147 replies to this topic

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

400 6/70 & 8/70 Produced

 

200 6/70 & 8/70 for Eligibility

100 8/70 for Diff Baffles ( 50% )

100 8/70 for Tank Baffles ( 50% )

 

300 9/70 & 10/70 Produced

 

100 9/70 Diff Baffles ( 100% )

100 9/70 Tank Baffles ( 100% )

100 10/70 3.08 Diff Ratio

 

 

 

 

J P Felice took over the top job from J H Alford in July 1971, well after the 200 3/71 & 4/71 LC XU-1,s had been built and sold. There was no scheduled production of any LC XU-1,s in the months of May, June, July and August 1971. The next being the CK,s which began in September 1971. Camshafts were not required to be fitted in production to homologate them, the only requirement being 200 basically identical units. 1972 being the prime example with the homologation of the XJ camshaft.

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

Service letters did require the production of cars, any changes to any components required homologation and the building of at least 200 cars. Just ask C.A.M.S.

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

Ian, as a researcher or historian, you absolutely suck................

 

C.A.M.S. made the rules by which all production XU-1,s were guided by...........

 

200 6/70 & 8/70 LC XU-1,s C.A.M.S.             200 2/71 LC XU-1,s C.A.M.S.                              100 3/72 LJ XU-1,s C.A.M.S.            200 8/70 LC XU-1,s  C.A.M.S.

 

           300 9/70 & 10/70 LC XU-1,s C.A.M.S.                    200 1/72 & 2/72 LJ XU-1,s C.A.M.S.             200 3/71 & 4/71 LC XU-1,s C.A.M.S. 

 

500 8/72 & 9/72 LJ XU-1,s C.A.M.S.            300 9/71, 10/71 & 11/71 LC XU-1s C.A.M.S.                200 5/72 LJ XU-1,s C.A.M.S.          ETC ETC ETC ETC

 

 

All these production XU-1,s come under the C.A.M.S. Rules which is why they exsist. To understand any production XU-1 you must understand the C.A.M.S. Rules.

 

Ian, I think it is you who needs to get that room with C.A.M.S. certainly not I

 

 

[S pack]

400 6/70 & 8/70 Produced

 

200 6/70 & 8/70 for Eligibility

100 8/70 for Diff Baffles ( 50% )

100 8/70 for Tank Baffles ( 50% )

 

300 9/70 & 10/70 Produced

 

100 9/70 Diff Baffles ( 100% )

100 9/70 Tank Baffles ( 100% )

100 10/70 3.08 Diff Ratio

 

 

 

 

J P Felice took over the top job from J H Alford in July 1971, well after the 200 3/71 & 4/71 LC XU-1,s had been built and sold. There was no scheduled production of any LC XU-1,s in the months of May, June, July and August 1971. The next being the CK,s which began in September 1971. Camshafts were not required to be fitted in production to homologate them, the only requirement being 200 basically identical units. 1972 being the prime example with the homologation of the XJ camshaft.

Yeah apologies about the 'any XU1 produced up to the end of June 1971' bit. For some reason I thought there were a couple of stragglers completed mid June '71.

 

There were two letters exchanged between GM-H and The C.A.M.S back in Feb 1971 in relation to the 2822075 camshaft, then came the Dealer Service letter of March 1st 1971 regarding the available camshaft package, then on July 23, 1971, the letter to The C.A.M.S advising that more than 200 camshafts have now been fitted to XU1's and asking for acceptance for series production.

 

If all GM-H had to do was produce 200 basically identical cars with or without the new camshaft then why didn't The C.A.M.S simply tell GM-H?  The C.A.M.S could have advised GM-H of this back in February 1971. Instead, according to your reasoning, GM-H wasted their time releasing the camshaft package and encouraging the Dealers to fit them to as many XU1's as they could lay their hands on.

 

Pity Mr J.P Alford (General Service Manager) , Mr J.P Felice (Sales Promotion Division) and Mr D.K Thompson (Secretary-General, C.A.M.S) didn't have your phone number to ask your advice. Could have saved GM-H a lot of time, effort and $$$$.

Edited by S pack, 09 April 2016 - 09:23 PM.

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

Could have, I would not have re homologated the 3.08 diff ratio in 1970 & 1971 and saved them the 2 track stuff ups in 1972, though this did provide us with an extra 500 XU-1,s

[S pack]

Edit to my above post: should be Mr J.R Alford.

[S pack]

Could have, I would not have re homologated the 3.08 diff ratio in 1970 & 1971 and saved them the 2 track stuff ups in 1972, though this did provide us with an extra 500 XU-1,s

The ERRATAS for the two track reporting errors were cars they planned to build so would have still had those 400 either way..

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

So why the extra 400 cars ( 3/3V & 4/4V ) and the extra batch of self locating sprintmasters ?

 

100 3/72 50%

100 4/72 & 5/72 100%

 

100 8/72 50%

100 11/72 100%

 

I could have saved them the cost and trouble of the second batch of sprintmasters for the 11/72 cars also.............

 

Track required wheels...........

[S pack]

400 6/70 & 8/70 Produced   BS. only 297 XU1's completed

 

200 6/70 & 8/70 for Eligibility

100 8/70 for Diff Baffles ( 50% )

100 8/70 for Tank Baffles ( 50% )

 

300 9/70 & 10/70 Produced

 

100 9/70 Diff Baffles ( 100% )

100 9/70 Tank Baffles ( 100% )

100 10/70 3.08 Diff Ratio   BS. The requirements for recognition of the 3.08 diff was fulfilled in August 1970 with a total of 120 cars between Adelaide and Brisbane production.

Edited by S pack, 10 April 2016 - 11:25 AM.

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

Alan ( ratcatcher ) over time I would say that I have seen a equal share of the 4 colours that were painted on the ( 1100 ) 3100x LC XU-1,s. I can not recall over time ever seeing more of one colour than the other. I have never seen any 3100x LC XU-1 painted in a metallic or in the Lone O Ranger colour...........

[S pack]

Something I've been pondering for a while now.

If all XU1's were built only to satisfy C.A.M.S Recognition and any amendments and modifications etc etc, and the production numbers were sent to The C.A.M.S as proof then why would GM-H have bothered to notify The C.A.M.S of the production numbers for the LC GTR? After all, there were no amendments to the GTR to satisfy other than the new 173s engine and M20 Aussie 4spd box commencing July 1971 production.

 

Attached Files

•  LC GTR Recognition.jpg   72.72K   26 downloads

[xu2308]

Something I've been pondering for a while now.

If all XU1's were built only to satisfy C.A.M.S Recognition and any amendments and modifications etc etc, and the production numbers were sent to The C.A.M.S as proof then why would GM-H have bothered to notify The C.A.M.S of the production numbers for the LC GTR? After all, there were no amendments to the GTR to satisfy other than the new 173s engine and M20 Aussie 4spd box commencing July 1971 production.

 

Maybe they were going to Race GTR's to start with. Harry Firth got two LC GTR's to start with

 

1969 LC GTR in White  KLD158

 

1970 LC GTR in White KMK135

[brocks72xu1]

Yeah,  I remember seeing LC XU1'S for sale in car yards down in Parramatta road back in the day, 30+ years ago however I can't remember seeing many plumdinger cars.

there was one plumdinger in car yard in granville.i looked at it on friday went back Saturday to put q deposit on it and it was sold. I was a second year apprentice back then

[S pack]

Maybe they were going to Race GTR's to start with. Harry Firth got two LC GTR's to start with

 

1969 LC GTR in White  KLD158

 

1970 LC GTR in White KMK135

Hey Al,

 

My theory is that GM-H informed The C.A.M.S of every GTR and XU1 made and sold in Australia, regardless of whether it was to fulfill the requirements of an Amendment or not.

 

Just because GM-H informed The C.A.M.S of 500 LJ XU1's made between January and June 1973 does not necessarily mean they had to make them to satisfy Group C eligibility. Those 500 cars may have been for the alternative gearbox ratios. There is no new C.O.D for the 1973 LJ XU1 stating that 500 basically identical cars have been built, therefore the 1972 C.O.D and amendments was all that was required for eligibility to Group C.

 

Cheers

Dave.

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

Provided they raced a 1972 car.

 

Both the 1972 & 1973 LJ XU-1 came under the umbrella of H2-3 ( LJ XU-1 )

 

To race a 1973 LJ XU-1 in 1973 required 500 cars to be eligible

 

To allow any homologation of components required a minimum of 250 cars ( 50% )

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

At the start of the Group C season in 1973, Peter Brock raced his 1972 Bathurst winning 1/72 car, Colin Bond in the newer 8/72 car, both being eligible...........

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

Peter did get a brand new car for Bathurst 1973 though, being ADR Plated 9/73.........

[S pack]

Provided they raced a 1972 car.

 

Both the 1972 & 1973 LJ XU-1 came under the umbrella of H2-3 ( LJ XU-1 )

 

To race a 1973 LJ XU-1 in 1973 required 500 cars to be eligible

 

To allow any homologation of components required a minimum of 250 cars ( 50% )

BS.  If the vehicle matches the C.O.D and any or all of it's amendments then the year of manufacture is immaterial.

 

GM-H produced more than enough basically identical cars in 1972 for eligibility to Group C in 1973.

Edited by S pack, 12 April 2016 - 06:13 PM.

[S pack]

Interesting that of the CK XU1's completed in Sept, October, November and one in December 1971 (291 according to the Warranty Service Records, 292 incl the GTR recorded with the CK eng #) 5 of these XU1's were built for export.

3 with 3.36:1 diffs and two with 3.08:1 diffs.

 

Combined XU1 production of Adelaide and Brisbane was 221 cars with 3.36:1 diffs and 71 cars with 3.08:1 diffs (incl that GTR))

 

Either GM-H lied to The C.A.M.S about the 200 (3.36:1) +100 (3.08:1) cars in their letter to The C.A.M.S dated 19th August, 1971 or the 'Initial production batch breakdown of 200 cars with 3.36:1 and 100 cars with 3.08:1' referred to are the 1st 300 LC XU1's produced in June, August, Sept 1970 not the CK XU1's.

[S pack]

How many LC GTR's (Model designation 82911) were GMH required to make and sell in Australia to allow homologation of PO XU1 for Group E - Series Production.

[S pack]

Peter did get a brand new car for Bathurst 1973 though, being ADR Plated 9/73.........

Interesting that back in August/September1973 Harry Firth stated that the current HDT XU1's were upgraded with fully machined cylinder heads and larger inlet valves etc.  Presume he is referring to the 9/2e specs/parts.