245 replies to this topic

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

 

 

 

The only thing i can not work out is why you are so determinded to dispell the truth................

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

[XU-1 RAT]

so 2 different blocks is there more with the same number?

Attached Files

•  038.jpg   34.74K   12 downloads
•  JP390021.jpg   47.73K   11 downloads

[UCSLE]

2 different blocks ? must be good at re stamping all the numbers are in the same spots 

most are inline and the 1 is raised about the same

[S pack]

 

 

 

The only thing i can not work out is why you are so determinded to dispell the truth................

I want to find the truth. At the moment, from the information at hand it appears that your version of the truth is not entirely correct.

Edited by S pack, 16 April 2016 - 12:37 PM.

[crabba67]

Not sure what to make of the two photo's, but one has a hook on the J...........  maybe the same block.

Cheers

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

Which bit is not correct ?

 

The bit that required 500 to be eligible, in which case GMH produced 500 LJ XU-1,s prior to the 1st of July 1973

The bit that required 250 to allow any homologation to take place from the 1st of July 1973, in which case GMH produced 288 LJ XU-1,s

or the bit that GMH did in fact homologate a new block, Holden part number 9934061 under amendment 9/2E

 

[crabba67]

Which bit is not correct ?

 

The bit that required 500 to be eligible, in which case GMH produced 500 LJ XU-1,s prior to the 1st of July 1973

The bit that required 250 to allow any homologation to take place from the 1st of July 1973, in which case GMH produced 288 LJ XU-1,s

or the bit that GMH did in fact homologate a new block, Holden part number 9934061 under amendment 9/2E

One of the 250 blocks/xu1's finished on 24/7/73 H283941 at Brisbane

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

Note the dual cast 5G3

 

JP374406 one of 250 required to have been sold under the C.A.M.S. rules..........

[Ice]

You might be right Skap looks like the second photo still has the broach marks next to the 1
i could be wrong

[S pack]

 

The LJ XU1's produced for the amendments in 1973 were not variants. They were simply evolution of type.

Edited by S pack, 16 April 2016 - 09:31 PM.

[yel327]

Note the dual cast 5G3

 

JP374406 one of 250 required to have been sold under the C.A.M.S. rules..........

 

So let me get this straight. I'm not agreeing with you, I just want to understand what the theory is.

 

In your opinion there were 250 identical engines counting backwards from the final XU1?

 

For the CAMS paperwork to be correct (which seems to be your bible so must be assumed to be infallible) there must have been 250 XU1's produced after 1/8/73?
 

[Rockoz]

I'm getting a little confused here.

 

We have 3 people going on about there being 250 engines.

We have a known list with 150 engines which seems to be accepted generally as the real deal.

 

But the 250 protagonists have come up with at least 2 different stories for there being 250 engines.

 

One being due to CAMS homologation and another due to batch sizes at the foundry.

 

My memory of the way things worked back in the day is a bit foggy.

But producing extra engines or cars to make up the homologation numbers wasnt an option from my memory.

The required items for homologation were shipped out the back door of Holden to the smaller teams to help compliance.

Ford did similar things.

The Globe wheels were a good example.

Lots of Ford owners came home to a delivery of new wheels unexpectantly.

This was so the wheels could get homologated.

They didnt have to produce new cars to get the variations approved.

 

I think there are 3 people in particular that have some sort of hidden agenda in trying to make a story out of nothing.

What that agenda is Im not sure of, but they have a vested interest in some type of scheme to make something out of nothing.

What it is Im not sure. But so far their credibility is wanting.

[S pack]

Which bit is not correct ?

 

The bit that required 500 to be eligible, in which case GMH produced 500 LJ XU-1,s prior to the 1st of July 1973

The bit that required 250 to allow any homologation to take place from the 1st of July 1973, in which case GMH produced 288 LJ XU-1,s

or the bit that GMH did in fact homologate a new block, Holden part number 9934061 under amendment 9/2E

GM-H homologated a revision (the valve reliefs) to the 202 cylinder and case which consequently required a new part number be issued for the revised cylinder and case assy, that is all.

 

The other things you mention are all incorrect.

[WhiteA9XS]

I think there are 3 people in particular that have some sort of hidden agenda in trying to make a story out of nothing.

What that agenda is Im not sure of, but they have a vested interest in some type of scheme to make something out of nothing.

What it is Im not sure. But so far their credibility is wanting.

 

 Rob , they are just trying to discredit the 150 bathurst 73 cars so there so called bathurst 72 cars are more desirable and the value goes down on the 73 car and up on the 72 car , maybe just a jealous situation where there is gmh documentation of the 150 73 cars and none on the 72 cars . You can read between the lines where one of the amigo,s refers to the them as the 'bullshit 73 cars' in other threads .  

 

 Lets just hope that none of this fairytale duel cast and moulding number crap ends up in a book where the public and torana enthusiasts in the future are misinformed by wrong information .

 

 I had an ol friend over here a few nights ago who was well respected back in the day and raced the  LJ,s in 72 and 73 , i asked the question which 202 blocks he used , he said they were all the same , didn,t matter if it came out of a HQ wreck or a short from gmh , i presume this would have been the NL or NP .              

[S pack]

 Lets just hope that none of this fairytale duel cast and moulding number crap ends up in a book where the public and torana enthusiasts in the future are misinformed by wrong information .

      

Unfortunately misinformation has already been published. It started back with Fiv's GTR XU1 book and has continued in another recent publication about Torana.

[yel327]

 Rob , they are just trying to discredit the 150 bathurst 73 cars so there so called bathurst 72 cars are more desirable and the value goes down on the 73 car and up on the 72 car , maybe just a jealous situation where there is gmh documentation of the 150 73 cars and none on the 72 cars . You can read between the lines where one of the amigo,s refers to the them as the 'bullshit 73 cars' in other threads .  

 

It appears Shaun there is a bit more to it than that but what you say certainly might be part of it. I think the cat's out of the bag a bit with JP390021 and the whole shebang appears to revolve around this too.

 

You'll also notice every time you look here that there is at least one anonymous or guest user looking, so it would appear a lot hangs on getting this info out there and accepted but as we all know it has failed badly to the point where not many will accept it or are at least sick of it.
 

[S pack]

I'd like to know where GM-H hid all the XU1's produced to satisfy the requirements of Amendment 6/6v. Two alternative gearbox ratios and two alternative diff ratios. That a shit load of cars they should have built according to Bruce's reasoning, so where are they?.

[WhiteA9XS]

It appears Shaun there is a bit more to it than that but what you say certainly might be part of it. I think the cat's out of the bag a bit with JP390021 and the whole shebang appears to revolve around this too.

 

You'll also notice every time you look here that there is at least one anonymous or guest user looking, so it would appear a lot hangs on getting this info out there and accepted but as we all know it has failed badly to the point where not many will accept it or are at least sick of it.
 

 

 Byron , in regards to JP390021  , I,m guessing one is duel cast and the other is single cast ?  so why not xray them both , that will bring the truth out .

 

 I,ve probably missed something here as i don,t spend a lot of time on this forum like the good old days when Amigo,s weren,t around .  

[S pack]

To me reading this it suggests that once 50% of the the cars had been sold (250).     The "Normal Evolution of Type" and "Variant" would be accepted by way of additional forms.  

 

So if correct, once 250 cars were sold, the "normal Evolution" of the cars was done and noted by way of forms.  So no real need to make any more than 250 cars, as their evolution only needed to be recorded on Forms ...  CW

Yeah, sort of. 250 (50%) to be sold before the amendment can be accepted but the total build number of 500 was required to be made and sold for the homologation to be completed (according to Bruce).

 

BTW the above clause is from the CAMS Series Production (200 cars) rules not Group C.

 

No such clause exists in the Cams Group C rules (valid until 31 December 1973) that Bruce has posted 1000 times over on this Forum.

 

The LJ XU1 was Recognised on 3/02/1972 by way of C.O.D H2-3 for Group E - Series Production Touring Cars.

All vehicles eligible for Group E were also eligible for Group C in 1973.

As all LJ XU1 amendments relate back to H2-3 the minimum production requirements of 200 cars for the original C.O.D still applied in 1973.

Edited by S pack, 17 April 2016 - 11:45 AM.