As promised in the 202 badge colour thread, I'll pot up here in various different threads what my personal take is on the HQ.

I'll start here with a bit of background information and a few questions to think about.

First up in an image taken in 1965 in the new GMH Tech Centre at Fisherman's bend. GMH have been working on the HK since 1963 and design continued into the move into the new Tech Centre (official opening June 1964). By the time this image was taken the HK interiors are pretty much designed and they are working in the facelift, the HT - you can see the HT seating buck to the right, and the mock up of it's successor the HQ on the left. This HQ is designed to be the next generation of the 48-215 to HT underpinnings.



I believe that mustardy looking car in the Shannons link AC posted up that resembles a Pontiac full size is the clay version of the mockup shown in the above image. My guess is the timing stated is not quite right, I reckon it is 1967. We know Bill Mitchell visited Australia sometime in 1967 and killed off this first design of the HQ and then I think that is where this Shannons Article gets it right - that is the HQ (as we know it) program kicked off in January 1968.

So I'll leave a thought to ponder first, with some background etc in the words below.

We all know the HK is essentially a HR underneath, just like a HD is essentially an EH underenath etc. Yes its changed but the basic elements are there. For example a HR's leaf springs fit a HK. If you cut a HR subframe through the radiator support it virtually bolts up to a HK firewall. A HK uses a HR gearbox crossmember. However not much crosses over from HK/HT/HG into HQ, parts wise or architecture. The list is short:

Front stubs.
Banjo diff centres.
3spd manual boxes and bellhousings.
Drums (with different stud pattern).

A few bits remain but changed to suit the chassis or upgraded, like engines (with 6cyl capacity upgrades), and the Trimatic with mods.

So to get the HK to ready to go with the first bodies built in September 1967 (includes coupes, Brougham and commercials) and then the first cars built in the months afterwards that is at least 4 years. Yet the HQ was not an upgrade, it was an entire new car with very little carry over in anything. To start from nothing in January 1968 and building cars in just over 3 years, almost impossible! If you believe that Shannons article timeline, they are still fiddling with a two sided clay model of the SWB sedan during June 1968 (pages 18-19). Pages 20-21 state the clay model that looks a lot like the HQ sedan we know is late 1968.

So just think about all that for a while, will put some more up later. The trick to this is what did GMH actually design, and then that Shannons article will make a lot more sense.

Here is the link to the article referenced:
https://www.shannons.com...O911M/index.html?page=1

And a little tidbit for the above article, the first issue VIC plates for 1969 were KEB-500, JXE-287 is the first issue for 1968.

Edited by user Friday, December 16, 2022 4:09:18 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Haven’t had time yet to type more, but it was a A body. I don’t think it had been Engineered fully just designed. More later.

The basic design of the HQ as we got it in sedan, wagon and utility form were some sort of A-body proposal. When I say sedan think Statesman. Of course it doesn't fit into the historical GM lineup as we know it today, just like the WA Holden or the VA don't fit into the GMH lineup looking back at it from now. GMH created the HQ sedan itself as we know it off the coupe, the original concept sedan was what we got as the Statesman. That is why the wagon, sedan (Statesman) and ute look so alike yet the coupe looks so different, but that is how GM vehicles were. I have had no time to do it properly, but the answers are there in plain sight and I'll elaborate later. There is even an image of a clay HQ coupe with mid 60's full size like front panels on it and A body hubcaps in Norm Darwin's Monaro book.

On the contrast between the Statesman, wagons, utes looks versus those of the coupe, one could say the same of the relationship between Ford's Fairlane, wagons, utes, and the appearance of the XA hardtop.

Style wise, the HQ in any form was too much of a departure from the way GM Nth America was squaring off and bulking up its 1970s cars. Example: The 1970 Chevelle V. the 1969.

No denying it, the resemblence is more than skin deep. There is some part interchange.