32 replies to this topic

[Indy Orange]

Just looking at the G.Wade and G.Perry LCGTR and the Brewster and Strong LCGTR that competed in this 1971 race .Any idea if these cars had the 173s motor? Or the 161s? And what if any improvements were made for performance ?Would they have been completely stock?I'm wondering if they could have had the larger XU1 fuel tank or even the triple carby's.They raced under class C.Thanks Paul.

Edited by Indy Orange, 16 May 2016 - 11:30 PM.

[Indy Orange]

Anyone want to take a stab?

[AbsynthHatch]

I couldn't tell you for sure what motor the LC GTR would have raced with in 1971, however apart from blue printing the engines would have been stock.

 

Under series production, this mean't they were raced as they left the factory, so no XU-1 tank, carburettors etc. for the GTR.

 

A class wins was as prestigous as the outright win in the early days, so entering the GTR in class C (determined by the sale price) and racing against the Cortina, Escort, Cooper S etc on paper would have been good contender for the win.

 

I will have a stab and suggest by 1971 the GTR would have raced with 173, but happy to be corrected as i said above not 100% certain.

[RallyRed]

Best I can tell you is that the 1972 shows 3 GTRs entered...
2850cc for the Wedd & Cracknell and Cole & Holland cars....and no info on cc for the Strong & Brewster car...so assume by omission that it was a 161S??

[RallyRed]

And ...
1973 lists GTRs ............ entry of Taylor/Smith 2850 cc and Garth/Stewart 2850cc

Yikes! And a 350 Auto Monaro

[yel327]

There is a mistake on some of the online entries for 1973. For example car 33 shows up as an LC XU1 but it is a GTR, however I think these ran triple carbs. How they did it? I don't know, but one hint is maybe that the LC GTR was used to homologate the LC XU1 for Series Production and thus you could use its carbs, but in class C rather than D as it was sub 3.0L? No idea but obviously it was allowed. The XV4 was a 308 auto I think in 1973 as a GTS is a Kingswood option in sedan, but was allowed to run the XW8's engine in 1974. I always thought the 1974 350 was an auto too? Not sure how they'd be allowed to run a 350 manual or an auto as there was never more than 54 x XW8 manuals made. Even auto XW8's were limited to about 170 odd. I doubt they'd be allowed to use coupes to homologate sedans?

[RallyRed]

FYI - my data sourced from original programmes.....still cant answer the orig. question though?....reckon they would have naturally used the biggest donk they could....but then again if $$ were tight.

 

Good question Paul!

[Indy Orange]

Interesting,thanks for the comments guys, I suppose one of the ways you would find out is maybe ask the drivers themselves ,maybe they could remember what they ran ,that's if they are still around of course.

[Indy Orange]

I couldn't tell you for sure what motor the LC GTR would have raced with in 1971, however apart from blue printing the engines would have been stock.
 
Under series production, this mean't they were raced as they left the factory, so no XU-1 tank, carburettors etc. for the GTR.
 
A class wins was as prestigous as the outright win in the early days, so entering the GTR in class C (determined by the sale price) and racing against the Cortina, Escort, Cooper S etc on paper would have been good contender for the win.
 
I will have a stab and suggest by 1971 the GTR would have raced with 173, but happy to be corrected as i said above not 100% certain.

Mark if the LCGTR raced with the 173s motor it would have been in the later part of 1971?

[S pack]

Mark if the LCGTR raced with the 173s motor it would have been in the later part of 1971?

Correct, only after release of the 2850's GTR in July 1971.

[S pack]

 Not sure how they'd be allowed to run a 350 manual or an auto as there was never more than 54 x XW8 manuals made. Even auto XW8's were limited to about 170 odd. I doubt they'd be allowed to use coupes to homologate sedans?

The coupe and sedan are from the same family of automobile, share the same wheel base and mechanical packages so no need to homologate the 4 dr GTS to be allowed to race.

[Potta]

There is a mistake on some of the online entries for 1973. For example car 33 shows up as an LC XU1 but it is a GTR, however I think these ran triple carbs. How they did it? I don't know, but one hint is maybe that the LC GTR was used to homologate the LC XU1 for Series Production and thus you could use its carbs, but in class C rather than D as it was sub 3.0L? No idea but obviously it was allowed. The XV4 was a 308 auto I think in 1973 as a GTS is a Kingswood option in sedan, but was allowed to run the XW8's engine in 1974. I always thought the 1974 350 was an auto too? Not sure how they'd be allowed to run a 350 manual or an auto as there was never more than 54 x XW8 manuals made. Even auto XW8's were limited to about 170 odd. I doubt they'd be allowed to use coupes to homologate sedans?

 

There were  some allowances in the rules in 1973, this is how Brock was able to run Triple Weber's on his car.

 

Perhaps that is how the GTR's were allowed to run triples?

[yel327]

Afaik you had to run the same amount of chokes, hence why Brock's car only used one choke off each DCOE. I reckon the LC GTR could run triples as it was homologated under Series Production and was the reason the LC XU1 was homologated so it got to use the XU1's carbs. Cam was free in Group C too. I might be 100% wrong but how else would it be allowed? If Dave is right that the GTS sedan was allowed to race with a 350 due to the coupe's existence as part of the same family then that would work for GTR and XU1 too? Note that there were only 260 HQ GTS350 manual total including coupe and sedan.

[S pack]

Afaik you had to run the same amount of chokes, hence why Brock's car only used one choke off each DCOE. I reckon the LC GTR could run triples as it was homologated under Series Production and was the reason the LC XU1 was homologated so it got to use the XU1's carbs. Cam was free in Group C too. I might be 100% wrong but how else would it be allowed? If Dave is right that the GTS sedan was allowed to race with a 350 due to the coupe's existence as part of the same family then that would work for GTR and XU1 too? Note that there were only 260 HQ GTS350 manual total including coupe and sedan.

The thing to remember is the XU1 was not a separate model, it was a production option on the GTR.

[yel327]

Same for the HQ GTS sedans, they were production options on a HQ V8 Kingswood sedan ie 0469 with XV4 (GTS) or XW8 (GTS350). But apart from the single HQ V8 Kingswood sedan (L30 MC7) there was only the 54 XW8 manuals made, and about 170 XW8 autos. So it still doesn't gel how this HQ was allowed to race under Group C?  

[S pack]

Same for the HQ GTS sedans, they were production options on a HQ V8 Kingswood sedan ie 0469 with XV4 (GTS) or XW8 (GTS350). But apart from the single HQ V8 Kingswood sedan (L30 MC7) there was only the 54 XW8 manuals made, and about 170 XW8 autos. So it still doesn't gel how this HQ was allowed to race under Group C?  

Under Family of Automobile it states variations in the following details are acceptable.

'versions which differ in the number of doors provided that these differ only with regard to the doors, door openings and pillars'.

[yel327]

OK, there was 206 GTS350 manual coupes, and 54 GTS350 sedans. Is 260 total enough for Group C homologation? Noting that the coupe is a different model to other coupes and is not an evolution of type, but the sedan could be as it shares a common model with GTS sedan and V8 Kingswood.

[S pack]

OK, there was 206 GTS350 manual coupes, and 54 GTS350 sedans. Is 260 total enough for Group C homologation? Noting that the coupe is a different model to other coupes and is not an evolution of type, but the sedan could be as it shares a common model with GTS sedan and V8 Kingswood.

The GTS 350 coupe would most likely have been Recognised under Group E - Series Production in 1971? or 1972? so 206 cars would take care of that. All vehicles recognised as eligible for Group E were also eligible for Group C.

 

Under Series production rules they were allowed two gearboxes.

either two gearboxes with the same number of ratios but different in their staging or two gearboxes with a different number of ratios and different in their staging.

 

So long as both transmissions were available to the public in the same series of car.

Edited by S pack, 22 May 2016 - 08:59 AM.

[yel327]

The GTS 350 coupe would most likely have been Recognised under Group E - Series Production in 1971? or 1972? so 206 cars would take care of that. All vehicles recognised as eligible for Group E were also eligible for Group C.

 

Under Series production rules they were allowed two gearboxes.

either two gearboxes with the same number of ratios but different in their staging or two gearboxes with a different number of ratios and different in their staging.

 

So long as both transmissions were available to the public in the same series of car.

 

Wasn't that eligibility only to the end of 1973? The HQ sedan that was raced in 1973 was a 308. It changed to a 350 in 1974.

 

That 206 includes maybe 50 made either very late in 1972 or in 1973.

 

Would that gearbox rule account for autos? If so there were also 196 auto GTS50 coupe and approx. 170 auto GTS350 sedan, although probably half of those sedans or more were made after about mid 1973, and maybe 1/3 of the GTS350 coupes also. This might explain why the GTS sedan raced as a 308 in 1973, but by 1974 enough 350 powered cars had been made to qualify? 

[S pack]

Wasn't that eligibility only to the end of 1973? The HQ sedan that was raced in 1973 was a 308. It changed to a 350 in 1974.

 

That 206 includes maybe 50 made either very late in 1972 or in 1973.

 

Would that gearbox rule account for autos? If so there were also 196 auto GTS50 coupe and approx. 170 auto GTS350 sedan, although probably half of those sedans or more were made after about mid 1973, and maybe 1/3 of the GTS350 coupes also. This might explain why the GTS sedan raced as a 308 in 1973, but by 1974 enough 350 powered cars had been made to qualify? 

I think you'll find that once a series of vehicle is homologated it is enduring.

 

Group C 1973 (valid until the 31st December) was a transition year from Group C - Improved Production Touring Cars (up to the end of 1972) which required a minimum production of 1000 basically identical vehicles to Group C - Production Touring Cars 1974 - 1984 which required a minimum of only 500 basically identical vehicles.

 

Group C - Improved Production was absorbed  into the new Group C - Production Touring so all existing eligible recognised Group E - Series Production vehicles and therefore eligible Group C - Improved Production were eligible for the new Group C - Production Touring.

 

I believe the two gearbox rule would most definitely account for eligibility of the 3spd auto transmission.

[yel327]

The homologation must have been under Group C as the totals are:

 

402 HQ GTS350 coupe (all transmissions).

212 minimum (plus another 20-30 at Elizabeth post 6/74) GTS350 sedan.

 

They more than likely wouldn't have made 500 combination by the close of eligibility for Bathurst 1973, probably explains the 308 in 1973 and the 350 in 1974.

 

The cars wouldn't have been identical though, some would have different rear axle ratios to others, some would have steer some air some LSD. 

[S pack]

Surely GMH would have produced enough HQ LS Coupes in 12 consecutive months during 1971 - 1972 to enable recognition under Group E.

 

From what I have read, the 253, 308 and 350 engines were all optional in the LS.

[RallyRed]

couldnt have slipped in under ""organisers discresion"" or whatever?

[S pack]

couldnt have slipped in under ""organisers discresion"" or whatever?

lol, perhaps they thought what the hell it's one HQ Holden taxi, it won't last the distance anyway so why not let the bloke have a go.

Edited by S pack, 22 May 2016 - 08:13 PM.

[yel327]

Surely GMH would have produced enough HQ LS Coupes in 12 consecutive months during 1971 - 1972 to enable recognition under Group E.

 

From what I have read, the 253, 308 and 350 engines were all optional in the LS.

 

Yes but how would LS coupe or even Monaro coupe be used for homologation of GTS sedan with 350? That would be like using S or SL sedans to homologate XU1? Different body, different driveline.

 

There was 213 HQ LS coupe with 350 built from start of HQ production until the end of HQ in 10/74. There was 1 x sole Monaro coupe with 350. All 214 of these were autos.

 

None of it adds up to me other than maybe GMH had finally built enough GTS350 coupe and sedan by 1974 Bathurst to allow the 350 engine in a HQ GTS sedan for Bathurst 1974.