6 SU's
The Gardners
a photo.
A Holden straight six with 6 SU carbs! WTF?
It was a crowded sight and all I could think of is, "What's the mileage on
that thing?"
--
Al "VOLVOdude" Gardner
Webmaster - Volvo Club Of Victoria
Visit the club site at:
http://www.angelfire.com/vt/vicvolvos
Tom
cylinder these days without all that whiz-bang technology :o)
The Gardners <gard...@ihug.com.au> wrote in message
news:95898602...@mel.ihug.com.au...
Glenn Ryan
Tom <sta...@start.com.au> wrote in message
news:3929272e$0$26...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
JJ
The first XU-1 was 186 cu and ran 3 Stromberg SU "type" carbies.
Using 6 doesn't mean more fuel consumption for normal driving. It may even
improve the mileage due to the Ram effect increasing mixture turbulence.
However if the camshaft has been ground to match the high revs a multiply
carby setup like this would accomodate, then at lower engine speeds the cam
overlap and duration would give decreased economy.
just my opinion J
John H
>Probably SU motorcycle carbys - amazing how hey can build a performance 6
>cylinder these days without all that whiz-bang technology :o)
The only SU designed for motorcycles was the Type MC2, last seen on
Triumph T/birds around 1959. They were ugly looking devices with
square shouldered brass (?) dashpots, once popular as paperweights.
No one could possibly be silly enough to fit them to a car - let alone
find 6 that actually worked. Any SU's seen on a Holden are likely to
be the real thing.
A brace of Amals would be a different story!
>The Gardners <gard...@ihug.com.au> wrote in message
>news:95898602...@mel.ihug.com.au...
>> My dad was doing some cleaning up and called me over to his place to show
>>me a photo.
>>
>> A Holden straight six with 6 SU carbs! WTF?
>> It was a crowded sight and all I could think of is, "What's the mileage on
>> that thing?"
If you mean mpg - probably somewhat better than the stock Stromberg!
--
John H
Dangerous
Glenn Ryan wrote in message <8gcob4$da$1...@news.netlink.com.au>...
>More than likely the XU1 LJ?
Nope. NO factory XU -1 used SU carburettors. The LC XU-1s used triple CD 150
Strombergs (1,5 inch diameter butterfly), and the LJs used 175 CD
Strombergs.
In my opinion, the CD Stromberg was a much better carb than the SU.
Colin Bond used triple 2" SUs on his XU-1 at Bathurst in 1973, but they were
nowhere near as efficient, and reportedly lower on power than a set of 175
CD Strombergs. This may have been due to the mismatch between the engine's
vacuum characteristics, and those required for three 2 inch SUs. Brock used
triple Webers (might have even been 58 mm?), with one choke blocked off, as
the rules stated at the time that carburettors could be changed, but not the
total number of carburettors (ie chokes). Since the Weber is a twin choke,
it was regarded as two carburettors, Brock used three Webers each with a
choke blocked off, making a total of 3 'carburettors'.
Dangerous
Dene Oehme
> The first XU-1 was 186 cu and ran 3 Stromberg SU "type" carbies.
Stromberg CD's
Regards
Dene Oehme
de...@camtech.net.au
http://www.adelaide.net.au/~dene/menu.htm
JJ
"Dangerous" <dave....@roads.sa.gov.au> wrote in message
news:392a...@duster.adelaide.on.net...
Remember the E38 and E39 Chargers. 3 DCOE? Webers. Size? 280 BHP@ 5000,
factory stated from an 4.3 ltr agricultural 6 which wasn't really "Hemi" as
in the US BBs. The valves were slightly inclined in a V formation. The word
was it could beat a GTHO to 100mph, but that may have been folk lore. Never
could cut it at Bathurst.
JJ
> Dangerous
>
>
>
>
>
JJ
"Dene Oehme" <de...@camtech.net.au> wrote in message
news:392a1202...@news.camtech.net.au...
Corrected thankyou,
In the '60s Isuzu produced a car called the Princess GT.
I only saw one, and it had 3 similar type carbies on its six. Can anyone
confirm this cars details: whether it was Isuzu and engine size?
James
Marco Spaccavento
JJ wrote in message ...
> In the '60s Isuzu produced a car called the Princess
GT.
>I only saw one, and it had 3 similar type carbies on its six. Can anyone
>confirm this cars details: whether it was Isuzu and engine size?
>
> James
I can assure you that it almost certainly was not an Isuzu - I don't know of
any Isuzu cars with that name, and I can't think of any powered by a six.
Could you be thinking of a product of the Prince company (later bought by
Nissan)?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
M a r c o S p a c c a v e n t o
obe...@netspace.net.au - ICQ #20196867 - Yahoo: rbgemini85
"I think animal testing is a terrible idea. They get all nervous and give
the
wrong answers" - A Bit of Fry and Laurie
*** The RB Gemini Web Page:
http://www.netspace.net.au/~oberhst/RBGemini.html ***
Lord Visor
Agricultural would be a wrong description of the hemi six next to its
contemporaries. The block was designed by Dodge in the mid-late 60s.
Save the agricultural tag for the ancient Ford 250 and various Holden
sixes, neither of which are particularly good at pulling _and_ revving
in comparison.
The 71 E38 made 280 bhp. The 72 E49 version produced 302 bhp. The
reason they did not win at Bathurst - a mere 18 months of factory race
team development.
Compare to NZ where the main dealership (who assembled cars there)
were mad keen racers. Valiants won for 9 years straight, the latter 7
being all Chargers.
Doug Chivas came in 3rd at Bathurst in the E49 '72 - he would probably
have won outright if the pit crew had been able to put cold wheel nuts
on the heated studs.
The E49 does hold the record for the standing 1/4, like it or not.
Even if the new HSVs are quicker, it took 'em over 27 years to break
the record. Not bad for a locally developed six. It was also claimed
by CA to have the highest power output of any roadgoing six in the
world at the time. It would waste the contemporary Porsches.
Supercar, like it or not. Consider also the improved handling from
not having to lug a bent eight over the front axles..
After the E49, if the "Supercar Scare" wankery had not taken place,
Bathurst would have been inevitable with the 340 V8 - even a diehard
Ford fan mate of mine (351C XB coupe) admits the 340 is the killer
small block.
Best regards,
LV
Lord Visor
3x 45 DCOE.
Dene Oehme
> Agricultural would be a wrong description of the hemi six next to its
They were all much the same. They call all be made to do all sorts of
things but none of them had any great technological advantage over the
other.
Dene Oehme
> In the '60s Isuzu produced a car called the Princess GT.
>I only saw one, and it had 3 similar type carbies on its six.
I think these carbs were the predecessor to the CD carbs that came out
on Datsun 260Zs.
Dene Oehme
>In my opinion, the CD Stromberg was a much better carb than the SU.
Why is that? There's less to break in an SU.
Dangerous
story that the Bathurst cars/engines were shipped over to France??? to have
the Webers blueprinted and tuned, and were sent back with explicit
instructions not to touch them???
Lord Visor wrote in message <392a3588....@news.optus.net.au>...
>Is this a troll?
snip
>The 71 E38 made 280 bhp. The 72 E49 version produced 302 bhp. The
>reason they did not win at Bathurst - a mere 18 months of factory race
>team development.
What about handling and brakes (and gearboxes?) - not picking, just curious
as to how they rated against the Holden and Ford of the same era.
snip # 2
>After the E49, if the "Supercar Scare" wankery had not taken place,
>Bathurst would have been inevitable with the 340 V8 - even a diehard
>Ford fan mate of mine (351C XB coupe) admits the 340 is the killer
>small block.
Big call. Would have 'inevitably' beaten an 1100 KG Torana with a 300 odd
BHP 308 under the bonnet? Apparently Brock drove one of these at a non
official race at Bathurst, with a standard (read Kingswood) spec 308, and
lopped 2 seconds off the Touring Car lap times. Would definitely have made
for an interesting race!
Dangerous
Dangerous
Dangerous
Dene Oehme wrote in message <392a4194...@news.camtech.net.au>...
>
>> In the '60s Isuzu produced a car called the Princess
GT.
>>I only saw one, and it had 3 similar type carbies on its six.
>
>I think these carbs were the predecessor to the CD carbs that came out
>on Datsun 260Zs.
>
>
JJ
"Lord Visor" <ct...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:392a3588....@news.optus.net.au...
> Is this a troll?
No, but I've got a TROLLey full of Val parts to give away, includes a
265 bored 060" (resleeve req if recoing)
>
> Agricultural would be a wrong description of the hemi six next to its
> contemporaries. The block was designed by Dodge in the mid-late 60s.
> Save the agricultural tag for the ancient Ford 250 and various Holden
> sixes, neither of which are particularly good at pulling _and_ revving
> in comparison.
Lord V, can you tell me one innovation that Chrysler introduced which
distinguishes the Hemi 6 from the GM and Ford 6s in std form.
>
> The 71 E38 made 280 bhp. The 72 E49 version produced 302 bhp. The
> reason they did not win at Bathurst - a mere 18 months of factory race
> team development.
>
> Compare to NZ where the main dealership (who assembled cars there)
> were mad keen racers. Valiants won for 9 years straight, the latter 7
> being all Chargers.
>
> Doug Chivas came in 3rd at Bathurst in the E49 '72 - he would probably
> have won outright if the pit crew had been able to put cold wheel nuts
> on the heated studs.
>
> The E49 does hold the record for the standing 1/4, like it or not.
> Even if the new HSVs are quicker, it took 'em over 27 years to break
> the record. Not bad for a locally developed six. It was also claimed
> by CA to have the highest power output of any roadgoing six in the
> world at the time. It would waste the contemporary Porsches.
> Supercar, like it or not. Consider also the improved handling from
> not having to lug a bent eight over the front axles..
I've owned 3 Vals (mainly for price and size) I cant really say, even
with Selby stabilisers and Monro Wylie GT130 shocks and additional leaf in
rear spring, that my VH sedan handled well. Admittedly the Chargers shorter
wheel base helped. How much I dont know.
>
> After the E49, if the "Supercar Scare" wankery had not taken place,
> Bathurst would have been inevitable with the 340 V8 - even a diehard
> Ford fan mate of mine (351C XB coupe) admits the 340 is the killer
> small block.
Heard the 340 is excellent. The 318 VF sedan I had got blown off
regularly by 253 Holdens.
The Hemi range of motors were physically large. They used for example
1/2 inch AF bigend cap nuts compared to GMs red motors 7/16. Their longevity
was good, but was this a function of size or design? They had 12 port heads,
not sure about Ford 250s (think Ford had dumped the same cast: head & i/let
manifolds by '73). The RTs were fullhouse to use the term at the time
developing 65hp per litre with 6 carby venturis, however the older XU-1
incomparison with 3 was still developing 53hp per litre.
Anyone who frequented Oran park during that period saw the Chargers
getting the sympathy vote.
JJ
>
Dene Oehme
>Weren't they SU copies, built by Hitachi??
Quite possibly. They looked very square-ish and as if they had been
made by someone at home on a lathe.
Noddy
Lord Visor <ct...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:392a3588....@news.optus.net.au...
> Is this a troll?
It's starting to sound like one now..:)
> Agricultural would be a wrong description of the hemi six next to its
> contemporaries. The block was designed by Dodge in the mid-late 60s.
> Save the agricultural tag for the ancient Ford 250 and various Holden
> sixes, neither of which are particularly good at pulling _and_ revving
> in comparison.
My standard LJ XU-1 regularly saw 7500 rpm without the slightest trouble and
pulled like a 14 year old school boy. I don't think the Valiant "hemi" was
any better or more advanced than the other two...
> The 71 E38 made 280 bhp. The 72 E49 version produced 302 bhp. The
> reason they did not win at Bathurst - a mere 18 months of factory race
> team development.
Maybe, but the fact that once they hit 100 mph they fell away big time also
had *much* to do with it. The E49 was a pretty bulky old car...
> Doug Chivas came in 3rd at Bathurst in the E49 '72 - he would probably
> have won outright if the pit crew had been able to put cold wheel nuts
> on the heated studs.
How far behind Brock did he finish?
> The E49 does hold the record for the standing 1/4, like it or not.
> Even if the new HSVs are quicker, it took 'em over 27 years to break
> the record. Not bad for a locally developed six. It was also claimed
> by CA to have the highest power output of any roadgoing six in the
> world at the time. It would waste the contemporary Porsches.
> Supercar, like it or not. Consider also the improved handling from
> not having to lug a bent eight over the front axles..
Um, what record would this be? I could be wrong here, but I seem to remember
figures of 14.4 for an E49 over the quarter, but an XW phase 2, which was
quicker over a standing quater mile than a phase 3, had figures of 14.2.
Not much in it, sure. My brother, in his E49 and I in my phase 2 used to
race each other all the time and we had sh*loads of fun. It was always
pretty close between us but *only* until we reached around the ton, then the
Charger used to fade in the rear view mirror pretty quickly...
> After the E49, if the "Supercar Scare" wankery had not taken place,
> Bathurst would have been inevitable with the 340 V8 - even a diehard
> Ford fan mate of mine (351C XB coupe) admits the 340 is the killer
> small block.
I don't know of too many people who would admit to a "wedge" as being a
killer smallblock. Regardless of what marque you happen to favour, and I'm
largely a Ford man, it is *extremely* difficult to go past a small block
Chev for the ultimate "killer" engine.
Regards,
Noddy.
JJ
"Marco Spaccavento" <obe...@netspace.net.au> wrote in message
news:8gdav5$1a79$1...@otis.netspace.net.au...
>
> JJ wrote in message ...
> > In the '60s Isuzu produced a car called the Princess
> GT.
> >confirm this cars details: whether it was Isuzu and engine size?
> >
> > James
>
>
of
> any Isuzu cars with that name, and I can't think of any powered by a six.
> Could you be thinking of a product of the Prince company (later bought by
> Nissan)?
Probably the case. The car was distinctive with a longer bonnet than
expected.
James
Lord Visor
>news:392a3588....@news.optus.net.au...
>> Is this a troll?
>
>265 bored 060" (resleeve req if recoing)
If you're anywhere near Sydney, I'd be interested in having a gander!
>> Agricultural would be a wrong description of the hemi six next to its
>> contemporaries. The block was designed by Dodge in the mid-late 60s.
>> Save the agricultural tag for the ancient Ford 250 and various Holden
>> sixes, neither of which are particularly good at pulling _and_ revving
>> in comparison.
>
> Lord V, can you tell me one innovation that Chrysler introduced which
>distinguishes the Hemi 6 from the GM and Ford 6s in std form.
Sure, how about combustion chamber design. It may not be a pure hemi
design, but the mpg obtainable with a stock 265 is good evidence of
its higher efficiency.
What else have Chysler done first - retractable front seat belts,
electronic ignition, stalk lighting & wiper controls, etc etc
<snip>
>> Consider also the improved handling from
>> not having to lug a bent eight over the front axles..
> I've owned 3 Vals (mainly for price and size) I cant really say, even
>with Selby stabilisers and Monro Wylie GT130 shocks and additional leaf in
>rear spring, that my VH sedan handled well. Admittedly the Chargers shorter
>wheel base helped. How much I dont know.
Earlier Vals did not handle superbly, however this was sorted out by
the VH E49.
>> After the E49, if the "Supercar Scare" wankery had not taken place,
>> Bathurst would have been inevitable with the 340 V8 - even a diehard
>> Ford fan mate of mine (351C XB coupe) admits the 340 is the killer
>> small block.
>
> Heard the 340 is excellent. The 318 VF sedan I had got blown off
>regularly by 253 Holdens.
The low comp 318s are lazy motors. They can be made to go.
Interestingly, my old CM Regal with stock 265 + extractors/3 speed
slushbox would see a 253 off no worries.
> The Hemi range of motors were physically large. They used for example
>1/2 inch AF bigend cap nuts compared to GMs red motors 7/16. Their longevity
>was good, but was this a function of size or design? They had 12 port heads,
>not sure about Ford 250s (think Ford had dumped the same cast: head & i/let
>manifolds by '73). The RTs were fullhouse to use the term at the time
>developing 65hp per litre with 6 carby venturis, however the older XU-1
>incomparison with 3 was still developing 53hp per litre.
> Anyone who frequented Oran park during that period saw the Chargers
>getting the sympathy vote.
The increased size of the nuts in your example would make sense given
its larger capacity ... As for durability, Dodge had conceived the
hemi six block as a truck motor. Deciding on V8s instead, they sold
this design to Chrysler Australian who spent 50% as much again
developing it as a modern car motor as GMH did on the 308 (a motor I
will not knock).
I should also add not much gets past the 265/Charger combo I have at
the moment. Can't wait to score some Webers either...
Regs,
LV
Lord Visor
Can't argue...
Maybe you can tell me if there's any truth to the
>story that the Bathurst cars/engines were shipped over to France??? to have
>the Webers blueprinted and tuned, and were sent back with explicit
>instructions not to touch them???
Ahem, that would be Italy. A Pacer and a VH ute were sent over to
develop the 6 pack. Never heard the 'don't touch them' story,
although Leo Geoghegan gave advice like 'once they're in tune, don't
fiddle with them' to privateer race drivers in a pamplet I've seen.
Makes sense?
>What about handling and brakes (and gearboxes?) - not picking, just curious
>as to how they rated against the Holden and Ford of the same era.
The E38 was crippled by a 3 speed box. It handled pretty well by
reputation. Can't say I've driven one.
As for the E49, handling was reportedly superb. Wheels said something
like 'Nothing except a well-driven Ferrari is going to keep up with
this, especially on the twisties..'.
Unboosted brakes were an issue. This is because they were forced to
use locally made parts. However they were considered adequate, if not
particularly comfortable.
>snip # 2
>
>>After the E49, if the "Supercar Scare" wankery had not taken place,
>>Bathurst would have been inevitable with the 340 V8 - even a diehard
>>Ford fan mate of mine (351C XB coupe) admits the 340 is the killer
>>small block.
>
>Big call. Would have 'inevitably' beaten an 1100 KG Torana with a 300 odd
>BHP 308 under the bonnet? Apparently Brock drove one of these at a non
>official race at Bathurst, with a standard (read Kingswood) spec 308, and
>lopped 2 seconds off the Touring Car lap times. Would definitely have made
>for an interesting race!
Ah, the XU-2?
Would indeed have been a hell of a race.
Regs,
LV
Dennis Jensen
Lord Visor wrote:
>
> >"Lord Visor" <ct...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:392a3588....@news.optus.net.au...
> >> Is this a troll?
> >
> > No, but I've got a TROLLey full of Val parts to give away, includes a
> >265 bored 060" (resleeve req if recoing)
>
> If you're anywhere near Sydney, I'd be interested in having a gander!
>
> >> Agricultural would be a wrong description of the hemi six next to its
> >> contemporaries. The block was designed by Dodge in the mid-late 60s.
> >> Save the agricultural tag for the ancient Ford 250 and various Holden
> >> sixes, neither of which are particularly good at pulling _and_ revving
> >> in comparison.
> >
> > Lord V, can you tell me one innovation that Chrysler introduced which
> >distinguishes the Hemi 6 from the GM and Ford 6s in std form.
>
> Sure, how about combustion chamber design. It may not be a pure hemi
> design, but the mpg obtainable with a stock 265 is good evidence of
> its higher efficiency.
>
No, it certainly wasn't pure hemi! Additionally, have a look at what it
had that the crossflow Ford 6, for example, had. Crossflow heads, and
valves that were not simply set up in a line.
> What else have Chysler done first - retractable front seat belts,
> electronic ignition, stalk lighting & wiper controls, etc etc
>
Then look at what they didn't have, such as flow through ventilation or
integrated aircon-even in 1980, for crissake!! Torsion bar front
suspension was another primitive issue.
Regarding stalk lighting and wipers, have a look at the Cortina some
time! Even the Mk1 from the early 1960s had stalk lighting.
The Charger with the 6 Pack hemi certainly delivered, particularly in
the terms of the day. However, this was with massive development of the
basic motor, 3 DCOE-45 Webers, where the whole engine was sent to Italy
for tuning; extremely wild cam etc. Take a crossflow Ford 6, do the same
things, and you would get similar performance.
That having been said, what the Chrysler hemi did have at the time of
its introduction was a 12 port head-something neither Ford (which had to
wait for the 250-2V, or Holden (which had to wait til the 1980's) had.
All in all, for the time, a very good engine, but let's not get too
carried away. A current XR6 VCT puts out about the same power as that
E-49 engine-and that is on lousy fuel and emission controls.
Furthermore, the VCT uses far less fuel than the E-49. Sure, things have
come a long way, but imagine what you could do with the VCT if you had a
free hand with 98 Octane petrol.
> <snip>
>
> >> Consider also the improved handling from
> >> not having to lug a bent eight over the front axles..
>
> > I've owned 3 Vals (mainly for price and size) I cant really say, even
> >with Selby stabilisers and Monro Wylie GT130 shocks and additional leaf in
> >rear spring, that my VH sedan handled well. Admittedly the Chargers shorter
> >wheel base helped. How much I dont know.
>
> Earlier Vals did not handle superbly, however this was sorted out by
> the VH E49.
>
For the time, the E49 was a decent handler, nothing more. Mid pack, not
front of pack.
> >> After the E49, if the "Supercar Scare" wankery had not taken place,
> >> Bathurst would have been inevitable with the 340 V8 - even a diehard
> >> Ford fan mate of mine (351C XB coupe) admits the 340 is the killer
> >> small block.
> >
> > Heard the 340 is excellent. The 318 VF sedan I had got blown off
> >regularly by 253 Holdens.
>
> The low comp 318s are lazy motors. They can be made to go.
> Interestingly, my old CM Regal with stock 265 + extractors/3 speed
> slushbox would see a 253 off no worries.
>
From my understanding, the 318s were the worst of the small blocks to
get going. The 340s were among the best.
Dennis
Lord Visor
>> design, but the mpg obtainable with a stock 265 is good evidence of
>> its higher efficiency.
>
>No, it certainly wasn't pure hemi! Additionally, have a look at what it
>had that the crossflow Ford 6, for example, had. Crossflow heads, and
>valves that were not simply set up in a line.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the Ford crossflow came out later. My
point remains anyway re mpgs. The crossflow design doesn't heat up
the inlet manifold as effectively either.
>> What else have Chysler done first - retractable front seat belts,
>> electronic ignition, stalk lighting & wiper controls, etc etc
>>
>
>Then look at what they didn't have, such as flow through ventilation or
>integrated aircon-even in 1980, for crissake!! Torsion bar front
>suspension was another primitive issue.
Yeah, those late model air-cooled Porsches sure are primitive.
Nothing wrong with torsion bars.
You can blame Mitsubishi for anything ca 1980. CA had wanted a new
car by then anyway. My 79 Regal was definitely very comfortable, flow
thru or not.
>Regarding stalk lighting and wipers, have a look at the Cortina some
>time! Even the Mk1 from the early 1960s had stalk lighting.
Wasn't Australian made though was it?
>The Charger with the 6 Pack hemi certainly delivered, particularly in
>the terms of the day. However, this was with massive development of the
>basic motor, 3 DCOE-45 Webers, where the whole engine was sent to Italy
>for tuning; extremely wild cam etc. Take a crossflow Ford 6, do the same
>things, and you would get similar performance.
Hmmm, I got a friend who's doing a crossflow up and it's quite
impressive but they just don't rev like hemis do.
>That having been said, what the Chrysler hemi did have at the time of
>its introduction was a 12 port head-something neither Ford (which had to
>wait for the 250-2V, or Holden (which had to wait til the 1980's) had.
>
>All in all, for the time, a very good engine,
I think you've conceded my point.
but let's not get too
>carried away.
A current XR6 VCT puts out about the same power as that
>E-49 engine-and that is on lousy fuel and emission controls.
>Furthermore, the VCT uses far less fuel than the E-49. Sure, things have
>come a long way, but imagine what you could do with the VCT if you had a
>free hand with 98 Octane petrol.
Apples and oranges. The hemi would have been a lot better to
modernise than some motors (eg 202 in VK?).
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> Consider also the improved handling from
>> >> not having to lug a bent eight over the front axles..
>For the time, the E49 was a decent handler, nothing more. Mid pack, not
>front of pack.
I haven't driven one. Mind you, my VJ Charger on pursuit springs has
given quite a few modern car drivers a real shock thru the bendy bits.
It's not entirely flawless, but I wouldn't change it. That's the
best I can put it.
>> >> After the E49, if the "Supercar Scare" wankery had not taken place,
>> >> Bathurst would have been inevitable with the 340 V8 - even a diehard
>> >> Ford fan mate of mine (351C XB coupe) admits the 340 is the killer
>> >> small block.
>> >
>> > Heard the 340 is excellent. The 318 VF sedan I had got blown off
>> >regularly by 253 Holdens.
>>
>> The low comp 318s are lazy motors. They can be made to go.
>> Interestingly, my old CM Regal with stock 265 + extractors/3 speed
>> slushbox would see a 253 off no worries.
>>
>
>From my understanding, the 318s were the worst of the small blocks to
>get going. The 340s were among the best.
Same block, different bits. The 340 was always factory built as a
performance option. A bit like comparing your VCT6 to a TBI EA 3.9 or
somethingl.
Regs
LV
David Thomson
to enlighten me? All that I can see in there favour is excellent
aftermarket support, but surely this doesn't make it a "killer" engine by
design.
The Chrysler small block had longer connecting rods (6.123" ?)for better
revability, larger diametre lifters to allow for better camshaft ramp
profiles, shaft mounted rockers a, and 18 degree valve angle all as
standard.
Chevs engines on the other hand seem to have all their bits chucked in the
bin and replaced with aftermarket products.
David Thomson
Sean
Stromies burn diaphrams on misfire - SU is the ultimate but requires a druid
to tune em to any engine not factory fitted with em
Dene Oehme wrote in message <392a4034...@news.camtech.net.au>...
>
>>In my opinion, the CD Stromberg was a much better carb than the SU.
>
>Why is that? There's less to break in an SU.
>
JJ
"Lord Visor" <ct...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> If you're anywhere near Sydney, I'd be interested in having a gander!
Live in down town Dubbo, home of the 4WDs and cockies diesel Mercedes,
give us an Email if your coming thru, and I'll direct you. The engine is
worn but was a good goer (fill in motor). The displacement is 273cu. The
valves are lip to lip, cant get any bigger! It lugged around my CM Wagon for
6 mths and despite being a bit blow byey used to haul ass pretty well. In
fact the recoed 245 which eventually went back in was noticeabley slower
(damn).
>
> >> Agricultural would be a wrong description of the hemi six next to its
> >> contemporaries. The block was designed by Dodge in the mid-late 60s.
> >> Save the agricultural tag for the ancient Ford 250 and various Holden
> >> sixes, neither of which are particularly good at pulling _and_ revving
> >> in comparison.
> >
> > Lord V, can you tell me one innovation that Chrysler introduced which
> >distinguishes the Hemi 6 from the GM and Ford 6s in std form.
>
> Sure, how about combustion chamber design. It may not be a pure hemi
> design, but the mpg obtainable with a stock 265 is good evidence of
> its higher efficiency.
The combustion chamber doesn't look anything like the US hemi V8s
chambers, as installed in their Dodge Challenger and Charger.
Ive done prolly 100,000 miles in Vals; VH, CM 245 except short time
with the 265, and the VF 318. The mpgs were in line with any 6 at the time,
but there was an advantage in that the Hemi's were larger capacity.
>
> What else have Chysler done first - retractable front seat belts,
> electronic ignition, stalk lighting & wiper controls, etc etc
And they introduced the first V8 (AP6).
> <snip>
>
> >> Consider also the improved handling from
> >> not having to lug a bent eight over the front axles..
>
> > I've owned 3 Vals (mainly for price and size) I cant really say, even
> >with Selby stabilisers and Monro Wylie GT130 shocks and additional leaf
in
> >rear spring, that my VH sedan handled well. Admittedly the Chargers
shorter
> >wheel base helped. How much I dont know.
>
> Earlier Vals did not handle superbly, however this was sorted out by
> the VH E49.
One guy who had a red 340 4bbl (had VH front and VJ rear lights, must
have bingled it?) in
town installed a roll cage to stop body twisting! That used to shit me:
having to leave the drivers door open before I jacked the car as it would
jam.
>
> >> After the E49, if the "Supercar Scare" wankery had not taken place,
> >> Bathurst would have been inevitable with the 340 V8 - even a diehard
> >> Ford fan mate of mine (351C XB coupe) admits the 340 is the killer
> >> small block.
> >
> > Heard the 340 is excellent. The 318 VF sedan I had got blown off
> >regularly by 253 Holdens.
>
> The low comp 318s are lazy motors. They can be made to go.
> Interestingly, my old CM Regal with stock 265 + extractors/3 speed
> slushbox would see a 253 off no worries.
318- CR 9.2:1 230HP @ 4400 torque 340ftlb @ 2400
265- CR 9.5:1 203HP @ 4800 torque 262ftlb @ 2000
RT - CR 10:1 280HP @ 5000 torque 318ftlb @ 3700
215- CR 8:1 140HP @ 4400 torque 200ftlb @ 1800 *for comparison.
> > The Hemi range of motors were physically large. They used for example
> >1/2 inch AF bigend cap nuts compared to GMs red motors 7/16. Their
longevity
> >was good, but was this a function of size or design? They had 12 port
heads,
> >not sure about Ford 250s (think Ford had dumped the same cast: head &
i/let
> >manifolds by '73). The RTs were fullhouse to use the term at the time
> >developing 65hp per litre with 6 carby venturis, however the older XU-1
> >incomparison with 3 was still developing 53hp per litre.
> > Anyone who frequented Oran park during that period saw the Chargers
> >getting the sympathy vote.
>
> The increased size of the nuts in your example would make sense given
> its larger capacity ... As for durability, Dodge had conceived the
> hemi six block as a truck motor. Deciding on V8s instead, they sold
> this design to Chrysler Australian who spent 50% as much again
> developing it as a modern car motor as GMH did on the 308 (a motor I
> will not knock).
>
> I should also add not much gets past the 265/Charger combo I have at
> the moment. Can't wait to score some Webers either...
Anyway, dont want to argue about these all day. Have fun with your
Charger!
Cheers, James
Dene Oehme
<sean_...@nospam-hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Stromies burn diaphrams on misfire - SU is the ultimate but requires a druid
>to tune em to any engine not factory fitted with em
Disagree about the tuning. I can tune them beutifully and I'm no
rocket scientist. As with all multiple carbys - the problem with
tuning is more to do with the linkages rather than the carbys
themselves.
Ian
>
>>
>>Stromies burn diaphrams on misfire - SU is the ultimate but requires a
druid
>>to tune em to any engine not factory fitted with em
>
>Disagree about the tuning. I can tune them beutifully and I'm no
>rocket scientist. As with all multiple carbys - the problem with
>tuning is more to do with the linkages rather than the carbys
>themselves.
>
SU's need to be tuned with linkages removed.
Dennis Jensen
Lord Visor wrote:
>
> >> Sure, how about combustion chamber design. It may not be a pure hemi
> >> design, but the mpg obtainable with a stock 265 is good evidence of
> >> its higher efficiency.
> >
> >No, it certainly wasn't pure hemi! Additionally, have a look at what it
> >had that the crossflow Ford 6, for example, had. Crossflow heads, and
> >valves that were not simply set up in a line.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong but the Ford crossflow came out later. My
> point remains anyway re mpgs. The crossflow design doesn't heat up
> the inlet manifold as effectively either.
>
Yep, the crossflow came out in 1976. However, the 250/2V had essentially
everything the hemi had. The inlet manifold heating really wasn't much
of an issue-it was coolant heated, and the air intake had a snout that
sucked air from a "box" that was part of the exhaust manifold. In my
modded version, I had no inlet manifold heating or hot air pipe. Did
suffer a little carby icing on some cold Melbourne winters mornings. The
problem is, for your max performance, you don't want that inlet manifold
hot, and having the manifold tight over the exhaust manifold gives you
heat soak problems.
Re: mpg, the crossflow was essentially just as good as the hemi. Primary
fault was that crappy Stromberg 1bbl.
> >> What else have Chysler done first - retractable front seat belts,
> >> electronic ignition, stalk lighting & wiper controls, etc etc
> >>
> >
> >Then look at what they didn't have, such as flow through ventilation or
> >integrated aircon-even in 1980, for crissake!! Torsion bar front
> >suspension was another primitive issue.
>
> Yeah, those late model air-cooled Porsches sure are primitive.
> Nothing wrong with torsion bars.
>
Note that porsche have done away with them. I wonder why:)
> You can blame Mitsubishi for anything ca 1980. CA had wanted a new
> car by then anyway. My 79 Regal was definitely very comfortable, flow
> thru or not.
>
Yep, but everyone else had flow through from the early 1970's. Can't
blame Mitsubishi for that!
> >Regarding stalk lighting and wipers, have a look at the Cortina some
> >time! Even the Mk1 from the early 1960s had stalk lighting.
>
> Wasn't Australian made though was it?
>
TC/TD/TE/TF certainly were. Don't know about earlier models. The stalk
high beam arrived with the XB with the Falcon (1973). When did it arrive
with the Val?
Guy I worked with about 15 years ago said that the problem with Chrysler
was that they spent all their development money on the engines, and had
nothing left over for the car:)
> >The Charger with the 6 Pack hemi certainly delivered, particularly in
> >the terms of the day. However, this was with massive development of the
> >basic motor, 3 DCOE-45 Webers, where the whole engine was sent to Italy
> >for tuning; extremely wild cam etc. Take a crossflow Ford 6, do the same
> >things, and you would get similar performance.
>
> Hmmm, I got a friend who's doing a crossflow up and it's quite
> impressive but they just don't rev like hemis do.
>
Perhaps not quite as well, but I had a Cortina 6 (TE) that I had worked.
The cam spec was something like an E38 grind, and with a 500 Holley, it
revved to 5800rpm strongly, and would rev to 6200-6300 pushed in 1st
(i.e. not just revving to get a good rev number, actually useable).
> >That having been said, what the Chrysler hemi did have at the time of
> >its introduction was a 12 port head-something neither Ford (which had to
> >wait for the 250-2V, or Holden (which had to wait til the 1980's) had.
> >
> >All in all, for the time, a very good engine,
>
> I think you've conceded my point.
>
> but let's not get too
> >carried away.
>
> A current XR6 VCT puts out about the same power as that
> >E-49 engine-and that is on lousy fuel and emission controls.
> >Furthermore, the VCT uses far less fuel than the E-49. Sure, things have
> >come a long way, but imagine what you could do with the VCT if you had a
> >free hand with 98 Octane petrol.
>
> Apples and oranges. The hemi would have been a lot better to
> modernise than some motors (eg 202 in VK?).
>
Totally agree with the Holden 6. However, the Ford 6 has formed the
basis of the current 4.0l, and is a good engine.
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> >> Consider also the improved handling from
> >> >> not having to lug a bent eight over the front axles..
>
> >For the time, the E49 was a decent handler, nothing more. Mid pack, not
> >front of pack.
>
> I haven't driven one. Mind you, my VJ Charger on pursuit springs has
> given quite a few modern car drivers a real shock thru the bendy bits.
> It's not entirely flawless, but I wouldn't change it. That's the
> best I can put it.
>
Visor, a hell of a lot of this has to do with the driver. Being an
enthusiast, I have no doubt that your driving skills would be quite a
bit above the average. As such, you can compensate for handling flaw,
and just about drive your car over the limit, whereas most drivers would
not have a clue where the limit was!!
> >> >> After the E49, if the "Supercar Scare" wankery had not taken place,
> >> >> Bathurst would have been inevitable with the 340 V8 - even a diehard
> >> >> Ford fan mate of mine (351C XB coupe) admits the 340 is the killer
> >> >> small block.
> >> >
> >> > Heard the 340 is excellent. The 318 VF sedan I had got blown off
> >> >regularly by 253 Holdens.
> >>
> >> The low comp 318s are lazy motors. They can be made to go.
> >> Interestingly, my old CM Regal with stock 265 + extractors/3 speed
> >> slushbox would see a 253 off no worries.
> >>
> >
> >From my understanding, the 318s were the worst of the small blocks to
> >get going. The 340s were among the best.
>
> Same block, different bits. The 340 was always factory built as a
> performance option. A bit like comparing your VCT6 to a TBI EA 3.9 or
> somethingl.
>
I agree. However, those bits amounted to almost a totally new engine.
Differences were many but detailed, and from what I have read, you would
get just about no benefit from any mod carried out in relative
isolation-you would have to do a full rework.
Dennis
> Regs
>
> LV
Sean
Yes but to get the most precise tune the needles need to be very specific -
SU is easy to get a motor to running - even a blown head gasket or valve
will be compensated by these magical carbs - If you spent the time you can
get very close to efi efficiency with SU's if you know exactly what your
doing.
Dene Oehme wrote in message <392b63c9...@news.camtech.net.au>...
>On Wed, 24 May 2000 12:34:13 +0800, "Sean"
><sean_...@nospam-hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Stromies burn diaphrams on misfire - SU is the ultimate but requires a
druid
>>to tune em to any engine not factory fitted with em
>
>Disagree about the tuning. I can tune them beutifully and I'm no
>rocket scientist. As with all multiple carbys - the problem with
>tuning is more to do with the linkages rather than the carbys
>themselves.
>
Dene Oehme
>Hmmm, I got a friend who's doing a crossflow up and it's quite
>impressive but they just don't rev like hemis do.
Have you ever seen a worked 161 Holden 6 as in some GTR Toranas?
Those things would have to be the best revving potential 6 cyl motor
built in Australia for sure.
John & Michelle
>
> Probably the case. The car was distinctive with a longer bonnet than
> expected.
>
Yep
Prince Skyline GT. 2L SOHC six with triple webers, although there was a
slow version with a single downdraft Hitachi, wasn't up to much. I've
owned 2 of them, the later one was Datsun badged. Long bonnet. Can't
even remember if they were 2 or 4 door, 4 I think. I sold the last one
I owned in about 1979. Used to have a mate with a GTR XU1, I seem to
recall them being fairly evenly matched, with the Skyline having the
edge.
Now you're talking about tuning multi carbs. At least each dual throat
carb had the two butterflies on a common shaft so there were only three
sets to balance. A stethoscope was a necesary part of the toolkit. I
often used to run it with the lid off the plenum chamber. All
conversation stopped when you put your foot down- the thing'd rev to
7000 plus. The intake manifold was as simple as they come, just six
individual straight pipes from the head to the carbies. I think there
was a very mall balancing tube ran along too.
Incidentally there _was_, however, a car called the Isuzu Princess. It
was a six, but I never heard of the GT version. I owned a Bellet at the
time and there was a GT version of that, but I only recall the Princess
being a 'family style' car. The Skyline GT's came after the Bellet (for
me).
JM
John & Michelle
> I've owned 2 of them
And if the person who emailed me some time ago asking for photos is
still here, I haven't forgotten but I _have_ lost your email address
(lost the laptop hard drive didn't I)
JM
Lord Visor
>>impressive but they just don't rev like hemis do.
>
>Have you ever seen a worked 161 Holden 6 as in some GTR Toranas?
>Those things would have to be the best revving potential 6 cyl motor
>built in Australia for sure.
I've driven a stockie 161 in a short-body Torana - that was the car I
learned to drive on gravel roads in :) Sure, it was a great little
motor, a worked one would be great in a light car, and I wanted a
Torrie for ages after that.
The thing about the hemis that's always impressed me though is the way
the torque starts just off-idle, and just keeps pulling while the
motor just winds up effortlessly to the redline.
Regs,
LV
Lord Visor
>had *much* to do with it. The E49 was a pretty bulky old car...
The sheer cubes of the V8s come into play over 100 mph with that big
blunt nose, but you couldn't really call an E49 a slug at high speed.
The Chargers do not weigh anything like what some people think.
>> Doug Chivas came in 3rd at Bathurst in the E49 '72 - he would probably
>> have won outright if the pit crew had been able to put cold wheel nuts
>> on the heated studs.
>
>How far behind Brock did he finish?
About one sticky pitstop - sorry, dunno exactly. It's prolly on the
net somewhere.
>> The E49 does hold the record for the standing 1/4, like it or not.
>> Even if the new HSVs are quicker, it took 'em over 27 years to break
>> the record. Not bad for a locally developed six. It was also claimed
>> by CA to have the highest power output of any roadgoing six in the
>> world at the time. It would waste the contemporary Porsches.
>> Supercar, like it or not. Consider also the improved handling from
>> not having to lug a bent eight over the front axles..
>
>Um, what record would this be? I could be wrong here, but I seem to remember
>figures of 14.4 for an E49 over the quarter, but an XW phase 2, which was
>quicker over a standing quater mile than a phase 3, had figures of 14.2.
>Not much in it, sure. My brother, in his E49 and I in my phase 2 used to
>race each other all the time and we had sh*loads of fun. It was always
>pretty close between us but *only* until we reached around the ton, then the
>Charger used to fade in the rear view mirror pretty quickly...
That'd be 14.1 - and high 13s have been recorded by otherwise stock
E49s running modern tyres.
Regs,
LV
Lord Visor
>> Nothing wrong with torsion bars.
>>
>
>Note that porsche have done away with them. I wonder why:)
Took 'em a while :)
>Guy I worked with about 15 years ago said that the problem with Chrysler
>was that they spent all their development money on the engines, and had
>nothing left over for the car:)
More than a grain of truth there from what I have heard and read.
>> I haven't driven one. Mind you, my VJ Charger on pursuit springs has
>> given quite a few modern car drivers a real shock thru the bendy bits.
>> It's not entirely flawless, but I wouldn't change it. That's the
>> best I can put it.
>>
>Visor, a hell of a lot of this has to do with the driver. Being an
>enthusiast, I have no doubt that your driving skills would be quite a
>bit above the average. As such, you can compensate for handling flaw,
>and just about drive your car over the limit, whereas most drivers would
>not have a clue where the limit was!!
That's kind of you - but I mean that it's satisfying to watch stock
jelly-sprung Falcamagnadores get all squealy and off-line around
curves while I cruise thru at the same speed with barely a smidge of
body roll and plenty of lock in reserve - with a ride no harder than a
modern Pulsar or Corolla. The main flaw is a tendency for the tail to
step out a little over potholes (cured in the later CL and CM Vals),
but it's nothing out of the ordinary for a live rear axle car of the
era, and it sure puts the power down well. The understeer-oversteer
transition is perfectly natural for a driver familiar with said layout
and it sticks or hangs out pretty damn nicely :) I have a suspicion a
previous owner took my car to the races at least once... I know a
stock Charger is a bit softer but still hardly qualifies as a land
yacht, I mean look at a stock HQ in comparison.
Regs,
LV
Dennis Jensen
Lord Visor wrote:
>
> >> Yeah, those late model air-cooled Porsches sure are primitive.
> >> Nothing wrong with torsion bars.
> >>
> >
> >Note that porsche have done away with them. I wonder why:)
>
> Took 'em a while :)
>
> >Guy I worked with about 15 years ago said that the problem with Chrysler
> >was that they spent all their development money on the engines, and had
> >nothing left over for the car:)
>
> More than a grain of truth there from what I have heard and read.
>
> >> I haven't driven one. Mind you, my VJ Charger on pursuit springs has
> >> given quite a few modern car drivers a real shock thru the bendy bits.
> >> It's not entirely flawless, but I wouldn't change it. That's the
> >> best I can put it.
> >>
> >Visor, a hell of a lot of this has to do with the driver. Being an
> >enthusiast, I have no doubt that your driving skills would be quite a
> >bit above the average. As such, you can compensate for handling flaw,
> >and just about drive your car over the limit, whereas most drivers would
> >not have a clue where the limit was!!
>
> That's kind of you - but I mean that it's satisfying to watch stock
> jelly-sprung Falcamagnadores get all squealy and off-line around
> curves while I cruise thru at the same speed with barely a smidge of
> body roll and plenty of lock in reserve - with a ride no harder than a
> modern Pulsar or Corolla. The main flaw is a tendency for the tail to
> step out a little over potholes (cured in the later CL and CM Vals),
> but it's nothing out of the ordinary for a live rear axle car of the
> era, and it sure puts the power down well. The understeer-oversteer
> transition is perfectly natural for a driver familiar with said layout
> and it sticks or hangs out pretty damn nicely :) I have a suspicion a
> previous owner took my car to the races at least once... I know a
> stock Charger is a bit softer but still hardly qualifies as a land
> yacht, I mean look at a stock HQ in comparison.
>
> Regs,
>
Yep. Do a reasonable amount of work, and you can get those old cars to
handle fairly well. What you don't get (IMHO) is a whole lot of feedback
or front and rear response that is well coordinated. I agree totally on
the HQ-George Roberts loved understeer, thought it was safe. Apparently
he took some of the press for a drive in an HQ, wound on full lock and
gave full throttle, and the thing STILL understeered. He pointed to that
as one of the HQs safety features!!!!
Dennis
> LV
Lord Visor
>handle fairly well. What you don't get (IMHO) is a whole lot of feedback
>or front and rear response that is well coordinated.
One reason so few of the Chargers have power steering is because of
how fluffy and light the Chrysler PS was. I never minded it in the
Regal once I was used to it, in fact after a while I appreciated the
single-finger operation but never felt entirely disconnected from the
road, even though feedback was not sensational.
The manual steering boxes in the Charger are another story, and you
can really feel every subtlety in the road. Gotta love a car that
talks to you so clearly - the occasional grunting and swearing during
a tight city park is the tradeoff...
I agree totally on
>the HQ-George Roberts loved understeer, thought it was safe. Apparently
>he took some of the press for a drive in an HQ, wound on full lock and
>gave full throttle, and the thing STILL understeered. He pointed to that
>as one of the HQs safety features!!!!
Unbelievable! I guess the HZ was a real improvement for GMH. The
late 70s were a bit of a watershed in terms of mainstream Australian
cars starting to handle.
Cheers
LV
Dangerous
Lord Visor wrote in message <392b35d4....@news.optus.net.au>...
>>Hmm, a Chrysler fan???
>
>Can't argue...
>
>Maybe you can tell me if there's any truth to the
>>story that the Bathurst cars/engines were shipped over to France??? to
have
>>the Webers blueprinted and tuned, and were sent back with explicit
>>instructions not to touch them???
>
>Ahem, that would be Italy. A Pacer and a VH ute were sent over to
>develop the 6 pack. Never heard the 'don't touch them' story,
>although Leo Geoghegan gave advice like 'once they're in tune, don't
>fiddle with them' to privateer race drivers in a pamplet I've seen.
>Makes sense?
>
Yeah, I thought France was a strange place to send them. The story as I
remembered was that the actual race cars were sent over. As for France
instead of Italy, I wondered if there was anyone racing anything of similar
configuration over there - Italy sounds much more logical.
>>What about handling and brakes (and gearboxes?) - not picking, just
curious
>>as to how they rated against the Holden and Ford of the same era.
>
>The E38 was crippled by a 3 speed box. It handled pretty well by
>reputation. Can't say I've driven one.
>
>As for the E49, handling was reportedly superb. Wheels said something
>like 'Nothing except a well-driven Ferrari is going to keep up with
>this, especially on the twisties..'.
>
>Unboosted brakes were an issue. This is because they were forced to
>use locally made parts. However they were considered adequate, if not
>particularly comfortable.
Hmmm. I drove a mate's 360 4 speed Charger a few times. Big on go, but
wanted to throw itself into the scenery on twisty bits or during heavy
braking. Certainly kept one awake during the drive ;) The steering box
eventually tore off its mounts, and he sold it way too cheap.
>
>>snip # 2
>>
>>>After the E49, if the "Supercar Scare" wankery had not taken place,
>>>Bathurst would have been inevitable with the 340 V8 - even a diehard
>>>Ford fan mate of mine (351C XB coupe) admits the 340 is the killer
>>>small block.
>>
>>Big call. Would have 'inevitably' beaten an 1100 KG Torana with a 300 odd
>>BHP 308 under the bonnet? Apparently Brock drove one of these at a non
>>official race at Bathurst, with a standard (read Kingswood) spec 308, and
>>lopped 2 seconds off the Touring Car lap times. Would definitely have made
>>for an interesting race!
>
>Ah, the XU-2?
Umm, not really. Holden never referred to the project as the XU-2. It was
always the V8 XU-1. XU-2 was considered as a name for the later 308 LH
Torana, but it was dropped due to concern that it might re-awaken the
Supercar debate. S'matter of fact, if you're really bored one day, find a
genuine GMH LH Torana Service manual. It even has a line drawing of the car,
showing trim, badge and sticker locations, including an 'XU2' on the front
guard.
>
>Would indeed have been a hell of a race.
Yeah. Sigh......
>
>Regs,
>
>LV
Dangerous
Dangerous
crossflow hemi head design upgrade for the red motor.... XU-1s were nimble,
but not what I would call _extremely_ powerful.
Dangerous
Noddy wrote in message <392b...@news.iprimus.com.au>...
>
>Lord Visor <ct...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:392a3588....@news.optus.net.au...
>> Is this a troll?
>
>It's starting to sound like one now..:)
>
>> Agricultural would be a wrong description of the hemi six next to its
>> contemporaries. The block was designed by Dodge in the mid-late 60s.
>> Save the agricultural tag for the ancient Ford 250 and various Holden
>> sixes, neither of which are particularly good at pulling _and_ revving
>> in comparison.
>
>My standard LJ XU-1 regularly saw 7500 rpm without the slightest trouble
and
>pulled like a 14 year old school boy. I don't think the Valiant "hemi" was
>any better or more advanced than the other two...
>Regards,
>Noddy.
>
>
>
JJ
"John & Michelle" <moore...@ZAG.one.net.au> wrote in message
news:392CAA79...@ZAG.one.net.au...
> JJ wrote:
> >
> > Probably the case. The car was distinctive with a longer bonnet than
> > expected.
> >
>
> Yep
> Prince Skyline GT. 2L SOHC six with triple webers, although there was a
> slow version with a single downdraft Hitachi, wasn't up to much. I've
> owned 2 of them, the later one was Datsun badged. Long bonnet. Can't
> even remember if they were 2 or 4 door, 4 I think. I sold the last one
> I owned in about 1979. Used to have a mate with a GTR XU1, I seem to
> recall them being fairly evenly matched, with the Skyline having the
> edge.
>
> Now you're talking about tuning multi carbs. At least each dual throat
> carb had the two butterflies on a common shaft so there were only three
> sets to balance. A stethoscope was a necesary part of the toolkit. I
> often used to run it with the lid off the plenum chamber. All
> conversation stopped when you put your foot down- the thing'd rev to
> 7000 plus. The intake manifold was as simple as they come, just six
> individual straight pipes from the head to the carbies. I think there
> was a very mall balancing tube ran along too.
Thanks for the info. This car was the only hi performance Jap car at the
college. When the guy fronted with it, no-one believed it to be stock, due
the Carb setup. The reason the bonnet was up, as I recall was due to the
owner tuning the carbs!
A very impressive engine bay. The EFI times we live in with engine
management computers and myriad of sensors takes away the owners ability to
participate in their vehicles running and tuning. Those days would appear
to be gone with the exception of some who are prepared to get involved with
electronics.
JJ
Noddy
Lord Visor <ct...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
> As for the E49, handling was reportedly superb. Wheels said something
> like 'Nothing except a well-driven Ferrari is going to keep up with
> this, especially on the twisties..'.
Um, take it from a person who drove one quite a bit. They were an average
handling heavy car with very vague steering, poor brakes and the most
unsupportive seats in any car I've ever driven. I would rate the E49 as
being middle of the "big three". The LJ XU-1 ate it for breakfast and the
Charger was only *marginally* better than the XY GT. If the Falcon had a
full tank of fuel is was equal if not better.
I don't know what the Wheels writers were on in those days, but you gotta
remember it *was* the early seventies..:)
> Unboosted brakes were an issue. This is because they were forced to
> use locally made parts. However they were considered adequate, if not
> particularly comfortable.
No they weren't :)
The E49 had the worst brakes of any performance car of the period. Ford and
Holden used locally made parts too and had assisted brakes on *all* their
"go" cars. Chrysler were seen more as the "cheaper" alternative of the day
and my guess is they had to cut costs in some areas to retain that price
advantage.
A lot of things about the E49 used to piss me off when I think of them, but
none more so than the rediculous plastic nut that used to hold the gear
lever in place. It would break, on average, once a month and make driving a
reasonably spirited car very frustrating...
> Ah, the XU-2?
>
> Would indeed have been a hell of a race.
I think the outcome of such a race would have been *very* one-sided myself.
Regards,
Noddy.
Marco Spaccavento
John & Michelle wrote in message <392CAA79...@ZAG.one.net.au>...
>Incidentally there _was_, however, a car called the Isuzu Princess. It
>was a six, but I never heard of the GT version. I owned a Bellet at the
>time and there was a GT version of that, but I only recall the Princess
>being a 'family style' car. The Skyline GT's came after the Bellet (for
>me).
How about that...I thought I knew a bit about most of the cars that Isuzu
had built but I had never heard of a Princess, and it wasn't mentioned in
any of the literature I've read either. I had thought the only Isuzu bigger
than the Bellett was the Florian (which was a family-type car without a GT
version as far as I know).
John & Michelle
>
> Thanks for the info. This car was the only hi performance Jap car at the
> college. When the guy fronted with it, no-one believed it to be stock, due
> the Carb setup. The reason the bonnet was up, as I recall was due to the
> owner tuning the carbs!
What college was that? I bought my first one- it was orange- from a mech
instructor at South Brisbane Tech college in about '74. I went there
from 73 to 76ish, not in the mech stream tho.
> A very impressive engine bay. The EFI times we live in with engine
> management computers and myriad of sensors takes away the owners ability to
> participate in their vehicles running and tuning. Those days would appear
> to be gone with the exception of some who are prepared to get involved with
> electronics.
Amen to that. I spent many a happy hour with my head stuck under the
bonnet of mine, just tinkering with the thing.
JM
Noddy
David Thomson <davidt...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:392b...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> I don't see what is so "killer" about the small block chev, would you care
> to enlighten me? All that I can see in there favour is excellent
> aftermarket support, but surely this doesn't make it a "killer" engine by
> design.
They have the potential, with both their excellent design and massive
aftermarket support, to be one of the most reliable high-horsepower engines
available in the world.
They have a faultless lubrication system, they can be had in any capacity
from 265 to 400 cubic inches without any physical differences and they have
won more trophies than all the other engines out of Detroit combined. The
fact that over 60 million of the things, in various capacities, have been
produced in the last 40 years and the fact that they are the number one
choice for performance engine swaps in anything from hot rods to Land
Cruisers really speaks volumes in itself.
> The Chrysler small block had longer connecting rods (6.123" ?)for better
> revability, larger diametre lifters to allow for better camshaft ramp
> profiles, shaft mounted rockers a, and 18 degree valve angle all as
> standard.
Longer rods *don't* make an engine rev any harder. They do, however,
improve volumetric efficiency by parking the piston at top & bottom dead
centre for longer periods in the crank revolution. The drawback, of course,
is that the pin has to be placed pretty high up in the piston and the skirt
is relatively short, reducing it's longevity.
> Chevs engines on the other hand seem to have all their bits chucked in the
> bin and replaced with aftermarket products.
Not necessarily. A *very* powerful and extremely reliable engine can be
built using factory parts. A standard LT-1 Corvette engine from the late
'60's made 375 BHP off the showroom floor from 350 cubic inches. Over one
horsepower per cube in a very street driveable car is pretty good going in
anybody's language. Ford, on the other hand, were claiming similar HP
figures for their "Shotgun" 429 big block.
After market parts are very popular for Chev's largely because they are more
readily available and somewhat cheaper than factory bits.
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
Dangerous <dave....@roads.sa.gov.au> wrote in message
news:392c...@duster.adelaide.on.net...
> Ahh, but how much better would the XU-1 have gone if Holden had decided on
a
> crossflow hemi head design upgrade for the red motor.... XU-1s were
nimble,
> but not what I would call _extremely_ powerful.
Every driven one?
If you ever get a chance to drive an original LJ XU-1, I'm sure you'd be
pretty impressed. They were one of the nicest, most well balanced and most
enjoyable cars to drive ever made in this country.
They certainly never made the power of a GT, but for a car of their size and
weight, they were *very* quick...
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
Dene Oehme <de...@camtech.net.au> wrote in message
>
> Disagree about the tuning. I can tune them beutifully and I'm no
> rocket scientist. As with all multiple carbys - the problem with
> tuning is more to do with the linkages rather than the carbys
> themselves.
Agreed. The linkage set-up is the key. Get that sorted and tuning multiple
carbs, like SU's is a snap. All you need is a peice of rubber hose...
Regards,
Noddy.
John & Michelle
>
>
> How about that...I thought I knew a bit about most of the cars that Isuzu
> had built but I had never heard of a Princess, and it wasn't mentioned in
> any of the literature I've read either. I had thought the only Isuzu bigger
> than the Bellett was the Florian (which was a family-type car without a GT
> version as far as I know).
>
I'm only running on memory but I've got a sneaking suspicion that the
'Florian' and the 'Princess' may have been somehow related. In that era
Isuzu didn't have _that_ big a model range in Oz so it'd be a fair bet
anyway. If the Florian was the six (I think you're right) then maybe
the Princess was a four cyl version or something. We're talking about
nearly 30 years ago- my memory's not _that_ good. I've got a mental
picture of a fairly long and roundy sort of thing, a bit similar to the
Bellet GT but bigger and with 4 doors.
My brain hurts now...
Noddy
JJ <TO...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:qYmW4.1816$c5....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
>
> The first XU-1 was 186 cu and ran 3 Stromberg SU "type" carbies.
> Using 6 doesn't mean more fuel consumption for normal driving. It may even
> improve the mileage due to the Ram effect increasing mixture turbulence.
> However if the camshaft has been ground to match the high revs a multiply
> carby setup like this would accomodate, then at lower engine speeds the
cam
> overlap and duration would give decreased economy.
>
> just my opinion J
One of the great things about the XU-1 was the fact that they had no
throttle pumps, and they turned in pretty good mileage around town. My LJ,
with it's three CD-175's got as good mileage driving sensibly around town as
my friends G-pak LH with a 202 and a single downdraught Stromberg.
Noddy
Lord Visor <ct...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> The sheer cubes of the V8s come into play over 100 mph with that big
> blunt nose, but you couldn't really call an E49 a slug at high speed.
> The Chargers do not weigh anything like what some people think.
Indeed you couldn't, and I wasn't. They *were* a pretty big car and not all
that much lighter than a GT and their performance from a 6 cylinder engine,
albeit a pretty radical one for the day, was impressive. It's just that they
had a *lot* of things that let them down, particularly in the braking and
steering areas...
> >How far behind Brock did he finish?
>
> About one sticky pitstop - sorry, dunno exactly. It's prolly on the
> net somewhere.
I have an old Bathurst video here somewhere that gives the results. I'll dig
it out and let you know :)
> That'd be 14.1 - and high 13s have been recorded by otherwise stock
> E49s running modern tyres.
Forget the modern tyres bit, as people are only interested in the times of
the day with the equipment that was available. I never, ever saw an E49 that
ran 14.1 and I'd like to find an old copy of Motor or Wheels that reported
the XW Phase II as the fastest car of the "supercar" era over the quarter
mile.
Still, like I said, I could be wrong as my memory ain't what it used to be
:)
Regards,
Noddy.
Lord Visor
>>Those things would have to be the best revving potential 6 cyl motor
>>built in Australia for sure.
One thought sprang to mind last night - wouldn't it be short a few
crank bearings to be a real animal?
D Walford
articles on all the cars of that era.
E49 best 1/4 mile 14.4.
XW GT 14.2 in one test. Another test in the same mag states 14.4
They are so close that the difference is not worth talking about.
Daryl
D Walford
The younger ones here can consider themselves lucky to have missed the
joys of multiple carbies.
Daryl
John H wrote:
> ...And to remember to synchronise them so they all lift off idle in
> unison.
>
> --
> John H
JJ
"Noddy" <dgib...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:392d...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> >
> > just my opinion J
>
> One of the great things about the XU-1 was the fact that they had no
> throttle pumps, and they turned in pretty good mileage around town. My LJ,
> with it's three CD-175's got as good mileage driving sensibly around town
as
> my friends G-pak LH with a 202 and a single downdraught Stromberg.
That brings up a point. Acellerator pumps or throttle pumps, squirt a
few ml of fuel into the venturii to compensate for the "instant lean" which
occurs due to the inertia of the fuel in the "bowl" moving from bowl to
venturii lower pressure area, when the driver "tramps it" (all these old
terms). SUs or CDs have a vacuum responding piston with a needle and jet.
How did they overcome this lean interval? Did the piston or diaphram raise
the needle out of the jet as if the carb was at full throttle operation:
none or little vacuum left? Always wondered.
JJ
John H
John H
>
> That brings up a point. Acellerator pumps or throttle pumps, squirt a
>few ml of fuel into the venturii to compensate for the "instant lean" which
>occurs due to the inertia of the fuel in the "bowl" moving from bowl to
>venturii lower pressure area, when the driver "tramps it" (all these old
>terms). SUs or CDs have a vacuum responding piston with a needle and jet.
>How did they overcome this lean interval? Did the piston or diaphram raise
>the needle out of the jet as if the carb was at full throttle operation:
>none or little vacuum left? Always wondered.
It's actually the opposite. When you crack the throttle the piston
damper delays the piston reaching it's new (open) position.
Consequently the air velocity through the venturi momentarily
increases, thus enriching the mixture.
--
John H
Norbie
>
> A very impressive engine bay. The EFI times we live in with engine
> management computers and myriad of sensors takes away the owners ability
to
> participate in their vehicles running and tuning. Those days would appear
> to be gone with the exception of some who are prepared to get involved
with
> electronics.
Eh? This is one of the *best* things about EFI - you don't have to screw
around with troublesome multiple carbs every couple of weeks to keep the
damn thing running properly!!
My Celica used to have factory twin sidedraughts. The only good thing I can
say about them is they sounded absolutely awesome at WOT. Then I replaced
them with factory EFI, and I've never looked back. More top-end power,
*much* better driveability at low rpm, and of course fuel economy is twice
as good. Now I can spend my time doing more productive things (like bolting
on a turbo) instead of wasting my time with the bloody carbs.
Norbie.
JJ
> JJ wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the info. This car was the only hi performance Jap car at
the
> > college. When the guy fronted with it, no-one believed it to be stock,
due
> > the Carb setup. The reason the bonnet was up, as I recall was due to the
> > owner tuning the carbs!
>
> What college was that? I bought my first one- it was orange- from a mech
> instructor at South Brisbane Tech college in about '74. I went there
> from 73 to 76ish, not in the mech stream tho.
'69 to '74 Dept of Civil Aviation training school at Waverton (north
side SY harbour). Elecos, Mech and Radio training done there. The students
were in the 17-24 age group. Many antics at lunch time. Ballshead reserve
offered a good time trial circuit. Mini's held the record till a Renault R8
Gordini appeared (a rare car). These vehicles were basicaly a R8 with an
engine heavily modified by Mr Gordini. The interior looked the part with
business like gauges etc. From memory the donk was 1300cc SOHC and 2 DCOE
Webers and developed either 100 or 125HP. Any one know for sure? These cars
were mostly used for rallying.
Regards, James
>
JJ
"Norbie" <nor...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:TFiX4.20$mN6....@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
Yes I guess its all in the eye of the beholder, and it cant be denied
that EFI adjusts fuel metering exactly. So any inclination for carbies
probably says more about the persons age. But if you have an older car, and
money is tight I'd still prefer carbies.
Iknow one guy who took the injection off his old Volvo 4 cyl and crimped
the injection pipes at the i/let manifold and put a carby on, he had mech
injection I think. The EFI case is difficult to argue against.
JJ
>
> Norbie.
>
>
Noddy
D Walford <wal...@primus.com.au> wrote in message
news:392DBD91...@primus.com.au...
> A Wheels and Sports Car World magazine I have called "Muscle Cars" has
> articles on all the cars of that era.
> E49 best 1/4 mile 14.4.
> XW GT 14.2 in one test. Another test in the same mag states 14.4
> They are so close that the difference is not worth talking about.
They always were very close, up to a point. I just never remembered the E49
as holding any records at all and I always knew the XW was quicker.
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
> SU carbies are why I love electronic fuel injection.
> The younger ones here can consider themselves lucky to have missed the
> joys of multiple carbies.
Multiple carbs have a bit of an unfair label attacthed to them really. They
are no more unreliable than a single carb set up and stay "in tune" just as
long as a single. As Dene mentioned, the linkage is the key and when you
have that sorted, they are great.
The twin SU's on a Mini Cooper were great and had the most simple linkage
system around. They really did show that you don't need to over complicate
things to make them work.
Regards,
Noddy.
John & Michelle
>
> '69 to '74 Dept of Civil Aviation training school at Waverton (north
> side SY harbour). Elecos, Mech and Radio training done there. The students
Well there you go. I was at Brisbane DCA RTS for sups after college
(75, 76). You still with the firm? I am (for my sins). You'd have
known Col Crow? He's with us here at CG. Do you remember who owned the
Skyline GT?
> were in the 17-24 age group. Many antics at lunch time. Ballshead reserve
> offered a good time trial circuit. Mini's held the record till a Renault R8
> Gordini appeared (a rare car). These vehicles were basicaly a R8 with an
> engine heavily modified by Mr Gordini. The interior looked the part with
> business like gauges etc. From memory the donk was 1300cc SOHC and 2 DCOE
> Webers and developed either 100 or 125HP. Any one know for sure? These cars
> were mostly used for rallying.
Yep same stuff went on at Brisbane 'cept we didn't really have a
circuit, just the carpark. Normally after lunch the classrooms reeked
of burned rubber for some reason...
John M.
Noddy
Lord Visor <ct...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> crank bearings to be a real animal?
Not really. One of the great features of the old Holden red motor was it's
ability to rev reliably. They had 7 main journals with a fairly tough crank,
even in cast-iron form, and were a pretty solid short motor assembly. If
they had any short commings it was in the cylinder head area with their
siamesed inlet ports and cast in head bolt bosses that ran through the port
itself. Still, these problems could be overcome relatively easily with a few
minor machining tweaks.
It was physically small, it was light and it was reliable. All important
aspects for any engine. The Chrysler "hemi" 6, on the other hand, certainly
wasn't small & light, by a long shot.
One other thing, just a niggling personal pet hate really. I *always* hated
the sound any Valiant made when you cranked them over. It always reminded me
of the cartoon dog "Mutley" laughing and it was kind of embarassing...:)
Regards,
Noddy.
Dene Oehme
>>>Have you ever seen a worked 161 Holden 6 as in some GTR Toranas?
>>>Those things would have to be the best revving potential 6 cyl motor
>>>built in Australia for sure.
>
>crank bearings to be a real animal?
Sorry - I don't get what you mean.
Regards
Dene Oehme
de...@camtech.net.au
http://www.adelaide.net.au/~dene/menu.htm
Dene Oehme
>>Agreed. The linkage set-up is the key. Get that sorted and tuning multiple
>>carbs, like SU's is a snap. All you need is a peice of rubber hose...
>
>...And to remember to synchronise them so they all lift off idle in
>unison.
That's the linkage part
Dangerous
circuit car, have owned a '72 XU-1, driven 70s, 71s,72s, 73s, and another
early LC race car. Not to mention quite a few GTRs and sedans in quite a few
states of tune. My 71 LC is fairly heavily worked - Pete Schaeffer reworked
Yella Terra head, stainless valves, Teflon collets, roller rockers, cross
indexed, stroke indexed, balanced, aggressive solid cam, etc etc. About 230
BHP. Goes like Hell, but a pig to drive under 100 mph on long straight runs.
Absolutely wonderful on tight twisty roads, or at ridiculous speeds. Still
has all the race suspension in it too. Makes for a very bumpy ride at low
speeds.
I've driven a dead stock 70 LC and 73 LJ. As I mentioned, nimble, but not
outstandingly rapid in out and out acceleration. XU-1s are about the closest
thing you can get to a legally registered Go Kart. Lots of fun to drive.
Dangerous
Noddy wrote in message <392d...@news.iprimus.com.au>...
JJ
> JJ wrote:
> >
> > '69 to '74 Dept of Civil Aviation training school at Waverton (north
> > side SY harbour). Elecos, Mech and Radio training done there. The
students
>
> Well there you go. I was at Brisbane DCA RTS for sups after college
> (75, 76). You still with the firm? I am (for my sins). You'd have
> known Col Crow? He's with us here at CG. Do you remember who owned the
> Skyline GT?
Col Crow is a name which rings a bell but I dont know where he was as I
spent my time in Dubbo. The ROR was the thin edge of the wedge and DU is
now on the point of closure with a single able tech left " to hold things
down".
The GT was owned either by an OTC guy or some-one in one of the other
groups, sorry cant provide much info. Am redundeed out of the joint now.
JJ
Dangerous
'sort of' fix for the head problems. Another problem in standard engines
was the awful fibre timing gear. Also fixed by an aftermarket alloy one. The
cranks, both the cast iron and the forged ones were well designed and made,
but apparently had a habit of throwing harmonic balancers and breaking
snouts off if the engine spent too long at around 6200 RPM.
Even the Holden grey motor was fairly strong in the crank area, even though
it only had 4 main bearings. This allowed the crank to flex sinusoidally,
with no sharp shear along its length.
Dangerous
Noddy wrote in message <392dc690$1...@news.iprimus.com.au>...
>
>Lord Visor <ct...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> One thought sprang to mind last night - wouldn't it be short a few
>> crank bearings to be a real animal?
>
>Not really. One of the great features of the old Holden red motor was it's
>ability to rev reliably. They had 7 main journals with a fairly tough
crank,
>even in cast-iron form, and were a pretty solid short motor assembly. If
>they had any short commings it was in the cylinder head area with their
>siamesed inlet ports and cast in head bolt bosses that ran through the port
>itself. Still, these problems could be overcome relatively easily with a
few
>minor machining tweaks.
snip
>Regards,
>Noddy.
>
>
>
Dene Oehme
>One of the great things about the XU-1 was the fact that they had no
>throttle pumps, and they turned in pretty good mileage around town. My LJ,
>with it's three CD-175's got as good mileage driving sensibly around town as
>my friends G-pak LH with a 202 and a single downdraught Stromberg.
I have triple 1+3/4 SUs on my 202 LJ and this thing is as economical
as my mums camry or my wifes early model Seca. They are brilliant
carbys. I've often thought I'd like to try a Predator carby on a V8
one day. These are basically a big square constant depression carby
that work like SUs but flow about 800cfm. Does anyone here know much
about them?
Lord Visor
>as holding any records at all and I always knew the XW was quicker.
The E49 was the fastest accelerating 6 cyl production car in the
world.
Wheels got 14.4:
http://chargerclubofwa.asn.au/Articles/wcoychrg.htm
I'm pretty sure the owner of this car is on the ng...
http://chargerclubofwa.asn.au/MembersCars/rte49.htm
extract: "Road tests of the era recorded quarter mile times of between
14.1 and 14.5 seconds. 0-100 mph (160 kph) in 14.1 seconds was the
norm. This compares to times of 15.6 for the 0-100 mph sprint, for the
next quickest accelerating Australian muscle car, the mighty XY GTHO
Falcon."
and...
http://chargerclubofwa.asn.au/VisitorsCars/nzrts.htm
extract: "Garry said the car was very sick mechanically and he
stripped it down and gave it a full mechanical rebuild using genuine
E49 parts obtained from a local Chrysler dealer. After completion,
Garry took it to a sprint meeting where it did a 14.1 quarter on
Firestone Wide Oval tire, limiting it to 5000 rpm into a strong
headwind!"
John H
>SU carbies are why I love electronic fuel injection.
>The younger ones here can consider themselves lucky to have missed the
>joys of multiple carbies.
Having been raised on Lucas MkII I never could see the fuss about
setting up SU's, CD's or even DCOE's, and all were excellent
performance options. I've never felt quite the same toward
non-sequential factory EFI - more a case of tolerating it. ;-)
--
John H
D Walford
of which had twin SU's.
We were forever tuning carbies. The cars would always run fine but
getting a smooth consistant idle which would last more than a couple of
weeks and wouldn't change with the weather was and still is an
impossibility unless you don't mind idling well above the spec.
At least we always had something to do.
Daryl
Noddy wrote:
>
> D Walford <wal...@primus.com.au> wrote in message
> news:392DBEC9...@primus.com.au...
> > SU carbies are why I love electronic fuel injection.
> > The younger ones here can consider themselves lucky to have missed the
> > joys of multiple carbies.
>
David Thomson
> news:392b...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> > I don't see what is so "killer" about the small block chev, would you
care
> > to enlighten me? All that I can see in there favour is excellent
> > aftermarket support, but surely this doesn't make it a "killer" engine
by
> > design.
>
> They have the potential, with both their excellent design and massive
> aftermarket support, to be one of the most reliable high-horsepower
engines
> available in the world.
> They have a faultless lubrication system, they can be had in any capacity
> from 265 to 400 cubic inches without any physical differences and they
have
> won more trophies than all the other engines out of Detroit combined. The
> fact that over 60 million of the things, in various capacities, have been
> produced in the last 40 years and the fact that they are the number one
> choice for performance engine swaps in anything from hot rods to Land
> Cruisers really speaks volumes in itself.
I can't see how large production numbers is in any way related to it being a
"killer" engine. It's popular, but again I don't think this is because of
it's design but rather because it would cost much less to swap in and build
to resonable performance levels than a Ford or a Mopar.
>
> > The Chrysler small block had longer connecting rods (6.123" ?)for better
> > revability, larger diametre lifters to allow for better camshaft ramp
> > profiles, shaft mounted rockers a, and 18 degree valve angle all as
> > standard.
>
> Longer rods *don't* make an engine rev any harder. They do, however,
> improve volumetric efficiency by parking the piston at top & bottom dead
> centre for longer periods in the crank revolution. The drawback, of
course,
> is that the pin has to be placed pretty high up in the piston and the
skirt
> is relatively short, reducing it's longevity.
I 'spose I could be wrong but I was under the impression that longer rods
reduced side loading on the piston thus reducing friction. An engine with
longer rods will be more efficient at higher revs (less hp absorbed through
friction).
> > Chevs engines on the other hand seem to have all their bits chucked in
the
> > bin and replaced with aftermarket products.
>
> Not necessarily. A *very* powerful and extremely reliable engine can be
> built using factory parts. A standard LT-1 Corvette engine from the late
> '60's made 375 BHP off the showroom floor from 350 cubic inches. Over one
> horsepower per cube in a very street driveable car is pretty good going in
> anybody's language. Ford, on the other hand, were claiming similar HP
> figures for their "Shotgun" 429 big block.
Agreed, they are pretty impressive figures.
> After market parts are very popular for Chev's largely because they are
more
> readily available and somewhat cheaper than factory bits.
>
> Regards,
> Noddy.
David Thomson
John & Michelle
>
> Col Crow is a name which rings a bell but I dont know where he was as I
> spent my time in Dubbo. The ROR was the thin edge of the wedge and DU is
> now on the point of closure with a single able tech left " to hold things
> down".
Small world. Col spent most of his time pre-CG with Tulky in Wagga/
Albury.
Yep, know Trev well. In fact we now look after Bourke, Oxley, Walgett,
amongst others, from CG with Trevor doing a top job of pulling us out of
the s^&#t for faults. Thankfully his job in Dubbo is as secure as
anyone elses (not very...). Peter Poole is happily retired here on the
GC & presumably playing lots of golf, lucky sod.
JM
Simon Foley
Noddy wrote:
> Dangerous <dave....@roads.sa.gov.au> wrote in message
> news:392c...@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>
> > Ahh, but how much better would the XU-1 have gone if Holden had decided on
> a
> > crossflow hemi head design upgrade for the red motor.... XU-1s were
> nimble,
> > but not what I would call _extremely_ powerful.
>
> Every driven one?
>
> If you ever get a chance to drive an original LJ XU-1, I'm sure you'd be
> pretty impressed. They were one of the nicest, most well balanced and most
> enjoyable cars to drive ever made in this country.
>
Can't agree with you on that ...... the LJ XU-1 that I raced a couple of times
was not what I would call a well balanced car. It was nose heavy (often referred
to as a lead tipped arrow - problem solved in the later racing Toranas with a V8
which had 2 cylinders less overhang), and the brakes left quite a lot to be
desired. The same comments were made by a number of friends who had
raced/rallied XU-1s. One friend in Victoria knew a number of people who had
fitted V8s to their XU-1s and said they handled much better than his 202. I have
never driven a V8 engined LC or LJ but I have driven L-34 and A9X (MHDT) Toranas
and they handled much better than the XU-1.
The car I raced (co-driving for a friend in endurance races at Wanneroo)
produced good power (it wasn't standard), and yes you could power slide it quite
well, but my 2 litre Escort was a lot quicker through the corners with a lot
less power. OK my lap times were about 4 seconds quicker in the XU1 than the
Escort, but then the top speed in the XU1 was much faster which made the poor
brakes even scarier.
regards, Simon.
Simon Foley
Noddy wrote:
> D Walford <wal...@primus.com.au> wrote in message
> news:392DBEC9...@primus.com.au...
> > SU carbies are why I love electronic fuel injection.
> > The younger ones here can consider themselves lucky to have missed the
> > joys of multiple carbies.
>
> Multiple carbs have a bit of an unfair label attacthed to them really. They
> are no more unreliable than a single carb set up and stay "in tune" just as
> long as a single. As Dene mentioned, the linkage is the key and when you
> have that sorted, they are great.
I agree I never have had any problems getting multiple carbies in balance,
though these days I cheat and used a vacuum carby balancer rather than a length
of hose.
>
>
> The twin SU's on a Mini Cooper were great and had the most simple linkage
> system around. They really did show that you don't need to over complicate
> things to make them work.
I always had problems with the SUs on all my Minis .... from my 850 through to
my Austin Cooper S. I tried both the standard 1 1/4" and 1 1/2" and never
managed to get the power I did out of the 45 Weber.
I tried all sorts of things to get the SUs to work well .... but never got them
to perform as well a the single Weber. Which was also the experience of the
works rally team, though they used a split Weber system, similar to that used
on the Bathurst XU-1s (one choke from each carby).
My last 850 which was somewhat of a beast, heavily modified head with Cooper S
valves, big cam (can't remember which one I used), etc .... fitted with the
Weber was quicker than a lot of stock Cooper S. For some reason it just worked
really well .... much better than any of my other non 1275 motors.
OK my Austin Cooper S with the same Weber was quicker, but then again it was a
full works spec Cooper S ... including aluminium door skins, hi-lo suspension
etc.
regards, Simon.
Noddy
Simon Foley <sdf...@mbox5.singnet.com.sg> wrote in message
news:3930D280...@mbox5.singnet.com.sg...
>
> I agree I never have had any problems getting multiple carbies in balance,
> though these days I cheat and used a vacuum carby balancer rather than a
length
> of hose.
Yeah, me too :)
The old rubber hose works just fine, but the vacuum balancer saves some
time.
> I always had problems with the SUs on all my Minis .... from my 850
through to
> my Austin Cooper S. I tried both the standard 1 1/4" and 1 1/2" and never
> managed to get the power I did out of the 45 Weber.
I've had 3 Mini Coopers, a Mk I and two Mk II's, and I never had problems
with the SU's as far as setting them up and being reliable. About the only
problem I ever used to have was that the fuel hose to the main jet would
occasionally break at the bakerlite elbow, but that was about all. But as
far as horsepower was concerned, the webber was the way to go, but *only* if
you had the correct manifold for it and that meant relocating the speedo,
something that most are reluctant to do on a mint condition Cooper.
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
> I had a Mk111a Sprite and lots of my friends had MG's and Cooper S's all
> of which had twin SU's.
> We were forever tuning carbies. The cars would always run fine but
> getting a smooth consistant idle which would last more than a couple of
> weeks and wouldn't change with the weather was and still is an
> impossibility unless you don't mind idling well above the spec.
> At least we always had something to do.
Can't say I've ever had much of a problem, be it with the SU's on the Mini's
I've had or the Strombergs on the XU-1. Once they were set I left them alone
and they stayed that way.
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
John H <no_...@home.au> wrote in message
>
> Having been raised on Lucas MkII I never could see the fuss about
> setting up SU's, CD's or even DCOE's, and all were excellent
> performance options. I've never felt quite the same toward
> non-sequential factory EFI - more a case of tolerating it. ;-)
They day they make an EFI powered car that roars like something with a
couple of DCOE's at WOT, I'll be very happy indeed :)
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
Lord Visor <ct...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> For its capacity and power, that is quite debatable. As for
> reliablility, well, bottom end penned by Dodge. Nuff said.
Um, not really. It was a sh*tload bigger and heavier than a red motor and
the 215 didn't make a great deal more power than the 202. As for it's
reliability, there was nothing outstanding about it that made it superior to
the other two. Just personal preference I guess, but if I had to take a long
distance trip in a car with one of the three engines, it would be in the car
with a red motor without hesitation...
> Doesn't bother me any. Usually starts off the cuff anyway. Tons of
> people ask if it's an eight then look at me funny when I tell them :)
> The first corner usually proves the point.
I don't get you. What point?
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
Lord Visor <ct...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
> >They always were very close, up to a point. I just never remembered the
E49
> >as holding any records at all and I always knew the XW was quicker.
>
> The E49 was the fastest accelerating 6 cyl production car in the
> world.
It sure was. However, it was *not* the fastest Australian built production
car over the quarter mile.
> Wheels got 14.4:
> http://chargerclubofwa.asn.au/Articles/wcoychrg.htm
>
> I'm pretty sure the owner of this car is on the ng...
> http://chargerclubofwa.asn.au/MembersCars/rte49.htm
> extract: "Road tests of the era recorded quarter mile times of between
> 14.1 and 14.5 seconds. 0-100 mph (160 kph) in 14.1 seconds was the
> norm. This compares to times of 15.6 for the 0-100 mph sprint, for the
> next quickest accelerating Australian muscle car, the mighty XY GTHO
> Falcon."
4 tenths is a *very* big difference when your racing a car over a quarter
mile, especially cars of this type. It's the difference of missing a gear or
changing up *way* too early in the rev range, and I'm yet to see *any* E49
cross the line at the local drag strip with a terminal speed in excess of
100 miles per hour :)
> and...
> http://chargerclubofwa.asn.au/VisitorsCars/nzrts.htm
> extract: "Garry said the car was very sick mechanically and he
> stripped it down and gave it a full mechanical rebuild using genuine
> E49 parts obtained from a local Chrysler dealer. After completion,
> Garry took it to a sprint meeting where it did a 14.1 quarter on
> Firestone Wide Oval tire, limiting it to 5000 rpm into a strong
> headwind!"
Impressive, to say the least, but most people are really only interested in
times from the era.
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
> Yeah, I've driven a few....... ;) I own a Bathurst spec 1971 LC ex
> circuit car, have owned a '72 XU-1, driven 70s, 71s,72s, 73s, and another
> early LC race car. Not to mention quite a few GTRs and sedans in quite a
few
> states of tune. My 71 LC is fairly heavily worked - Pete Schaeffer
reworked
> Yella Terra head, stainless valves, Teflon collets, roller rockers, cross
> indexed, stroke indexed, balanced, aggressive solid cam, etc etc. About
230
> BHP. Goes like Hell, but a pig to drive under 100 mph on long straight
runs.
> Absolutely wonderful on tight twisty roads, or at ridiculous speeds. Still
> has all the race suspension in it too. Makes for a very bumpy ride at low
> speeds.
I'll bet it does. Never liked the LC much, well, the standard XU-1 anyway. I
always thought it was a bit "boy racer-ish". Don't get me wrong, as I'm not
saying your car isn't much. It sounds like it'd be sh*tloads of fun :)
I just think the LJ XU-1 was a *much* more refined car, especially the
interior. My LJ was an original Bathurst pack, complete with the factory
"sprintmasters". The only thing I hated about it was the colour, Chatue
Mauve, a kind of horrible purple metallic, and trying to put anything in the
boot was impossible with the "hump" of the fuel tank taking up most of the
space.
> I've driven a dead stock 70 LC and 73 LJ. As I mentioned, nimble, but not
> outstandingly rapid in out and out acceleration. XU-1s are about the
closest
> thing you can get to a legally registered Go Kart. Lots of fun to drive.
I agree to a point, but a standard LJ with a 202 was definitely no slug. No
rocket either, but a pretty reasonably powerful car for it's day. The XU-1,
on the other hand, was a very powerful car that was an absolute joy to drive
in *any* conditions. Of all the cars I've owned, it was definitely *the*
car I enjoyed the most without question and it's one of the few cars that
I've always regretted selling.
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
Dene Oehme <de...@camtech.net.au> wrote in message
>
> I have triple 1+3/4 SUs on my 202 LJ and this thing is as economical
> as my mums camry or my wifes early model Seca. They are brilliant
> carbys. I've often thought I'd like to try a Predator carby on a V8
> one day. These are basically a big square constant depression carby
> that work like SUs but flow about 800cfm. Does anyone here know much
> about them?
Hi Dene.
I mucked around with one a few years ago on a reasonably equipped small
block Chev. It replaced a 750 DP for some experiments. On the good side, I
found that it gave outstanding economy improvments (that wasn't really hard
to do as the Holley ran twin 50cc pumps :), driveability improved somewhat,
it idled better, it was easier to set up than the Holley and it looked
*very* impressive :)
On the down side, It lacked the instant "crispness" that 100cc's of fuel
being dumped into the plennim chamber gives you and it needed a 1" spacer to
function correctly which made bonnet clearance a bit tough.
Apart from that, I was pretty much impressed with it and I wouldn't hesitate
to use one again, especially on something that I was going to use as an
everyday driver.
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
a
> "killer" engine. It's popular, but again I don't think this is because of
> it's design but rather because it would cost much less to swap in and
build
> to resonable performance levels than a Ford or a Mopar.
Of course. Production figures don't automatically equate to performance
brilliance. 20 million Volkswagon Beetles have been built and they hardly
set the world on fire :)
I was thinking in terms of a "killer" engine in relation to the reliable
power that can be had for the money, and in these terms the little Chev is
king. Being small & light also make it popular for repowering. Chrysler &
Ford also make very good small V8 engines, but they certainly don't have
*quite* the following of the small block Chev.
> I 'spose I could be wrong but I was under the impression that longer rods
> reduced side loading on the piston thus reducing friction. An engine with
> longer rods will be more efficient at higher revs (less hp absorbed
through
> friction).
Not really. The longer the rod, for a given stroke, means that the gudgeon
pin has to be moved higher up into the piston to accomodate it. You also
need a shorter skirt to provide adequate clearance. The higher up you move
the pin, the shorter the piston needs to be and it creates the oportunity
for the piston to "rock" in it's bore. Fine for a race engine, where some of
the extreme examples have the gudgeon hole actually drilled through the
middle of the oil ring groove, but in something you want to live for a while
it's a bit over the top at times.
The advantage to a longer rod, as some people see it, is that the piston is
slowed down a lot quicker when it approaches top & bottom dead centre and
spends a bit more time there than with a shorter rod. The theory goes that
this improves volumetric efficiency somewhat, especially at BDC, as the
vacuum state is held for that extra brief period before the piston begins to
move upwards.
Regards,
Noddy.
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
times
> was not what I would call a well balanced car. It was nose heavy (often
referred
> to as a lead tipped arrow - problem solved in the later racing Toranas
with a V8
> which had 2 cylinders less overhang), and the brakes left quite a lot to
be
> desired. The same comments were made by a number of friends who had
> raced/rallied XU-1s. One friend in Victoria knew a number of people who
had
> fitted V8s to their XU-1s and said they handled much better than his 202.
I have
> never driven a V8 engined LC or LJ but I have driven L-34 and A9X (MHDT)
Toranas
> and they handled much better than the XU-1.
Agreed. The LH-X series cars handled much better than the LC-J cars in any
trim. I'm not saying the XU-1's were perfect, far from it. As a race car I
would expect them to leave much to be desired, especially in the braking
department, but *all* the so called supercars of the period had abismal
brakes. Still, you could have been much worse off and been racing an E49
without any power assistance :)
My XU-1 was an everyday driver in standard trim and for that purpose it was
the most enjoyable car I've ever owned. It wasn't the best handling or
stopping or accellerating, but it was the most fun.
> The car I raced (co-driving for a friend in endurance races at Wanneroo)
> produced good power (it wasn't standard), and yes you could power slide it
quite
> well, but my 2 litre Escort was a lot quicker through the corners with a
lot
> less power. OK my lap times were about 4 seconds quicker in the XU1 than
the
> Escort, but then the top speed in the XU1 was much faster which made the
poor
> brakes even scarier.
I'll bet it did. When I had the Torana, a mate of mine owned a then new
RS2000 which he had modified by some works crew. The usual stuff, twin
Webers, cam, suspension upgrade, etc. It was a *very* impressive car to
drive and one of the most comfortable cars to drive hard. The driving
position was perfect, unlike the old LJ with it's "offset" steering column.
As much as I was impressed with his Escort, and he was too, we both enjoyed
the addrenalin rush the XU-1 gave that the Escort seemed to lack. Maybe on
a closed curcuit track the Escort would have come into it's own, but around
town the Torana was very hard to beat.
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
JJ <TO...@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:vufY4.7385
>
> Is that correct? 100ccs. Is that a 1/10 of a litre? Sounds brutal (for
> economy) if so. Then again the bog std Carter quadra-jet if flattened
causes
> the engine (Ford V8) almost flame-out for a sec. The pump seal was
replaced.
Yep, sure is.
A full-throttle jab on something with such pumps literally chucks it down,
and it's the main reason my GT used to get around 5 or 6 miles to the gallon
around town.
Regards,
Noddy.
JJ
>
> Dene Oehme <de...@camtech.net.au> wrote in message
> >
> > I have triple 1+3/4 SUs on my 202 LJ and this thing is as economical
> > as my mums camry or my wifes early model Seca. They are brilliant
> > carbys. I've often thought I'd like to try a Predator carby on a V8
> > one day. These are basically a big square constant depression carby
> > that work like SUs but flow about 800cfm. Does anyone here know much
> > about them?
>
> Hi Dene.
>
> I mucked around with one a few years ago on a reasonably equipped small
> block Chev. It replaced a 750 DP for some experiments. On the good side,
I
> found that it gave outstanding economy improvments (that wasn't really
hard
> to do as the Holley ran twin 50cc pumps :), driveability improved
somewhat,
> it idled better, it was easier to set up than the Holley and it looked
> *very* impressive :)
>
> On the down side, It lacked the instant "crispness" that 100cc's of fuel
> being dumped into the plennim chamber gives you and it needed a 1" spacer
to
> function correctly which made bonnet clearance a bit tough.
Is that correct? 100ccs. Is that a 1/10 of a litre? Sounds brutal (for
economy) if so. Then again the bog std Carter quadra-jet if flattened causes
the engine (Ford V8) almost flame-out for a sec. The pump seal was replaced.
James
Lord Visor
>> reliablility, well, bottom end penned by Dodge. Nuff said.
>
>Um, not really. It was a sh*tload bigger and heavier than a red motor and
>the 215 didn't make a great deal more power than the 202.
215? You're clutching at straws when you have to pick on the (rare,
low compression, fleet saled) runt of the litter... the 245 is
essentially the base motor in reality and should be the minimum for a
fair comparison. I've only ever had 265s for hemis anyway.
As for it's
>reliability, there was nothing outstanding about it that made it superior to
>the other two. Just personal preference I guess, but if I had to take a long
>distance trip in a car with one of the three engines, it would be in the car
>with a red motor without hesitation...
No accounting for taste.
Someone already mentioned the larger bottom end compared to Holdens,
and not even the sickest, most abused hemi I encountered failed to get
me home..
LV
David Thomson
>
> David Thomson <davidt...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
> >
> > I can't see how large production numbers is in any way related to it
being
> a
> > "killer" engine. It's popular, but again I don't think this is because
of
> > it's design but rather because it would cost much less to swap in and
> build
> > to resonable performance levels than a Ford or a Mopar.
>
> Of course. Production figures don't automatically equate to performance
> brilliance. 20 million Volkswagon Beetles have been built and they hardly
> set the world on fire :)
>
> I was thinking in terms of a "killer" engine in relation to the reliable
> power that can be had for the money, and in these terms the little Chev is
> king. Being small & light also make it popular for repowering.
Very true. I'd love to try a small block chev in a LC/LJ torana combo at the
drags. For the money I don't think you could do much better. I'd much rather
slip a chev in a tory than try to squeeze in a 308.
>Chrysler & Ford also make very good small V8 engines, but they certainly
don't have
> *quite* the following of the small block Chev.
It's a shame. Being a fan of Mopar products I've spent a lot of time
gathering info about it's small blocks (LA series engine) and it really is a
good design. Although I do agree that for the masses getting hp out of a
small block chev would involve much less time, money, and hassle.
Thanks for the info, I think the small Chrysler has a taller deck height
than the Chev. I'll have to check on it, but that would mean for the same
stroke the Chrysler could have a longer rod than the Chev without the
comprimise (spelling?) in piston design.
David Thomson
> Regards,
> Noddy.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Noddy.
>
>
Dennis Jensen
Noddy wrote:
>
> David Thomson <davidt...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
> news:392b...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> > I don't see what is so "killer" about the small block chev, would you care
> > to enlighten me? All that I can see in there favour is excellent
> > aftermarket support, but surely this doesn't make it a "killer" engine by
> > design.
>
> They have the potential, with both their excellent design and massive
> aftermarket support, to be one of the most reliable high-horsepower engines
> available in the world.
> They have a faultless lubrication system, they can be had in any capacity
> from 265 to 400 cubic inches without any physical differences and they have
> won more trophies than all the other engines out of Detroit combined. The
> fact that over 60 million of the things, in various capacities, have been
> produced in the last 40 years and the fact that they are the number one
> choice for performance engine swaps in anything from hot rods to Land
> Cruisers really speaks volumes in itself.
>
> > The Chrysler small block had longer connecting rods (6.123" ?)for better
> > revability, larger diametre lifters to allow for better camshaft ramp
> > profiles, shaft mounted rockers a, and 18 degree valve angle all as
> > standard.
>
> Longer rods *don't* make an engine rev any harder. They do, however,
> improve volumetric efficiency by parking the piston at top & bottom dead
> centre for longer periods in the crank revolution. The drawback, of course,
> is that the pin has to be placed pretty high up in the piston and the skirt
> is relatively short, reducing it's longevity.
>
> > Chevs engines on the other hand seem to have all their bits chucked in the
> > bin and replaced with aftermarket products.
>
> Not necessarily. A *very* powerful and extremely reliable engine can be
> built using factory parts. A standard LT-1 Corvette engine from the late
> '60's made 375 BHP off the showroom floor from 350 cubic inches. Over one
> horsepower per cube in a very street driveable car is pretty good going in
> anybody's language. Ford, on the other hand, were claiming similar HP
> figures for their "Shotgun" 429 big block.
>
Noddy, be VERY careful about inferring ANYTHING from those 1960's
figures. In general, they were completely fanciful, and either over- or
undersetimated the actual power depending on the political/sales barrow
that the manufacturers were trying to push.
Dennis
JJ
"Noddy" <dgib...@primus.com.au> wrote in message
news:3931a1f5$1...@news.iprimus.com.au...
(for
> > economy) if so. Then again the bog std Carter quadra-jet if flattened
> causes
> > the engine (Ford V8) almost flame-out for a sec. The pump seal was
> replaced.
>
>
> A full-throttle jab on something with such pumps literally chucks it down,
> and it's the main reason my GT used to get around 5 or 6 miles to the
gallon
> around town.
So some fuel use can be attributed to acc pumps. But how about other
factors
Not having owned a vehicle with a modified cam, is it true that some of
that lost 5mpg (stock 351 gets about 11-12mpg) is due to the increased
overlap? When XU-1s hit the scene, we all drooled over them and the story
was, at the lights they'd need a rev to clear out excess unburnt fuel every
10 secs or so.
JJ
Noddy
Lord Visor <ct...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> low compression, fleet saled) runt of the litter... the 245 is
> essentially the base motor in reality and should be the minimum for a
> fair comparison. I've only ever had 265s for hemis anyway.
The base motor *was* the 215. If you wanted more cubes, you paid more
dollars. I thought the comparrison was fair enough as they are about as near
as you'll get in capacity between the two makers. Agreed, the 245 was a lot
more popular than it's little brother and that's mainly due to the fact that
little brother was very "lethargic", shall we say, when it came to lugging
around a Valiant sedan.
> As for it's
> >reliability, there was nothing outstanding about it that made it superior
to
> >the other two. Just personal preference I guess, but if I had to take a
long
> >distance trip in a car with one of the three engines, it would be in the
car
> >with a red motor without hesitation...
>
> No accounting for taste.
No, there certainly isn't, and that's exactly the reason why Valiant's
shuffled off this mortal coil in 1980 or so. Basically, people didn't want
them because they were considered bad taste to many. Go figure...
> Someone already mentioned the larger bottom end compared to Holdens,
> and not even the sickest, most abused hemi I encountered failed to get
> me home..
I could say the same about *many* a Holden 6 too.
Regards,
Noddy.
Dangerous
but I have always found that the XU-1s tend to have a lot more inherent
power on oversteer than any other Holden of that era. Suits my style of fun
driving I suppose. As for the brakes, they were the same size, mass and pad
swept area as was found on the 350 cu in Monaros of the same era. I know
which car I'd prefer to have in a panic stop or two! Maybe overboosted,
which led to squishy pedal, but not bad in its time. You can't really argue
with the XU-1s rally and circuit race history either - it was VERY
successful, so it must have been doing something right back then.
I notice you mentioned MHDT cars and Wanneroo. Wayne Negus' car by any
chance??
Dangerous
Simon Foley wrote in message <3930CFCF...@mbox5.singnet.com.sg>...
>Can't agree with you on that ...... the LJ XU-1 that I raced a couple of
times
>was not what I would call a well balanced car. It was nose heavy (often
referred
>to as a lead tipped arrow - problem solved in the later racing Toranas with
a V8
>which had 2 cylinders less overhang), and the brakes left quite a lot to be
>desired. The same comments were made by a number of friends who had
>raced/rallied XU-1s. One friend in Victoria knew a number of people who had
>fitted V8s to their XU-1s and said they handled much better than his 202. I
have
>never driven a V8 engined LC or LJ but I have driven L-34 and A9X (MHDT)
Toranas
>and they handled much better than the XU-1.
>
>The car I raced (co-driving for a friend in endurance races at Wanneroo)
>produced good power (it wasn't standard), and yes you could power slide it
quite
>well, but my 2 litre Escort was a lot quicker through the corners with a
lot
>less power. OK my lap times were about 4 seconds quicker in the XU1 than
the
>Escort, but then the top speed in the XU1 was much faster which made the
poor
>brakes even scarier.
>
>
>regards, Simon.
>
Noddy
the
> drags. For the money I don't think you could do much better. I'd much
rather
> slip a chev in a tory than try to squeeze in a 308.
Me too. V8 LJ's a heaps of fun and something with a kick-ass small block
Chev is awesome. It is *very* easy to get an honest, reliable 400 genuine
horses out of a small Chev, but it's something else entirely trying to get
anywhere near that out of a "plastic" 308.
> It's a shame. Being a fan of Mopar products I've spent a lot of time
> gathering info about it's small blocks (LA series engine) and it really is
a
> good design. Although I do agree that for the masses getting hp out of a
> small block chev would involve much less time, money, and hassle.
That doesn't mean that a Wedge can't make the numbers. I'm not particularly
loyal to any manufacturer, as I enjoy a bit of everything. If I had to say,
I guess I'd lean towards Ford, but I've owned plenty of great Holdens, a
couple of nice Valiants and a variety of less mainstream stuff. Both my
Valiants were VG Coupes. One was a stock 2 barrel 318 that was a very nice,
but very underpowered cruiser. The other was a mint yellow ochre coupe with
a 340 4 bbl.
The 340 left me largely unimpressed. It seemed to make a reasonable enough
amount of power and sounded great, but it was always "working" getting the
car to mumbo. I mean, it certainly made more power than a 318, that's not
hard to do really, but compared to say a 351 in something like a ZD Fairlane
there was no comparrison. It just didn't quite have it, although to be fair,
a VG Valiant is hardly what you would consider to be the ideal test bed. For
some strange reason, Chrysler seemed to delight in making cars that handled
like battleships in those days and why you would want to by a car fitted
with 360 cubes under the bonnet and a single wheeler rear axle is beyond me
:)
> Thanks for the info, I think the small Chrysler has a taller deck height
> than the Chev. I'll have to check on it, but that would mean for the same
> stroke the Chrysler could have a longer rod than the Chev without the
> comprimise (spelling?) in piston design.
Sure. The comparrison wouldn't really mean much anyway unless the two
engines were of similar bore and stroke. I mean, I own a world war 2 Willys
jeep and it has a 2.2 litre side valve engine. Interestingly, it's
connecting rods are over 9 inches long, however it is "factory" rev limited
to 3850 rpm :)
Regards,
Noddy.
Norbie
Never heard of multiple-throttle injection? Check out Toyota's 20-valve
4A-GE for example, with quad throttle bodies on a very short manifold that
looks like a pair of sidedraghts at first glance. With the factory
induction gear removed, these things sound *exactly* like a pair of DCOE's
at WOT!
And of course you can buy aftermarket EFI throttle bodies that bolt up to
DCOE manifolds - very nice if you can afford it.
Norbie.
Lord Visor
>shuffled off this mortal coil in 1980 or so. Basically, people didn't want
>them because they were considered bad taste to many. Go figure...
There's far more to it than that, and some has even been covered in
this thread. There are plenty of good books on it if you're that
interested.
>> Someone already mentioned the larger bottom end compared to Holdens,
>> and not even the sickest, most abused hemi I encountered failed to get
>> me home..
>
>I could say the same about *many* a Holden 6 too.
Not all of them?
This is getting pretty silly. I mean, I learned to drive in Vals,
Holdens and Fords. They all have their strong points and weaknesses.
From my perspective the Charger is the ideal classic muscle car if you
prefer driving to detailing. You should be able to work out why if
you want to read this thread back - bearing in mind what city traffic
is like. That said, there are heaps of Mopars I would love to own,
and plenty of other cars as well.
I'm not in the habit of sneering at those who choose Toranas, Monaros,
GTs, etc, especially because of how their starter motor sounds.
Rather, I appreciate they're preserving an important part of
Australian and international automotive history - something I like to
try and encourage. I'm also glad I'm not paying their fuel bills.
Cya at the traffic lights
Regs,
LV
Jon Smillie
In article <BIlY4.7570$c5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, "JJ" <TO...@bigpond.com> writes:
|>
|> "Noddy" <dgib...@primus.com.au> wrote in message
|> news:3931a1f5$1...@news.iprimus.com.au...
|> >
|> > JJ <TO...@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:vufY4.7385
|> > >
|> > > Is that correct? 100ccs. Is that a 1/10 of a litre? Sounds brutal
|> (for
|> > > economy) if so. Then again the bog std Carter quadra-jet if flattened
|> > causes
|> > > the engine (Ford V8) almost flame-out for a sec. The pump seal was
|> > replaced.
That's because your secondaries are out of adjustment - the Carter Thermoquad
has HUGE secondaries in comparison to it's primaries. If they open too quick
airflow into the engine virtually stalls, and the mixture leans out enough to
make the engine bog-badly. It's nothing to do with your accelerator pump. On
the contrary - if the TQ had a bigger pump (or two pumps, ala "double-pumpers")
it might be able to pump enough fuel in to cover the bog until the air-flow
picks up again.
The trick is to adjust the air-door above the secondaries such that it'll stay
closed until the engine is sucking hard enough to use the big throats in the
carb - see my webpage: www.mso.anu.edu.au/~smillie
JJ
"Lord Visor" <ct...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
> >No, there certainly isn't, and that's exactly the reason why Valiant's
> >shuffled off this mortal coil in 1980 or so. Basically, people didn't
want
> >them because they were considered bad taste to many. Go figure...
Mitsubishi killed any chance of a new Val. Lee Iacocca should have come
to the rescue!!
>
-snip-
> >> Someone already mentioned the larger bottom end compared to Holdens,
> >> and not even the sickest, most abused hemi I encountered failed to get
> >> me home..
I had a piston fail (the donk was a fill in come permanent:-) ). Bought
a VK 245 donk out of a totaled Charger from AA wreckers at Arncliffe, they
forked it into my VH sedans boot! On 5 cylinders (all rings broken on the
failed piston, very old and abused donk: sludge 1/2 " thick inside) drove
back to Dubbo 450Ks. Got there, used 3 ltres oil only, lots of white smoke!!
New motor (2nd hand) a ball tearer: did another 55000Ks, sold it with just
some valve stem smoke only.
Father in-law's CM Val cab did 350000 Ks on LPG, all *town* running
before rings and bearings replaced.
>there are heaps of Mopars I would love to own,
The argument at work used to be: was it a Dodge Challenger or Charger in
the original Movie "Vanishing Point" with actor Barry Newman. I maintain it
was a Challenger. In "Bullet" with Steve Mc Queen in his Mustang, the
famous chase which by to-days standards is prob pretty ordinary, was the
Ford against a Dodge what? on cheese cutters?
James