Other thing to consider to is if there is truth in the A9x short being of different materials, sizes etc ala the "performance upgrade" then that would be even more reason to have a correct date coded HT motor over a replacement NT as to originality.
original a9x motor
Started by
_toranacanfly_
, May 21 2013 08:40 PM
92 replies to this topic
#51
TerrA LX
-
- Members
-
- 14,241 posts
Fulcrum Fixture
- Location:Sid 'n' knee
- Joined: 31-May 06
Posted 23 May 2013 - 08:31 PM
#52
yel327
-
- Members
-
- 13,088 posts
Oh My, Don't you post alot
- Joined: 10-February 08
Posted 24 May 2013 - 08:04 AM
That I get, and if they are they should all be pretty close in casting numbers, unlike most other engines where cast date means bugger all compared to engine number (sequential engine numbers can be 3 months apart in cast date, and then sequential BODY, VIN or chassis numbers can have engine numbers even as high as 5000 apart, although Toranas won't be this bad as volumes are low). However given that a close to correct HT for an A9X would probably cost a bomb (for example if I had it i'd be waiting for the original carto turn up to sell it to the owner), and an NT will pull up around $1000, I'd still go for the NT - at least there is a plausable explanation for it being there!
#53
_doucmyuc_
_doucmyuc_
-
- Guests
Posted 24 May 2013 - 06:19 PM
Couple of things. The A9X exclusive cam obviously was not for performance gain. Yet we know it wasn't used in any other 308, so the presumption that it was to cure 27a issues doesn't make sense. Why would they not put it in all the period 308's to cure the 27a issues .... if that was its purpose?
I personally think the A9X cam is different. If youve ever heard an A9X next to a 308, you can hear a difference in lobe timing. To me the A9X 308 picks up more around the 3,000rpm range than a standard 308.
Would love to have access to an A9X cam and put it through a cam doctor machine.
#54
REDA9X
-
- Inactive
-
- 0 posts
Removed
- Joined: 08-November 05
Posted 24 May 2013 - 07:40 PM
The grind is different to a standard 308. Why they didn't continue it in the other 308's after the introduction of the A9X I don't know, but I do know motoring journalists of the day made note of the fact the engine didn't suffer the chocking of ADR27A in the same fashion as other SS and SLR's they has tested. Perhaps the fact the A9X was supposed to be the "performance" model they wanted it to stand out a little, who knows. I have never pulled a cam out and compared it, but the journal size being different makes more sense to me than a material change as cams were free to change anyway.
#55
tuxedoss
-
- Members
-
- 1,024 posts
Forum Fixture
- Name:Brett
- Location:Sydney
- Car:ss
- Joined: 29-July 11
Posted 24 May 2013 - 08:57 PM
I imagine the cam in the standard 308 was choked as they had to meet emission standards for 27A, I'm sure Holden didn't put it in there to reduce power. Maybe the A9X got a special one and wasn't tested. But as A9X seemed to replace the SS in late 77 you'd think they were just grabbing Standard HT engines out of the pool and fitting them.
#56
_LXSS350_
_LXSS350_
-
- Guests
Posted 24 May 2013 - 11:50 PM
The grind is different to a standard 308. Why they didn't continue it in the other 308's after the introduction of the A9X I don't know, but I do know motoring journalists of the day made note of the fact the engine didn't suffer the chocking of ADR27A in the same fashion as other SS and SLR's they has tested. Perhaps the fact the A9X was supposed to be the "performance" model they wanted it to stand out a little, who knows. I have never pulled a cam out and compared it, but the journal size being different makes more sense to me than a material change as cams were free to change anyway.
Not referencing the cam material more the crank. The cam as you said may have been thicker for durability. Need to put them on a bench to see the real story. No way an A9X 308 had any more hp than any other 308 of the era. All the fairy tale stuff about the A9X being some form of supercar needs to be put in context. Hell a Hyundai Sonata Hybrid beats an A9X in 0-60mph and equal top speed. Lets be real about the 308 boat anchor.
#58
_Skapinad_
_Skapinad_
-
- Guests
Posted 25 May 2013 - 03:48 PM
I for one had to google hyundai sonata hybrid....
Frankly you should be banned for even knowing that "fact".
Frankly you should be banned for even knowing that "fact".
#59
_Got1UR1_
_Got1UR1_
-
- Guests
Posted 25 May 2013 - 04:07 PM
Hey Col, I for one will always take a Torana with a "boat anchor motor" over any type of Asian hybrid every day. Remember the STOCK Chev 350s were nothing special either. Just years of hotrodding and aftermarket gofast bits woke them up and made them real weapons. Why, they even stopped putting them in Holdens in 73 because a 308 was a better deal when both were stock.
#60
REDA9X
-
- Inactive
-
- 0 posts
Removed
- Joined: 08-November 05
Posted 25 May 2013 - 09:48 PM
I never ever said it had more Hp than any other 308 I said it didn't suffer the same choking issues of other 308's with adr27a. The engines ran smoother without that mid rev shudder and splutter the ADR v8s had. As for Hp it's a known fact removing the fan alone was a slight Hp improvement so I guess it really did have more hp then
#61
yel327
-
- Members
-
- 13,088 posts
Oh My, Don't you post alot
- Joined: 10-February 08
Posted 26 May 2013 - 08:19 AM
Hey Col, I for one will always take a Torana with a "boat anchor motor" over any type of Asian hybrid every day. Remember the STOCK Chev 350s were nothing special either. Just years of hotrodding and aftermarket gofast bits woke them up and made them real weapons. Why, they even stopped putting them in Holdens in 73 because a 308 was a better deal when both were stock.
HQ had 350 near to the end. Lots of 1974 Devilles built with 350! Agree that a HJ 308 went almost as well as a HQ 350, but HQ 350 was a lot more engine than a HQ 308!
You are dead right base 350's weren't much, but a few stock 350's went pretty well - 1970 Z28 for a start. Stick one of those in a HQ coupe and all a PhaseIII will see is the HQ's rear bar.
#62
enderwigginau
-
- Moderators
-
- 2,000,527 posts
Admin Wrangler
- Name:Grant
- Location:Brisneyland
- Car:76 LX Sedan, 4 seater
- Joined: 04-February 07
Posted 26 May 2013 - 08:25 AM
You created a conundrum for yourself, as your "most modified" would need to be totally original to how it was built to get the big dollars......I am of the opinion that the most modified A9X (race trim, log booked etc) are the most valuable, the line crossed would be 1st, 2nd or 3rd at Bathurst or ATCC winner etc would have to be right up there in increasing it's value.
A race car is totally different to a road car......
#63
_Got1UR1_
_Got1UR1_
-
- Guests
Posted 26 May 2013 - 01:40 PM
You are right of course Col, 350s thru into 74 with T400s, mainly Statos. Manuals no longer available mid to late 73. Would you call an LT1 a stock 350? Only because the factory built it. L34s must have a stock engine too?HQ had 350 near to the end. Lots of 1974 Devilles built with 350! Agree that a HJ 308 went almost as well as a HQ 350, but HQ 350 was a lot more engine than a HQ 308!
You are dead right base 350's weren't much, but a few stock 350's went pretty well - 1970 Z28 for a start. Stick one of those in a HQ coupe and all a PhaseIII will see is the HQ's rear bar.
#64
yel327
-
- Members
-
- 13,088 posts
Oh My, Don't you post alot
- Joined: 10-February 08
Posted 26 May 2013 - 02:57 PM
Yes, if the engine plant built them they are stock! L34 were as built by GMH, not the HO packages but the engine fitted on the assembly line. Same with XU-1 engines. Even the last of the HG GTS350 were pretty warm engines, not a match for an LT1 but still pretty good things. The hot 283's were good factory items, with power pack heads, big compression, solid cams and twin 4BBL carbs, a totally stock (as fitted in the late 50's) one of these in a Torana would probably outrun a stock L34.
#65
_LXSS350_
_LXSS350_
-
- Guests
Posted 30 May 2013 - 01:31 AM
I for one had to google hyundai sonata hybrid....
Frankly you should be banned for even knowing that "fact".
Oh Skap you know you want that big block Hyundai nestling between your engine rails with a boot full of duracell batteries so you can beat those pesky A9X's. ...... LOL A Tordai
What a sexy beast that 199 hp Hybrid powerplant is !!
Not sure it will mark its territory in the same manner as a 308 does when parked on your driveway overnight.
#66
_chrome yella_
_chrome yella_
-
- Guests
Posted 30 May 2013 - 12:39 PM
wouldn't the A9X be a smoother runner due to no engine fan and the 14" wheels and 2.60 diff, which once rolling had some excellent touring speeds, these factors worked brilliantly with the torque and rev range of the standard motor.
are you sure the cam thickening at the neck wasn't evolution starting with the A9X, and have you checked the timing set as compared to an non a9x to see if there the same part#
as for the block being built with different metallurgy, why would they.
#67
_LXSS350_
_LXSS350_
-
- Guests
Posted 30 May 2013 - 08:27 PM
The A9X lists from the LX parts book a different camshaft, crank and piston pins. The question that still needs a definitive answer is what exactly was different and why did Holden do this exclusively for the A9X and not other factory 308's?
If for instance the camshaft helped cure the 27a issues why did the late HX and Hz not get that solution. We know the cam was not a performance grind, and was not some exotic expensive part that was not justifiable for solving 27a 308 production complaints of the time.
Its easy to get sidetracked by other issues and differences such as removal of the engine fan. But like much of historic performance car wives tales that have (through memory fade) manifested themselves ...... it would be nice to not guess what and why. For me its only curiosity not wanting defensive or hyperbole myths to be unnecessarily and forever continuing.
#68
_AquaSLR5000_
_AquaSLR5000_
-
- Guests
Posted 30 May 2013 - 08:30 PM
Just a guess, but would the crank difference be the rear main seal. One being rope type and the other being neoprene
#69
tuxedoss
-
- Members
-
- 1,024 posts
Forum Fixture
- Name:Brett
- Location:Sydney
- Car:ss
- Joined: 29-July 11
Posted 30 May 2013 - 10:00 PM
Just a guess, but would the crank difference be the rear main seal. One being rope type and the other being neoprene
I think that change was in the early 70's so probably not.
#70
yel327
-
- Members
-
- 13,088 posts
Oh My, Don't you post alot
- Joined: 10-February 08
Posted 31 May 2013 - 08:58 AM
Rope seal came with HJ engines on V8.
I reckon the crank listed in the parts book is not for the production engines, just a crank made for use in older L34 blocks ie neo seal, maybe for the heavier group C pistons and L34 rods. Maybe the part number had te listed so it could be used for Group C?
The cam difference I have no real theory, unless maybe it was slightly different to better suit the 308 with manual and taller gearing? Remember in HX and HZ 308 manual normally got a 3.36:1 rear axle, very rarely even 3.08. A9X got 3.08 or 2.6:1.
#71
TerrA LX
-
- Members
-
- 14,241 posts
Fulcrum Fixture
- Location:Sid 'n' knee
- Joined: 31-May 06
Posted 31 May 2013 - 09:37 AM
Rope seal came with HJ engines on V8.
I reckon the crank listed in the parts book is not for the production engines, just a crank made for use in older L34 blocks ie neo seal, maybe for the heavier group C pistons and L34 rods. Maybe the part number had te listed so it could be used for Group C?
This makes perfect sense, as the L34 motor was already approved they could continue using it in the A9x (which was the whole intended purpose) if someone broke a crank there needed to be a replacement, which the standard A9x could not provide.
As for the cam NFI.
#72
Dr Terry
-
- Moderators
-
- 3,276 posts
Technical + Numbers Guru + Moderator
- Location:Eastwood (Sydney) NSW
- Joined: 13-November 05
Posted 31 May 2013 - 06:18 PM
I opened a can of worms with that question, didn't I ??
Dr Terry
#73
_LXSS350_
_LXSS350_
-
- Guests
Posted 01 June 2013 - 12:53 AM
L34 crank is the same part number as the standard 308, 7439898 which is the neoprene version. The blocks used in the A9X were supplied when teams bought new A9X rolling shells. If a team used the old L34 block they were stuck with the old crank.
The A9X crank part number 92005960 had different materials to improve reliability.
Replacement block for A9X race application 2806365
Rope seal came with HJ engines on V8.
I reckon the crank listed in the parts book is not for the production engines, just a crank made for use in older L34 blocks ie neo seal, maybe for the heavier group C pistons and L34 rods. Maybe the part number had te listed so it could be used for Group C?
The cam difference I have no real theory, unless maybe it was slightly different to better suit the 308 with manual and taller gearing? Remember in HX and HZ 308 manual normally got a 3.36:1 rear axle, very rarely even 3.08. A9X got 3.08 or 2.6:1.
yel327 that's the strange thing because both in my 78 and late 80's Holden LX parts books it lists 92005960 as std for A9X.
Also Red seems to believe if your L34 engine had its original block you couldn't use 92005960 and you had to get a new block 2806365 which must be a rope not neo.
Edited by LXSS350, 01 June 2013 - 12:55 AM.
#74
_LXSS350_
_LXSS350_
-
- Guests
Posted 01 June 2013 - 12:57 AM
I opened a can of worms with that question, didn't I ??
Dr Terry
Was the factory A9X faster than the factory L34 ????? 
Remembering the L34 couldn't be brought in sexy hatch form so it had to lug extra doors and could only normally be found picking up passengers at the local Taxi rank.
Edited by LXSS350, 01 June 2013 - 01:01 AM.
#75
yel327
-
- Members
-
- 13,088 posts
Oh My, Don't you post alot
- Joined: 10-February 08
Posted 01 June 2013 - 07:57 AM
yel327 that's the strange thing because both in my 78 and late 80's Holden LX parts books it lists 92005960 as std for A9X.
Also Red seems to believe if your L34 engine had its original block you couldn't use 92005960 and you had to get a new block 2806365 which must be a rope not neo.
Parts books are not always reflections of what are on the production vehicles, they were designed to tell you what parts you could use to service a car. Perfect example is LH book that lists differnt aussie 4spd bits for L34 - not all L34's used those parts. If a different crank to the production crank was needed for Group C it makes sense it'd end up in the LX parts catalogue. I may be 100% wrong, but it is a theory!
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
