355 replies to this topic

[Dr Terry]

The reason that the road going A9X & the big Fords had less horsepower in the late 70s compared to earlier models, was for the same reason that the American muscle cars got neutered in the early 70s, anti-pollution laws.

 

ADR27 & ADR27A was the death knell in Australia for those cars, so much so that CAMS got together with Ford & Holden & arranged that they could still be competitive in their respective cars in Group C racing. Even the XB  & L34 were slightly affected but for Group C they were fine. They agreed to let the older engines be used for racing in the XC & A9X, so as they didn't contravene the road laws. So even though an XC had a small valve lo-comp 351 with a Carter Thermoquad carby & the A9X had the HX-HZ version of the 308, they could fit the hi-comp 4V XA GT motor & Holden could use the L34 motor that was already developed.

 

How good would a stock A9X be if fitted with a proper sorted big valve 308 with the absence of any pollution laws. 

 

Dr Terry

[StephenSLR]

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. 

 

You're really splitting hairs, I call just about any Aus. 'street machine' a muscle car, maybe not in the traditional sense but still muscle in my books, especially compared to the average car.

 

s

Edited by StephenSLR, 03 March 2014 - 12:32 PM.

[yel327]

The whole definition of "muscle" revolves around power/grunt and performance, not about being pretty or looking fast, regardless how good the car might steer or stop. If an A9X is a muscle car then so is a Toyota 86 or a '77 Celica. I love the A9X, very cool car and very effective once made into a race car and i'd love to own one. But no muscle car.

[Dr Terry]

The whole definition of "muscle" revolves around power/grunt and performance, not about being pretty or looking fast, regardless how good the car might steer or stop. If an A9X is a muscle car then so is a Toyota 86 or a '77 Celica. I love the A9X, very cool car and very effective once made into a race car and i'd love to own one. But no muscle car.

I think that here is half way point here. OK a stock A9X is not a muscle car by that definition, but by comparison the Toyotas you refer to are 'hairdressers' sports cars'.

I think a good descriptive term for an A9X & most other cars of its ilk would be 'performance car'. That would cover most of the cars we talk about on this forum that are not 'muscle cars' by definition. Car such as Falcon GTs, Torana GTR, Valiant Charger R/T, even Brocks & HSVs etc.

Food for thought.

Dr Terry

[Dr Terry]

Dr Terry its about image and technology. Its why we have exotic and super luxury vehicles, its why we have racing even with F1 its about a company showing WE ARE ABOVE AVERAGE. This is why the image cars like the Monaro GTS or Torana L34 / A9X are vital even though not profit makers or the bread and butter.

 

Holden made a big F/U by taking the 1979 below average path of mass boringness with its one trick pony show.

 

The biggest thing everyone either public or press said about the GTR-X was It's a Holden? - No way it can't be Holden. That's why you "build it" that's what brings people into your showroom not to necessary buy a GTR-X but because that Flagship gives confidence in believing the company has the ability and a future. The amazing HK,HT,HG GTS Monaro's and little XU-1's where the cars dreamers went to see no matter if they could only afford the 186. Holden failed to transition into the inevitable easing of protection and had to rely on the candy shop and still they did nothing but the same old same old boring dunnydore that was dying a death of stagnation. The company was strangling itself and drowning in its own memories of the 60's and 70's where it had some individuality and style. You can have your bread and butter blowfish on wheels but your dreaming if you think you can compete with the big boys who have far bigger world profiles and far more capability for mass product.

 

Holden need to stand-out not blend in. It was never going to be GM, Toyota or Nissan but it could survive by standing out by offering new innovative designs and engineering from 1969 and onwards. It was useless trying to do it when the doors have been closing for two decades (sales charts)

 

the point being the Datsun 240z was a big success both here and os. Not my cup of tea but it was clearly a very good car for its time and price and even in Datsun terms a better car in many ways than any followup z they did into the 80's.

 

 

The whole point being Holden had the keys to the market (protection from non local) so of course it was going to be competitive because it was only up against imports. Sort of the reverse of today where that protection basically has ceased to exist.

 

The one article by Garry Farmer (Collectible Automobiles) is imo very accurate and seems to collate all known feasible stories, articles and press releases of the time. He asks Bagshaw in hindsight (94) should they have built it and Bagshaw says yes even if you did it at a loss because "its an image thing".

 

Pruneau when asked should we have built it and why didn't we build it ..... Pruneau says "Hell Yes" we should have and we had them standing 10 deep at the shows then disappeared and allowed Datsun to clean-up with it 240z which came out after. The market was there we just didn't get to present it to Detroit to get it blessed with Holy Water because of Opals cancellation of its GT. When we told the accountants it was to be around $5200 they got nervous and backed off.

 

My bad choice of words/wording because by candy shop I meant being Australian's big boy it had just about full protection from non locally manufactured vehicles being able to challenge it on its home turf. It sold ship loads because of the unfair playing field that we had set up. It's not hard to see why it crashed when this was removed as Holden did zip to make it a viable business on the open market.

I do realize the marketing necessity of hero or image type cars, but IMHO the GTR-X was underdeveloped & would've fallen short, but we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

 

Most of the last diatribe was the same stuff that you've repeated over & over.

 

BTW, for the record 2 cars names are spelled Commodore & Opel.

 

I don't believe that the Commodore is dying a death of stagnation either, it still comfortably outsells all other Australian built cars, of any size.

 

Dr Terry

[yel327]

well just maybe your definition is your own opinion, and fair enough........  but the rest of the world knows what defines a Muscle Car of the 70's ..

 

Muscle car

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Jump to: navigation, search

This 1966 Pontiac GTO is an example of a classic muscle car

Muscle car is a term used to refer to a variety of high-performance automobiles.^[1] The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines muscle cars as "any of a group of American-made 2-door sports coupes with powerful engines designed for high-performance driving."^[2] A large V8 engine is fitted in a 2-door, rear wheel drive, family-style mid-size or full-size car designed for four or more passengers. Sold at an affordable price, muscle cars are intended for mainly street use and occasional drag racing.^[3][4][5][6] They are distinct from two-seat sports cars and expensive 2+2 GTs intended for high-speed touring and road racing. Developed simultaneously in their own markets, muscle cars also emerged from manufacturers in Australia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere.

 

Totally agree. If we remove the American-made bit (as we have to for any of the aussie stuff!) then the only ones made here that fit that definition are HK GTS327, HT-HG GTS350 manual, XA GT (essentially the RPO83 version) and maybe sneak an E55 in there. The A9X doesn't fit due to the large V8 engine, its engine was a standard engine in the vehicle that A9X was based upon (LX SLR5000).

In the end for me it comes down to what the car was designed for. A9X was designed to race but not as it was made, whereas the earlier 70's Aussie "muscle" cars were designed to be raced as they were built, and you or I could buy one and drive it. Those Bathurst winning Monaros, Fords and the Torana that won during series production years lasted and won under race conditions essentially as GMH and Ford made them, especially the HK which had no real sneaky cheats on it unlike anything Harry was involved with. I seriously doubt an A9X under 1968-70 series production rules would last more than a few laps, the engine would probably die from oil surge and it'd run out of puff from its choked up engine or the rods would let go if it lasted otherwise.

That's my view on what an Aussie Muscle car is anyway, and as far as I am concerned if you included sedans the L34 was the last of them until Group A production in VL-VN happened. The A9X, the XB GT and the handfull of XC Cobras built for homologation are a unique but just as important breed of factory Aussie perfromance cars built to satisfy Group C regulations, as were the HDT cars built for the same reason.

[yel327]

Lots of great cars there, but very few are muscle cars, just a list of Aussie cars you'd like to own (or we'd like to own if you remove a few like XB-XE or anything with a 302C and LJ GTR) . A standard HG GTS350 is essentially as quick as a PhaseIII, and an A9X won't see one of those for dust. Give it lots of kM of bends with plenty of brake applications required and it'll catch up, but that means it is a great handling and not under-braked car, not an all out ball tearing "muscle" car, a Toyota86 would catch a HG GTS350 or PhaseIII in those circumstances! The earlier LX SLR5000 and SS with optional L31 (pre 6/76) will eat an A9X for breakfast in hp and acceleration stakes, just won't go around corners or brake properly!

 

I've had people claim a Sandman as a "muscle car", standard the damn things were a 173, M22 wide ratio 4spd and 4 wheel drums - about as much muscle as a postie's bike. Yeah a HJ Sandman ute optioned with L31 is a pretty quick car as it has the high output HJ 308 and it is lighter than a HJ coupe or sedan with the same L31 M21 3.36:1 driveline but still no muscle car. 

 

All good discussion in the end!

Edited by yel327, 03 March 2014 - 05:07 PM.

[Dr Terry]

I like most of what's on ChaosWeaver's list. To use my term, it looks like a list of Aussie performance cars.

 

I have a few comments though. XY GS 302, XA Superbird, XD 302 Fairmont & XE ESP 302 ?? Really !! A stock HG 308 would eat them all for breakfast. Surely any HQ-HZ 308 GTS should also be on the list, if those Fords deserve a mention.

 

Also, where are the early HDTs, most of those are worthy of a mention.

 

Dr Terry

[yel327]

True, in my eyes a muscle car has two doors. My personal definition is: 2 doors, V8, 4 barrel, manual, dual exhaust and the engine has to be either a performance engine (like XA RPO83 or HT-HG GTS350 or VH E55 if auto allowed or LC XU-1 if 6cyl allowed) or a standard bigger unique engine lifted from a bigger car in the manufacturer's range (eg HK GTS327).

But my opinion means bugger all in the scheme of things, I don't include the Falcons as they are sedans. But assuming we do as many Aussie performance stuff is, I definitely would include the 3 x GT-HO's but not the XW-XY GT's for the same reason the only SL/R included would be an L34 and not the normal SLR5000. XR GT I think you'd have to include, it was built to race in series production (and wasn't its engine higher performance than the standard 289?) - Ford built it as it found out via its internal GMH mole that the HK GTS was coming, so it certainly had a racing purpose. I suppose the XT is a simple evolution of the same car like E49 followed E38 or LJ XU1 followed LC.

 

Don't forget Jaguars, Minis and 4cyl Cortinas dominated at Bathurst too, but do they get remembered as muscle cars? The L34 was probably more dominant than the A9X in some ways and it came damn close to winning 3 years running against arguably stiffer competition but with a far weaker car in itself. The A9X had its arse handed to it in 1977, and although I loved watching it dominate in 1978-9 too, by the time 1979 came around it was really only A9X vs A9X - the car was so far ahead of any rivals it had to be nobbled for 1980. Shame that happened but the LX hadn't been sold since early 1978.

[RallyRed]

I admit freely to NOT reading every post above in detail....however, re the 'muscle car' thing..........

Back in the day when LJ Xu1s ( real ones) were owned by a few mates, and we all thought they were the ducks guts....another mate bought a genuine low kms ( 6000km??) A9X hatch from Barry Thompsons in Parramatta Rd.....that car to us at least , in those days, was the ultimate , I still
remember clearly the night he wound it out in 1st to over 100km/h.

Was it the fastest - don't know
Was it the most powerful - doubt it
Did it look shit hot - yes
Was it a muscle car to everyone - you bet!!

I understand the formal definitions...but an A9X must!!! be a muscle car..surely

p.s. - not sure what this has got to do with 4 door Monaros...but hey..who cares....

Edited by RallyRed, 03 March 2014 - 06:38 PM.

[yel327]

Someone try and tell me this ain't a Muscle car........  and it looks far from standard...  I don't think anywhere in the terminology does it say they have to be standard..

 

1899975_1426988230875512_1335007977_n.jpg

 

We are talking factory build.....If that is a muscle car then so is a Mazda 626 with a 351 in it!