Was,nt the A84 Pack homologated in 1971 along with the E38 ? No need to re homologate it in 1972..............
150 1973 Bathurst Myth Busted
Started by
FLY_AGAIN_XU-1
, Jul 11 2008 03:55 PM
81 replies to this topic
#26
FLY_AGAIN_XU-1
-
- Banned
-
- 1,653 posts
Forum Fixture
- Joined: 01-September 06
Posted 21 July 2008 - 12:08 AM
Was,nt the A84 Pack homologated in 1971 along with the E38 ? No need to re homologate it in 1972..............
#27
_oz772_
_oz772_
-
- Guests
Posted 21 July 2008 - 12:35 AM
My E31 has the A84 track pack also, though it has different parts to the A84 pack in my old E38, just as the A84 pack on the E38's and E49's differed slightly. However, I guess it is one way of looking at it. The interesting thing is that all but 3 of the Chargers at Bathurst in '72 were E38's upgraded to E49 specs. But that means the compliance plates on the cars actually read E38. I realise that happened in Group C, but I'm not aware of it happening with any other cars under series production rules. But maybe it did??Was,nt the A84 Pack homologated in 1971 along with the E38 ? No need to re homologate it in 1972..............
By the way, this is the last E49 A84, and the only one painted limelite. Recently changed hands as is there for roughly $500K.
Edited by oz772, 21 July 2008 - 12:36 AM.
#28
FLY_AGAIN_XU-1
-
- Banned
-
- 1,653 posts
Forum Fixture
- Joined: 01-September 06
Posted 21 July 2008 - 01:56 AM
The interesting thing is that all but 3 of the Chargers at Bathurst in '72 were E38's upgraded to E49 specs. But that means the compliance plates on the cars actually read E38. I realise that happened in Group C, but I'm not aware of it happening with any other cars under series production rules. But maybe it did??
#29
_oz772_
_oz772_
-
- Guests
Posted 21 July 2008 - 08:53 AM
Heading off on a bit of a tangent here, but I am not sure that really applied in the case of the 38/49. I interpret that clause as covering the same specification cars built in two separate calendar years, (like the first and second batch LC XU1's). Although they were both VH R/T's, there were a lot of differences. Probably the most significant was the change from a 3 speed to a 4 speed, that required the trans tunnel to be cut up and altered. The compliance plate you posted earlier has D20 on it (4 speed), E49 (the 302hp engine) and A87 (the small tank track pack, though 21 cars had E49 and A84 on that plate). However most of the Chargers running at Bathurst in '72 that were entered as E49's had compliance plates that read E38 (280hp engine) and no D20, though they did have A84, all be it in a slightly different form. To go further, if CAL had ever gone racing in the V8 E55 in series production (which by the way there is no evidence to support them going that way, despite the articles in various magazines in recent times), could you have taken an E38 and changed it to the E55 V8 specification? I thought the point of series production was essentially to take a car from the dealer and race it, not build an equivalent car from an old model? (Is there any evidence to suggest that blokes took a 1970 spec LC XU1 and updated it to the 1971 CK homologation package with the Aussie 4 speed and so on - maybe that happened, as that would be similar??)The interesting thing is that all but 3 of the Chargers at Bathurst in '72 were E38's upgraded to E49 specs. But that means the compliance plates on the cars actually read E38. I realise that happened in Group C, but I'm not aware of it happening with any other cars under series production rules. But maybe it did??
Edited by oz772, 21 July 2008 - 08:58 AM.
#30
enderwigginau
-
- Moderators
-
- 2,000,527 posts
Admin Wrangler
- Name:Grant
- Location:Brisneyland
- Car:76 LX Sedan, 4 seater
- Joined: 04-February 07
Posted 21 July 2008 - 01:08 PM
Torana's were upgraded all through their racing history and it still happens today.
Why did the 73 require re-homologation to Group C rules?
It was already homologated and there were only superficial changes for 73.
As far as I understand it, the 150 are the race capable cars - drive off the showroom floor Friday, drive onto the track Saturday. The heads and a few other bits and pieces were special equipment, NOT required for homologation.
By the end of the run of XU-1s in 73/4, every car had all the go faster bits, except the special racing equipment.
The excerpts from the Group C rules do not change this.
I have no doubt that cars went from 70 LC XU-1 spec all the way to 73 LJ spec.
The initial LC GTR racecars obviously were upgraded to XU-1 spec when they were released.
Grant..
PS. we need pics of some of the original LC GTR (not XU-1) cars for provenence too.
Why did the 73 require re-homologation to Group C rules?
It was already homologated and there were only superficial changes for 73.
As far as I understand it, the 150 are the race capable cars - drive off the showroom floor Friday, drive onto the track Saturday. The heads and a few other bits and pieces were special equipment, NOT required for homologation.
By the end of the run of XU-1s in 73/4, every car had all the go faster bits, except the special racing equipment.
The excerpts from the Group C rules do not change this.
I have no doubt that cars went from 70 LC XU-1 spec all the way to 73 LJ spec.
The initial LC GTR racecars obviously were upgraded to XU-1 spec when they were released.
Grant..
PS. we need pics of some of the original LC GTR (not XU-1) cars for provenence too.
#31
enderwigginau
-
- Moderators
-
- 2,000,527 posts
Admin Wrangler
- Name:Grant
- Location:Brisneyland
- Car:76 LX Sedan, 4 seater
- Joined: 04-February 07
Posted 21 July 2008 - 01:08 PM
Torana's were upgraded all through their racing history and it still happens today.
Why did the 73 require re-homologation to Group C rules?
It was already homologated and there were only superficial changes for 73.
As far as I understand it, the 150 are the race capable cars - drive off the showroom floor Friday, drive onto the track Saturday. The heads and a few other bits and pieces were special equipment, NOT required for homologation.
By the end of the run of XU-1s in 73/4, every car had all the go faster bits, except the special racing equipment.
The excerpts from the Group C rules do not change this.
I have no doubt that cars went from 70 LC XU-1 spec all the way to 73 LJ spec.
The initial LC GTR racecars obviously were upgraded to XU-1 spec when they were released.
Grant..
PS. we need pics of some of the original LC GTR (not XU-1) cars for provenence too.
Why did the 73 require re-homologation to Group C rules?
It was already homologated and there were only superficial changes for 73.
As far as I understand it, the 150 are the race capable cars - drive off the showroom floor Friday, drive onto the track Saturday. The heads and a few other bits and pieces were special equipment, NOT required for homologation.
By the end of the run of XU-1s in 73/4, every car had all the go faster bits, except the special racing equipment.
The excerpts from the Group C rules do not change this.
I have no doubt that cars went from 70 LC XU-1 spec all the way to 73 LJ spec.
The initial LC GTR racecars obviously were upgraded to XU-1 spec when they were released.
Grant..
PS. we need pics of some of the original LC GTR (not XU-1) cars for provenence too.
#32
FLY_AGAIN_XU-1
-
- Banned
-
- 1,653 posts
Forum Fixture
- Joined: 01-September 06
Posted 22 July 2008 - 03:11 PM
#33
_oz772_
_oz772_
-
- Guests
Posted 22 July 2008 - 06:33 PM
It shows there were some big changes in moving from series production to Group C. No need for Chrysler and Ford to produce cars with 35 and 36 gallon fuel tanks as per the series production rules, just for one.
#34
crabba67
-
- Members
-
- 903 posts
Forum Fixture
- Name:anthony
- Location:earth
- Joined: 21-July 10
Posted 05 June 2014 - 05:16 PM
Old thread but ......................
First (3) Pictures: is a dual cast 9/2e block brisbane XU1 built between 20 july 1973 to 31 july 1973 ex race team car sydney, all the bits eg: pistons rods.
Picture (4): is amendent No 9/2E.
Picture (5): is a Production broadcast sheet of a XU1 built in Brisbane in JULY YES JULY,the 30 july 1973 with *01 finespline axles xm,*02 exhaust manifold 9934060 9934059 and *03 blade ass 9934058 same has the "listed" 150 ENGINES NOT CARS.
Picture (6):the last amendent 10/8V after 9/2E
cheers
Attached Files
-
jp3744 1.jpg 216.54K
14 downloads
-
jp3744 2.jpg 318.36K
12 downloads
-
jp3744.jpg 188.67K
10 downloads
-
022.jpg 41.17K
6 downloads
-
7 73 broadcast sheet.jpg 112.77K
13 downloads
#35
S pack
-
- Members
-
- 15,541 posts
Scrivet Counter
- Name:Dave
- Location:Luggage Point
- Car:73 LJ
- Joined: 25-January 10
Posted 05 June 2014 - 05:39 PM
Hahaha, ERRATA 10/8v 1/07/1973. Not new parts, just correcting clerical errors in the gear ratio specs reported in amendment 6/6v and the brake rotor specs in Recognition Document H2-3 3/02/1972.
#36
yel327
-
- Members
-
- 13,087 posts
Oh My, Don't you post alot
- Joined: 10-February 08
Posted 05 June 2014 - 08:39 PM
Remember Anthony, regardless of the end outcome of all of this (150 or not 150), the list published by GMH was for engines. Not engine accessories. The bits listed on the broadcast sheets were fitted at the assembly plants. Engines listed were the engines as they left the engine plant in Victoria, and appear to be fitted to the final 151 cars.
#37
crabba67
-
- Members
-
- 903 posts
Forum Fixture
- Name:anthony
- Location:earth
- Joined: 21-July 10
Posted 05 June 2014 - 09:25 PM
yel327,explain engine JP3744## dual cast 5G3 9/2E P/N 9934061 which all so left engine plant victoria.
cheers
#38
WhiteA9XS
View Garage
-
- Members
-
- 1,646 posts
.
- Name:Shaun
- Location:Billys Creek
- Car:LJ LX
- Joined: 08-November 05
View Garage
Posted 05 June 2014 - 10:09 PM
Anthony , "dual cast blocks" has nothing to do with 9/2E and the listed 150 , this has been proven .
#39
crabba67
-
- Members
-
- 903 posts
Forum Fixture
- Name:anthony
- Location:earth
- Joined: 21-July 10
Posted 05 June 2014 - 10:24 PM
shaun t, 
you,re in denial ............................
Edited by crabba67, 05 June 2014 - 10:25 PM.
#40
Potta
-
- Members
-
- 6,026 posts
Oh My, Don't you post alot
- Name:Craig
- Location:Gozzy, WA
- Car:LC GTR, LC 4 door
- Joined: 01-May 09
Posted 05 June 2014 - 11:33 PM
http://m.youtube.com...h?v=iEKLFS-aKcw
If it's not on the list, no amount of evidence will put it on the list ffs.
You can argue all you want when you go to sell your car to some cashed up sucker but until then let it go for fr0ck sake!!!
If it's not on the list, no amount of evidence will put it on the list ffs.
You can argue all you want when you go to sell your car to some cashed up sucker but until then let it go for fr0ck sake!!!
#41
WhiteA9XS
View Garage
-
- Members
-
- 1,646 posts
.
- Name:Shaun
- Location:Billys Creek
- Car:LJ LX
- Joined: 08-November 05
View Garage
Posted 06 June 2014 - 03:32 AM
Anthony , No denial here mate .
NOT ALL 1973 Bathurst 150 list engines were dual date cast .
How many of these 150 cars have you inspected ? I know you checked out the tangerine one in Sale with Gino .
#42
yel327
-
- Members
-
- 13,087 posts
Oh My, Don't you post alot
- Joined: 10-February 08
Posted 06 June 2014 - 07:03 AM
yel327,explain engine JP3744## dual cast 5G3 9/2E P/N 9934061 which all so left engine plant victoria.
cheers
It is an XU1 engine with the dual date code, just like the 173's with them. All Holden 6cyl engines came from the same engine plant.
#43
Potta
-
- Members
-
- 6,026 posts
Oh My, Don't you post alot
- Name:Craig
- Location:Gozzy, WA
- Car:LC GTR, LC 4 door
- Joined: 01-May 09
Posted 06 June 2014 - 09:45 AM
Anthony , No denial here mate .
NOT ALL 1973 Bathurst 150 list engines were dual date cast .
How many of these 150 cars have you inspected ? I know you checked out the tangerine one in Sale with Gino .
Yeah but the ones that aren't dual cast must have been replaced or were special order or the second casting fell off or aliens took the numbers because they don't fit in with Mike and Anthony's theory that all XU1's had dual cast numbers on them.
It is impossible that this theory could be wrong because then Mike's car might not be exactly the same as the cars on the list!
And there is no way that could be true. 
All the evidence is in the locked threads full of dribble.
No offence Mike (if you're around) and Anthony, but I wish you would just enjoy your cars for what they are and not try to make them something they are not based on loosely proven theories.
Scientific method says that you can only ever disprove a theory, you can never truly prove it, all (at least most) of yours regarding the 150 list have been disproven so far.
#44
crabba67
-
- Members
-
- 903 posts
Forum Fixture
- Name:anthony
- Location:earth
- Joined: 21-July 10
Posted 06 June 2014 - 11:35 AM
shaun, i have inspected alot and looked at the tangerine one back in 1987 the owner was goose at GOOSE,S AUTO QUINN ST DANDENONG.
Anthony , No denial here mate .
NOT ALL 1973 Bathurst 150 list engines were dual date cast .
How many of these 150 cars have you inspected ? I know you checked out the tangerine one in Sale with Gino .
#45
S pack
-
- Members
-
- 15,541 posts
Scrivet Counter
- Name:Dave
- Location:Luggage Point
- Car:73 LJ
- Joined: 25-January 10
Posted 07 June 2014 - 11:15 AM
yel327,explain engine JP3744## dual cast 5G3 9/2E P/N 9934061 which all so left engine plant victoria.
cheers
Just because it's a dual cast date block doesn't automatically make it a 9/2e (Pt No. 9934061) block.
#46
crabba67
-
- Members
-
- 903 posts
Forum Fixture
- Name:anthony
- Location:earth
- Joined: 21-July 10
Posted 09 June 2014 - 07:28 PM
dave, the QL.JL and CDs have standard pistons and rods all dual cast block,s 202 and 173 are all casted in june,july and august 1973
and only fitted to july,august and september ADR built cars, including homologated Xu1,s
here is a QL 5G3 standard pistons i found in northern nsw.
#47
S pack
-
- Members
-
- 15,541 posts
Scrivet Counter
- Name:Dave
- Location:Luggage Point
- Car:73 LJ
- Joined: 25-January 10
Posted 20 June 2014 - 10:37 AM
dave, the QL.JL and CDs have standard pistons and rods
Well, I wouldn't have expected the QL, JL, CD & QD dual cast date blocks to have anything but garden variety pistons & rods.
#48
yel327
-
- Members
-
- 13,087 posts
Oh My, Don't you post alot
- Joined: 10-February 08
Posted 20 June 2014 - 11:07 AM
Plus there'd be others in the same timeframe, to name a few:
CA, CB, CC, CE, FE, NA, NB, NC, NE, NL, NM, QA, QE, QM.
Any of these may also display the same cast marks if cast at the same timeframe as those already identified.
#50
S pack
-
- Members
-
- 15,541 posts
Scrivet Counter
- Name:Dave
- Location:Luggage Point
- Car:73 LJ
- Joined: 25-January 10
Posted 20 June 2014 - 01:52 PM
WTF is an NG prefix? Looks to me like it could be a restamp.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
