19 replies to this topic

[Heath]

I'd have to agree with you there.

Note: If you're going strait LPG (like i plan to), then I believe you don't have to worry about any pollution gear. I know that you don't need a carbon cannister or anything, but there may be some things you still need.

[J-Rod]

http://www.oldholden...rsion/index.php

cheers

[Peter UC]

Before the commodore the power ratings were done in gross so that means no air filter fan alternator, exhaust etc, where as when the commodore came out say were measured in the DIN rating so it is a more acurate reading, VB Commodore 173 had 64kW rather than 84kw as quoted in the UC when they were exactly the same engine.

[Dr Terry]

Hi Guys.

Peter UC has got it nearly right.

The problem is, over the years GM-H (& just about everybody else) have used many different methods to advertise their engine outputs, & that's the important word, 'advertise', because of course, bigger is always better, isn't it ?

When the 202 was 1st seen in the HQ series it had an output of 135 bhp. This was SAE 'gross' horsepower. This motor remained unchanged for all HQ/HJ/LJ/LH & early LX (up to 6/76) but in late 1974 the figure had already dropped to 110 bhp, although there were no real changes. They even gave the metric equivalent of 87 kW, because we were going metric at the time. Yes, I know the charcoal canister was introduced & there were minor plumbing changes but the engine still had the same output. The reason for the drop was they were now using SAE 'net' horsepower. This was a newer, more realistic measurement that gave a truer indication of the engines output with its accessories attatched.

In July 1976 the dreaded ADR27A was introduced & the figure for the run-of-the-mill 202 was now 109 bhp (81 kW) for the manual & 118 bhp (88 kW) for the auto. The auto ran a better camshaft. These figures were still in the new SAE net measurement. Contrary to popular belief, & as you can see, the ADR27A engines did not have less power than the previous models, they just not drive as well, low in the rev range, especially when cold beause of the leaner carby set-up & the restricted vacuum advance in the lower gears, but when warm & in top gear, they were fine. In fact they had no less power, they had slightly more in the auto.

When the VB Commodore was released, it still used the same basic HX/HZ/LX/UC ADR27A red 202, but its figures were published in the new DIN net standard. The engine still had the same carby & pollution gear as the other cars of the time but the ouput was stated at 64 kw for the manual & 69 kW for the auto.

For the Blue motors in the VC/VH/WB cars, the normal 202 now had 83 kW DIN net, quite an improvement over the VB, which is probably the best sign of how much better a Blue head/manifold/Varajet/HEI ignition combination is over the old single carby red set-up. Remember this still has pollution gear.

In the VK series the carby (EST) motor had an increase of just 3 kW to 86 kW, probably due to slightly better head flow. The EFI motor however had 106 kW DIN net, which is a good increase over the carby versions.

OK, so how do you compare the old motors with the newer ones. You can't just use the fact that 1 hp = 0.746 kW because the old HP is a different sized horse. If we use the fact that 135 bhp SAE gross (HQ) = 110 bhp SAE net (HJ) = 69 kw DIN net (VB), that means that 135 bhp old school = 69 kw new school. That means 1 kw DIN net = 1.956 bhp SAE gross, which means that the VK EFI motor with 106 kw = 207.3 bhp, which is more than the advertised bhp of an LJ GTR XU1 @ 190.

A friend of mine built an LJ Torana with a stock EFI motor (with all its so-called pollution gear) & Tri-Matic straight out of a VK Calais in the late 80s & used the stock 3.08 Banjo diff. This thing did consistant 14.0 seconds at the drags so I can quite believe the 200 Kw figure, the best stock LJ XU1s did low 14 secs. The other bit is that the EFI's peak HP figure is @ 4400 RPM where the LJ XU1's peak is @ 5600 RPM, which makes the EFI so much more drivable with a wider torque band.

Of course all these are at the flywheel & not at the rear wheels but at least you can compare them. The power loss % due to driveline losses is another difficult subject, because it seems to differ so much from car to car. I'll go there when I've worked it out.

Dr Terry.

[Dr Terry]

Hi Guys.

Peter UC has got it nearly right.

The problem is, over the years GM-H (& just about everybody else) have used many different methods to advertise their engine outputs, & that's the important word, 'advertise', because of course, bigger is always better, isn't it ?

When the 202 was 1st seen in the HQ series it had an output of 135 bhp. This was SAE 'gross' horsepower. This motor remained unchanged for all HQ/HJ/LJ/LH & early LX (up to 6/76) but in late 1974 the figure had already dropped to 110 bhp, although there were no real changes. They even gave the metric equivalent of 87 kW, because we were going metric at the time. Yes, I know the charcoal canister was introduced & there were minor plumbing changes but the engine still had the same output. The reason for the drop was they were now using SAE 'net' horsepower. This was a newer, more realistic measurement that gave a truer indication of the engines output with its accessories attatched.

In July 1976 the dreaded ADR27A was introduced & the figure for the run-of-the-mill 202 was now 109 bhp (81 kW) for the manual & 118 bhp (88 kW) for the auto. The auto ran a better camshaft. These figures were still in the new SAE net measurement. Contrary to popular belief, & as you can see, the ADR27A engines did not have less power than the previous models, they just not drive as well, low in the rev range, especially when cold beause of the leaner carby set-up & the restricted vacuum advance in the lower gears, but when warm & in top gear, they were fine. In fact they had no less power, they had slightly more in the auto.

When the VB Commodore was released, it still used the same basic HX/HZ/LX/UC ADR27A red 202, but its figures were published in the new DIN net standard. The engine still had the same carby & pollution gear as the other cars of the time but the ouput was stated at 64 kw for the manual & 69 kW for the auto.

For the Blue motors in the VC/VH/WB cars, the normal 202 now had 83 kW DIN net, quite an improvement over the VB, which is probably the best sign of how much better a Blue head/manifold/Varajet/HEI ignition combination is over the old single carby red set-up. Remember this still has pollution gear.

In the VK series the carby (EST) motor had an increase of just 3 kW to 86 kW, probably due to slightly better head flow. The EFI motor however had 106 kW DIN net, which is a good increase over the carby versions.

OK, so how do you compare the old motors with the newer ones. You can't just use the fact that 1 hp = 0.746 kW because the old HP is a different sized horse. If we use the fact that 135 bhp SAE gross (HQ) = 110 bhp SAE net (HJ) = 69 kw DIN net (VB), that means that 135 bhp old school = 69 kw new school. That means 1 kw DIN net = 1.956 bhp SAE gross, which means that the VK EFI motor with 106 kw = 207.3 bhp, which is more than the advertised bhp of an LJ GTR XU1 @ 190.

A friend of mine built an LJ Torana with a stock EFI motor (with all its so-called pollution gear) & Tri-Matic straight out of a VK Calais in the late 80s & used the stock 3.08 Banjo diff. This thing did consistant 14.0 seconds at the drags so I can quite believe the 200 Kw figure, the best stock LJ XU1s did low 14 secs. The other bit is that the EFI's peak HP figure is @ 4400 RPM where the LJ XU1's peak is @ 5600 RPM, which makes the EFI so much more drivable with a wider torque band.

Of course all these are at the flywheel & not at the rear wheels but at least you can compare them. The power loss % due to driveline losses is another difficult subject, because it seems to differ so much from car to car. I'll go there when I've worked it out.

Dr Terry.