Not sure about "the best", probably the most successful, and most revered (perhaps this does equate the best?). I think there have been a few others that were close to as talented as Brock like Ian Geoghegan, Bruce McPhee and Jim Richards just to name a few. The planets never aligned for them like they did for Brock though, and Brock being the man he was, ie had time for everyone also helped to build the legend. Have a look at Geoghegan's career in the attached link as an example, most of it a decade earlier to Brock.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Geoghegan

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robbo
Allan Moffat would have won Bathurst in 69, except for the fact he was ordered to pit, to change tyres that didn't need changing. His tyre's were fine, because he knew how to drive the car, unlike many other's whose tyre's kept blowing out.

---

A big no on this theory. Firth was the unchallenged master of the Bathurst race. The only time he or his cars didn't win was due to a failure beyond his control (holed radiator 1968, valvetrain 1970, mechanical 1971, fuel 1973, fuel 1974 and so on). Firth knew exactly what it took to win and when he won his cars could then keep going for an eternity. To finish first, first you must finish and at the fall of the flag you only needed to be in front. You don't need to be laps ahead to win. Firth knew exactly how far ahead of the competition he needed to be 1969 to ensure he could rub Fords noses in it to prove a point. If Moffat had appeared as a threat, then the Monaros would have simply quickened the pace. They were loafing along most of the time running lap times that ensured them of victory at the 130 lap mark.

People should really take off those rose coloured glasses. There was no way Ford could have won that race. Period.

quote:

---

Originally posted by D. A. Barnes

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robbo
Allan Moffat would have won Bathurst in 69, except for the fact he was ordered to pit, to change tyres that didn't need changing. His tyre's were fine, because he knew how to drive the car, unlike many other's whose tyre's kept blowing out.

---

A big no on this theory. Firth was the unchallenged master of the Bathurst race. The only time he or his cars didn't win was due to a failure beyond his control (holed radiator 1968, valvetrain 1970, mechanical 1971, fuel 1973, fuel 1974 and so on). Firth knew exactly what it took to win and when he won his cars could then keep going for an eternity. To finish first, first you must finish and at the fall of the flag you only needed to be in front. You don't need to be laps ahead to win. Firth knew exactly how far ahead of the competition he needed to be 1969 to ensure he could rub Fords noses in it to prove a point. If Moffat had appeared as a threat, then the Monaros would have simply quickened the pace. They were loafing along most of the time running lap times that ensured them of victory at the 130 lap mark.

People should really take off those rose coloured glasses. There was no way Ford could have won that race. Period.

---

Is a XT GT quicker than a HK GTS 327.
Do the XW GT-HO perform quicker "with the windsor" ? than a HT GTS 350.
Or the XW-GT-HO P2 vs HT GTS 350 ?
XY GT-HO P3 vs HG GTS 350 ?
I would say the Fords were all faster on take off and all the way to top speed, from the show room floor, and the Phase 2 and P3 just kill any GTS Monaro.
One thing i would say is the Falcon rear spring set up is not as good as the monaro's but the Falcon front end is better than the HK-T-G.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr Terry

quote:

---

Originally posted by castellan
Is a XT GT quicker than a HK GTS 327.
Do the XW GT-HO perform quicker "with the windsor" ? than a HT GTS 350.
Or the XW-GT-HO P2 vs HT GTS 350 ?
XY GT-HO P3 vs HG GTS 350 ?
I would say the Fords were all faster on take off and all the way to top speed, from the show room floor, and the Phase 2 and P3 just kill any GTS Monaro.
One thing i would say is the Falcon rear spring set up is not as good as the monaro's but the Falcon front end is better than the HK-T-G.

---

A few too many generalisations there !!

I think even the Ford boys would agree that an HK GTS 327 out-performs an XT GT.

I do not believe that there was a great difference in performance between a Windsor GT-HO & an HT GTS 350.

A Phase 2 GT-HO would have an advantage over an HT GTS 350, however they didn't face each other at Bathurst.

Phase 3 GT-HO against HG GTS 350, again they never raced against each other, but I would read the AMC article re: the HG GTS 350, before jumping to too many conclusions.

I don't the Ford's rear spring set-up was a problem, or any better or worse than the Monaros' for that matter. I think it was more the issue of having 36 gallons of fuel sitting near the rear bumper. Not very good weight distribution ! The Monaros' fuel tank location above the rear axle was much better.

Front suspension better on the Ford ??? Hmm. Both were quite primitive, by comparison with more modern set-ups, but I think the main difference was that the Ford had better front brakes. They were ventilated & had a larger pad area.

Dr Terry

---

You may be right about the XT GT but there is not much between them at all.
Your right with the windsor HO an the 350 GTS.
I have that AMC rag and he goes on with some prejudice gibberish nonsense
The Holden HT-G Monaro's 350 do not have the power of a Phase 2 or 3 at all, just listen to the motor, a 350 does not have a big cam at all or carby like the HO.
I dread how all the XR to XD Falcon rear spring geometry it's rubbish, look at the Holden HK-T-G it is better and the HQ to WB leaf spring is much better.
If you like a under steering front end, one may think the HK-T-G something.

You have to admit the GTS manual 350 motor, be it a HT HG is only in the league of a GT and not in the league a GT-HO P2 P3 at all, and that's a fact and only a fool would say it was. anyone with mechanical aptitude knows the P2 P3 have a great big solid lifter cam.
So on this one point being the engine no Holden was that radical, and the AMC veered off this one fact. and the AMC goes on about all the mods to the GTS being more, yes ! but it does not change the fact that the P2 P3 was a higher HP engine. you had to go to the USA to see a Chev production motor worthy of a P2 P3.
And i am not talking about the race track or Bathurst but what one could drive out of the show room floor new, and say let see how they go down the 3 mile straight. P2 P3 win end of story.
I am happey to go on about about all the rest to HK1837 if you want.

I had a std 308 and beat a worked 400 chev over the 400M but at 402M he near blew me of the road. and i know Tirth is right about Bathurst it's not all about HP.

Ah hair splitting really.
The only true test would be to run the same driver in all cars over the same distance.
A good driver will overcome a cars shortfalls to an extent anyhow. Brock was good at this. He was also good at overcoming adverse wheather conditions. If you have the fastest car but won't have a go in the wet then you don't win.

quote:

---

Originally posted by castellan
Is a XT GT quicker than a HK GTS 327.
Do the XW GT-HO perform quicker "with the windsor" ? than a HT GTS 350.
Or the XW-GT-HO P2 vs HT GTS 350 ?
XY GT-HO P3 vs HG GTS 350 ?
I would say the Fords were all faster on take off and all the way to top speed, from the show room floor, and the Phase 2 and P3 just kill any GTS Monaro.
One thing i would say is the Falcon rear spring set up is not as good as the monaro's but the Falcon front end is better than the HK-T-G.

---

1968 Bathurst had XT GT nowhere. First Ford to cross the line was an XR. GTS 327 superior to XT GT on road.

1969 Bathurst had GT-HO beaten by GTS 350.

1970 Bathurst had GT-HO only one lap ahead at race end which was a longer race time than 1969. Fastest lap was Torana (Bond) running same time as GTS 350 previous year (2.54) whilst leading first 5 laps of race. Brock's car had valve problems due to Morris over-revving engine on down change at end of Conrod. If GTS 350 used by HDT who knows how much in front the Monaros would have been over the GT-HO??

1971 Bathurst had mighty GT-HO Phase III only one lap ahead at race end over Torana. Should have been 10 laps in front if it was so fast?? 8 cars on Lap 129 included 3 Toranas and 1 Charger. HDT cars both pitted for mechanical problems during race. Brock was only 1 lap down on Moffat when he had to pit for a leaking fuel tank. Who knows what might have been??

1972 Bathurst had Torana one lap ahead of the mighty GT-HO Phase III at race end. Brock is God!!

1973 Bathurst had Brock in front by a clear margin when car ran out of fuel. Almost won by chasing Moffat but not enough laps to do it in.

1974 Bathurst had Brock 6+ laps in front at lap 118 when engine leaned out due to driving car slower than designed. Would have won by more than 10 laps if kept pedal to metal as planned.

1975 Bathurst had Brock win by 2 laps.

1979 Bathurst was Brock showing Moffat how to win convincingly.

One important fact is that the HG GTS 350 was out of production just as the Ford XY started production. When Phase III released, magazines noted that the GTS 350 was almost as quick as a Phase III - the ultimate evolution of Ford's Bathurst car. Not bad for a regular production model against a full-on race car. Need to compare cars from same time period so HT GTS 350 against Phase I, HG GTS 350 against Phase II. Brock in an HG GTS 350 at Bathurst in 1970 would have made mince meat of Moffat and any other Phase II. It's all in the great race history.

Easy one, they were made to race, primarily at Bathurst. That is the whole reason for the existance of the GT-HO and the HK-HT GTS327 and GTS350.

That too, but their no.1 purpose was to win races. The fact ordinary people could buy one was a means to an end.

Anyhow, enough about which car had the best spring hangers, Brock managed to stay competitive long after those cars were not.