Rank: Veteran
Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,641
Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 27 time(s) in 25 post(s)
|
quote:
Originally posted by HK1837
quote:
Originally posted by castellan
Just think if we had to put up with that 230 or 250 chev 6 cyl junk heap in a Holden.
Holden were on the ball.
The 250 and 250HO were used in South African HK-HJ. Sold alongside Holden 6cyl, Holden V8 and Chevrolet V8. Weird hey?
I love there old HR 194 chev 6 in the HR special and only the HR premier got our 186.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,641
Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 27 time(s) in 25 post(s)
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Terry
quote:
Originally posted by castellan
Only Aussies made the 302 Cleveland and the reason why we had to put up with making a 302C is because it would cost to much to have two block casting with one being 302 Windsor and a Cleveland 351 like it should of been. so they came up with the 302C as the answer.
I know that one only too well. In reality there is no such thing as a 302 Windsor. The only true 'Windsor' is the 351 Windsor. The original 221, 260, 289 & 302 family are Small Block Ford V8s, with the only orphan variant being the Boss 302 with its 'Cleveland style' heads. The only reason that the name 302 Windsor came into the Aussie lingo was that Australia only built the 302 Cleveland as bit of an orphan, so that as you say we could use the one block for both engines. If you went into a US parts shop in the 70s & ask for parts for a 302 Windsor they would think you were from another planet.
Having said that even the Yanks now use this term for their later EFI 302 engines.
quote:
Originally posted by castellan
Our 6 cly from the XY on was a bit of a cost cutting job as well because the USA 200 block is just like our XR 200 block but there 250 is bigger than our 250 and we made something in between so we could use the one block for both the 200 and 250.
You make this sound like bad thing. This is Aussie ingenuity at it best, make one block serve 2 engines & make other improvements like those made to the water jackets while you're at it.
I firmly believe that Ford Aust made better 6-cyl engines than Ford USA.
Dr Terry
Yes the yank would as they would not know of our 302 Cleveland. As to your comment on our aussie 6 being better than the yanks, yes we got the X flow and all. But all our engines up to XR 200 is there engine and the 221 is ours and south Americas baby. Our XY on 200 is rubbish as the rods are to long to be a real good performing engine, if it was the block deck height of the old XR type it would of been a good engine with X flow heads as to maybe even give some reputation of performance like the holden 202 XU-1 ability's. The cost cutting is not the best thing but only a compromise thing, the 302C is not in the holden 308's league because the 302C rods were to long and the engine to heavy. You never hear of 302C racing do you, because they are no good, the 302W is a good race engine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Moderator, Registered
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 6,058
Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 203 time(s) in 184 post(s)
|
I agree with the long rod problem with the XY - XF 200 & the 302 C, but I was mainly referring to the XY-XB 250 which was far & away the best of the old style Falcon 6-cyl engines.
I was in the taxi game at the time & these things would easily do 1,000,000 miles (yes miles) without overhaul & had more usable power & torque than most of the competition, except the Chrysler 265 which was thirsty & unreliable by comparison.
Dr Terry |
If at first you don't succeed, just call it Version 1.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,641
Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 27 time(s) in 25 post(s)
|
The best ? how is that so. I don't think they were any more reliable at all than the XC on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Moderator, Registered
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 6,058
Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 203 time(s) in 184 post(s)
|
As I said, these were the best taxi engine. Where the XC/XD fell over resulted from the ADR27A gear. They were just not as economical & not as happy in traffic in very hot or very cold weather.
Yes, Ford made a better fist of ADR27A with their XC 6s than Holden did with the HX, but it just wasn't as good in high mileage cars as the old XY-XB 250.
The alloy headed versions were always limited by coolant or overheating issues.
Dr Terry |
If at first you don't succeed, just call it Version 1.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,641
Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 27 time(s) in 25 post(s)
|
I know the F100 and transit got the Log engine up to 1978.
Now why was that I think
1 no ADR27A for one. 2 Ford worry about such people who buy F100 transit and utes. 3 and work out any problems with the first of any new thing because they are driven harder, just like they had the 4.1L in the XF up to 1993 before they put the great 4.0L in the XG and yes the 3 sp auto in the 3.9L XF ute would of been just rubbish down low for torque with a high diff ratio as well killing fuel econ. a 4.1L EFI XF ute would of been good but they carried on like fruit cake against it at the time.
But the XC 4.1L was a good with no problems in cold or hot from what I have come across or heard until now from you, I know the HX 202 was a sick joke trying to take off on cold mornings as I worked at a Motel in 1976 and all the sales men taking off in the morning with there 202 HX rev rev rev stall rev rev stall as did the other 202 before that but not as bad. all falcon 6 were much better on cold morning take off, the XC maybe a little leaner as to why not as good as the XB ? it would be interesting to of seen how the old Log USA 200 and 250 6 went in the emission years 1972 on.
I am sure the XC 250 used more fuel but the XD alloy head was better on fuel and went better than the XB 250.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 2/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 3,135
Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 35 time(s) in 33 post(s)
|
I'd say it's more to do with profit on small build numbers than anything else.
Commercial vehicles didn't have to meet ADR's as early as passenger vehicles did.
Thus why add more cost & complexity to a proven (pre ADR27A) product until you have to.
With smaller build volumes on commercial vehicles, we've seen it time & time again where they "scrape by" until they are forced to make changes - the 90s X-series ute/van is the perfect example of this, soldiering on with very little development budget, and much of a "parts bin" approach to keeping them within a tight (profitable) cost structure. Even the WB was somewhat like this - it cost very little to keep it going for more years than it's original model run was destined for, with very little money to develop changes unique to the WB commercials compared to the WB sedan & Commodore (running gear) at the time.
Hell even the AU/BA/FG utes are faced with the same issues, sharing overseas tail lights (AU) to keep costs down, carrying over out-dated or previous model panels, with stop-gap bits made to make them blend in (XG/XH, BA).
Holden did likewise with its low-volume build budget constraints the VR LWB sedans - VR-VS1 ran the already developed US-spec tail lights, before they had the budget to update them to a unique local product for VS2. The fog lights are shared with the VP SS, and even they were sourced from GM's European parts bin.
Car companies are first & foremost out to turn a profit. If they can do anything possible to save money, they will. Low volumes (which commercials are, and have been for decades) are costly to them. |
Cheers,
Mick
_______________________________________________________________
Judge a successful man not on how he treats his peers, but on how he treats those less fortunate. |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,641
Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 27 time(s) in 25 post(s)
|
I was of the opinion that the F100 250ci from july 1976 was a X flow and that they got a 250ci in the Transit from then on as well, as to a old mag I had back in the day saying that the X flow was not ADR27A but they were all low compression.
So I thought they had just advanced the cam timing and did not put the ADR fittings on them.
I thought this was the go for years but then I found out that the old log 250 was used up to 1978 when the F100 had to go ADR.
All the power figures back then were all over the place and it was a mess to sort out what was really what.
Just looking at the F100 power figures from 1974 on is just madness to understand what is going on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,717
Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 512 time(s) in 488 post(s)
|
I don't think there was ever meant to be ADR27 on Holden commercials, although for some reason they put 27 on later HQ commercial ADR plates, but not on HJ. HX went straight to 27A, presumably because they were passenger derivatives. I don't think commercial 4x4 or other such vehicles went to 27A until mid 1978. I know my earlier 1978 HZ tonner Overlander had ADR27A deleted from its compliance by Arthur. FJ40's didn't get it until later in 1978 either form memory. |
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords? |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,641
Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 27 time(s) in 25 post(s)
|
Ok so the HX-Z Overlander was not ADR27A. Back in the day I had a argument with a dude, I sad that the Overlander was the way to go and that the Toyota's and Datsun's were backward rubbish. The dude fired back that the Overlanders were gutless and total rubbish. I think the HX-Z engines were just as ADR27A and that was why gutless, but the whole car like comfort thing did catch on anyway, I was right he was wrong and the dude who built the Overlander was on the right track at the time. You could just toss the cam then and add twin exhaust and you have power. Edited by user Wednesday, 17 December 2014 10:36:44 PM(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Moderator, Registered
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 6,058
Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 203 time(s) in 184 post(s)
|
quote:
Originally posted by castellan
Ok so the HX-Z Overlander was not ADR27A.
Back in the day I had a argument with a dude, I sad that the Overlander was the way to go and that the Toyota's and Datsun's were backward rubbish.
The dude fired back that the Overlanders were gutless and total rubbish.
I think the HX-Z engines were just as ADR27A and that was why gutless, but the whole car like comfort thing did catch on anyway, I was right he was wrong and the dude who built the Overlander was on the right track at the time.
You could just toss the cam then and add twin exhaust and you have power.
AFAIK the 5.0L ADR27A camshaft was the same as pre-ADR27A. It was just retarded by using a different cam sprocket. Just advance the cam use better heads & inlet manifold & you're right to go. Dr Terry |
If at first you don't succeed, just call it Version 1.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,717
Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 512 time(s) in 488 post(s)
|
quote:
Originally posted by castellan
Ok so the HX-Z Overlander was not ADR27A.
Back in the day I had a argument with a dude, I sad that the Overlander was the way to go and that the Toyota's and Datsun's were backward rubbish.
The dude fired back that the Overlanders were gutless and total rubbish.
I think the HX-Z engines were just as ADR27A and that was why gutless, but the whole car like comfort thing did catch on anyway, I was right he was wrong and the dude who built the Overlander was on the right track at the time.
You could just toss the cam then and add twin exhaust and you have power.
The tonner's additional Overlander ADR plate said "Not designed to comply with the following ADR's", one of them was 27A. I did check up and at the time ADR27A wasn't applicable to 4x4 commercial vehicles. Not sure if the same applied to HZ Overlander wagons and Statesmans though. Not even sure why it was done as all the original ADR27A stuff was still there. Having said that in my opinion it was gutless, but any standard red 308 with a TH400 and 3.54:1 axles running 31" tyres is going to be gutless - the effective rear axle ratio of the 31" tyres and 3.54:1 diff is the same as F78-14 tonner tyres with a 2.98:1 rear axle. Plus the Overlander tonner was about 200kg heavier than a standard one. I always said mine needed a 6L+ engine. Having said that we are talking mid-late 1970's. Nothing else compared. Nissan had the G60 with its 3spd box and old P40 engine (4.0L petrol) that was essentially a copy of the old Chevy blue flame. Toyota has the FJ40/45 or FJ55 with the 2F engine and 4spd. Both the Nissan and the Toyota had 4 wheel drums, less power than the Overlander and rode like trucks. GMH had the K20 but not until late in 1979 and then only with the 292 Chev 6cyl and 4spd manual. You could get a Jeep at that stage a CJ5 or CJ6 from memory. Ford had an F100 at that stage but that was only a competitor for the Overlander ute or tonner, they had nothing like the Overlander wagon or van. |
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords? |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Moderator, Registered
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 6,058
Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 203 time(s) in 184 post(s)
|
quote:
Originally posted by HK1837
The tonner's additional Overlander ADR plate said "Not designed to comply with the following ADR's", one of them was 27A. I did check up and at the time ADR27A wasn't applicable to 4x4 commercial vehicles. Not sure if the same applied to HZ Overlander wagons and Statesmans though. Not even sure why it was done as all the original ADR27A stuff was still there.
It's not the engine alone which has to comply, it is the car as a whole. Any modification will upset that. With an additional 200kg & such a major change in overall gearing, any original specs would be out the window, because the engine would be working so much harder. This would be why an engine could comply with a manual trans. but not an auto (e.g. VC 3.3 in NSW) or ADR27a specs for a Torana differs to that of a full-size Holden for an otherwise identical engine. Dr Terry |
If at first you don't succeed, just call it Version 1.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,717
Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 512 time(s) in 488 post(s)
|
As I said Terry all the ADR27A stuff was still there and connected, but as you said the gearing change would have upset all that. However a 3.08: rear axle was standard for a HZ 308 auto van or ute with similar tyres, and one of these weighed (Tare) about the same as the Overlander tonner so the engine would have worked the same in an unladen situation. Fulluy load the thing up an that goes out the window though. Not sure how the Overlanders went with those ADR's omitted from the Overlander ADR plate that existed on the GMH one (as both were on the cars). Those added on mine were: 14,24 and 28. hose omitted were 10B, 20, 23 and 27A.
14 is rear view mirrors.
24 is tyres.
28 is noise.
10B is column/crash (may not have been applicable to low volume vehicles?).
20 is safety rims (?).
23 is adr compliant tyres (?).
27A we known is evap and exhaust emissions. |
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords? |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,641
Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 27 time(s) in 25 post(s)
|
Back in them days I worked at Fraser Island a bit and the old Land Rover had the big holden 186 in most of them, boy were they rubbish, ya would hit a big bump and the seat was just a cushion that would maybe still be their when ya arse came back down. ya head would hit the roof then ya tail had no cushion.
The old Toyota FJ rubbish would drive ya up the wall on the highway with diff wine and the steering was rubbish.
The old WW2 Jeeps were the best full on 4X4 to drive in the hardest of off road stuff.
My dads mate had a C30 4X4 ute in 1979 with the big 292ci 6 cyl boy was that gutless, I thought you could get the 400 V8 and SWB wagon hear as well.
I just thought a Premier wagon with GTS dash was something I would like over anything other in the 4X4 in the day I would do a little work on the engine and the auto I would make it kick back at a higher speed into 1st gear and that would of sorted all that gutlessness out and you would have air con as well.
The good old aussie F100 was much better then that Chev rubbish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,717
Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 512 time(s) in 488 post(s)
|
GMH sold a K20 4x4 Chev in late 1978, and the 350 was added for C20 and C30 in 1979 ( as the 292 didn't pass emissions) but no evidence of the K20 ever getting it.
I had a 1974 FJ40 with a 327 in it, used to smash every other 4x4 off road whenever I took it out on a trip. Remember they were mostly gutless old 4cy Hiluxes and breathless H or 2H or SD33 diesels back then. Only Range Rovers had any go. I owned a Landrover ute too, afwul thing to drive! |
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords? |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Moderator, Registered
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 6,058
Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 203 time(s) in 184 post(s)
|
Yes, as bad as pommy cars can get, the Range Rover was still the pick of the 4WD stuff in the 70s.
Many seem to forget how rubbish early LandCruisers & Patrols were to drive.
Dr Terry |
If at first you don't succeed, just call it Version 1.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,717
Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 512 time(s) in 488 post(s)
|
I remember the revelation the MQ Patrol was comfort wise when it was first released, still 4 wheel leaf springs and you could get a 4.0L petrol engine in it although most were underpowered with the 2.8L Petrol or SD33 diesel. I had an MQ ute in the 80's, pulled out the P40 petrol engine and 4spd and put in a 302 SBC and TH400, it was a good thing but I did put KM Patrol Ultimate suspension on it and Bilstein shocks so it rode better. I think I stuck late 80's Cressida seats in it too. It was the first car i'd ever owned with working factory A/C (my HQ Deville's air had never worked!). None of them go as well, are as comfortable or drive as nice as my 2011 SR5 4.0L Hilux though. |
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords? |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,641
Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 27 time(s) in 25 post(s)
|
quote:
Originally posted by HK1837
GMH sold a K20 4x4 Chev in late 1978, and the 350 was added for C20 and C30 in 1979 ( as the 292 didn't pass emissions) but no evidence of the K20 ever getting it.
I had a 1974 FJ40 with a 327 in it, used to smash every other 4x4 off road whenever I took it out on a trip. Remember they were mostly gutless old 4cy Hiluxes and breathless H or 2H or SD33 diesels back then. Only Range Rovers had any go. I owned a Landrover ute too, afwul thing to drive!
I thought C30 was the 4X4 only and C20 was 4x2. So 292 C30 only in 1978 is what you are saying, funny it could pass emission in 1978 and not 1979 hear in Aus but it does in the USA ? They did get 400ci in the SWB wagon. 350 V8 in the C20 C30 I am sure as well, maybe 400 ? My dad was heading up to Rockhampton with him behind in his big 292ci C30 chev and dad pulled over and asked what he was doing lagging behind so much, old mate said he was flat to the boards, the hills were just to much for it to cop. I am sure it was a 4X4 as old mate had a house over Fraser island. My dad had a 1976 F100 4X2 with the 250ci 4sp manual in it and it went better than my mates 1976 F100 302 auto 4X2 tray back. That 250 in the F100 surprised me how well it went even for a 250 it was like it had more power than the XB 250 engines, it must run a different cam. When my dad brought it home I said why did you get a bloody little 250 6 cyl for and he said he test drove 4 F100's 3 302's and the 250 performed better then the others, I thought that was just BS ! but them 302 V8 in them years I found out later had a smaller 2 BBL Stromberg carby and a restricted intake manifold on the auto and maybe some manuals, and that's why they were so gutless. you could get a 4 BBL 302 in the manual's back then but not a 4 BBL in the XB Falcon 302.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 14,717
Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 512 time(s) in 488 post(s)
|
In the US there my have been other stuff, but over here as GMH assembled trucks we got C20, C30, C50 and C60 in about 1975 and these were all 292. The C bit means 2WD so there is no such thing as a 4x4 C truck, they are K trucks. The K20 was introduced around October 1978. The 350 replaced the 292 in C20 in 1979 but very little info says it was ever available in K20. I think anti-pollution ADR's came into effect around that time hence the 350. The 292's were originally only 7.3:1, 125hp, 220lbft and were Mexican engines. They soon changed to Flint 8.0:1 engines rated at 120hp and 115lbft. The 350 was 165hp and 255lbft. Later on you could get an auto (M40 TH400) but only one C20 and C30 as far as I can tell.
I clearly remember Rod Hadfield telling me about all the idiots putting 253 and 308 into Landcruisers. He used to say they'll be slower than the 2F engines as they have a shorter stroke and only a 10" flywheel. He said they needed to be using engines that would use an 11 or 12" flywheel and his choice was a 250ci Ford engine or a 265ci Hemi engine or a 327-350 SBC with 11" flywheel. I bet the short stroke 302 Cleveland would have suffered in the F100 just like a 308 suffers in an FJ Landcruiser - the stroke is too short. A friend of mine has an old F250 Canadian in his shed with a buggered steering box, and a 302C boat anchor in it. For years I've considered getting it and putting a 350SBC in it, I think the gearbox is a toploader pattern so wouldn't be that hard. There are kits around now to fit Nissan Patrol steering boxes to them. |
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords? |
|
|
|
|
|
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.
