HJGTS 4door Monaro? or Not
Started by
Indy Orange
, Feb 19 2014 09:43 PM
355 replies to this topic
#77
_imj411_
_imj411_
-
- Guests
Posted 01 March 2014 - 08:41 PM
I am a Holden man first and that Z/28 engine sounds really nice but wouldn't a L34 engine with all the goodies put out 350 in 1975 and weighed less. Mabey what it lacked in Hp it made up for in handling and reduce tyre wear mabey our Toranas weren't perfect but when they were reliable I don't think any touring car anywhere in the world would have ran with them, American, Japanese or European, cheers Aaron.
#78
_LXSS350_
_LXSS350_
-
- Guests
Posted 02 March 2014 - 12:51 AM
In 1968 'Car and Driver' recorded the 3500lb Z/28 performing a 2.2-second 0-30 mph time, a 5.3 second 0-60 mph time, a 12.3 second 0-100 mph time and a 13.77 second quarter mile at 107.39 mph.
Cross-Ram Option Z/28
Aesthetically, the Cross Ram is awesome, the symmetry and proportion of the design is strikingly beautiful, especially with the massive chrome topped air cleaner gleaming in place. And function?... In terms of performance, the special induction system has demonstrated itself to be capable of helping produce an amazing 458 HP from the 302 @ 7200 RPM..!
The 465-550 hp you quote for the 67/68 302 SBC is not 465-550 of today's horsepower.
As I have said weight, terminal speed and the moroso slide rule helps clear up most anomalies. Throw in an L34 or a dunnydore and it will put some perspective on just why the SBC and now the LS and LT have earned the title of the worlds greatest small block engines.
Take a good look at people like Grumpy Jenkins and what he did with the SBC. Grumpy Jenkins took on the Mighty Hemi's with his little 330cu SBC (mighty mouse) and beat them, something the plastic could never do let alone in 1972. If you read his books like I have since the 70's you can see what you can get out of even a small journal, by raiding the factory parts bins. Grumpy was getting 660Hp out of his very basic 330cu SBC and setting records with his Vega.
1972 Grumpy's 331cu Pro Stock Small-Block Chev
In the '70s, Bill "Grumpy" Jenkins was the reigning guru of the small-block Chevy V-8 in drag racing. Racers hung on his every word; when his hood came off in the paddock a crowd formed. But there was no heads-up pro category for the small-block in NHRA until 1972, when the Pro Stock rules were rewritten to permit small-displacement engines in short-wheelbase cars, handing them a weight break against the Chrysler Hemis then stinking up the show. Spotting his opening, Jenkins waded in with Grumpy's Toy IX, a Vega hatchback sporting a 331ci small-block.It may seem laughably primitive when you look it over today, but in 1972 Grumpy's engine combination was the absolute state of the art: Small-journal '62-'67 327 block, ported angle-plug heads made of cast iron, an Edelbrock TR1X tunnel ram with the top half of the plenum lopped off, and a pair of 660-cfm 4224 Holleys mounted crosswise on top. The pistons were TRW items with gas ports and hand-massaged domes. The camshaft was a General Kinetics 321/336 roller, while holding the valvetrain halfway together was a cruel device called a Jomar rocker stud girdle. Like a home-rolled cigarette, the engine may have looked loose at the ends, but it delivered the payload. Grumpy's deal made an honest 600 hp, a magical number for a small-block Chevy at the time.
At the season-opening Winternationals in Pomona, Grumpy's Toy IX qualified in the bottom half of the field with a 9.90.But by race day Jenkins had the new chassis dialed in and uncorked a string of 9.60s, mowing down five Mopar Hemis to win the eliminator. He took Pro Stock honors at six of the eight NHRA national events in 1972, and also won $35,000 at the Professional Racers Association meet in Tulsa. With his small-block Vega, Jenkins changed the face of Pro Stock. Chevy partisans still revere him for it, and the Hemi fans still haven't gotten over it.
Smokey Yunick was making 482Hp which was an honest 1.59 hp/ci using '60s technology and like Jenkins was making his presence felt in TransAm with his Z/28 and its little 302 SBC.
Remember this is 1968 not 1990.
1968 Z/28 Camaro 482HP Smokey Yunick Trans-Am Camaro 302
Torrance, CA
Few early Trans-Am cars have generated more historical interest than the Smokey Yunick Camaro. This is even more intriguing considering the Camaro never won a race when in Yunick's employ. But this takes nothing away from the innovation and creativity that went into this car. Smokey was primarily an engine man, which leads us directly to this little 302. Perhaps it is some sort of natural progression that Vic Edelbrock Jr. now owns the '68 Yunick Camaro since he worked with Smokey to produce the Edelbrock cross-ram manifold used on this car. This manifold was complex and required specific cam-spec knowledge and expertise to allow it to really shine. The engine makes an honest 1.59 hp/ci using mostly '60s technology, which is impressive in its own right.
TRANS-AM 302 POWER
RPM TQ HP
3,500 316 211
4,000 326 248
4,500 354 304
5,000 373 355
5,500 391 409
6,000 390 446
6,500 378 468
7,000 358 477
7,500 337 482
8,000 308 469
"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".
I think that the point of 'no return' in the design phase was early 66, by then the factory was being built & test engines had been built. Many development $$$ had been already spent. As I said in my previous post, hindsight is a very powerful tool.
Dr Terry
We love the plastic toy motor!!
You don't just start building an engine plant ...... feasibility has to be conducted before it leaves the paper stage.
Holden had the option as did Fraud.
Fraud chose correctly where "Holden decided it could out engineer GM".................... On what planet ???
In 1966 the USA market was 196.7 million people who needs hindsight on making the decision to PAY FOR A SBC LICENCE ....... the Australian market was a piddly 11.6 million people.
I mean seriously way back in 1957 Chev had from the factory already achieved 1hp per cu. Then in 1968 the factory z/28 302 SBC achieved 1.6Hp per Cu. How long did the factory plastic take to achieve that (486Hp) ??? 30yrs?
Dr Terry we had such a small market its nothing to do with hindsight its just plain common sense, but like any company that makes stupid decisions it was all about Holden management whom had no comprehension about the future.
Holden was run by a conservative penny pinching bunch of non motoring accountants. They couldn't see the business from an engineering and technological viewpoint which is why the Australian motoring industry went the way it did.
If the engineering and stylists had been allowed to start production of the Revolutionary - GTR-X Torana then I have NO DOUBT we would have had both Holden and Fraud Australia still going strong and no closing their doors.
Australian automotive industry fell into the ordinary and then the major 2 fell into a big hole because of ordinary vehicles, this allowed OS manufacturers into the country because they produced cars that the Oz public wanted to buy.
My god we should never have allowed an industry whom designed such amazing and individual styles such as the HK/HT/HG and Torrie Hatch to just wither and die with nothing but Bland rubbish.
We had all the talent and all the ability to mix with the world and compete but we lacked having the management team with the drive to get it done.
The GTR-X was the ONE car that was the make or break as to what path we took and we took bland and boring and the world over run us. We should have always been a year or two behind what GM was doing but not bloody 6-10yrs.
Take a good look at the HK/HT/HG Monaro and then take a look at the dunnydores ....... Its is enough to make you cry and shake your head in disgust. Australia being SO SMALL can't be competitive if it chooses to be ordinary and that's why we are in the position we are today.
Ordinary should be left to the Kiwi's. 
#79
kiwi-lilj
-
- Members
-
- 1,420 posts
Forum Fixture
- Name:Blair
- Location:NZ
- Car:LIL J
- Joined: 14-September 08
Posted 02 March 2014 - 06:33 AM
Get a life you miserable old fool.
#80
Dr Terry
-
- Moderators
-
- 3,279 posts
Technical + Numbers Guru + Moderator
- Location:Eastwood (Sydney) NSW
- Joined: 13-November 05
Posted 02 March 2014 - 07:32 AM
Holden was run by a conservative penny pinching bunch of non motoring accountants. They couldn't see the business from an engineering and technological viewpoint which is why the Australian motoring industry went the way it did.
I think of all your rantings, it is this comment which best illustrates your bias. In GM-H at the time, engineering & sales, often won out over the bean counters. Guys like Bagshaw (Sales) & Steinhagen (Eng.) were very clever (car loving) men & have shown over time how right many of their decisions were at the time.
How you can connect a decision to build our own V8 engine in the early 60s, to the demise of the industry 50 years later mystifies me.
The Australian motor industry (this was Nissan, Mitsubishi, Ford, Holden & Toyota [& many others earlier on] remember) went under for a number of reasons, but it had nothing to do with not building the type of hi-po V8 that your prefer.
I know you think is was because the cars they built were too big, but there are many 'real world' reasons why the industry is no more. Wage rates, overheads, unreasonable unions, exchange rates, our fragmented local car market, the world wide drop-off in demand for our cars are a good start. But let's not go there again.
BTW, as much as I like the Torana GTR-X, it was not fully developed & by the time it would have got it to market, Aussie wages inflation would've killed it (1972-74) & made it much more expensive than competitors' cars like the Datsun 240Z which was in many areas was a superior design.
As I have said many times, hindsight is a very powerful tool.
Dr Terry
#81
StephenSLR
-
- Members
-
- 6,707 posts
Oh My, Don't you post alot
- Name:Stephen
- Location:Sydney
- Car:1976 LX SL/R
- Joined: 12-November 05
Posted 02 March 2014 - 09:38 AM
Toranas weren't perfect but when they were reliable I don't think any touring car anywhere in the world would have ran with them, American, Japanese or European.
Big call there. Many Chevs weren't good except in a straight line but Chev put all their eggs into the Corvette, it had independent rear suspension and 4 wheel discs back in the 60's, their engines are renowned and the fibreglass shell made advantage with the power to weight.
s
#82
Redzone
-
- Members
-
- 517 posts
Forum Fixture
- Name:Dave
- Location:Sunshine Coast
- Car:Mini torana's - Gemini coupe 10.787@123mph, log booked Group A DOHC Gemini under resto..
- Joined: 02-November 10
Posted 02 March 2014 - 09:41 AM
But the vettes still got their asses handed to them by the cobras :/
#83
yel327
-
- Members
-
- 13,120 posts
Oh My, Don't you post alot
- Joined: 10-February 08
Posted 02 March 2014 - 09:42 AM
^^And anything with a Hemi in it!
#84
StephenSLR
-
- Members
-
- 6,707 posts
Oh My, Don't you post alot
- Name:Stephen
- Location:Sydney
- Car:1976 LX SL/R
- Joined: 12-November 05
Posted 02 March 2014 - 09:54 AM
^^And anything with a Hemi in it!
Indeed and the Hemi was motor of choice for a lot of drag cars.
But the vettes still got their asses handed to them by the cobras :/
Yeah, I guess I was strictly referring to GM product.
s
Edited by StephenSLR, 02 March 2014 - 09:58 AM.
#85
_LXSS350_
_LXSS350_
-
- Guests
Posted 02 March 2014 - 01:32 PM
I think of all your rantings, it is this comment which best illustrates your bias. In GM-H at the time, engineering & sales, often won out over the bean counters. Guys like Bagshaw (Sales) & Steinhagen (Eng.) were very clever (car loving) men & have shown over time how right many of their decisions were at the time.
How you can connect a decision to build our own V8 engine in the early 60s, to the demise of the industry 50 years later mystifies me.
The Australian motor industry (this was Nissan, Mitsubishi, Ford, Holden & Toyota [& many others earlier on] remember) went under for a number of reasons, but it had nothing to do with not building the type of hi-po V8 that your prefer.
BTW, as much as I like the Torana GTR-X, it was not fully developed & by the time it would have got it to market, Aussie wages inflation would've killed it (1972-74) & made it much more expensive than competitors' cars like the Datsun 240Z which was in many areas was a superior design.
As I have said many times, hindsight is a very powerful tool.
Dr Terry
Dr Terry
If I am guilty of anything its believing in Holden too much. I think Holden could and should have been a player on the world stage if it produced the right vehicles that the market wanted.
Its not hindsight at all, that's a pure denial defence because the facts where that it was an 11million vs 197million market ...... its all a numbers game either in 1967 or 2014 (it all relative). The Holden V8 was a total waste and an Australian engine plant that built the SBC under licence was an absolute no brainer. Anyone who thinks the Holden V8 could hold a candle to the SBC can't have done much with both engines, it just not even close.
I am a big early Holden fan I think we could have out gunned the yanks but not by holding back things like 4 wheel disc brakes, retractable seat belts, reliable gearboxes and diffs etc. Anyone who has driven most of the yank cars knows very well how horrible many of them are, but they have ingredients that we had access to and should have used.
Holden had to move into more specialised designs as the protection and in latter years the free trade agreements where inevitable. No manufacturer builds their best and final version of a vehicle straight out of the blocks, its an evolutionary process. That has happened with everything from Hyundai to Ferrari. The GTR-X was a Revolutionary design for Holden that had been fully costed (right down to spare parts), it had completed all it engineering and even the brochures went to dealers. It was squashed because the num nuts beancounters couldn't see a market. Once that was released Fraud would have been driven to answer it and so drives the Australian Industry to where we should have been.
But everyone knows there is more to a car like the GTR-X than numbers its a engineering flagship a leader of the marquee. Its why Nissan did its GTR, why Bugatti did it Veyron etc its about flow down engineering and attracting attention from the market. Here was a car that was about to revolutionise Australian manufacturing.
It was Holdens Corvette, 911, E-Type moment, it was a design and style that would put Australian manufacturing on the map and on the world stage. There is more benefit to doing these revolutionary cars than direct profit return. Look at Harry with his LeMans Torana, he new he could put Holden on the world stage which is where it needed to be if it was to flourish. Our market is too small for common as the world market will crush common unless you are a Multi-national Giant.
Australia can't and never could compete with the world market, especially by producing cars that others do far better. So it was the beginning of the end with the Opel in 1979 as it was inevitable that tariff protection for such a small market would have to change eventually. I know denial is an easier path but the USA is more than a decade to 15yrs in front of us in their evolution with the challenges of manufacturing within the USA.
The fact remains we should not have been so far behind what all the world market manufacturers like GM where doing as we recently found with the Chev SS importation numbers. Had we followed GM's requirements with lighter weight and Hi-tensile chassis, + engineering for the new fuel efficient LT the situation would have been different. As I said had we released 4 wheel discs in 1972 then that drives the future evolution of all Holden cars and what is to come, like retractable seat belts. 4wdiscs in 1972 was within a far more viable window of GM's 1969 release.
Holden had to be an engineering tour de force not an also ran.
Holden have/had the talent and expertise, but they lacked the management with the drive and a world class business plan. Holden died in 1979 with the Opel. Seriously look at that HT Monaro, now that's a HOLDEN that's something that is a world Class design.
All it needed was the better LT-1 small block Chev, twin 600 Holleys, the M22 rockcrusher, 12 bolt diff and the 4 wheel disc brakes, power steering, retractable seat belts and you have it right out of the GM catalogue a vehicle that Norm could smash every race and take sales away from Fraud.
#86
_LXSS350_
_LXSS350_
-
- Guests
Posted 02 March 2014 - 01:50 PM
Get a life you miserable old fool.
LOL jokes - big fan of the Kiwi's and a big supporter of the kiwi flag change to a picture of the aussie dole chq !!!
Indeed and the Hemi was motor of choice for a lot of drag cars.
s
Well considering Grumpy with his 331cu SBC won 6 of the 8 NHRA events in 1972 against the big Hemi's I wouldn't say the Hemi's always won. But certainly the Hemi's where an amazing engine.
He took Pro Stock honors at six of the eight NHRA national events in 1972, and also won $35,000 at the Professional Racers Association meet in Tulsa. With his small-block Vega, Jenkins changed the face of Pro Stock. Chevy partisans still revere him for it, and the Hemi fans still haven't gotten over it.
#88
_LS1 Taxi_
_LS1 Taxi_
-
- Guests
Posted 02 March 2014 - 02:03 PM
Yes it was meant to be a red 6 with triples. Bomber must love it 
I don't like it much from the rear. Can't understand what all the fuss is about? 
Holden-Torana_GTR-X_Concept_1970_1600x1200_wallpaper_0d.jpg 272.69K
1 downloads
#89
_LXSS350_
_LXSS350_
-
- Guests
Posted 02 March 2014 - 04:30 PM
Yes it was the XU-1 engine in the prototype, but also remember it weighed in at 1,043 kg with that initial LC XU-1 engine and latter the 202 from the LJ. They had considered fitting a V8 as part of evolution if needed. However that's not why the car was a Revolution. It was never designed or built to be a racecar ..... its a flagship styling and engineering Holden show piece with 4 wheel disc brakes, adjust steering column, retractable belts, full steel chassis etc. Remember it was styled in 1969 and initially going for an early 1971 release that turned out to be Feb 1973 before it was canned by management that thought it couldn't achieve its 8500 target at the $5500 price tag.
The front axle to windscreen and bonnet height means the much shorter and lower V8 could have suited the GTR-X both for balance, height and power over the 6cyd. However that would have been part of future feasibility and evolutionary development but not vital.
The best collection of the GTR-X info is here:
http://www.gmh-toran...zine-articles/.
This gives you a good profile for the line of the XU-1 engine and low bonnet and a better idea of the front axle to cabin / windscreen dimensions.
Edited by LXSS350, 02 March 2014 - 04:41 PM.
#90
_LXSS350_
_LXSS350_
-
- Guests
Posted 02 March 2014 - 04:50 PM
Aussie wages inflation would've killed it (1972-74) & made it much more expensive than competitors' cars like the Datsun 240Z which was in many areas was a superior design.
240z was $5000,
TR6 was $5200,
GTR-X was $5500,
GTS 350 Monaro was $5000,
Alfa GTV was $6200
#91
Dr Terry
-
- Moderators
-
- 3,279 posts
Technical + Numbers Guru + Moderator
- Location:Eastwood (Sydney) NSW
- Joined: 13-November 05
Posted 02 March 2014 - 05:11 PM
The GTR-X wasn't fully developed. The 'sales' brochures were only printed for the motor show circuit in 1970. I have original copies of both versions of the brochure as well as the engineering report & press releases. After the 1970 motor shows it I wasn't heard of or seen for many years.
Where did you get the $5,500 retail price from ? At the time of the GTR-X's display a new GTS350 was $4,147. Was that a motoring journalist's piece of future guesswork.
Dr Terry
#92
_imj411_
_imj411_
-
- Guests
Posted 02 March 2014 - 08:37 PM
Cobras and Corvettes are hardly touring cars next you will be sayings Gt40s. even if you do count them did they really handle that good and I doubt the corvette is that light fiberglaSs or not, cheers Aaron.
#93
_LXSS350_
_LXSS350_
-
- Guests
Posted 03 March 2014 - 01:18 AM
As far as $5500, that was Holden's "expected price" for the Feb 73 release which obviously didn't happen. Holden had done all the pricing for the GTR-X parts so obviously any 1971 release was going to be cheaper than a 1973 release.
When the motoring press asked Steinhagen about why this concept didn't adopt a more modern engineered mid or rear engined GTR-X the answer was of course Holden's market was not exotica. As reported in the press conference - printed in the magazines at the time (inc Wheels and Modern Motor) Steinhagen said the GTR-X would sell within the "Torana Price Range" and he confirmed that Holden had achieved that aim.
Wheels magazine is not some hotrod magazine making hindsight bar stories up, these are Holden releases that are documented. Even Holden admitted in its own release that the GTR-X was to test the concept of a local Australia assembled and built two door sports car and that if commercially practical we can go into production with a vehicle of this type ...... Holden Release: Aug 25 1970
The 240z was released at $4550 but was just over $5k within 12mths, prices change depending on if your looking at 1971 or 1973 or just at the various cost price, vs option prices or vs on the road drive-away prices.
We are clutching at straws here because the GTR-X had to sit within its competition window. The GTS350 as per Wheels Magazine (What They Cost - last two pages of every wheels mag of the period) was $4950 near as shooting ducks to +/- a few bucks from $5000 on the road.
Aussie wages inflation would've killed it (1972-74) & made it much more expensive than competitors' cars like the Datsun 240Z which was in many areas was a superior design.
It really is false to say how hard Holden had it and how the GTR-X was not going to be viable against its opposition because of aussie wages etc as that is total rubbish. Holden where protected and we (taxpayers) handed out money to them like kids in a free candy store. Datsun was complaining why it couldn't sell the 240z cheaper but it was not under the local content protection that Holden enjoyed. I think people forget how powerful they where under protection which took decades to even out and slowly be removed.
Holden was easy the King of the Jungle and like all in Australia was highly protected during all of this period with tariffs and the 85%+ of local content laws.
Over this period we had 6 local manufacturers under this but Holden was easily the biggest.
During this period Holden was manufacturing more vehicles than both Fraud Australia and Chrysler Australia combined.
Holden Sales:
1970: 108,800 passenger vehicles @ $414,800,000 total sales
1969: $30,840,002 profit
1968: $25,158,877 profit
Edited by LXSS350, 03 March 2014 - 01:25 AM.
#94
Dr Terry
-
- Moderators
-
- 3,279 posts
Technical + Numbers Guru + Moderator
- Location:Eastwood (Sydney) NSW
- Joined: 13-November 05
Posted 03 March 2014 - 07:08 AM
It really is false to say how hard Holden had it and how the GTR-X was not going to be viable against its opposition because of aussie wages etc as that is total rubbish. Holden where protected and we (taxpayers) handed out money to them like kids in a free candy store.
I didn't say Holden had it hard, all I said was & this came directly from Holden staff of the era) was that wages inflation would have killed it. The car was not going to be viable. BTW the GTS 350 price I gave was at the time of the GTR-X'x 'release' & brochure printing.
There were no handouts to Holden or any other local manufacturer in those days, so there was no 'candy store'. It was a protectionist regime in those days. Imports were limited by 2 means.
1. Tariffs, depending on the car & its country of origin, these were as high as 55%.
2. Quotas, each importer had to apply for the number of vehicles they were permitted to bring into the country.
I may stand to be corrected on this, but it wasn't until after the Button plan (maybe early to mid 90s) that subsidies were handed out directly to the manufacturers ("like kids in a candy store").
Dr Terry
#95
StephenSLR
-
- Members
-
- 6,707 posts
Oh My, Don't you post alot
- Name:Stephen
- Location:Sydney
- Car:1976 LX SL/R
- Joined: 12-November 05
Posted 03 March 2014 - 07:30 AM
Well considering Grumpy with his 331cu SBC won 6 of the 8 NHRA events in 1972 against the big Hemi's I wouldn't say the Hemi's always won. But certainly the Hemi's where an amazing engine.
True, they also had some big engines.
s
#96
StephenSLR
-
- Members
-
- 6,707 posts
Oh My, Don't you post alot
- Name:Stephen
- Location:Sydney
- Car:1976 LX SL/R
- Joined: 12-November 05
Posted 03 March 2014 - 07:51 AM
I don't like it much from the rear. Can't understand what all the fuss is about?
You have to have an appreciation for 60's, Euro, Space Age, concept cars or fastbacks to really dig it.
The myth just keeps growing when all these 'what if' scenarios keep cropping up in debates like this one. A handy tidbit people like to throw at Ford enthusiasts in arguments, fact is it was never released so we'll never know if it would've earned its legendary status or flopped like the Edsel. Had it been released and flopped, it'd still demand a king's ransom as a collector's item today, it was so outlandish for an Aus. car of the era
s
Edited by StephenSLR, 03 March 2014 - 07:58 AM.
#97
_ChaosWeaver_
_ChaosWeaver_
-
- Guests
Posted 03 March 2014 - 08:37 AM
Wow, we've gone from 4 door GTS (Monaro or not) to the 308 being crap, and now to the viability of the GTX ........... Well from my point of view (That comes from age, and not study) ........... The 4 door GTS is a Monaro, The A9X with the trusty 308 was the best 70's Muscle Car on the Planet, bar none, and the GTX was a long way from ever being sold, even though they had sale's brochure's printed, and even an add on telly, with a Priest or a Teacher driving it... I also think it's important to remember, that Holden built XU-1's, & L34's. & A9X's to win Races on Sunday, so they could sell Holden's on Monday.... Holden never intended to sell large numbers of their High Performance model's, as they only made them in very limited numbers... like I said, they were built to help sell all the other cars in the Holden's range, Kingswoods, Statesmans, Torana S's, SL's, ect......... I also think the Torana GTX also would have sold in small numbers too, as it was not a very practical car for the average person... which I believe would have made it very expensive for Holden to produce, and I believe this is why it was pulled from production... any way just my point of view formed over the years, not verified by anyone... it's just the Vibe ..... lol
#98
yel327
-
- Members
-
- 13,120 posts
Oh My, Don't you post alot
- Joined: 10-February 08
Posted 03 March 2014 - 08:55 AM
Trouble is an A9X is not a muscle car by any definition! It was a fantastic road car, but race the thing as a standard as delivered road version either in a straight line or on a race track and it'd probably not get near most other 1970's factory performance cars, in no particular order: HT GTS350, HG GTS350, LC XU1, LJ XU1, XW GTS-HOII, XY GT-HOIII, XA GT, VH E38 and E49.
But that is OK, as it was not designed as a factory "race as you brung car", it was designed to homologate the car for Group C. Modify the A9X with decent tyres and rubber and some engine mods 9which was the whole point of the thing in the first place) and then you'd be laughing on a race track but then it isn't an A9X anymore!
#99
_ChaosWeaver_
_ChaosWeaver_
-
- Guests
Posted 03 March 2014 - 10:04 AM
That is all true Yel, but the reason for that was because Holden didn't want to be in the sh@t for producing HP Road Cars, so yes they limited the motors power to about 180Kw I believe, but with the modifications that were always intended for the very exclusive & limited number A9X its was a true Muscle Car, and STILL very much an A9X, and still in my humble opinion... The Best 70's Muscle Car in the World... bar none.. 400+ HP 308, weight about 1300 Kg, 4 wheel Disc Brakes, add some wide tyres........... mmmmm, no wonder they beat everything else by 5 laps, and changed the rules forever ..
#100
yel327
-
- Members
-
- 13,120 posts
Oh My, Don't you post alot
- Joined: 10-February 08
Posted 03 March 2014 - 12:27 PM
As a race car yes. But as a road car there was no need for anything but an in real world terms a 175 odd hp 308 as the race engine was already homologated. Remember like the so called XB and XC race coupes many A9X race cars were updated older cars, most were not even a 'car' as such but a purpose built race shell.
I agree that an A9X is a great car to own and collect and drive, but they do not add up to be a muscle car. There is nothing high performance (in muscle car traditional terms) about one. The one key element that all traditional muscle cars have is either a big(ger) or improved performance engine eg GTS327 and E49 respectively.
I agree that an A9X is a great car to own and collect and drive, but they do not add up to be a muscle car. There is nothing high performance (in muscle car traditional terms) about one. The one key element that all traditional muscle cars have is either a big(ger) or improved performance engine eg GTS327 and E49 respectively.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
