How do we interpret the notation 7202191ND shown on 7202190 exc M40?
7202191 is the pedal (rubber) pad.
Anyone with a HQ Parts Catalogue, 2813481. Should be in group 4.003.
Edited by S pack, 13 January 2017 - 07:55 AM.
Interpreting Holden documentation ?
Started by
IMORAL
, Jan 11 2017 08:15 PM
210 replies to this topic
#26
S pack
-
- Members
-
- 15,538 posts
Scrivet Counter
- Name:Dave
- Location:Luggage Point
- Car:73 LJ
- Joined: 25-January 10
Posted 13 January 2017 - 07:52 AM
#27
_ChaosWeaver_
_ChaosWeaver_
-
- Guests
Posted 13 January 2017 - 07:55 AM
There can be no mistake EXC would mean the same thing on all GMH drawings.. if it means Except for one thing it means it for all other things as well. The reason for this is convey the Engineers original message..
I would say there is a reason Al is not willing to show the drawings, and that could be that they are not complete... he may have the full set.. BUT they may have been REVISED many times after the ones you were given. Plus I doubt GMH just don't care who took home copies of THEIR property. I would imagine employees would have signed a contract forbidding them from sharing Company property..
Legal instruments[edit]
An engineering drawing is a legal document (that is, a legal instrument), because it communicates all the needed information about "what is wanted" to the people who will expend resources turning the idea into a reality. It is thus a part of a contract; the purchase order and the drawing together, as well as any ancillary documents (engineering change orders [ECOs], called-out specs), constitute the contract. Thus, if the resulting product is wrong, the worker or manufacturer are protected from liability as long as they have faithfully executed the instructions conveyed by the drawing. If those instructions were wrong, it is the fault of the engineer. Because manufacturing and construction are typically very expensive processes (involving large amounts of capital and payroll), the question of liability for errors has great legal implications as each party tries to blame the other and assign the wasted cost to the other's responsibility. This is the biggest reason why the conventions of engineering drawing have evolved over the decades toward a very precise, unambiguous state.
#28
S pack
-
- Members
-
- 15,538 posts
Scrivet Counter
- Name:Dave
- Location:Luggage Point
- Car:73 LJ
- Joined: 25-January 10
Posted 13 January 2017 - 08:32 AM
P/N check please
9929149 - HJ Holden and/or LH Torana? Group 4.003
9929153- ??????? Group 4.003
Edited by S pack, 13 January 2017 - 08:32 AM.
#29
_GlensXU1_
_GlensXU1_
-
- Guests
Posted 13 January 2017 - 09:31 AM
neither of those part numbers appear in the LH parts catalogue I have. (September, 1975).
Edited by GlensXU1, 13 January 2017 - 09:32 AM.
#30
_GlensXU1_
_GlensXU1_
-
- Guests
Posted 13 January 2017 - 10:09 AM
I stumbled upon a website for Holden retiree's recently.
This morning i decided to email them in the hope they might be able to explain this for us.
Below is my email and the response, ( I have blanked out names and emails).
Surely this puts it to bed ?
I intend to email Neil and thank him for his time in responding, so if there is any clarification required in what he has written, let me know before I do this later today.
Any questions Al ?
engineer 01.png 99.42K
16 downloads
engineer 02.png 317.45K
33 downloads
#31
IMORAL
View Garage
-
- Members
-
- 2,567 posts
Bored
- Name:Paul
- Location:As far away from WA as possible
- Car:LX SS HATCH - IMORAL
- Joined: 24-February 11
View Garage
Posted 13 January 2017 - 10:26 AM
Well frOck me. What a surprise
Well done Glenno. Certainly makes my mind up
Well done Glenno. Certainly makes my mind up
#32
arrimar
-
- Members
-
- 3,121 posts
"Have you still got that Torana!"
- Location:brisbane
- Car:Salamanca L34, Absinth LH SLR/5000, Caribean Blue LH 5.0, C250 Merc,
- Joined: 13-January 06
Posted 13 January 2017 - 10:47 AM
7202191 is the pedal (rubber) pad.
Thank you. The GMH employees email answered the remainder of my query.
ND means no drawing.
#33
S pack
-
- Members
-
- 15,538 posts
Scrivet Counter
- Name:Dave
- Location:Luggage Point
- Car:73 LJ
- Joined: 25-January 10
Posted 13 January 2017 - 12:31 PM
neither of those part numbers appear in the LH parts catalogue I have. (September, 1975).
Thanks Glen.
Cheers
Dave.
#34
S pack
-
- Members
-
- 15,538 posts
Scrivet Counter
- Name:Dave
- Location:Luggage Point
- Car:73 LJ
- Joined: 25-January 10
Posted 13 January 2017 - 12:34 PM
Thank you. The GMH employees email answered the remainder of my query.
ND means no drawing.
Yeah same here, I wasn't 100% sure what ND meant so didn't want to make any assumptions.
#35
_RS250_
_RS250_
-
- Guests
Posted 13 January 2017 - 12:42 PM
So I now make that;
2807102 is a clutch pedal used for 829, 823 and 825 models without automatic.........as we expected.
2829791 is a clutch pedal NOT used in XW7.
So the question remains......where was 2829791 used....if ever?
It seems to me this paper must have been abandoned by whoever in engineering was writing on it for a newer paper revision that we don't have or he never came back from lunch to fully complete this paper revision shown by Friday 30th June.
Edited by RS250, 13 January 2017 - 12:44 PM.
#36
xu2308
-
- Members
-
- 4,704 posts
Grail Hunter
- Name:AL
- Location:Belconnen ACT
- Car:SMP LJ GTR V8 Prototype-Confirmed By HHS and Ex GMH XW7 Engineers
- Joined: 09-April 09
Posted 13 January 2017 - 01:58 PM
I stumbled upon a website for Holden retiree's recently.
This morning i decided to email them in the hope they might be able to explain this for us.
Below is my email and the response, ( I have blanked out names and emails).
Surely this puts it to bed ?
I intend to email Neil and thank him for his time in responding, so if there is any clarification required in what he has written, let me know before I do this later today.
Any questions Al ?
Neil says it here 
So you end up with Pencilled Additions to the Drawings by Engineers who are not always Experts in interpretation of Logical Language: Mind you, the logical language can get quite complex with a lengthy string,
So New Part Number 2829791 XW7 was Pencilled in by a Engineer that did not understand the Draftsman Rules on adding to a Drawing. Well done Neil for pointing this out 
Edited by xu2308, 13 January 2017 - 02:09 PM.
#37
xu2308
-
- Members
-
- 4,704 posts
Grail Hunter
- Name:AL
- Location:Belconnen ACT
- Car:SMP LJ GTR V8 Prototype-Confirmed By HHS and Ex GMH XW7 Engineers
- Joined: 09-April 09
Posted 13 January 2017 - 02:19 PM
And you do not have the full set of XW7 Engineering drawings Al, FULL STOP.
And I do have the full set of XW7 Engineering drawings GlensXU1, There is 22 of them, the XW7 Engineer has had them since he worked on the Program in 1972, the Clutch & Brake Instruction Drawing was in the Full Set he was Given, He passed on to me a copy of his Full Set
Remember this Guy worked on the XW7 Program
I know one thing, that you dont have a set at all GlensXU1, FULL STOP
Edited by xu2308, 13 January 2017 - 02:27 PM.
#38
xu2308
-
- Members
-
- 4,704 posts
Grail Hunter
- Name:AL
- Location:Belconnen ACT
- Car:SMP LJ GTR V8 Prototype-Confirmed By HHS and Ex GMH XW7 Engineers
- Joined: 09-April 09
Posted 13 January 2017 - 02:58 PM
I would say there is a reason Al is not willing to show the drawings, and that could be that they are not complete... he may have the full set.. BUT they may have been REVISED many times after the ones you were given. Plus I doubt GMH just don't care who took home copies of THEIR property. I would imagine employees would have signed a contract forbidding them from sharing Company property..
The reason why Al is not willing to show them is: i was not Given the Full XW7 Drawings and XW7 Engineering Parts List set so they could be made Public.
There is no REVISED XW7 Drawings, there is only the Set that the XW7 Engineer had, REMEMBER the Program was Stopped, so Revisions would not of Happened due to that
#39
Rockoz
-
- Members
-
- 3,965 posts
Lotsa Posts!
- Name:Rob
- Location:Cowra NSW
- Joined: 21-September 08
Posted 13 January 2017 - 02:58 PM
Al
EXC would have been known by everyone who read the drawings or did provisional modifications.
EXC has been an annotation on engineering drawings since I first started reading them and indeed even producing them since the late 70s.
It has always meant excluding or except in every context.
Many of those drawings I worked with were produced as early as the 50s. Same deal.
#40
_RS250_
_RS250_
-
- Guests
Posted 13 January 2017 - 03:01 PM
And I do have the full set of XW7 Engineering drawings GlensXU1, There is 22 of them, the XW7 Engineer has had them since he worked on the Program in 1972, the Clutch & Brake Instruction Drawing was in the Full Set he was Given, He passed on to me a copy of his Full Set
Remember this Guy worked on the XW7 Program
I know one thing, that you dont have a set at all GlensXU1, FULL STOP
So before I grow old and die, is there anyway I can obtain a copy for my library to read on a rainy day?
I don't understand why something that is 45 years old needs to be kept away from the motoring enthusiasts.
What possible benefit is there keeping this type of info be it XW7 or whatever away from those who would want to read.
Imagine we had no Fiv Antonio book, no Norm Darwin, no Spotlight on Torana books etc etc.
#41
S pack
-
- Members
-
- 15,538 posts
Scrivet Counter
- Name:Dave
- Location:Luggage Point
- Car:73 LJ
- Joined: 25-January 10
Posted 13 January 2017 - 03:02 PM
Neil says it here
So you end up with Pencilled Additions to the Drawings by Engineers who are not always Experts in interpretation of Logical Language: Mind you, the logical language can get quite complex with a lengthy string,
So New Part Number 2829791 XW7 was Pencilled in by a Engineer that did not understand the Draftsman Rules on adding to a Drawing. Well done Neil for pointing this out
Regardless of how you try to wriggle, twist, about face and wriggle your way through, at the end of the day the part number on the drawing has been annotated with 'exc XW7', meaning 'not with XW7'. Any Holden engineer, or any engineer for that fact would read that drawing and draw the conclusion that the XW7 does not use part number 2829791.
The only logical conclusion is the XW7 uses part number 2807102.
Edited by S pack, 13 January 2017 - 03:03 PM.
#42
_RS250_
_RS250_
-
- Guests
Posted 13 January 2017 - 03:13 PM
Does anyone know where Street Machine Magazine in 1990 got their copy of XW7 details from?
I wish they published much more of the original GMH documents than they actually did because they had some very detailed specifics in text format so I assume the writer has a fair bit, if not all the XW7 files.
Edited by RS250, 13 January 2017 - 03:14 PM.
#43
Kockum
-
- Members
-
- 476 posts
Forum Fan
- Location:Southern NSW
- Joined: 27-September 07
Posted 13 January 2017 - 06:37 PM
October ' 73 HQ parts catalogue -
#44
S pack
-
- Members
-
- 15,538 posts
Scrivet Counter
- Name:Dave
- Location:Luggage Point
- Car:73 LJ
- Joined: 25-January 10
Posted 13 January 2017 - 07:03 PM
October ' 73 HQ parts catalogue -
What is P/N 2813481? Should be in group 4.003.
Thanks
#45
Kockum
-
- Members
-
- 476 posts
Forum Fan
- Location:Southern NSW
- Joined: 27-September 07
Posted 13 January 2017 - 07:10 PM
Starting again.
October ' 73 parts catalogue - 4.003
2813481 - NOT LISTED .
9929149 - transmission assembly 3.05 low gear ratio 173, 202 engine passenger .
9929153 - NOT LISTED .
9929150 - transmission assembly 2.54 low gear ratio 253 , 308 .
#46
_ChaosWeaver_
_ChaosWeaver_
-
- Guests
Posted 13 January 2017 - 07:23 PM
Neil says it here
So you end up with Pencilled Additions to the Drawings by Engineers who are not always Experts in interpretation of Logical Language: Mind you, the logical language can get quite complex with a lengthy string,
So New Part Number 2829791 XW7 was Pencilled in by a Engineer that did not understand the Draftsman Rules on adding to a Drawing. Well done Neil for pointing this out
Al, I'm sorry mate, but you seem to be missing the point.... Engineering drawing arn't mud maps.. they are a legal document.. they have to be correct at the time, if they are not a revision is needed... There can be no mistake, and no interpretation. EXC will always mean the same... No tradesman is given or asks for more than one drawing at once... So the tradesman/mechanic if working on the clutch and gearbox would only need the details of that section of the drawings.. so if he wanted to change/alter/delete a part he would do it on his section of the drawing (if that make sense) But if his change/alteration or deletion of that part, is authorised,
it would be noted in the revision... And that is not in question..
Al, I accept your right not to show what ever you like........... but in case you haven't noticed.... people are building V8 LJ's, and they don't need your (GMH's) drawings to do it.... so just show the revision blocks and the notes block.... That's all the info that is needed...
But I must add....... I'm fuked if I know what you are trying to prove now... I believe it is of general consensus that your car is one of the LJV8 program cars.... who cares what clutch peddle almost made it onto a car that almost existed.... ? What are you trying to prove ??
#47
S pack
-
- Members
-
- 15,538 posts
Scrivet Counter
- Name:Dave
- Location:Luggage Point
- Car:73 LJ
- Joined: 25-January 10
Posted 13 January 2017 - 07:40 PM
Starting again.
October ' 73 parts catalogue - 4.003
2813481 - NOT LISTED .
9929149 - transmission assembly 3.05 low gear ratio 173, 202 engine passenger .
9929153 - NOT LISTED .
9929150 - transmission assembly 2.54 low gear ratio 253 , 308 .
Interesting, thanks Dave.
Cheers
Dave.
#48
_GlensXU1_
_GlensXU1_
-
- Guests
Posted 13 January 2017 - 08:41 PM
Hi Ian,Al, I'm sorry mate, but you seem to be missing the point.... Engineering drawing arn't mud maps.. they are a legal document.. they have to be correct at the time, if they are not a revision is needed... There can be no mistake, and no interpretation. EXC will always mean the same... No tradesman is given or asks for more than one drawing at once... So the tradesman/mechanic if working on the clutch and gearbox would only need the details of that section of the drawings.. so if he wanted to change/alter/delete a part he would do it on his section of the drawing (if that make sense) But if his change/alteration or deletion of that part, is authorised,
it would be noted in the revision... And that is not in question..
Al, I accept your right not to show what ever you like........... but in case you haven't noticed.... people are building V8 LJ's, and they don't need your (GMH's) drawings to do it.... so just show the revision blocks and the notes block.... That's all the info that is needed...
But I must add....... I'm fuked if I know what you are trying to prove now... I believe it is of general consensus that your car is one of the LJV8 program cars.... who cares what clutch peddle almost made it onto a car that almost existed.... ? What are you trying to prove ??
I would beg to differ on the general consensus and suggest the following:
Al's car, from all the photos provided so far in the deleted thread. And pics provided in the magazine article, has never housed a V8.
Edited by GlensXU1, 13 January 2017 - 08:42 PM.
#49
IMORAL
View Garage
-
- Members
-
- 2,567 posts
Bored
- Name:Paul
- Location:As far away from WA as possible
- Car:LX SS HATCH - IMORAL
- Joined: 24-February 11
View Garage
Posted 13 January 2017 - 09:10 PM
Wouldn't you be able to tell from the chassis number or vin tag?
#50
_GlensXU1_
_GlensXU1_
-
- Guests
Posted 13 January 2017 - 09:48 PM
Yes immoral.
By the numbers this car was most certainly in experimental engineering.
But it could have been there for many other reasons.
Confirming it once housed a V8 is the reason for this discussion.
As it stands, Al has a rat trap from a wrecker. A completely standard k frame. He also has what he believes is a complete set of drawings.
It's a laughable discussion to be frank.
By the numbers this car was most certainly in experimental engineering.
But it could have been there for many other reasons.
Confirming it once housed a V8 is the reason for this discussion.
As it stands, Al has a rat trap from a wrecker. A completely standard k frame. He also has what he believes is a complete set of drawings.
It's a laughable discussion to be frank.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
