Internal Use Vehicles and internal code assistance request.
Started by
308
, Apr 10 2022 03:50 PM
5 replies to this topic
#1
Posted 10 April 2022 - 03:50 PM
Hi Guys,
As I have been searching for years regarding the internal use of this HQ kingswood utility without any luck, I was wondering if anyone here may be able to help me out?
The vehicles details are as follows
HQ Holden Kingswood
Pre-Build data
MODEL NUMBER - 80480
BODY NUMBER - 030244M
1842-10H - CHATEAU MAUVE/BLACK CLOTH TRIM COMBINATION -C.T.V.
ORDER LODGED THROUGH MELBOURNE ZONE OFFICE
Post-Build data
VIN - 80480QJ319942
CHASSIS NUMBER - CHQ31098M
PRODUCTION DATE - 07/03/72
BODY - 2-DOOR COUPE UTILITY
ENGINE - 308 CI. V8
ENGINE NUMBER - QT117454
TRANSMISSION - M21 2.54:1 FIRST GEAR, HI-PERFORMANCE 4-SPEED MANUAL
STEERING - STANDARD RATIO
BRAKES - POWER ASSISTED FRONT WHEEL DISC
REAR AXLE - 3.08:1 SALISBURY TYPE
DIFFERENTIAL - CONVENTIONAL OPEN TYPE
VENTILATION - STANDARD HEATING AND VENTILATION SYSTEM
SELLING DATE - MARCH 1972
WARRANTY START DATE - 03/72
CREDITED SELLING DEALER - VEHICLE ORDER PROCESSING CENTRE, GM-H
Additional information
The vehicle bearing the PSN - J319942 - was a Special Vehicle Order (Colour/Trim Variation - C.T.V.)
originally built at GM-H's Dandenong, Melbourne plant as a Kingswood V8 utility and completed on
the 07/03/1972. A delay of more than one week was experienced during production. This vehicle was built for internal company use in Vic.
The 255 code as mentioned by Balfizar was a code used for employee deals and he kindly gave me the date of 01/08/1973.
I would like to ask if anyone else have any records of this particular 255 code in use? Especially for the period around the build date of the Ute?
We’re the PSNs attached to a specific code after the vehicle was built Or was the code only used before it was built?
The 255 date Balfizar has given me is the following year after the Ute was built so it was either sold on that date second hand to an employee after gmh had finished using it internally or it was built using the 255 code for another individual.
Or the code is incorrect?
I have been through the code wringer in the past and it can get quite complicated/confusing with zone offices, vehicle processing centres, dealerships, management and the people that could just do as they like with regards to who you were, Who you knew ect ect.
To the internal use part.
A vehicle built for internal use would have had to have belonged to a specific dept initially?
otherwise it would not be an internal use vehicle as it would be someone’s daily driving vehicle and would not be owned by GMH?
As no one can confirm that 255 is directly attached to the car from its inception I’m still trying to find some/any information related to the vehicle if anyone has any records of such a thing?
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Daniel
As I have been searching for years regarding the internal use of this HQ kingswood utility without any luck, I was wondering if anyone here may be able to help me out?
The vehicles details are as follows
HQ Holden Kingswood
Pre-Build data
MODEL NUMBER - 80480
BODY NUMBER - 030244M
1842-10H - CHATEAU MAUVE/BLACK CLOTH TRIM COMBINATION -C.T.V.
ORDER LODGED THROUGH MELBOURNE ZONE OFFICE
Post-Build data
VIN - 80480QJ319942
CHASSIS NUMBER - CHQ31098M
PRODUCTION DATE - 07/03/72
BODY - 2-DOOR COUPE UTILITY
ENGINE - 308 CI. V8
ENGINE NUMBER - QT117454
TRANSMISSION - M21 2.54:1 FIRST GEAR, HI-PERFORMANCE 4-SPEED MANUAL
STEERING - STANDARD RATIO
BRAKES - POWER ASSISTED FRONT WHEEL DISC
REAR AXLE - 3.08:1 SALISBURY TYPE
DIFFERENTIAL - CONVENTIONAL OPEN TYPE
VENTILATION - STANDARD HEATING AND VENTILATION SYSTEM
SELLING DATE - MARCH 1972
WARRANTY START DATE - 03/72
CREDITED SELLING DEALER - VEHICLE ORDER PROCESSING CENTRE, GM-H
Additional information
The vehicle bearing the PSN - J319942 - was a Special Vehicle Order (Colour/Trim Variation - C.T.V.)
originally built at GM-H's Dandenong, Melbourne plant as a Kingswood V8 utility and completed on
the 07/03/1972. A delay of more than one week was experienced during production. This vehicle was built for internal company use in Vic.
The 255 code as mentioned by Balfizar was a code used for employee deals and he kindly gave me the date of 01/08/1973.
I would like to ask if anyone else have any records of this particular 255 code in use? Especially for the period around the build date of the Ute?
We’re the PSNs attached to a specific code after the vehicle was built Or was the code only used before it was built?
The 255 date Balfizar has given me is the following year after the Ute was built so it was either sold on that date second hand to an employee after gmh had finished using it internally or it was built using the 255 code for another individual.
Or the code is incorrect?
I have been through the code wringer in the past and it can get quite complicated/confusing with zone offices, vehicle processing centres, dealerships, management and the people that could just do as they like with regards to who you were, Who you knew ect ect.
To the internal use part.
A vehicle built for internal use would have had to have belonged to a specific dept initially?
otherwise it would not be an internal use vehicle as it would be someone’s daily driving vehicle and would not be owned by GMH?
As no one can confirm that 255 is directly attached to the car from its inception I’m still trying to find some/any information related to the vehicle if anyone has any records of such a thing?
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Daniel
#2
Posted 10 April 2022 - 04:41 PM
no idea sorry, but would love a pic of it
#3
Posted 28 April 2022 - 02:53 AM
Hi Skap, Thanks.
Currently don’t have any photos of her as I’m away at work, but will put one up once I get home.
Currently don’t have any photos of her as I’m away at work, but will put one up once I get home.
#4
Posted 28 April 2022 - 08:04 AM
#5
Posted 29 April 2022 - 06:32 PM
Adam, I think you will find the OP's 1st post reveals the info he has provided came from his HHS Vehicle Production Report.
#6
Posted 30 April 2022 - 02:44 AM
HI Adam,
S pack is correct as that was the info provided to me via HSS.
Thanks for offering some assistance, much appreciated.
Cheers
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users