69 replies to this topic

[StephenSLR]

outright performance or pissing contests dont interest me that much, I have silly race cars for the class there in, why do I need silly street cars? Not to mention in this day an age none of the vehicles were discussing are anything you would call remotely fast.

 

Exactly, if you want speed or performance you'd go for something modern. Owning a Torana is more about style, reliving your youth or showing respect to a bygone era.

 

s

[StephenSLR]

Think about it today, if you could buy a 6cyl manual VF base spec Commodore with a lower ratio rear axle and a few sports options that screamed its head off at highway speeds for say $35,000 or for a few thousand more you could have an SV6 what would you choose? 

 

You can't compare 60's or 70's logic with today's highly specialised and clinical profit making exercises; that applies to everything.

Frank Zappa explains this perfectly with the music industry, I suspect the car industry is no different.

 

 

s

Edited by StephenSLR, 25 September 2016 - 10:32 AM.

[yel327]

Nothing is good about an SV6 (relative to an SS), same with a 6cyl SL/R. The Gpak was like an Omega with some SV6 bits added and with a lower ratio diff. Hence the question, would you buy that or buy the SV6? Which is why the Gpak doesn't fit well in LH.

[yel327]

Read the code as more a contingency plan than a chronological timeline. 

 

Sorry, missed this post. I get what you are saying, but they wouldn't have put a contingency plan in place in 1971-2 expecting 6cyl SL/R's not to sell. They'd simply have not built a 6cyl SL/R if they thought that might be the case. Plus they were a "just in time" manufacturer, so parts were procured for vehicles as they entered the schedule, so that the parts hit the assembly plants just before the car was due for assembly. There was rarely ever spare or redundant or left over parts as almost all parts were ordered off the production schedule. Sure, some raw materials became left over, like trim material, and GMH simply made special trim in later vehicles to get rid of it (like some HG with HK material). They were also subject to minimum order economics - on Engineering Change Notices where they price up changes/additions etc there is always pricing for varying quantities, but this was for special stuff like Tail-Tents (or Hatch Hutches) and other one-off items, not for sports dashes or wider wheels etc. It does appear that the Gpak decals were subjected to this, in Norms book on I think page 168 he says that there were 2500 Gpak's built in early 1975 but they weren't popular even at a few hundred $ less than an SL/R and had to ship them to NZ to try and sell them. They appear to have had more that 2500 decal sets, as they made another run of Gpaks late in 1975 to use up the decals, but they were a lot dearer by then.

 

I reckon the Gpak was one of Bagshaw's "I want" things, like the HQ GTS sedan, and given the consecutive option codes makes it more likely. He was famous for his "I want" things and getting them. The HQ GTS350 sedan was another, you can see by its XW8 option code it came after the XV2 SS and XV4 GTS sedan. He wanted the 350 and he got it. GMH had to reduce the number of planned GTS350 manual coupes to make it happen as by the time the XW8 became reality they only had about 100 engine/transmission sets left (there was only one batch of these engines and boxes for HQ ever delivered to GMH), and they'd used up half of those original destined for the HQ series run by the end of 1971 (HQ was supposed to be replaced by HV at the end of 1972 and there was to be no 350 in HV). The GTS350 sedan manual is the reason why the manual HQ GTS350 manual coupe was gone halfway through HQ production.

[StephenSLR]

 they wouldn't have put a contingency plan in place in 1971-2 expecting 6cyl SL/R's not to sell.

 

Check out the Zappa clip, that's how things were done, probably some big wig guy said, "I don't know, who knows what it is, stick it out, if it sells ... alright."

 

GM-H probably wanted to hedge their bets and the bigger selling of the two would continue ... as the SL/R did.

 

s

[yel327]

Possible but I doubt it. GMH were in the business to make money, not waste years on development to hedge bets. There will be a reason for the Gpak, and it may well have nothing to do with Torana. Hopefully one day someone finds the relevant documents.

[StephenSLR]

Possible but I doubt it. GMH were in the business to make money, not waste years on development to hedge bets.

 

The Torana was already out though and the differences are minute, a few stickers & badges are the basic differences between G-Pak & SL/R, all the other parts were already in production and used in other Holdens or Toranas. It looks like a 'suck it & see' exercise, who knows what the public want till you put it out there and test the waters.

 

s

Edited by StephenSLR, 25 September 2016 - 04:28 PM.

[StephenSLR]

Not as good as the SL/R variants imo but I don't mind them, nor the Plus 4. Much snazzier than stock.

 

s

[yel327]

Personally I enjoy the Gpack exterior styling a lot more than the SLR styling.

I agree Bomber, and I like the HQ SS better than the GTS visually.

[yel327]

The Torana was already out though and the differences are minute, a few stickers & badges are the basic differences between G-Pak & SL/R, all the other parts were already in production and used in other Holdens or Toranas. It looks like a 'suck it & see' exercise, who knows what the public want till you put it out there and test the waters.

s

There were no LH's out there in 1971/2 when the Gpak was given an option code, one code prior to the HQ GTS sedan. This is where the whole point of this thread arose from.
I'm wondering if the whole sports Torana sedan was put out there at the same time as the HQ SS as an LJ, but by the time it all happened it was LH and redundant as there was an LH SL/R already? Or the SL/R was supposed to be V8 only but it got changed afterwards as I already mentioned?

[S pack]

My take on this subject so far is models like the HQ SS, Torana Gpak, Torana Plus 4, Gemini Sandpiper, Vacationer etc etc were marketing specials designed to (hopefully) boost sales. Perhaps these 'specials' were always planned as a back up strategy that could be called upon at short notice if the sales dept felt the need arose.

[yel327]

They could well be, except the HQ SS. It was always to be the sports sedan, and remained so after being revived in VH, but also later morphed into utes and wagons. It was Bagshaw who changed the car to a Monaro GTS sedan. I still can't get past the co-incidence of Gpak being XV1 and SS being XV2 - it makes my spidey sense notice and can't help think there is more too it.

[StephenSLR]

My take on this subject so far is models like the HQ SS, Torana Gpak, Torana Plus 4, Gemini Sandpiper, Vacationer etc etc were marketing specials designed to (hopefully) boost sales. Perhaps these 'specials' were always planned as a back up strategy that could be called upon at short notice if the sales dept felt the need arose.

 

Similar to the V8 XC Falcon coupe, sales were poor; they painted them white, put on blue stripes, called them a Cobra and they sold like hotcakes.

 

s

[yel327]

Similar to the V8 XC Falcon coupe, sales were poor; they painted them white, put on blue stripes, called them a Cobra and they sold like hotcakes.

 

s

 

Neither Ford nor Holden was that reactionary. GMH did a similar thing with the remaining HJ coupe bodies and built the LE, but it takes a lot more than snapping the fingers and building the car, you are talking lots of planning.
 

[Redzone]

I just want to know what the G stands for.

[S pack]

Neither Ford nor Holden was that reactionary. GMH did a similar thing with the remaining HJ coupe bodies and built the LE, but it takes a lot more than snapping the fingers and building the car, you are talking lots of planning.
 

They may well have planned the Gpak back in 1969/1970? hence the XV1 option code, but as all the 'option' components for the Gpak, except the paint masks, were current production parts in 1975 then surely it would have only taken only a couple of months from the word GO to the 1st one rolling off the production line?

Edited by S pack, 26 September 2016 - 08:15 AM.

[yel327]

More than a couple of months. The schedule was locked in for a couple of months ahead! They would have to have designed, organised, tendered, awarded and received the graphics. This would have involved committees etc. Then placed the cars in the schedule which is what triggered all the parts to be either made or procured. To get them built in early 1975 you'd be looking at least back into mid 1974 to pull the trigger, assuming the whole thing was designed ready to go.

Just had a thought, is the actual Sadlon vinyl in a Gpak the same vinyl used on other Holden and Torana?

[yel327]

The other quirky thing with Gpaks is the dozen or so cars complianced in 1974 all have BLH chassis numbers. I have yet to see another HJ or LH with 12/74 build with a BLH or BHJ chassis number.

[yel327]

I just want to know what the G stands for.

Go Pack. Got shortened to Gpak. They should have simply called it Torana SS just like the HQ SS. To me a Go Pack should have had an engine with GO like a 4.2L dual exhaust as per HQ. But stupid stuff happens when bean counters get in the way!