Lotsa Posts!
Posted 24 February 2014 - 08:34 PM
Reminded me of the XA Coupe rear treatment ,but then again.
Maybe even a Charger type rear spoiler in that on the HQ.
xa coupe.jpg 9.86K
1 downloads
MMjul72pg_0003 hq rear end.jpg 145.47K
2 downloads
Edited by Indy Orange, 24 February 2014 - 08:35 PM.
Grail Hunter
Posted 24 February 2014 - 09:17 PM
Bags drove a few nice Hot Holden's back in the day, a few of Leo's Creations
_LXSS350_
Posted 25 February 2014 - 03:01 AM
A close look at the car reveals that careful thought was given to its roadgoing practicality ---- and that adaptation for 140mph racetrack stability is a simple one step job involving fixation of a front-end XU1 type spoiler
Motor Manual "got me thinking" !
So now I am putting an XU1 front spoiler on the Hyundai Hybrid to give me some of that "140mph stability".
No doubt about it a HQ at 140mph in 1972, now that must have had all the italian supercar engineers some food for thought.
Especially as Motor Manual says with the stunning news that it would use the lightweight 308 powerhouse having less cast iron over the front end.
Too funny.
Oh My, Don't you post alot
Posted 25 February 2014 - 05:35 AM
Don't forget the quickest lap time for the Muscle Car Masters category at Bathurst is a HQ, so they are capable - just not in original suspension format or without a very tall diff!
308 is far lighter than the 350 it replaced, by a fair margin. It is about 50kg or thereabouts less, and that makes a huge difference. GMH was experimenting with 308 powered Bathurst HG racers in 1970-71 after the XU1's failure, they had a hot 308 (probably Harry's V8 XU1 spec, later L34 spec engine) in a HG.
_LXSS350_
Posted 25 February 2014 - 03:39 PM
The MCM mods to make the HQ race realistic is a million miles away from the rules that where in place for tin top production, group c racing of the 60's and 70's.
The Hq-Hz where never racing feasible especially once Holden shot itself in the foot with one of the worst designed small blocks the world had ever seen. So by 75 they only had one foot to race with, which is why Holden had to use the torana's for racing and take advantage of the weight and better steering.
At least Fraud Oz had the common sense to pay for the rights to the Cleveland. Holdens decision to atempt to reinvient the wheel for a few people in Aust could only mean that the 308 was bound to be a terrible POS as it proved to be. Thank god racing authorities realised they could nobble the Frauds by their own poor suspension/geometry design and adding weight.
My god imagine in 74 having a factory LT1 chev with rockcrusher and 12bolt in the L34. Why the engine plant couldn't have been setup under licence for local sbc production is just a mystery. They could have had the benefits of employment, local steel and yet an amazing support base for the ONE PROGRAM THAT WORKED
WIN SUNDAY - SELL MONDAY.
But Holden where a pack of tight ass conservative as#wipes that couldn't see the woods through the trees. They went cheap and they beancounters ruined what should have been one of the leaders in the GM stable right up with Chev. You needed people like Harry able to do projects like LeMans to prove what we could do but NO the dic#wads in charge ruined it by conservatism, no imagination and no drive.
For gods sake the old SBC have sold over 90million units of course it was light years better. You think if Bartlett was allowed rear discs on the Camaro that it wouldn't have kicked dot at Bathurst instead of being on its lid. Look at the conservative Hp and time frame of the SBC then look at our pos from the great minds at Holden.
1957: 283ci = 283Hp i.e. 1hp per ci displacement
1965: 327ci factory L79 had forged pistons,steel crank, 2.02 heads, 350Hp
1967: Delco transistor-ignition system
1967/68: Factory 302ci competition engines 465-550Hp
1968: Big journal - Main 2.45 / 2.10 Rod journal
1968: Crossram intake (2 x 600 holly)
1970: 350ci LT-1 370Hp
1973: Unleaded fuel starts
My god in 1967 the 302 with single carby was getting up to 550Hp. The 308 struggled at 400Hp at the peak of the A9X and was lucky to get to that with fuel injection at the very end in 1995. The bloody radical Repco fuel injected 308 engine that was far from being capable of factory fitted to a passenger Holden was only 480Hp-to 525Hp max.
Have to remember back in the 60's and 70's Chev was very conservative with its factory Hp and Tq numbers. As can be seen with the 430Hp vs what the 500Hp++ ZL1 engines actually put out. Mind you many usa dyno from engine builders are much like the factual pub talk on factory 130mph Toranas (i.e. more beer = more faster LOL)
I know being a Torana fan that we have a lot of 308 fans, but that's why I can have a non biased opinion because that all we got from Holden. Hell back in the 80's we used to spend $30k-$45k on the POS to try make them to make Hp and best of all stay together (and not leak oil). It took until 1995 to even get it decent but by then the LS was so far in-front it was a total joke no matter how much Perkins got away with cheating.
Now the new gen LT is pushing the pushrod even further into amazing numbers per cu.
Edited by LXSS350, 25 February 2014 - 03:43 PM.
Oh My, Don't you post alot
Posted 25 February 2014 - 04:11 PM
No doubt the HQ today is far different to how they were in 1972, but so are all the others in the same category, and the HQ is the fastest at this time around Bathurst. That was my point about them being capable. The L34 was as you say not a great car, but under the rules the engine and the rest of the car was developed to be as good as it could have been and was a successful race car.
GMH toyed with the Z28 LT1 engine, Muncie and 12 bolt in a HG as a series production car, but it didn't go ahead as the brakes were never going to be good enough. The 350Z (earlier Old Man Emu in design phase) was meant to have a high peformance 400 in it, but again brakes would have been an issue. It all became academic anyway once Series Production was killed. I just wish a HG, HQ, HJ or WA had been built with a Z28, M22/TH400 and 12 bolt, but alas it never happend!
Technical + Numbers Guru + Moderator
Posted 25 February 2014 - 04:43 PM
_LXSS350_
Posted 25 February 2014 - 05:11 PM
The thing that gets me with the Monaro and the Torana. Holden didn't follow the very obvious marketing success of the race "Sunday buy Monday" campaign. Holden had the inside track into GM's enormous experience that it had gained with its 230-240million population market.
For heavens sake it would be impossible at the time if it was going to continue to be an imported engine, but Holden only had to pay a fee to build the SBC here as even dumb as# Fraud did. Our market size made reinventing the wheel an exercise in heartache for racing which we know through Holdens adverts of the period was bringing them lots of sales. Had Holden done it right they would have taken an amazing amount of sales away from Fraud (it already had but more so).
Harry new what he could do for Holden sales and image with racing, but the one vision bean-counters running Holden continued with their conservative view of the companies future. They only had to look at what Racing was doing for GM's sales to know how the 60's and 70's should have been run.
Had the GTR-X made production (the closest of any in the period) the whole thing would have been different. I believe that is the one car that would have rocked all future Australian Motoring production from all manufacturers (and dramatically). It was ground-breaking and so anti Holden conservatism that I believe it would have smacked Fraud to the pavement in a single big king hit.
Oh My, Don't you post alot
Posted 28 February 2014 - 08:13 AM
At least Fraud Oz had the common sense to pay for the rights to the Cleveland. Holdens decision to attempt to reinvent the wheel for a few people in Aust could only mean that the 308 was bound to be a terrible POS as it proved to be.
They developed the 308 as they were having problems with Chev. engines and I believe they ironed out those problems resulting in a more reliable engine.
s
Edited by StephenSLR, 28 February 2014 - 08:14 AM.
Oh My, Don't you post alot
Posted 28 February 2014 - 08:31 AM
GMH Engineers reckoned the SBC woudln't fit in a HD-HR (which a HK is just a revision of), probably another reason why they developed their own. I think it was John Bagshaw who convinced them to change their minds and fit the engine to a Holden.
LXSS350, didn't Ford US dump the Cleveland in favour of the Windsor and Ford Australia took it on after that? Was it only produced as a 351 in Australia from 1972-ish onwards? I'm pretty sure the 302ci variety is an Aussie orphan.
Oh My, Don't you post alot
Posted 28 February 2014 - 08:36 AM
LXSS350, didn't Ford US dump the Cleveland in favour of the Windsor and Ford Australia took it on after that? Was it only produced as a 351 in Australia from 1972-ish onwards? I'm pretty sure the 302ci variety is an Aussie orphan.
Not sure but I do know some US guys do like our Aus. Cleveland and Windsor engines.
s
_chrome yella_
Posted 28 February 2014 - 09:57 AM
Lotsa Posts!
Posted 28 February 2014 - 09:57 AM
Technical + Numbers Guru + Moderator
Posted 28 February 2014 - 09:59 AM
Not sure but I do know some US guys do like our Aus. Cleveland and Windsor engines.
s
There were no 'Australian' Windsor engines (they were all imports) & our version of the Cleveland has thicker cylinder walls, than the US design, that's why they like ours. As a matter of fact there are quite a few minor differences between the US & Aust. versions & in many Ford circles our version is called the Geelong motor.
Also the 302 version is a uniquely Australian 'orphan'. The US continued with the regular Small Block 302 which we erroneously call a Windsor.
Dr Terry
Oh My, Don't you post alot
Posted 28 February 2014 - 10:12 AM
our version of the Cleveland has thicker cylinder walls, than the US design, that's why they like ours.
Thanks, I knew there was one Aus. engine the yanks were keen on.
Though the US still has Windsor engines,I know they call the Windsor with Cleveland heads a Clevor.
s
Technical + Numbers Guru + Moderator
Posted 28 February 2014 - 10:58 AM
A 302 Small Block Ford V8 with Cleveland Heads is a Boss 302.
Dr Terry
Oh My, Don't you post alot
Posted 28 February 2014 - 11:03 AM
A 302 Small Block Ford V8 with Cleveland Heads is a Boss 302.
Dr Terry
Yes if it was released from factory that way and came in a Boss 302 Mustang.
If you build one yourself it's not considered 'factory original' and known as a Clevor.
s
Technical + Numbers Guru + Moderator
Posted 28 February 2014 - 12:53 PM
Yes if it was released from factory that way and came in a Boss 302 Mustang.
If you build one yourself it's not considered 'factory original' and known as a Clevor.
s
That's must be recent term, I've never heard of them referred to by that name.
As I said earlier, strictly speaking 302 Small Block Ford V8s aren't really Windsor motors, so the term is a little erroneous.
Dr Terry
Oh My, Don't you post alot
Posted 28 February 2014 - 01:04 PM
That's must be recent term, I've never heard of them referred to by that name.
As I said earlier, strictly speaking 302 Small Block Ford V8s aren't really Windsor motors, so the term is a little erroneous.
Dr Terry
It probably is recent and a way for the Mustang enthusiasts to differentiate between an original Boss motor and one that is built from bits and pieces.
Interesting, after doing a quick google, a Windsor motor (221 up to 351) is one produced in Windsor Ontario but from 1969 all small blocks were produced in Cleveland.
s
_LXSS350_
Posted 01 March 2014 - 12:06 AM
You speak of the Cleveland in glowing terms, but again it has its own cross to bear. Speak to pro drag racers about how to make a Cleveland work. The heads are a carbon copy of the BBC & the block/crank design is, to quote your words, a "POS".
No ......... my post above has nothing to do with singing any praise for the engine.
I am talking only of the Cleveland as an example of manufacturing in Australia via a licensing agreement.
For all I care Fraud could have licensed the Windsor ....... or designed their own engine ....... or even continued to import engines.
Fraud new through Howard (like Harry Firth new for Holden) that racing results was vital for sales in the 60/70's.
I have no glow or otherwise for anything at Fraud Australia.
But I do think Fraud chose correctly by not to try to re-invent the wheel for such a tiny tiny 12-15million market (Australia).
That to me was the correct business decision for any manufacturer in such tiny country (population) and that is my only admiration for Fraud and something Holden totally stuffed up. Holden could have put Fraud out of business in the 70's had it got its finger out of its a#s and got serious.
Quote
Firstly when GM-H first set out to design the Aussie V8 in 1964, the SBC was in its infancy & was not as well regarded is it is today. In those days a stock 283 or 327 had difficulty getting bearings, camshafts or timing chains to last 100,000 miles. The later large journal motors were better, but they were years away.
They might have talked about a proposal in 1964 just as Chev did with its SBC in the early 50's, but they where many years away from committing themselves to a non reversible build. In the meantime Chev was kicking Frauds butt in the USA with the SBC.
Now remember the Big journal SBC - Main 2.45 / 2.10 Rod journal where released in 1968 production year.
FYI the first production Holden V8's that left the plant where produced in 1968 and that was right at the end of the HK run so its far from your 1964 which was the EH era. Holden where worried that the engine bay was too small in the HK for fitment of the 327 chev but that issue was not issue.
So lets keep some perspective as the large journal sb chevs where not years away at all.
Its not Chevs fault that Holden brought the cheapest rubbish that Chev could supply rather than ask Chev to supply the good factory fitted stuff. Holden said No 11.1.1 forged pistons, No steel crank, No large capacity baffled and windage tray sump, No double hump fuelie 2.02 heads, No solid lifters, No hi-rise manifold, No twin 4 barrel cross-ram manifold (Z28 - 302cu = 400Hp)
Hell look at the factory options in 1965 when the 327 was putting out 350Hp. Christ almighty we where only just getting that in the L34 race only track cars and Harry was still trying to fix oiling issues. Then take a look at Chev with the L79 was fitted in a factory passenger car on the road in 1965 (corvette).
Lets also not forget that opt RPO JL8 for 4 wheel discs became available on camaro/vette in 1969 these where using a 4pot caliper (hell we didn't get 4 spot yet we got our $2.50c worth of 4 wheel discs some 8yrs later in 1977 on the A9X)
This may help explain the factory HI-PO Z/28 and why Chev had to rate them at lower than 1hp per cu (290Hp) and simply didn't want to print 350-360Hp that happened above 7000rpm within the solid cams range.
Car and Driver and Road and Track magazines did road test in 1968 and where using 7500rpm on the shift changes on the way to the 3500lbs Z/28's 140Mph top speed or its 13.5sec 1/4 mile time. Of course with the cross-ram it was significantly faster and interesting that the PCV valve was fitted to make it still comply with emission's. The usa had similar issues on insurance and societies opinions on muscle cars etc
The Z/28 option code was introduced in December 1966 for the 1967 model year. It was the brainchild of Vince Piggins, who conceived offering "virtually race-ready" Camaros for sale from any Chevrolet dealer.This option package was not mentioned in any sales literature, so it was unknown to most buyers.The Z/28 option required power front disc brakes and a close-ratio Muncie 4-speed manual transmission (posi-traction was optional). It featured a 302 cu in (4.9 L) small-block V-8 engine, 3" crankshaft with 4" bore, an aluminum intake manifold, and a 4-barrel vacuum secondary Holley carburetor of 780 cfm. The engine was designed specifically to race in the Trans Am series (which required engines smaller than 305 cu in (5.0 L) and public availability of the car. Advertised power of this engine was listed at 290 hp (216 kW). This is an under-rated figure.Chevrolet wanted to keep the horsepower rating at less than 1 hp per cubic inch, for various reasons (e.g. insurance and racing classes). The factory rating of 290 hp occurred at 5300 rpm, while actual peak for the high-revving 302 was closer to 360 hp (268 kW) (with the single four barrel carb) and 400 hp (298 kW) (with optional dual-four barrel carbs) at 6800-7000 rpm.
_LXSS350_
Posted 01 March 2014 - 03:36 AM
The 465-550 hp you quote for the 67/68 302 SBC is not 465-550 of today's horsepower.
Common sense, anyone who is into horsepower, racing, hotrodding etc knows about the variances in measurements and methodologies. I don't think we need to explain the science used every-time a number is written on a forum post. Unless cross referenced such numbers are obviously not quantifiable.
However we can compare numbers from Chev within the same periods (or between Holden numbers) as they are documented with any changes in the factories measurement procedures. Flywheel, Gross, Nett etc
I am not a drag racer as going straight and making power for a few seconds has never held any interest. However the science of Hp and the laws of physics gives us an interesting base and comparable facts. Now forget the ET times as that's a traction, gear ratios, hookup issue etc.
If you want to really know what HP look at the terminal speed over the 1/4 and the loaded weight of the car. The drag boys can tell you all about the Moroso HP Calc sliding ruler. This allows you to know how cars say from 1968, 1979 or even latest 2014 cars compare on Hp.
Car and Driver Magazine - Road Tests
A stock 1968 Z/28 with 302cu sbc @ 3500lbs was capable of running 108 mph 1/4-mile times on street tyres. = 362Hp (290Hp rated)
A stock 1979 ZR1 Vette with 350cu LT5 @ 3500lbs was capable of running 110 mph 1/4-mile times on street tyres. = 382Hp (380Hp rated)
A stock 2014 Z51 Stingray Corvette with 376cu LT1 @ 3444lbs is capable of running 117.3 mph 1/4-mile times on street tyres. = 456Hp (460Hp rated)
The Delco Transistor ignition (1967) that you mention was rubbish. It wasn't until the Delco HEI system was introduced in the late 70s, that they had a decent electronic system. In the 1980 we had the Aussie Bosch HEI which is arguably a better system again, with its dwell extension capabilities etc.
Now comparing the 1980 Aussie Bosch HEI to the Delco Transistor ignition (1967) is an interesting comparision.
Of course one would hope the Aussie Bosch would be better in 1980 compared to what was a 1967 product.
LOL
Seems to be that one eyed Holden V8 optimists would like to compare the 1967 327 SBC to the 1995 304 Holden V8 and just ignore the pain that we went through with the Red motor and the whole catastrophe of engineering (or lack of).
Just how much oil can you leak??
How much oil can you pump up to your rocker covers and top end and how little can you have in your sump?
The bloody poxy 308 was like the all aussie box and bango diffs - just cheap nasty Holden rubbish
All decent Hi-Po engine builders in the 70's and 80's used to laugh and point you to the door if you brought in a plastic motor. It was the joke motor the clown with big shoes and nothing going for it. Everything was custom and was 3x or more the price and you still got less Hp, less Tq and worst of all poor reliability. It was and still is a shocker although at least once the redesign with the VN and a few hi-po bits from the group a it at least was closer but the LS was out so it was behind again and still expensive.
At least this time they finally said lets let the POS die and lets move into this century with GM's superior well engineered engine.
The lords of reliability and Hp "Thank You" for closing down such a horrible chapter. It was such a shame that through the 70's and 80's after years of trying to make it work and loosing all my hair and money that we just couldn't have built the worlds best small block (Chev) here in Oz.
Myself and all other Torana supporters had to put up with such torture for decades by being stuck with Holdens plastic V8 toy motor. 
But boy the new GM 2014 LT series is sure looking like the pushrod V8 has still got legs.
Edited by LXSS350, 01 March 2014 - 03:41 AM.
Technical + Numbers Guru + Moderator
Posted 01 March 2014 - 08:12 AM
Cool
Posted 01 March 2014 - 11:24 AM
_ChaosWeaver_
Posted 01 March 2014 - 05:58 PM
Dandy engines seem to be able to get a bit out of them...........
http://dandyengines....-hp-holden-308/
Has been Torana owner
Posted 01 March 2014 - 06:53 PM
Wow this Monaro thread is interesting :-) Those who bag out the trusted little 308 should be banned from this forum
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
