Fastlane
»
Holden Forums
»
Holden General Discussion
»
Question about red motor with CF engine number
Rank: Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/04/2006(UTC)
Posts: 171
|
Good evening,
To my knowledge, red motors with engine numbers starting with CF were 173s motors as used in late LC GTRs. Were CF motors ever fitted as standard in any other cars?
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
2850 engines were fitted to LJ once 161/186 production ceased roughly aligning with the end of HG Series passenger vehicles (HG commercials also got HQ engines (173 and 202) around the same time). This is why they were prefixed CD, CE and CF. The only other cars you'll find these in is LJ as they continue the same prefix into subsequent facelifts (like QL into HJ-HZ). However the 2850S was dropped at the end of LC hence CF is in LC only. I believe GMH always intended the 2850S to be the engine in LJ GTR (early documents show this), but then HQ GTS was cancelled prior to HQ production meaning the 202S was also cancelled there probably was no case to continue manufacturing the S intake and exhaust manifolds so thy stuck a stock 202HC into LJ GTR instead, and as the engine differed from a HQ it got a JL prefix. |
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords? |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Registered, Veteran
Joined: 10/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 2,357
Thanks: 2 times
Was thanked: 28 time(s) in 27 post(s)
|
The problem with continuing with the S motor in HQ and LJ was up coming pollution rules that the S motor was believed not going to comply, so rather than drop the S moptor part way through they dropped it before the model was introduced. Edited by user Thursday, 2 January 2020 8:03:11 AM(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
|
|
|
|
|
|
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've heard that before Warren, but I don't buy it, not totally anyway. If a 253 was able to comply with ADR26 and 27 then an S engine should have been able to do it easily. They rushed through the final XU1's prior to ADR27 introduction around 9/73 (which got delayed anyway until 4/74). The 350 was adapted top ADR27 around 8/73 and it didn't have long left in it, so you'd think they would have dropped it at that stage too.
I reckon it had more to do with the gradual drop in HT-HG GTS sales once the 253 became the standard engine on V8 GTS, so they dropped the HQ GTS and the flow on was the loss of the 2850S in LJ. This may well have combined with ADR's as you say. |
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords? |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Registered, Veteran
Joined: 10/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 2,357
Thanks: 2 times
Was thanked: 28 time(s) in 27 post(s)
|
Yes but there would be no extra cost to fit the 2850S into the LJ even if the HQ GTS does not have a 202S, as all the development was completed. Yes it would simplify the engine production line not having it, but I am sure Holden could handle a 0.5% engine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
There would be more cost, as procurement of parts by large volume would have made the per-unit cost of each item lower. By cancelling the HQ GTS and thus the 202S meant the required volume of S inlet, exhaust manifolds, cam and air cleaner for only 2850S would be very small thus the per-unit cost increased. The decision to use the clunker 202 would have given them pretty much the required performance that the 2850S would have given and saved a few $ per car (hence more profit).
I also believe that in a HQ a 202S using the 186S cam running a 3.36 or 3.55 rear axle and 4spd manual would have made a standard HQ V8 GTS look slow as the 253 would have been shackled with a single exhaust and 3.08 rear axle. This would be further reason to not build the HQ GTS. If you look at HK 186 and 186S power/torque gains between the 186 and the S, then add the same gains to a stock HQ 202 figures you can see that the 202S would be getting closer to a stock HQ 253. Assuming that the HQ 202S got similar exhaust treatment to HK-HG 186S it is easy to see a lot less “as installed” loss of Hp than the 253 got in HQ. |
_______________________________________________________
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)
|
Look at a VB Commodore 3.3L DIN 69KW 3800 and 207NM 2200 = 91hp
And the VC Blue is much like a S 83KW 4000 231NM 2400 = 111hp
Then look at a VB 4.2L single exh 86KW 4000 271NM 2000 = 115hp
VB 4.2L duel exh 98KW 4000 271NM 2400 = 131hp
So much would be the same with same going on with a HQ as to performance wise differences.
Holden at the time of the VC claimed that the 3.3L cut it with the performance of the VB 4.2L.
I was impressed when the blue 3.3L came out performance wise over the red 3.3L.
A mate had a 3.3L WB I tonne with a m20 4sp Fitted and 3.36 diff and his brother had a HT 186S 4sp they were neck and neck dragging both claimed.
Look at the power increase of the 4.2L with dual exhaust 16hp I am sure you can get much the same with a free flowing 2 1/4 single only it's louder.
One has to look at the graph on torque of the 253 to see that it would kill the 202 from right down low, but the extra weight accounted for as well, all in all a good 202 could give the 253 a bit of a go.
The WB or VC-H 4.2L never impressed me at all, they were all stock single exhaust tho.
I drove a VH Highway Patrol 5.0L auto with standard single exhaust and boy that was gutless as a 4.2L but then again all stock single exhaust 308's are as gutless as ever, you have to free the exhaust up to make them go well, that Is the most important thing with the 308's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran
Groups: Registered, Veteran
Joined: 10/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 2,357
Thanks: 2 times
Was thanked: 28 time(s) in 27 post(s)
|
Originally Posted by: HK1837  There would be more cost, as procurement of parts by large volume would have made the per-unit cost of each item lower. By cancelling the HQ GTS and thus the 202S meant the required volume of S inlet, exhaust manifolds, cam and air cleaner for only 2850S would be very small thus the per-unit cost increased. The decision to use the clunker 202 As Holden cast these items themselves the "volume discount" would not apply here, they would simply need to cast as required. I am not sure what method Holden used for casting things like manifolds, but most likely using a pattern that was on the shelf. If using wax replacement then the wax molds would also be on the shelf. I agree that if they were purchasing from a supplier then buying in bulk is better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
They didn’t cast alloy stuff or build their own carbs or distributors. I doubt they made their air cleaners either. Not sure about camshafts, valve springs, valves or engine bearings. And it would have cost more to cast two exhaust manifolds in small numbers than using a single high volume single casting. Plus an S had extra different parts for auto choke whereas the 202 was the same as other LJ 6cyl in that area. Forgot about the fuel pipe (should have been the same as 202S), engine pipes and throttle setup (different to 202S?) which all were probably externally supplied as well. Edited by user Thursday, 2 January 2020 7:59:47 PM(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified |
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords? |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/07/2019(UTC) Posts: 379 ![Australia]( "Australia") Location: bayside Melbourne Thanks: 237 times
Was thanked: 28 time(s) in 28 post(s)
|
Originally Posted by: castellan ....................
The WB or VC-H 4.2L never impressed me at all, they were all stock single exhaust tho.
not all were single exhaust.. I had several VC and VH 4.2 /M20 8VK35 and 8VL35 wagon combos during my time at GMH and some had twin exhaust as standard (eg 184 or 232 packs)or you could option N10 twin exhaust alone I bought my missus (employee discount of course :) ) a 4.2 litre /M20 VH Vacationer wagon and optioned in N10 dual exhaust, A01 tint windows, A47 Rear belt retractors & UB6 Sports instruments Nice to drive, it went pretty well... however I don't recall any 4.2 engine on WB getting N10 dual exhaust (only the 5 litre engine had it) Edited by user Sunday, 5 January 2020 7:51:28 AM(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified |
Club circuit racing...the best fun you can have with your pants 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)
|
No dual exhaust in WB Holden. Only WB Statesman. From memory the only Holden 253/4.2 to come standard with dual exhaust was HQ SS. N10 was optional on HK-HG on all V8 models with 253, on passenger V8 models in HQ with 253 and on HJ-HZ passenger when 4.2 optioned. Not sure about HQ V8 Statesman. There are hints of dual exhaust in parts catalogues for LWB sedans but never seen any other obvious evidence of it. Edited by user Thursday, 2 January 2020 9:19:55 PM(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified |
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords? |
|
|
|
|
|
Fastlane
»
Holden Forums
»
Holden General Discussion
»
Question about red motor with CF engine number
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.
