK1837 Offline
#30 Posted : Monday, 13 December 2021 8:17:36 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,037

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 350 time(s) in 337 post(s)
I really liked the injected 5.0L, my mate’s WB cab-chassis had a 180kW VP in it with a Muncie and 3.36. It was a really nice balance of power and economy but probably too much go for a work ute. A 4.2L version with appropriate mods of the heads for the smaller size would have been a good little workhorse engine in a 90’s version of a W size, especially a roller cam version. It would only have been around 22ci bigger than the original 3.8L V6 which is basically the difference between a 179 and a 202. GMH could have easily made it smaller by a small drop in bore size if they’d wanted it below 4.0L. All I’m saying is it surely would have been cheaper than changing to a whole new engine given all the development was done for the 5.0L anyway. Imagine a modernised W size commercial with a 140kW DIN 4.2L EFI engine with a 5spd manual or 4spd auto (with bench seat and column shift if desired), disc brake Borg Warner rear axle, more comfortable seats, air and steer, returning near 30mpg highway. I’d still have optioned the 5.0L version but I’d still have been happy with the 4.2.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#31 Posted : Tuesday, 14 December 2021 8:17:08 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,605

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 26 time(s) in 24 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
I really liked the injected 5.0L, my mate’s WB cab-chassis had a 180kW VP in it with a Muncie and 3.36. It was a really nice balance of power and economy but probably too much go for a work ute. A 4.2L version with appropriate mods of the heads for the smaller size would have been a good little workhorse engine in a 90’s version of a W size, especially a roller cam version. It would only have been around 22ci bigger than the original 3.8L V6 which is basically the difference between a 179 and a 202. GMH could have easily made it smaller by a small drop in bore size if they’d wanted it below 4.0L. All I’m saying is it surely would have been cheaper than changing to a whole new engine given all the development was done for the 5.0L anyway. Imagine a modernised W size commercial with a 140kW DIN 4.2L EFI engine with a 5spd manual or 4spd auto (with bench seat and column shift if desired), disc brake Borg Warner rear axle, more comfortable seats, air and steer, returning near 30mpg highway. I’d still have optioned the 5.0L version but I’d still have been happy with the 4.2.


Sure.

I owned both a new XG Falcon ute 4.0L and the first VS V6 at the same time both 5sp and I liked the XG much better than the VS V6 to drive over all, tho I liked the interior of the VS as she had more room but the seats were shit in the 1st VS, the 3.8L was better on fuel. but the XG handled far better than the VS as the VS was totally shit understeering pig and then would snap into a wild oversteer, just totally spastic handling car. The XG never understeered at all and was controllable oversteer and the shocks were ok, but the VS was shit shocks, so I had to do all the springs and shocks and put 1.6 deg neg camber to transform the car so I could drive it, Ok the VS brakes were good but the XG were shit due to fade, crap pads.
Then I got a new V8 VS 179KW 5sp and well I had to do the suspension again but with 1.4 neg camber all was fine, but as for the 5.0L such is a far better thing to drive than the 3.6L or 4.0L. but I had to run it on 95 octane on hot days of if I got up it, but them days 95 was only 2c more a litre.

I was impressed by the performance of the 4.0L and 3.6L in the day, as you needed a good stock 5.8L to keep with them performance wise hooking in. not to mention the XG could do 210KM/H speed limited mine was, and the 3.6L could do 218KM/H both manual and auto. when the Falcon ED came out they were all speed limited to 180KM/H, so them XG built from the ED on are 180KM/H limited as well.

I do not like the roller camshafts in that they lack real low down torque off the line over a flat bottom lifter does, 500rpm to 1000rpm I believe.

The 5.7L Gen 3 have plastic lifter buckets and they are shit as they can crack and also the lifter shags them out and then you have a shagged camshaft and then the rest of the engine is shagged as well. not to mention all the problems people had had with roller lifters Ford Windsor V8, not with the Holden V6 that I know of.
HK1837 Offline
#32 Posted : Tuesday, 14 December 2021 10:11:21 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,037

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 350 time(s) in 337 post(s)
I had the last of the VS, it was a V6 manual S delivered on Xmas Eve 2000. It was the second last manual VS left for sale in the country at the time, the other was a black S but in WA, mine was white and in Vic. If the white one wasn't available I wouldn't have bought the black one, I probably would have bought an auto. It was a decent tow car although it could only legally tow 1600kg maximum, it still towed pretty well. On highway use it regularly exceeded 30mpg - I used to see 9.5L/100km out of it. It was a good car, under-powered for my liking but there were no V8 left by that stage. I traded it on a new VY SS manual which was delivered in May 2003, it was great to drive but useless as a tow car. I sold it under 15,000kM as it couldn't tow anything, engine was fine it was the gearbox ratios, the independent rear suspension and the clutch that were no good. Replaced it with a HZ Overlander cab-chassis then a Cross8 a few years later as the 308 in the HZ was not powerful enough to tow running 17" 4WD tyres, it needed a 350 or bigger.

I run my Hilux on 98, it really needs it and now Costco is near me it is pretty cheap in comparison. Normally it is $1.60 a litre which is cheaper than E10 everywhere else. It doesn't really like 95 even though I have a switch to take timing out of the tune for situations when I can't get 98. It will run OK on E10 though, the 94 Octane E10 must work better with the supercharged V6 than 95 does, that or the 95 is garbage that I have used. It can't run on 91, that stuff is junk. When I'm travelling and can't buy at Costco, 98 is between $1.80 and $2.00 a litre, so I just use E10 and take timing out of it. I sometimes take 20L of Costco 98 with me (which is Mobil fuel, same as 7-11 both seem to work good with a supercharged Hilux) and mix it with E10 when I put it in, especially when towing a heavy trailer. I'm not sure what the Ram will run on, will see. I don't think at this stage I'll supercharge it but I'll see.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#33 Posted : Wednesday, 15 December 2021 8:44:53 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,605

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 26 time(s) in 24 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
I had the last of the VS, it was a V6 manual S delivered on Xmas Eve 2000. It was the second last manual VS left for sale in the country at the time, the other was a black S but in WA, mine was white and in Vic. If the white one wasn't available I wouldn't have bought the black one, I probably would have bought an auto. It was a decent tow car although it could only legally tow 1600kg maximum, it still towed pretty well. On highway use it regularly exceeded 30mpg - I used to see 9.5L/100km out of it. It was a good car, under-powered for my liking but there were no V8 left by that stage. I traded it on a new VY SS manual which was delivered in May 2003, it was great to drive but useless as a tow car. I sold it under 15,000kM as it couldn't tow anything, engine was fine it was the gearbox ratios, the independent rear suspension and the clutch that were no good. Replaced it with a HZ Overlander cab-chassis then a Cross8 a few years later as the 308 in the HZ was not powerful enough to tow running 17" 4WD tyres, it needed a 350 or bigger.

I run my Hilux on 98, it really needs it and now Costco is near me it is pretty cheap in comparison. Normally it is $1.60 a litre which is cheaper than E10 everywhere else. It doesn't really like 95 even though I have a switch to take timing out of the tune for situations when I can't get 98. It will run OK on E10 though, the 94 Octane E10 must work better with the supercharged V6 than 95 does, that or the 95 is garbage that I have used. It can't run on 91, that stuff is junk. When I'm travelling and can't buy at Costco, 98 is between $1.80 and $2.00 a litre, so I just use E10 and take timing out of it. I sometimes take 20L of Costco 98 with me (which is Mobil fuel, same as 7-11 both seem to work good with a supercharged Hilux) and mix it with E10 when I put it in, especially when towing a heavy trailer. I'm not sure what the Ram will run on, will see. I don't think at this stage I'll supercharge it but I'll see.


The SER 2 VS V6 got the getrag 5sp box and I think they had a lower 1st gear.

I got a new VY SS 6sp ute in Jun 2003, built in June as well. I did not tow with it, yep 1st gear is very high on them and the clutch was very grabby from new but that got or worked better later on. my builder mate got a VY SS 6sp ute in Dec 2002 I think and towed a huge trailer and he put a 3.9:1 diff in it and he was happy with that ratio. then he bought a VZ SS 6sp ute Dec 2004 built and thought because the VZ SS 6sp sedan's got the 2.73:1 diff, that the SS 6sp ute came with the 3.73:1 as well, but they did not ! The VZ SS 6sp came with the high 3.46:1 and he went ballistic ! What the f ing hell did they do such to the ute pulling his hair out, It's the ute that needs the lower gearing if any thing, so he thought that he could of got away with the 3.73:1 gearing but he had to change the ratio now, so he went for the 3.9:1 again.

Costco fuel is Caltex, Well I never use Caltex petrol as I found out it's shit. It took me a few years to find this out but I worked it out and proved it. I can hear when a car runs on such fuel, now I can pick up on it as their is a distinctive noise when you are up it, not to mention the smell is rotten eggs. over the last few years it has gotten better than what it once was. The Caltex E10 94 is ok but 91, 95, 98 are what I avoid.
I run Shell E10 94 In my car and 95 is the best performing by far but to expensive, so 94 E10 has to do as it's fine, 98 Octane I thought would be the best but it's clearly not in my car. and it has a 10.5:1 compression ratio. it says to run 91 in it but come on ! no way ! the performance on 91 is shit. They only put that crap about running 91 so they can sell the cars, because no one wants to fork out for 95. not to mention new cars from say 1995 on were not designed to run on 91, they can because the computer retards the spark timing, but that undermines your performance and economy.

That 1996 VS V6 auto my wife had would always ping on Caltex 91, I would got to over take on the highway and it would kick back to 2ed and rattle rattle instantly and then disappear and rattle from 5000rpm to 5500 every time for years, as she used Caltex fuel, but I would fill it up with Shell 91 or BP and then never ever a ping ever.

That other noise that I hear with Caltex is maybe an ping but one that has not quite become a ping that people can clearly hear. it sounds like a muffled burbling noise, but you have to have an ear for it to pick it up. it took me years to detect such, but I thought that petrol was all the same before hand.

My VS V6 could not go over 205KM/H on 91 Caltex but would do 218KM/H on BP or Shell 91.
Smitty2 Offline
#34 Posted : Wednesday, 15 December 2021 8:55:31 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: castellan Go to Quoted Post
..................

I was impressed by the performance of the 4.0L and 3.6L in the day, as you needed a good stock 5.8L to keep with them performance wise hooking in. not to mention the XG could do 210KM/H speed limited mine was, and the 3.6L could do 218KM/H both manual and auto. when the Falcon ED came out they were all speed limited to 180KM/H, so them XG built from the ED on are 180KM/H limited as well.


Fords with speed limiters?
they were speed limited as they had a very expensive (and dangerous) habit of throwing their tailshafts out into passing traffic at high speed!

Club circuit racing...the best fun you can have with your pants on
castellan Offline
#35 Posted : Thursday, 16 December 2021 10:32:03 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,605

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 26 time(s) in 24 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Smitty2 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
..................

I was impressed by the performance of the 4.0L and 3.6L in the day, as you needed a good stock 5.8L to keep with them performance wise hooking in. not to mention the XG could do 210KM/H speed limited mine was, and the 3.6L could do 218KM/H both manual and auto. when the Falcon ED came out they were all speed limited to 180KM/H, so them XG built from the ED on are 180KM/H limited as well.


Fords with speed limiters?
they were speed limited as they had a very expensive (and dangerous) habit of throwing their tailshafts out into passing traffic at high speed!



What is the lowest diff ratio in a EA on be it a 4sp auto or 5sp manual Ford 3,23 diff ratios or in the case of mine a HD 3.27 in the XG.

So it's has to do with how fast that tail shaft is spinning and is it up to it ?

Well a XF 4.1L may of ran a 3.23 2.92 2.77 2,53 ?

So with the EA 3.9L 5sp they could do 215KM/H with a 2.92 or was it a 3.08 about some time after then. so that speed with such a shaft is what we is looking at, is it up to it ?
Well mine did a lot of work on the limiter 210KM/H and I even asked why at the dealer and they did not have a clue at all that they were speed limited, they thought it was the fuel filter full of crap ?
I never had a problem with the shaft at all in 2 years and over 100.000km

Sure the Commodores all have 2 shorter shafts. and the longer the shaft adds to flex and the digger diameter should be better strength at high speed, some of them Fords did get a alloy shaft that was wider in XR6 and XR8 utes and they were speed limited higher. 230KM/H I think max.
So it must of had to do with cheap product values as to why the 180KM/H limited.

Now a mate of mine bought a XG ute after he seen how good mine went, put his order in that day for a new one. but his was speed limited to 180 and he went off his rocker and got it removed, under warranty they replace his tail shaft but they found his recite that the limiter was removed in the glove box and charged him for the shaft. Applause but the reason why the shaft was buggered he said, was from him doing figure 8's out front his work showing off to the boys. after that she got the vibration he said.
Now his XG engine was smoother then mine as it was made when the ED Falcon came out and they have a better crankshaft I believe, so the XG from then on must of got that crankshaft as well.

Now my VY SS 6SP was speed limited as well to 210KM/H and I had that removed and had no problems at all and I had it up to 255KM/H.
That mate of min with his VY SS 6sp ute with 3.9:1 diff would drive up to 275KM/H as his was supped up as well and he flogged out the rubbers in the shaft ends. now I do not believe that he could get it out to 275KM/H maybe the speedo said that ? but from 210KM/H on my stock could flog his SS easy as, and he would just back off in the end and give up trying as we hit a straight. I worked it out that his gearing in 5th was too low to take me on from 210 and his 6th was far to high to do anything.
Premier 350 Offline
#36 Posted : Thursday, 30 December 2021 11:58:27 PM(UTC)
Premier 350

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 548
Man
Australia
Location: On a build over WWII airfield. Got the .50 cal cases from my driveway to prove it

Thanks: 25 times
Was thanked: 6 time(s) in 6 post(s)


Fords with speed limiters?
they were speed limited as they had a very expensive (and dangerous) habit of throwing their tailshafts out into passing traffic at high speed!

[/quote]

That was funny as. Highway Patrol (uniformed tax collectors) in their "pursuit" Falcons watching V6 Camrys pull away from them.
Attn camry drivers. The accelerator is the skinny pedal on the right.
Dr Terry Offline
#37 Posted : Friday, 31 December 2021 6:00:30 PM(UTC)
Dr Terry

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 5,861

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 148 time(s) in 137 post(s)
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
Now a mate of mine bought a XG ute after he seen how good mine went, put his order in that day for a new one. but his was speed limited to 180 and he went off his rocker and got it removed, under warranty they replace his tail shaft but they found his recite that the limiter was removed in the glove box and charged him for the shaft. Applause


Shear genuis !!

Reminds of a story from many years ago. A friend of mine had a workshop a few suburbs from ours.

He fitted a very expensive "performance" clutch kit to an early Brock Commodore. He completed the job and the customer picked up the car on Friday afternoon. He returned on Monday morning, very unhappy wanting a new clutch under warranty.

What the customer should've done was to remove his drag racing time cards from the centre console. Woops !!

Dr Terry
If at first you don't succeed, just call it Version 1.0
 1 user thanked Dr Terry for this useful post.
Premier 350 on 5/01/2022(UTC)
DaveEH Offline
#38 Posted : Sunday, 2 January 2022 6:02:31 PM(UTC)
DaveEH

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 13/07/2014(UTC)
Posts: 14

[quote=Smitty2;183573

Fords with speed limiters?
they were speed limited as they had a very expensive (and dangerous) habit of throwing their tailshafts out into passing traffic at high speed!

Yep, I was a Ford mechanic at the time and from memory it was the EA wagons that broke the rear uni over 180kph, cars would get towed in with the now L-shaped tailshaft chucked in the back.
A drag racer who owned a speed shop in Murray Bridge was heading home from Adelaide on the freeway when it let go. He said the rear of the tailshaft dug into the asphalt and lifted the back wheels off the ground (at 180kph!). Fortunately he'd had it happen before in his race car so he could cope with it!
The fix was a recall to fit an aluminum tailshaft with a beefier rear flange from Ford, but they also sent a new diff for each car because the diff flange was different and we couldn't just change the pinion yolk flange without messing up the pinion preload. Interesting days!



castellan Offline
#39 Posted : Thursday, 6 January 2022 12:27:07 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,605

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 26 time(s) in 24 post(s)
Originally Posted by: DaveEH Go to Quoted Post
[quote=Smitty2;183573

Fords with speed limiters?
they were speed limited as they had a very expensive (and dangerous) habit of throwing their tailshafts out into passing traffic at high speed!

Yep, I was a Ford mechanic at the time and from memory it was the EA wagons that broke the rear uni over 180kph, cars would get towed in with the now L-shaped tailshaft chucked in the back.
A drag racer who owned a speed shop in Murray Bridge was heading home from Adelaide on the freeway when it let go. He said the rear of the tailshaft dug into the asphalt and lifted the back wheels off the ground (at 180kph!). Fortunately he'd had it happen before in his race car so he could cope with it!
The fix was a recall to fit an aluminum tailshaft with a beefier rear flange from Ford, but they also sent a new diff for each car because the diff flange was different and we couldn't just change the pinion yolk flange without messing up the pinion preload. Interesting days!





Broke a rear uni ? what rev would the tailshaft be doing at 180KM/H I wonder 2.92 diff and 14in wheels or 15in.
I can not believe that the uni could be the problem. unless it was worn out.

How could a tailshaft that lets go at the rear be the problem digging in.

I thought that the tailshaft bend in the middle because the forces their are the longest and the shaft gets a wobble up, maybe more heat over the distance driven as well and a bump in the road sets it off, but one should know that something is up beforehand with a vibration before hand. maybe it was compromised before hand doing drag racing burnouts etc abuse.

I have seen tailshaft busted in a mates brothers stock 173 HQ Holden 3 sp manual, back in 1980 he would go out on a big hill and let it roll back a bit and then into it. so even a gutless 173 can hammer a tailshaft if abused. yep bent in the middle and twisted.

Now I had a problem back in 1982 with my stock 202 HQ 3sp manual, I had just bought it 64.000 miles up and went to Brisbane from Bundaberg and the bastard vibration from the tailshaft was shocking it had been RACQ tested and I seen him grab the shaft so all good front and back uni's so I had to sit over 90mph as then she was smooth as, the vibration cut out 90 to 100mph. down and back.
Got home and tried to pull the shaft out and no way ! the Yoke would not come out, so I got a car and pulled it out with that ? looked it over and pulled the front uni out all fine only dry and rusty, so in with a new uni and bit of oil down the spline of the yoke and all good.

Another thing is if one pulls out the tailshaft you should mark it and put it back in the way it came out, as sometimes you can have a shaft that vibrates and turning it about can stop the vibration, so what if a clown pules out a shaft ? and pays little attention to what they doing does up the U bolts wrong too much torque or not enough on the nuts, just do up one side of the U bolt real smart or the shaft has been out a number of times and the U bolts are flogged out and some have a tag that you bend over so if the nut were to go loose, has been tossed, so what ever ? I have seen people who cut corners with many things that it's f ing shocking. That's why I never let anyone touch my cars ever.
Users browsing this topic
Guest (4)
2 Pages<12
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 0.696 seconds.