XU1 a bit of a dud?
Brett Whisson
as 125 kW from the 202. This seems mighty average for all the effort
involved - ie 3 carbs etc. Compare with other 6's at the time: Ford 250 2V
(far from being a racy engine) - 170 hp with a 2 barrell carby and some
extractors. E49 Charger - 226 kW.
To quote AMC: "...the 202 engine was a dodgy donk under duress, and in high
compression, high-revving XU-1 tune its weaknesses were quickly revealed."
Weak at only 125 kW? Did they get the specs wrong?
Aside from light weight, the XU1 fails to impress me.
Brett
Marco Spaccavento
"Lucifer-V8" <bug...@off.com> wrote in message
news:3DC06B65...@off.com...
>
>
> Brett Whisson wrote:
> >
> > I was reading the latest AMC about the XU1 and noticed the power was
quoted
> > as 125 kW from the 202. This seems mighty average for all the effort
> > involved - ie 3 carbs etc. Compare with other 6's at the time: Ford 250
2V
> > (far from being a racy engine) - 170 hp with a 2 barrell carby and some
> > extractors. E49 Charger - 226 kW.
>
Either way, 170Hp from the 250 is 126kW, from a 4.1 litre engine. And when
you consider that the MPEFI 3.9 version of the same engine in the EA did
139kW, I'd say that's gross. 125kW from a 3.3 litre engine is more
impressive than 126kW from a 4.1 litre engine.
Anyway, I thought the beauty of the XU-1 was that it was a fairly big engine
in a small car, not necessarily that it had tyre-shredding power on its own.
Incidentally, these sites conversions are incorrect:
http://people.med.harvard.edu/~dgohara/Play/diversions/conversions.htm
http://www.dropbears.com/u/utilities/convert2.htm
Someone want to tell them that 170Hp is not 172kW?
--
--
Marco Spaccavento
rbge...@iprimus.com.au
Lucifer-V8
> Anyway, I thought the beauty of the XU-1 was that it was a fairly big engine
> in a small car, not necessarily that it had tyre-shredding power on its own.
True the one I had jesus it could bolt! Put a few V8 cars into shame!
Only reason I sold it was I wanted something more comfortable to drive.
But the gear stick was a bastard of a thing. Noddy will know what I
mean. I miss it terribly though.
--
Regards
Dan. 93 S2 VP 3.8 A4, 00 S1 VX Gen 3 M6.
John Rodgers
news:appvfe$4385i$1...@ID-132730.news.dfncis.de...
when
> you consider that the MPEFI 3.9 version of the same engine in the EA did
> 139kW, I'd say that's gross. 125kW from a 3.3 litre engine is more
> impressive than 126kW from a 4.1 litre engine.
>
> Anyway, I thought the beauty of the XU-1 was that it was a fairly big
engine
> in a small car, not necessarily that it had tyre-shredding power on its
own.
Just remember guys that power figures alone mean nothing. Unless you take
into account the rpm at which point it is measured, the torque curve, the
gearing, power/weight etc. then you will have a better idea of the
performance of the vehicle.
John
Lucifer-V8
Brett Whisson wrote:
>
> I was reading the latest AMC about the XU1 and noticed the power was quoted
> as 125 kW from the 202. This seems mighty average for all the effort
> involved - ie 3 carbs etc. Compare with other 6's at the time: Ford 250 2V
> (far from being a racy engine) - 170 hp with a 2 barrell carby and some
> extractors. E49 Charger - 226 kW.
Is this Gross or Net rated engine power?
--
coombesy
"Brett Whisson" <whi...@norcom.net.au> wrote in message
news:10360180...@challenger.norcom.net.au...
> Weak at only 125 kW? Did they get the specs wrong?
>
> Aside from light weight, the XU1 fails to impress me.
>
> Brett
>
>
XU1 but none have had the same driving appeal
shane
Lucifer-V8
> you obviously haven't owned or driven one. I have owned many V8's since the
> XU1 but none have had the same driving appeal
Agreed
markone2
Chris
hold its own if you get a drive of one you will find how good a rockets they
are
Brett Whisson
> quoted
> > > as 125 kW from the 202. This seems mighty average for all the effort
> > > involved - ie 3 carbs etc. Compare with other 6's at the time: Ford
250
> 2V
> > > (far from being a racy engine) - 170 hp with a 2 barrell carby and
some
> > > extractors. E49 Charger - 226 kW.
> >
> > Is this Gross or Net rated engine power?
>
> Either way, 170Hp from the 250 is 126kW, from a 4.1 litre engine. And
when
> you consider that the MPEFI 3.9 version of the same engine in the EA did
> 139kW, I'd say that's gross. 125kW from a 3.3 litre engine is more
> impressive than 126kW from a 4.1 litre engine.
I know the power from the Ford 250 2V happens to almost exactly match the
202 XU1. My point is, the Ford was barely modified at all - different
single carb plus extractors - and it retained plenty of driveability and
reliability. The 202 had to be extensively modified to make the same power,
and by many accounts it was not a happy camper after these mods.
I don't doubt the goodness of a lightweight car with a tough motor. I just
take issue with the crappy nature of the old Holden six. I wonder how a XU1
would have gone with an E49 motor?
Brett
Rainbow Warrior
Obviously never rode in a well worked 6 or 8cyl Torana.
--
Pat
Brisbane, Australia
http://www.powerup.com.au/~mangey/
97 Econovan, GQ Patrol Twin Cab Conversion, Malvern Star Sprint 12
Econovan........ It's like flat 60 zones were made for it.
Lord Ponsenby
news:appvfe$4385i$1...@ID-132730.news.dfncis.de:
> Anyway, I thought the beauty of the XU-1 was that it was a
> fairly big engine in a small car, not necessarily that it had
> tyre-shredding power on its own.
>
Also one of the few cars I've climbed into and been able to simply
drive the thing without having to 'learn the car'.
An accident of good balance?
Maybe it was meant to be a good thing all along - just started out
all wrong. (HB?)
:-)
--
Toby
John McKenzie
> I don't doubt the goodness of a lightweight car with a tough motor. I just
> take issue with the crappy nature of the old Holden six.
For what it was/is it's not bad really. Theres a guy running 9s with a
red motor on nitrous - hardly to be sneezed at!
I wonder how a XU1
> would have gone with an E49 motor?
Put in the std engine bay, it would have handled shitfully, and stopped
badly - it already has a tendency to understeer, and power oversteer out
of a corner. Not only would there too much weight (with a hemi) _over_
the front wheel centreline - making it a chronic understeerer, but
bugger all weight over the back to allow good traction out of a corner.
If (and there's that old saying - if your aunty had balls she'd be your
uncle) the motor was moved back, so there wasn't much weight past the
front wheel centreline, and better still there was more weight on the
back wheels, then I have no doubt it would have been a giant killer. The
Xu1 V8 would have (in my opinion) been a far quicker circuit car than
either the phase 4 or the next model charger (chrysler among other
things had a much hairier cam in the wings for the charger) It was
competitive with a 202, a 308 with even a moderate upgrade would have
made it near unbeatable.
To actually achieve this would require a fair amount of firewall
modification - not just to clear the engine, but the webers too. Still
for those who are keen, it would be hard to imagine a quicker inline 6
powered car for the $$ involved. THe V8 engine swap is much easier
though, and for the money would make a quicker torana than a hemi 6
powered one....
--
John McKenzie
tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com
ab...@msn.com ab...@sprint.com ab...@earthlink.com frau...@psinet.com
swee...@accc.gov.au u...@ftc.gov admin@loopback $LOGIN@localhost
$LOGNAME@localhost $USER@localhost $USER@$HOST -h1024@localhost
ro...@mailloop.com pres...@whitehouse.gov vice.pr...@whitehouse.gov
ab...@iprimus.com.au ab...@cia.gov ab...@fbi.gov ab...@asio.gov.au
ab...@federalpolice.gov.au
its me
Spooky
"its me" <bycric...@bigone.com> wrote in message
news:3dc1959c$1...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> 202 ?? Cant be sure on this but wasn't it a 186 ?????
LJ GTR was 202, LJ GTR-XU1 was 202
LC GTR was 161, LC GTR-XU1 was 186
Spooky
Lucifer-V8
> I don't know what the official ratings were, but generally they were
> believed to be making around 190bhp at the flywheel for std LJ Xu1s, and
> the 72 bathurst specials were probably making 230 as raced.
My LJ XU-1 GTR Replica had approx. 230 hp maybe a little less or a
little more although it didn't have a direct driven engine fan so that
would of saved a few HP's. :-)
> I take it you've never driven one? (not being a smartass) Their one and
> only strength is in what they are/were capable of as a combination of
> all their parts _on the road_ . All the statistics really don't amount
> to a pile of dogshit - it's what they were capable of. Actually when you
> look at the 'figures' it's fucking amazing they won Bathurst at all, let
> alone came close to doing so twice.
Yeah they were amazing machines then. Still are now loads of character.
>
> Re lucifers comments on the gearshift - no kidding! I can't drive one
> with an LJ xu1 wheel and a std shifter - my leg won't fit between the
> wheel and the stick when I am on and off the clutch, I remember buying a
> run down 'xu1 clone' and had to drive home with no shoes and socks so I
> could _just_ manage gear changes.
The gear stick actually came off in my hand a few times especially down
changing to 2nd gear. But the car was getting unbearable for long
drives. :-)
M@W8
quoted
> as 125 kW from the 202. This seems mighty average for all the effort
> involved - ie 3 carbs etc
The VN fuel injected 3.8 V6 also made 125kW on the spec sheet. Also mighty
average.
But was power measured the same way though back then?
Noddy
Who the hell is AMC when they're home?
The XU1, in the 202 LJ from that they're mentioning, made around 220 brake
horsepower in it's day, and I'm assuming that this magazine, or whatever it
is, is using some amount of poetic licence to "guess" what today's net power
equivalent of that would be.
What I find highly amusing in this small snippet is the part about it being
a dodgy donk under duress, as I'm quite sure that most of the daggy pants
wearing, doof-doof listening, pearced eyebrow cockheads writing for this
wank magazine wouldn't have ever come within a bull's roar of a *genuine*
XU1 to know what the fuck they're talking about :)
I owned a Chāteau Mauve '72 Bathurst model, and it was a fantastic car.
Extremely powerful, a shitload of fun, and as reliable as any other red
motor powered Holden could be in it's day. I'd still rate it highly against
anything I've driven in the last 20 years, and I've give my left nut to do
an on-track comparison with a 'Rex or something of similar performance.
Fucking motoring journo's.
Most of them wouldn't know if a tram was up them until it rang the bell :)
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
"coombesy" <ssco...@ozemail.com.no spam> wrote in message news:Ow2w9.22242
> you obviously haven't owned or driven one. I have owned many V8's since
the
> XU1 but none have had the same driving appeal
Couldn't agree more.
For what they were, they were a fantasically enjoyable car....
Regards,
Noddy.
Jason James
Went and sounded (idling) like a brute! Those were the days.
Jason
st3ph3nm
>
> Brett
Does a touring car championship, one (or two?) Bathurst wins, AND a
couple of Australian Rally Championships impress you, then?
There's more to any car than the numbers.
Cheers,
Steve
st3ph3nm
>
> What I find highly amusing in this small snippet is the part about it being
> a dodgy donk under duress, as I'm quite sure that most of the daggy pants
> wearing, doof-doof listening, pearced eyebrow cockheads writing for this
> wank magazine wouldn't have ever come within a bull's roar of a *genuine*
> XU1 to know what the fuck they're talking about :)
>
the guy there seemed somewhat unsure of the car's ability to survive
the day.
He couldn't help but think "I bet your car's donk hasn't been tested
by 500 miles of racing at Bathurst".
Cheers,
Steve
>
> Fucking motoring journo's.
>
> Most of them wouldn't know if a tram was up them until it rang the bell :)
>
LOL!
> Regards,
> Noddy.
Cheers,
Steve
its me
"Spooky" <spook...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Lnhw9.22372$jE1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Lucifer-V8
Noddy wrote:
> > Aside from light weight, the XU1 fails to impress me.
>
> What I find highly amusing in this small snippet is the part about it being
> a dodgy donk under duress, as I'm quite sure that most of the daggy pants
> wearing, doof-doof listening, pearced eyebrow cockheads writing for this
> wank magazine wouldn't have ever come within a bull's roar of a *genuine*
> XU1 to know what the fuck they're talking about :)
Agreed! mine never let me down parts were cheap and available and the
engine itself was bullet proof. :-)
>
> I owned a Château Mauve '72 Bathurst model, and it was a fantastic car.
> Extremely powerful, a shitload of fun, and as reliable as any other red
> motor powered Holden could be in it's day. I'd still rate it highly against
> anything I've driven in the last 20 years, and I've give my left nut to do
> an on-track comparison with a 'Rex or something of similar performance.
Sweet! Mine was the Red and black! oooh it was stunning!
>
> Fucking motoring journo's.
>
> Most of them wouldn't know if a tram was up them until it rang the bell :)
ROTFL! How fucking true!
Brett Whisson
While I respect your opinions and always appreciate your advice, I will
quote from AMC (=Australian Muscle Car) on the matter. Feel free to
comment.
"Regardless of what you read eslewhere, the 202 engine was a dodgy donk
under duress, and in high compression, high-revving XU-1 tune its weaknesses
were quickly revealed. Its 186 predecessor was a sweeter engine. I say
this with first-hand experience, as I owned several..."
"The stock 202 block had inherent tolerance problems in the casting, plus
202 cubic inches was on the limit for an engine that started as a 149ci
which led to block flexing."
"...it wasn't long before they [pistons] punched their way out the side."
"The high-lift cam was not hardened and the heavier valve springs would chop
off the lobes from new, preventing the hot six from revving harder than a
Kingswood."
Overall this apparent ex-owner of several Xu-1 has more or less panned the
car, in an article titled "Giant Killer" no less.
Brett
Noddy <pon...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:aptkup$513aj$1...@ID-132740.news.dfncis.de...
>
> I owned a Château Mauve '72 Bathurst model, and it was a fantastic car.
Jason James
> Thanks for that
>
>
> "Spooky" <spook...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Lnhw9.22372$jE1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > "its me" <bycric...@bigone.com> wrote in message
> > news:3dc1959c$1...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> > > 202 ?? Cant be sure on this but wasn't it a 186 ?????
> >
> > LJ GTR was 202, LJ GTR-XU1 was 202
> > LC GTR was 161, LC GTR-XU1 was 186
> >
> > Spooky
> >
The only baaad thing I remember about them from a street level view-point
was the Opel box inthe LC XU1. Failed a fair bit if caned. I think they put
a Muncie in the LJ,.....correct?
Jason
athol
> The only baaad thing I remember about them from a street level view-point
> was the Opel box inthe LC XU1. Failed a fair bit if caned. I think they put
> a Muncie in the LJ,.....correct?
No. They used the Holden "aussie" 4-speed, which is frequently
referred to incorrectly as a muncie. This confusion stems from the
use of designations M20, M21, M22, M23 for various ratio muncies,
then Holden using the same designations for the "aussie" boxes.
The "aussie" 4-speed was okay for up to 308 engines, and was also
used in the LH L34 - contrary to popular mythology. The L34 parts
supplement (the bits that are different from the basic L34 book)
lists a complete trans (different speedo gears to the others),
gearshift, gear knob and speedo drive and driven gears. No other
parts were different.
--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol>
Noddy
Noddy
"Brett Whisson" <whi...@norcom.net.au> wrote in message
> While I respect your opinions and always appreciate your advice, I will
> quote from AMC (=Australian Muscle Car) on the matter. Feel free to
> comment.
Sorry about the double posting, but I hit the send button by mistake before
I actually did anything else :)
> "Regardless of what you read eslewhere, the 202 engine was a dodgy donk
> under duress, and in high compression, high-revving XU-1 tune its
weaknesses
> were quickly revealed. Its 186 predecessor was a sweeter engine. I say
> this with first-hand experience, as I owned several..."
I find this comment to be particularly interesting, as in my experience I
don't think I could find any particular version of the red motor that stood
out above all others. They all displayed the same characteristics from 149
to 202 cubic inches, and differed only in the power they made.
The very first of the "standard" 202's had some problems with piston crowns
coming adrift, but that was rectified quite early on and didn't effect the
XU1 engines, nor did the standard later model "rattle" from the non
adjustable tappets of the later engines as the XU1 engines all used
adjustable rockers.
> "The stock 202 block had inherent tolerance problems in the casting, plus
> 202 cubic inches was on the limit for an engine that started as a 149ci
> which led to block flexing."
Hmm...
This guy might be an journalist, but that doesn't mean he actually *knows*
anything :) The red motor was a thin-wall cast block that was cast in a
number of different bore sizes rather than being cast in one original size
and then cut to suit different capacities as he seems to suggest.
The more important point he seems to be over looking here is that while the
186 equipped LC used a standard block, the 202 powered LJ used a specially
constructed block with a higher nodularity content than the reghular bunch
of 202's that were being stamped out for everyday stuff.
These blocks, all marked with the engine number prefix "JP", never had any
inherant weaknesses to my knowledge, and were quite a tough piece of cast
iron. Something that I used to curse in my engineering shop days whenever I
had to work on one, as the boring bar or line boring tool had to be
re-pointed after every cut, such was the toughness of the casting. The
machines would fly through a regular 202 in a few minutes without losing a
bit of their edge :)
There was a factory replacement block available through dealers to replace
the original JP block, and it was prefixed with "NP". It was apparently of a
higher nodularity content again, and had some extra internal bracing for
heavy duty stuff such as Bathurst.
These blocks are *extremely* rare today....
> "...it wasn't long before they [pistons] punched their way out the side."
It's a *long* time since the LJ was a race car, but I can't ever recall the
202 XU1 being sidelined due to a mechanical failure, and when you consider
that the cars were raced in very close to factory standard configuration,
that's pretty good going for a "truck" engine.
My own car used to see 7500rpm in top gear quite often, and the worst
problem it ever had to endure was a stuck valve which was a result of me
making one of the exhaust guide clearances a tad on the tight side. Apart
from that, it never missed a beat and it was abused to buggery.
LC's, on the other hand, had a nasty habit of swallowing a few of the nuts
that held the air filter housings onto the carb's, and they'd often get
stuck under a valve head. Not an inherant engine fault per se', but a lot of
them used to do it if you kept the factory air cleaners.
> "The high-lift cam was not hardened and the heavier valve springs would
chop
> off the lobes from new, preventing the hot six from revving harder than a
> Kingswood."
I really don't know where this guy is coming from, as this is far from the
norm with these engines.
I've probably had around 30 red motor powered cars, a couple of them
superchared and many making what I would call some serious power for what
they were, and in that time I'd be lucky if I lost 2 camshafts. Similarly, I
know a great many guys who ran some *very* strong red motor powered cars
without the slightest bit of a camshaft problem.
That's not to say they don't exist, but it's *far* from common.
The fact is that the camshaft used in the 202 XU1 engine was case hardened
just like it was in any other red motor of the day, and if you wiped a lobe
from new, it's because you were in too much of a hurry to cane it and not
run it in properly :)
> Overall this apparent ex-owner of several Xu-1 has more or less panned the
> car, in an article titled "Giant Killer" no less.
Interesting comments from someone who has apparently driven both.
I've always found the LC XU1 to be a boy racer's car compared to the LJ,
which was *much* more refined and obviously designed with winning races in
mind. The LC was significantly slower than the LJ, had a shitful gearbox and
rear axle assembly and it's camshaft was way to big for the rather small
CD-150 Stromberg carburettors it had. The LJ had all of these problems
sorted, and won races because of that.
The LC's race success, or lack of it, speaks for itself.
Regards,
Noddy.
John McKenzie
> The gear stick actually came off in my hand a few times especially down
> changing to 2nd gear.
Did someone throw a bw single rail from a valiant in there :)
I've actually done that in another car (the val thing was not uncommon
though). I did it in a volvo 740 turbo as I was driving the bloody thing
into the workshop from where it was parked.
But the car was getting unbearable for long
> drives. :-)
I have the odd injury and believe it or not, the offset wheel and pedal
locations actually make the bloody thing the most comfortable car in the
world for me (I do have to adjust the seat location to have enough leg
room , but aside from that..) . I think it's also because a big part of
the comfort for a drive (and I find it far less fatigueing than a 4
wheel sofa that is less so) is from a car with signicantly stable,
predictable and highly manouverable roadholding.
John McKenzie
>
> "its me" <bycric...@bigone.com> wrote in message
> news:3dc1959c$1...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> > 202 ?? Cant be sure on this but wasn't it a 186 ?????
>
> LJ GTR was 202, LJ GTR-XU1 was 202
> LC GTR was 161, LC GTR-XU1 was 186
Something which came up on the torana message boards recently (and was
news to me) was that at the middle to end of the Lc model run -
thereabouts, the 173 was either introduced, or designated the new
'common' or god knows what label 3 inch stroke red motor (I believe the
138 was still used - for no reason I could imagine) and the 161 was
phased out. Either potentially, or definitely (it was news to me so I
don't have the data in front of me) some of the last LC gtrs actually
had 173s! with the 161 lc gtr induction and so forth. As to how many I
have no idea, but the guist of it was that it was a very small number of
them.
John McKenzie
> don't think I could find any particular version of the red motor that stood
> out above all others.
I'd (very tentatively) suggest the 179hp engines. Steel crank, and thick
enough bore walls (I have done it a couple of times, and have also has
some 173s sonic checked which were as thick or thicker - even allowing
for the overbore to 3.625 as 186/202 blocks in the bore walls). For a
non turbo engine probably of fuck all interest, but they do have merit
for a turbo bottom end.
They all displayed the same characteristics from 149
> to 202 cubic inches, and differed only in the power they made.
The 3 inch stroke motors, and only in my opinion, were a little smoother
- a fraction less vibration, or overall noise (I wish I could come up
with the right term) than the 3.25 stroke 202. Mind you either of them
(particularly a blue 202 coutnerweighted crank) is still way 'smoother'
and rev happy than the ford 221 crank hybrid (no doubt due to both the
longer stroke, and the poorer rod to stroke ratio)
Even then, these are inconsequential issues - the longer stroke etc
certainly didn't carry with it any reliability issues, even when taken
well beyond the rpm range of the factory vesions (even the bathurst
specials) by drag racers, and circuit racers, then and now.
>
> > "The stock 202 block had inherent tolerance problems in the casting, plus
> > 202 cubic inches was on the limit for an engine that started as a 149ci
> > which led to block flexing."
the only flexing is this guys forearm - he certainly had a firm grip on
himself when he typed this up with his free hand.
>
> Hmm...
>
> This guy might be an journalist, but that doesn't mean he actually *knows*
> anything :) The red motor was a thin-wall cast block that was cast in a
> number of different bore sizes rather than being cast in one original size
> and then cut to suit different capacities as he seems to suggest.
From sonic testing on 173s, (and it came up as a result of my latest
engine build, I located a number of 186 blocks for testing, and the
machinist remarked that he'd seen a few 173s that were as thick - and
since I had some, and they are more often than not given away - it's not
commonly known) and posts on the torana forums - either from the
beginning, or at some point (perhaps the dropping of the 186?) the 173s
had thicker bore walls - the outer surface/water jacket side was the
same dimension as the 186. Obviously neither the machinist or myself has
tested a thousand or more of these blocks, so it's not 100% guaranteed
that all 173s are like this - but definitely some of them are.....
>
> The more important point he seems to be over looking here is that while the
> 186 equipped LC used a standard block, the 202 powered LJ used a specially
> constructed block with a higher nodularity content than the reghular bunch
> of 202's that were being stamped out for everyday stuff.
> These blocks, all marked with the engine number prefix "JP", never had any
> inherant weaknesses to my knowledge,
According to an article on Harry Firth and his involvement in the
project, the casting cores, moulds or whatever that were modified to
cast the jp blocks were an old 'set' (for the love of god someone
correct my vocabulary) a couple of main bearing oil galleys were
marginal in diameter, and had to be drilled to sort them out, and also
the second last (number 6) main bearing/cap was not 100% perfectly
aligned (not sure if this is meant to mean as in line bore crank tunnel
aligned, or front to back evenly spaced. Firth said that it took a
little over a year to sort so that the production version main bearing
issue (the oil passage issue was also sorted at the production line
stage), but until that time, each block was sorted one by one. So very
dodgily there were small problems, but none of them left the factory
unsorted -in effect the finshed product was fine - no sub par blocks
ended up on the street - so hardly could it in ay way be called a
weakness or flaw....
and were quite a tough piece of cast
> iron. Something that I used to curse in my engineering shop days whenever I
> had to work on one, as the boring bar or line boring tool had to be
> re-pointed after every cut, such was the toughness of the casting. The
> machines would fly through a regular 202 in a few minutes without losing a
> bit of their edge :)
>
> There was a factory replacement block available through dealers to replace
> the original JP block, and it was prefixed with "NP". It was apparently of a
> higher nodularity content again, and had some extra internal bracing for
> heavy duty stuff such as Bathurst.
>
> These blocks are *extremely* rare today....
Hell even the jp blocks fetch a high price. It has been rumoured that
Harry Firth had his own sand cores etc, so had the option (dunno if he
pursued it) of having blocks specially cast (opens up the door for even
more heavy duty spec iron.
>
> > "...it wasn't long before they [pistons] punched their way out the side."
>
> It's a *long* time since the LJ was a race car, but I can't ever recall the
> 202 XU1 being sidelined due to a mechanical failure,
The journalist (obviously) has no idea about the piston probs with the
early STD 202s and the Xu1 versions. Furthermore, what a fucking tool
(and a blunt one at that) - some of the early 202s did break pistons,
but I have never, ever, seen or heard of them actually destroying the
block. On a techincal basis, I would have a hunch that the guy was
confusing throwing a rod with breaking a piston. (hey when you are on a
roll....) - but even THEN - I have never thrown a rod on a 202 (though i
concede it's not impossible) - and this brings up yet one more 'fuckup'
by the journalist as he is not aware that the Xu1 (when did they start -
was it bathurst special, or was it all XU1 rods>) rods were 'beefed up'
and are more or less the basis of the rod used in all blue motors... He
the std red ones do pretty good in HQ racing. Though a little less
difficult (on paper) I have not thrown a rod in a 202, and in one 186
engine I had I couldn't throw a rod - and I actually tried after a big
end bearing shit itself (never have friends help your car, a mate
helping me put the headgasket on back to front, effectively cutting off
nearly all coolant flow at the rear of the block and head - cooking that
region of the engine). I am sure with full throttle and no load it would
(as would any other) but revving it way out through each gear, it
wouldn't let go.
and when you consider
> that the cars were raced in very close to factory standard configuration,
> that's pretty good going for a "truck" engine.
8000 rpm is not a huge deal for a circuit race 202 - and there are
definitely reliable examples of 9,000rpm and higher over the years
>
> My own car used to see 7500rpm in top gear quite often,
The twin cam Krogdahl head - http://www.krogdahlheads.com/ - that
produced 345bhp on a 202 at 8000rpm would have (based on where
gearchanges are rpm wise) been seeing around 9000rpm before the next
gear was selected, and website indicates 10,000rpm has been visted.
While this head wasn't even into production then, it does indicate the
sort of rpms a 202 can handle.
> > "The high-lift cam was not hardened and the heavier valve springs would
> chop
> > off the lobes from new,
Maybe someone should run this bullshit past wade cams. I know they made
the cams for the non std hemi pacer and charger e 38 and 49 - i.e. all
the lower volume, higher spec ones. At the moment I have come off a 30+
hour work marathon, so can't recall for sure, but I belive they ground
and supplied the bathurst cams (and possibly the lower spec XU1 items).
didn't hardern the cam lobes, what a fucking dickhead.
Two possibilities come to mind, either:
the retard is possibly getting this confused with the cotton fibre cam
gear on red motors. I don't know 100% for sure if the XU-1s had alloy
ones, but I'd say it's more than likely. A high lift cam and heavier
valve springs would lead to premature failure, so I would bet it was a
std fitment.
or,
something I was told at trade school by ex ford race team mechanic
Colin Russel. At one stage (possibly around or just after touring car
regs were opened up allowing upgraded compared to showroom spec motors)
they were experimenting with different cams, and had one, before the big
race. They kept losing lifters - regularly and in short order. They
scratched their heads trying to find out why, and it wasn't until around
24hours before they incovered it. The cam maker that all these grinds
came from specialised in chevs. Each lobe also has a slight gradient
(viewed from the side of the engine). This allows the lifter to rotate
etc. the 'gradients' on these cams were chev spec and on the ford V8 it
meant that instead of the lifter base resting on the main body with a
slightly angled contact , the angle went the other way, and the tip of
the gradient on the lobe was near the centre of the lifter. This
ground/chewed the centre of the lifter face. There wasn't the option to
source (maybe due to homologation issues - i.e. none of the cams that
would do the job had previously been nominated) . They gave it their
best shot, and a full set of lifters were modified so that a teflon (or
was it something else?) button was glued to the lifter face. During a
warmup or was it a pit stop during the race - one or two engines
developed tappet noise - one or more buttons had come unstuck. The ford
chief instructed to adjust the tappets and get the car out there. And
that was the culprit for the engine failures during the race. I wish I
could recall which year, and hence which fords exactly.
Okay I realise this is a stretch, but given the incredible imbecility
displayed, maybe jsut maybe he got the two marques mixed up. On 2nd
thought, perhaps not - as that data was not and is not widely known -
there is no chance he has mixed them up. He is just dill. I wouldn't be
surprised if he then went on to discuss the inherent breathing
obtruction, and poor flame travel due to the 202 being a sidevalve
motor.
preventing the hot six from revving harder than a
> > Kingswood."
That takes the cake, it's well overdue, but I am raising the bullshit
flag on this guy. He has obviously never been in one, let alone owned
one, and he knows less than zero (passionate and relentless in his
misinformation campaign) on the topic. I would hazard a guess that he is
one of those rare (and they could never been rare enough) dumbest of the
dumb morons, who is so fucking dim, that he can't even wrap his head
around how dim he is, and furthermore is so dim that he thinks he could
type anything - plucking fairy tales out his backside - and nobody would
know - so dumb he can't conceive that any people (let alone everyone,
even other species/life forms - yoghurt for one) could possibly be
smarter.
>
> I really don't know where this guy is coming from, as this is far from the
> norm with these engines.
I'd say he is coming from (or heading for) a drug/alcohol rehab centre.
Please almighty let this one be sterile - material from the shallow end
of the gene pool can't be allowed to be passed on.
>
> I've probably had around 30 red motor powered cars, a couple of them
> superchared and many making what I would call some serious power for what
> they were, and in that time I'd be lucky if I lost 2 camshafts.
Did you look behind the sofa?
> > Overall this apparent ex-owner of several Xu-1 has more or less panned the
> > car, in an article titled "Giant Killer" no less.
>
> Interesting comments from someone who has apparently driven both.
I doubt he's even seen one in the flesh, or been a passenger, let alone
drive it.
>
> I've always found the LC XU1 to be a boy racer's car compared to the LJ,
> which was *much* more refined and obviously designed with winning races in
> mind. The LC was significantly slower than the LJ, had a shitful gearbox and
> rear axle assembly and it's camshaft was way to big for the rather small
> CD-150 Stromberg carburettors it had. The LJ had all of these problems
> sorted, and won races because of that.
Of interest for road going or dual purpose vehicles is that the LJs came
out with slightly softer (possibly slightly progressive) springs. It was
found not to detriment cornering and on the bonus side for streeters,
the ride quality was less harsh
Lucifer-V8
John McKenzie wrote:
>
> Lucifer-V8 wrote:
>
> > The gear stick actually came off in my hand a few times especially down
> > changing to 2nd gear.
>
> Did someone throw a bw single rail from a valiant in there :)
Bastard! I was hoping that no one will find out! :-)
>
> I've actually done that in another car (the val thing was not uncommon
> though). I did it in a volvo 740 turbo as I was driving the bloody thing
> into the workshop from where it was parked.
It was a seemed a good idea at the time type of thing. More trouble than
it's worth. :-)
>
> But the car was getting unbearable for long
> > drives. :-)
>
> I have the odd injury and believe it or not, the offset wheel and pedal
> locations actually make the bloody thing the most comfortable car in the
> world for me (I do have to adjust the seat location to have enough leg
> room , but aside from that..) . I think it's also because a big part of
> the comfort for a drive (and I find it far less fatigueing than a 4
> wheel sofa that is less so) is from a car with signicantly stable,
> predictable and highly manouverable roadholding.
Yeah. I must of been mad to sell mine. :-/
Kieron Murphy
This sounds a lot like the ill fated Brute 33 Falcon John.
Although the story is slightly different, the cams would lose lobes
and the finger was initially pointed at the shafts themselves, Wade
helped Moff and discovered that the castings for the lifter bores were
out and the lifter didn't sit correctly on the lobe.
Kieron
Spooky
"John McKenzie" <jm...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:3DC6E5...@alphalink.com.au...
> Spooky wrote:
> >
> > "its me" <bycric...@bigone.com> wrote in message
> > news:3dc1959c$1...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> > > 202 ?? Cant be sure on this but wasn't it a 186 ?????
> >
> > LJ GTR was 202, LJ GTR-XU1 was 202
> > LC GTR was 161, LC GTR-XU1 was 186
>
> Something which came up on the torana message boards recently (and was
> news to me) was that at the middle to end of the Lc model run -
> thereabouts, the 173 was either introduced, or designated the new
> 'common' or god knows what label 3 inch stroke red motor (I believe the
> 138 was still used - for no reason I could imagine) and the 161 was
> phased out. Either potentially, or definitely (it was news to me so I
> don't have the data in front of me) some of the last LC gtrs actually
> had 173s! with the 161 lc gtr induction and so forth. As to how many I
> have no idea, but the guist of it was that it was a very small number of
> them.
This is true. Believe it or not, the LJ Torana came out with 3 different
engines across its range, from the 'S' to the GTR to the XU1.
The engines included, 138 (red motor), 173, 202. Gearboxes ranged
from trimatic, 3 speed column shift, to 4 on the floor (aussie 4 speed).
Diffs ranged from 3.55, 3.36, 3.08...and I'm told 2.55 for some Bathurst
models???
Spooky
athol
> The 3 inch stroke motors, and only in my opinion, were a little smoother
> - a fraction less vibration, or overall noise (I wish I could come up
> with the right term) than the 3.25 stroke 202.
NVH. "Noise, Vibration and Harshness."
--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol>
John McKenzie
> Diffs ranged from 3.55, 3.36, 3.08...and I'm told 2.55 for some Bathurst
> models???
The banjo was commonly available with 2.78 3.08 3.36 and 3.55 gears
lesser known (but definite as a circuit racer from the message forums
has them) are 2.6 and 4.1 (or close to that) and 4.4 no kidding.
the easiest places to find the weird ratios is (in my experience) the
lh-uc toranas. a lot of the 4 cylinders - perhaps all (but they weren't
all the same 4 cylinder) had 3.9 gears.
Based on the rpm levels and speeds down conrod, I'm guessing they were
running 3.08 gears, but I recall for some strange reason that an article
on the last bathurst specials listed 3.36 or 3.55 even for bathurst. Too
lazy to actually do the math and work it out. The e49 chargers ran 3.55
afaik (that's definitely the gear ratio they had to achieve the low to
mid 14 second quarter times that are compared to the phase 3 - which in
most chrysler fans comparisons is a test using 3.0 gears in the ford),
but the hemi wasn't revving near as high so possibly 3.55 on the torana
with smaller wheels was right. As is no doubt the tone of most peoples
posts in response to this, the red motor didn't have a problem with
decent rpms for extended periods.
John McKenzie
> NVH. "Noise, Vibration and Harshness."
thanks Athol - I'll get there one day :)
Noddy
"John McKenzie" <jm...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
> Even then, these are inconsequential issues - the longer stroke etc
> certainly didn't carry with it any reliability issues, even when taken
> well beyond the rpm range of the factory vesions (even the bathurst
> specials) by drag racers, and circuit racers, then and now.
Absolutely.
My uncle has been a long time campaigner of the humble old Red on the drag
strip with great success, and compared to other people running different
types of engines for similer performance levels, his reliability has been
exemplary.
Only recently did he move to a Holden V6 engine (he's currently the national
record holder in C-Altered, running a N/A V6 in the high 7's), but his times
with a 202 were outstanding.
> the only flexing is this guys forearm - he certainly had a firm grip on
> himself when he typed this up with his free hand.
Indeed :)
> According to an article on Harry Firth and his involvement in the
> project, the casting cores, moulds or whatever that were modified to
> cast the jp blocks were an old 'set' (for the love of god someone
> correct my vocabulary) a couple of main bearing oil galleys were
> marginal in diameter, and had to be drilled to sort them out, and also
> the second last (number 6) main bearing/cap was not 100% perfectly
> aligned (not sure if this is meant to mean as in line bore crank tunnel
> aligned, or front to back evenly spaced. Firth said that it took a
> little over a year to sort so that the production version main bearing
> issue (the oil passage issue was also sorted at the production line
> stage), but until that time, each block was sorted one by one. So very
> dodgily there were small problems, but none of them left the factory
> unsorted -in effect the finshed product was fine - no sub par blocks
> ended up on the street - so hardly could it in ay way be called a
> weakness or flaw....
Yeah, I don't know how he came to that conclusion either.
I've had to do a lot of machining on red motors in the past, and the JP and
NP blocks were really quite different from the mainstream stuff,
particularly in their attention to detail. Things like bore and tunnel sizes
were very uniform compared to most, and the quality of the material itself
was vastly superior to that of regular blocks.
They almost had a "feel" of a hand built engine to be honest....
> Hell even the jp blocks fetch a high price. It has been rumoured that
> Harry Firth had his own sand cores etc, so had the option (dunno if he
> pursued it) of having blocks specially cast (opens up the door for even
> more heavy duty spec iron.
I had a brand new NP block, still in it's box, up until about ten years ago
and I eventually gave it away to some guy I know who was "restoring" an LJ.
I was keeping it for the day when I'd get another Torana (wishful thinking
perhaps), but eventually thought It'd be better off with someone who had a
need for it.
Turned out that the guy wasn't restoring the car at all, and stuck a hair
drier on the thing and eventually poked out a couple of rods.
Idiot...
> Maybe someone should run this bullshit past wade cams. I know they made
> the cams for the non std hemi pacer and charger e 38 and 49 - i.e. all
> the lower volume, higher spec ones. At the moment I have come off a 30+
> hour work marathon, so can't recall for sure, but I belive they ground
> and supplied the bathurst cams (and possibly the lower spec XU1 items).
> didn't hardern the cam lobes, what a fucking dickhead.
Yeah, I was thinking that too :)
Lol! :)
Good call John.
One thing I'd always found was that red motors didn't have the world's best
lifters, and quality ones were a great invetment. I always used Rhodes and
had no problems with them, but then again I'd used Repco remanufactured ones
in a pinch at times and had a good run out of them too :)
Running in the camshaft properly is something that is *vital* to an engine's
longevity, and it's something that few people know how to do properly, or
can be bothered with.
Incidentally, XU1's came standard with an alloy timing gear....
> That takes the cake, it's well overdue, but I am raising the bullshit
> flag on this guy. He has obviously never been in one, let alone owned
> one, and he knows less than zero (passionate and relentless in his
> misinformation campaign) on the topic. I would hazard a guess that he is
> one of those rare (and they could never been rare enough) dumbest of the
> dumb morons, who is so fucking dim, that he can't even wrap his head
> around how dim he is, and furthermore is so dim that he thinks he could
> type anything - plucking fairy tales out his backside - and nobody would
> know - so dumb he can't conceive that any people (let alone everyone,
> even other species/life forms - yoghurt for one) could possibly be
> smarter.
Yeah, I thought this one was particularly funny too :)
The sad fact about this is that as much of a know nothing idiot as this guy
appears to be, there is nothing to stop this mis-information from appearing
in print and influencing others who don't know any better.
I think it should be law that if journalists are going to talk on technical
issues, they should *at least* have some clue about the subject matter, or
their story should be verified by someone who does before it hits the press.
> I'd say he is coming from (or heading for) a drug/alcohol rehab centre.
> Please almighty let this one be sterile - material from the shallow end
> of the gene pool can't be allowed to be passed on.
ROTFLMAO :)
> Did you look behind the sofa?
No, but there's probably one there :)
> I doubt he's even seen one in the flesh, or been a passenger, let alone
> drive it.
It would appear that way.
> Of interest for road going or dual purpose vehicles is that the LJs came
> out with slightly softer (possibly slightly progressive) springs. It was
> found not to detriment cornering and on the bonus side for streeters,
> the ride quality was less harsh
It was definitely less harsh than the LC ever was.
Three good friends of mine had original LC XU1's in mint condition, and
while they were great cars they weren't a patch on the LJ in any respect.
Apart from not being anywhere near as quick, they were also *very* harsh to
ride in, not quite as comfortable, didn't seem to stop as well and had a
more pronounced understeer than the LJ did.
Like I said, the LC was a good car, but the LJ had all the bugs ironed
out...
Regards,
Noddy.
Dangerous
approved for XU-1s, but I've never seen, or heard of a Banjo 2.6 or 4.4.
Salisbury, yes, Banjo - no!
By the way Athol, the L34 still ran a Banjo dif - I think you're thinking of
the A9X, some of which ran the 2.6 Salisbury ratio. The rest were 3.08s.
Crownwheel and pinion from a UC Salisbury (the 'small' one) is same as a
Banjo set. Not so for the V8 ones.
Dangerous
"athol" <athol_S...@idl.net.au> wrote in message
news:1036535501.169367@webserver...
> John McKenzie <jm...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
> > Spooky wrote:
>
> >> Diffs ranged from 3.55, 3.36, 3.08...and I'm told 2.55 for some
Bathurst
> >> models???
>
> > The banjo was commonly available with 2.78 3.08 3.36 and 3.55 gears
> > lesser known (but definite as a circuit racer from the message forums
> > has them) are 2.6 and 4.1 (or close to that) and 4.4 no kidding.
>
> I've seen 2.60, 4.1 and 4.4 in salisburys but not in banjos. The L34
> had a 2.60 salisbury, as did HX Statesmans, etc.. The 4.11 and 4.44
> were used with 1-tonners, with 6-cyl 1-tonners running salisburys.
>
> Are you sure the guy isn't using salisburys?
>
> > the easiest places to find the weird ratios is (in my experience) the
> > lh-uc toranas. a lot of the 4 cylinders - perhaps all (but they weren't
> > all the same 4 cylinder) had 3.9 gears.
>
> UCs had a salisbury style diff... Have a vague feeling that the guts
> were supposed to be the same as banjo?!?
>
> The HQ parts book I've got lists 3.90 as a 6-cyl ratio and yes, it is
> also listed in LH as a 4-cyl ratio. Under 4-speeds and autos, the LH
> book lists both 3.55 and 3.90 ratios, so it isn't auto vs manual...
>
> --
> Athol
> <http://cust.idl.com.au/athol>
John McKenzie
>
> John McKenzie <jm...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
> > Spooky wrote:
>
> >> Diffs ranged from 3.55, 3.36, 3.08...and I'm told 2.55 for some Bathurst
> >> models???
>
> > The banjo was commonly available with 2.78 3.08 3.36 and 3.55 gears
> > lesser known (but definite as a circuit racer from the message forums
> > has them) are 2.6 and 4.1 (or close to that) and 4.4 no kidding.
>
> had a 2.60 salisbury, as did HX Statesmans, etc.. The 4.11 and 4.44
> were used with 1-tonners, with 6-cyl 1-tonners running salisburys.
>
> Are you sure the guy isn't using salisburys?
100% for sure - I've actually seen him/them in the flesh
> UCs had a salisbury style diff...
all of them? even the 4 cylinder models? (I honestly don't know)
Have a vague feeling that the guts
> were supposed to be the same as banjo?!?
Maybe that is the case - I honestly don't know, but I've seen the gear
sets, and I've spoken to the guy in person. I actually met him when I
bought a s/hand yt head and by a country mile the most valuable thing I
walked away with was not the head, but the incredible amount of
knowledge he was willing to share, just by way of casual conversation.
>
> The HQ parts book I've got lists 3.90 as a 6-cyl ratio and yes, it is
> also listed in LH as a 4-cyl ratio. Under 4-speeds and autos, the LH
> book lists both 3.55 and 3.90 ratios, so it isn't auto vs manual...
I don't know what he sourced the 4.something ratio(s) from but I'll try
and find the post in the forums for you to clear it up a little (for me
too) but don't have the time to do so right now - stay tuned.
John McKenzie
> I had a brand new NP block, still in it's box, up until about ten years ago
> and I eventually gave it away to some guy I know who was "restoring" an LJ.
> I was keeping it for the day when I'd get another Torana (wishful thinking
> perhaps), but eventually thought It'd be better off with someone who had a
> need for it.
>
> Turned out that the guy wasn't restoring the car at all, and stuck a hair
> drier on the thing and eventually poked out a couple of rods.
For the record :) that wasn't me. I would probably, if given
opportunity, use a block like this for a similar purpose, but no way i
hell I'd misrepresent myself and the impending fate of the block.....
> Running in the camshaft properly is something that is *vital* to an engine's
> longevity, and it's something that few people know how to do properly, or
> can be bothered with.
Although not the same, this is why homebrew turbo stuff, and probably
carby stuff in general gets a bad rap from time to time. people just
ass-u-me that it will all be right as is. done properly none of it need
ever be an issue, but humans are inherently retarded and it's only some
of the people with randomly mutated DNA that actually have a clue. From
a geneticists perspective people who can tie their own shoes re actually
a result of some sort of birth defect.....
On the plus side, it does make s/hand turbocharging and carb stuff
relatively affordable....
> Three good friends of mine had original LC XU1's in mint condition, and
> while they were great cars they weren't a patch on the LJ in any respect.
> Apart from not being anywhere near as quick, they were also *very* harsh to
> ride in, not quite as comfortable, didn't seem to stop as well and had a
> more pronounced understeer than the LJ did.
On the understeer note (since I haven't got an LC XU1 handy to check)
did the LC front crossmember have the lower extra set of holes to mount
the upper control arm to, or was it introduced with the LJ? If so, I am
pretty confident that this was where the improvement came from (though I
concede softer front springs would help - a little extra body roll won't
inspire driver confidence, but can allow more progressive weight
transfer to the outside front, and improve grip). There was (as
reproduced in a book on the subject by Fiv Antoniou - the bulletins and
cams application reprints are in my opinion the real value of the book,
I could take or leave the rest, most of it accurate, some of it with
rose coloured glasses) a dealer service bulletin from the day, advising
of alternate wheel alignment specs if required/desired - which made a
huge difference, but seemingly as they were _sold_ they had less (next
to zero) negative camber and less positive caster. In the earlier
mentioned harry firth article from a newspaper, it was my understanding
that as released the cars were with no negative camber - a directive
from above, to try and make the car as released less conspicuous - as it
was sort of built in a grey area as pertains to general motors (in the
US) policies at the time.
>
> Like I said, the LC was a good car, but the LJ had all the bugs ironed
> out...
Of the original XU1s. 100% agreed. On a 'pettyness' level, I prefer the
LC (as a std car to modify, not altering an XU1). Silly as it is, I
prefer the ignition key position, the heater control position, and of
even more triviality, the double hump dashboard shape. I could go either
way on the grille. I do prefer the LJ tail lights (put on the spot I
like the indicator location, I don't like the inward mounting of the
indicators on the LC and the tiny aux indicator on the rear quarter - I
think it's marginally less effective at being seen and it's probably a
little more likely to contribute to an accident - though no doubt it
would be directly caused by those executioners on wheels - 4 wheel
drives) but it's hardly an issue. It's long been something I had a
quirky 'what if' about, but I think that, if the V8 was never pursued
(i.e. there was no supercar scare, or whatever, but instead of pursuing
the V8, they took the 6 up another notch or two) tha a fully
counterweighted 3.4 inch stroke crank (which would fit the block without
needing to clearanced in the block for the rods - but would probably
still need the milled cam - similar to 250 fords) and a bigger bore
(would require a new casting with thicker or larger diameter bore walls)
say around 3.8 - making for 230 cubes - and a mass production version of
the duggan head would have been mighty impressive. You would still have
decent revability due to not having a ridiculous stroke, and on the
basis that there are toyota 22r pistons of 3.64 bore, identical gudgeon
size, but more than 1/4' _less_ compression height, there would still
be room for longer rods addressing the rod to stroke ratio. Considering
the difference between a near identical 186 and 202 (it's not much, but
in a light car like this everything makes a noticeable difference) a
gain of nearly double that cube wise, plus the fact that it's from a
bigger bore as well as stroke (unlike the 202 which just had a longer
stroke) there is room for bigger valves without shrouding - so
possibility of more gains than from just a longer stroke. The duggan
head would also make for more gains than the cubes would indicate, as it
easily outpowered 202s with 9 port (even modified) heads.. Actually,
even better than this (though both combined would be interesting) would
be if they factory released them with turbos or blowers. Even moderate
boost, and the lower rpm range used (they don't need the same torque at
higher rpm to achieve more hp like normally aspirated motors rely on -
increasing torque on a NA motor can be done but beyond some point, all
that can be done is move it up the rpm range. with forced induction you
can double (or more) the torque at the same rpm and hence double the
power easily enough. Enough rambling from me.
Jason James
The LC and LJ used to have their engine size on a decal on the petrol cap
ornament. The small bore red motor had ''2250'' which I think relates to 132
cu. Truly wierd, as the first grey motor was 132.
Jason
Noddy
"John McKenzie" <jm...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
> On the understeer note (since I haven't got an LC XU1 handy to check)
> did the LC front crossmember have the lower extra set of holes to mount
> the upper control arm to, or was it introduced with the LJ? If so, I am
> pretty confident that this was where the improvement came from (though I
> concede softer front springs would help - a little extra body roll won't
> inspire driver confidence, but can allow more progressive weight
> transfer to the outside front, and improve grip). There was (as
> reproduced in a book on the subject by Fiv Antoniou - the bulletins and
> cams application reprints are in my opinion the real value of the book,
> I could take or leave the rest, most of it accurate, some of it with
> rose coloured glasses) a dealer service bulletin from the day, advising
> of alternate wheel alignment specs if required/desired - which made a
> huge difference, but seemingly as they were _sold_ they had less (next
> to zero) negative camber and less positive caster. In the earlier
> mentioned harry firth article from a newspaper, it was my understanding
> that as released the cars were with no negative camber - a directive
> from above, to try and make the car as released less conspicuous - as it
> was sort of built in a grey area as pertains to general motors (in the
> US) policies at the time.
To my knowledge, the LC's didn't have the hole (well, at least every genuine
LC XU1 I've seen hasn't, and that's the *first* think I look for to tell an
original car).
It made a huge difference to driving the things, considering they were the
same car with a few minor alterations.
> Of the original XU1s. 100% agreed. On a 'pettyness' level, I prefer the
> LC (as a std car to modify, not altering an XU1).
<snipped a bunch of interesting stuff>
Good post John, as usual.
I actually preferred the LC as well, for much the same reasons as you
listed. I always disliked the LJ dash, but the steering wheel was better
imho. The LC grille was *much* sharper looking than the LJ's plastic shark
mouth, but I definitely didn't like the exterior bonnet release :)
The one thing that looked outstanding on either was Sprintmaster wheels, and
if I had to pick a car with the best looking "factory" wheels of all time,
they'd be my choice.
The GT's Globes looked great, but the Sprintmasters just looked *right* for
the Torana...
Regards,
Noddy.
John McKenzie
but the steering wheel was better
> imho.
Of the factory ones, I agree. The LC one was (afaik) the same as the
monaro, and to be honest would probably look more at home on an EJ or
something. For either of them I have to do away with the std wheel and
fit a smaller one - to maintain more space to get on and off the clutch
and be able to change gears.
The LC grille was *much* sharper looking than the LJ's plastic shark
> mouth,
On that note - and I thought of it ages ago - with the guard flutes, and
the grille (and for all I know this was exactly the idea, and is common
knowledge) - if you look at the LC/J - and just look from the front
guard/door gap forwards, the front of the car looks exactly like a
shark.
>but I definitely didn't like the exterior bonnet release :)
Thieving cunts probably loved it though.....
>
> The one thing that looked outstanding on either was Sprintmaster wheels, and
> if I had to pick a car with the best looking "factory" wheels of all time,
> they'd be my choice.
agreed. On that note I don't suppose you'd know of anyone with a set of
the rare as rocking horse shit 14 inch versions. I recall either you or
perhaps it was on the forums saying that the 73 bathurst specials got
them, but apart from that the only place I am aware of them being fitted
was on pre HQ monaros used for rallying. I know of one set, but that guy
is going to be buried with them - no chance in hell he'd sell. He
actually joked that if he could get a truckload of them, he could retire
- such is the demand for them.
I'd probably give mini-lites a nomination as second place, though to my
knowledge they weren't actually a factory fit - the cooper S rims are
wider steel rims still..
>
> The GT's Globes looked great, but the Sprintmasters just looked *right* for
> the Torana...
And nothing in the world is cheesier than the ROH wheels for the
chargers....
Noddy
"John McKenzie" <jm...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
> agreed. On that note I don't suppose you'd know of anyone with a set of
> the rare as rocking horse shit 14 inch versions. I recall either you or
> perhaps it was on the forums saying that the 73 bathurst specials got
> them, but apart from that the only place I am aware of them being fitted
> was on pre HQ monaros used for rallying. I know of one set, but that guy
> is going to be buried with them - no chance in hell he'd sell. He
> actually joked that if he could get a truckload of them, he could retire
> - such is the demand for them.
Didn't think that all that many people were still chasing LC/LJ stuff these
days, as the cars themselves seem to crop up in advertising very rarely
indeed.
There's a somewhat interesting article in the current Unique Cars magazine
on the XU1's, and it covers a recent gathering at Mount Panorama to
celebrate Brock's first win in the Torana back in 1972.
Sadly, of the roughly 3300 XU1's built in total, just over 10% survive
today....
Regards,
Noddy.
John McKenzie
> Didn't think that all that many people were still chasing LC/LJ stuff these
> days, as the cars themselves seem to crop up in advertising very rarely
> indeed.
That's the fucking problem, hardly anyone is selling. Finally they are
being valued by their owners (not that I lay awake at night over this
shit). the ones that are on sale (and this would only be non gtr stuff)
are usually pretty run down. Just finding a shell thats worh restoring
is a fucking challenge.. Drag racers more than circuit racers are to
blame here. It's where a shitload of 2 door Lc/js have gone.
> Sadly, of the roughly 3300 XU1's built in total, just over 10% survive
> today....
Guy on the forums recently picked up what was meant to be a std 2 door
LC or J (I forget) and then discovered the guard flutes weren't add ons.
Started doing a bit more checking and found himself with a very unloved
gtr... I keep dreaming I'll find a bathurst special like that, but I
think David Z has more chance of a gettingm a root he didn't have to pay
for.
>
> Regards,
> Noddy.
Noddy
"John McKenzie" <jm...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
> Guy on the forums recently picked up what was meant to be a std 2 door
> LC or J (I forget) and then discovered the guard flutes weren't add ons.
> Started doing a bit more checking and found himself with a very unloved
> gtr... I keep dreaming I'll find a bathurst special like that, but I
> think David Z has more chance of a gettingm a root he didn't have to pay
> for.
ROTFL... :)
I must admit that LC-LJ Torry's are quickly becoming the scarcest of older
cars to be seen on the roads these days, and it's a bit sad really.
Regards,
Noddy.
John McKenzie
original forum message to post the link to it :(
John McKenzie
> I must admit that LC-LJ Torry's are quickly becoming the scarcest of older
> cars to be seen on the roads these days, and it's a bit sad really.
The only place you see them in any number is at drag racing events. I
wonder what people are going to move to in the next 10 years. I can't
think of many cars of roughly 1980 vintage that would be as easy to fit
a big engine into, and also be light and also be easy enough to
strengthen chassis wise. They are also relatively short wheelbase - good
for digging the rears in. I think their popularity in drag racing is
because of this more than just some sort of particular fancy for the
torana shape or anything....
incidentally, and I haven't been looking for them, but I've been
noticing a fair few Xw and Y fords on the road lately. Do people only
bring them out when the weather picks up?
John McKenzie
http://pub69.ezboard.com/fholdentoranamessageboardsfrm14.showMessage?topicID=273.topic
the ratio was 4.444:1 . other posts I came across confirm that the
crownwheel and pinion from the small UC (and possibly other models with
the 6 cylinder) toranas salisbury are interchangeable. No word for sure
as to where the 4.444:1 comes from - but optional for 6cyl one tonner
has been suggested. anyone?
Noddy
"John McKenzie" <jm...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
> the ratio was 4.444:1 . other posts I came across confirm that the
> crownwheel and pinion from the small UC (and possibly other models with
> the 6 cylinder) toranas salisbury are interchangeable. No word for sure
> as to where the 4.444:1 comes from - but optional for 6cyl one tonner
> has been suggested. anyone?
I'm fairly sure the WB 6 cylinder tonner had some ridiculously high ratio
like that...
Regards,
Noddy.
John McKenzie
be institutionalised for responding to my own posts.
The guy in question has just got back from holidays and has cleared it
up a bit more. The 4.444 ratio is actually adapted from a hi-lux . It
now appears that the ultra rare banjo ratio is a 4.1:1 - the latest post
suggests that it was an option for LC/J/TA four cylinders - but the guy
has not actually come across one. I'd really like to find a 4.1 if for
no other reason than to say I had one...
If anyone can shed any light, or by some miracle has one of these (even
if it's just the crownwheel and pinion) and wants to sell it, please do
so.
Noddy
"John McKenzie" <jm...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
> incidentally, and I haven't been looking for them, but I've been
> noticing a fair few Xw and Y fords on the road lately. Do people only
> bring them out when the weather picks up?
Me too, and it's what prompted my thoughts on not seeing Torana's as much.
I really couldn't tell you the last time I saw an LC/LJ Torana in the flesh,
and it's something I find really strange...
Regards,
Noddy.
atec77(antispam)
and 5.45 pm along Beaudesert Rd every week day , driver is a cute 20 year old
female , and no the car is not for sale.
each morning I see a south bound 55 chev and a 66 with the flat rear deck both
daily drivers and the 55 sounds very sweet , it even has a working bug catcher.
John McKenzie
> According to the LC parts book, the 4.125 ratio, like all 4-cyl diffs,
> was a completely different diff
I thought so too. It seems that the 4.something gears can be had - but
no-one is certain where they are from. Noddy mentioned in another post
that the 6cylinder wb one tonner had a 4.something ratio - so that seems
to be the main suspect as of now (since posts here and on the torana
forums have both indicated that the smaller salisbury pinion and
crownheel are interchangeable
(sailsbury style), probably a vauxhall
> one to match the engine... The only possibility that I can think of is
> if the later 4-cyl models got a Holden banjo instead.
they were all 4 stud drivelines on the LC/J/TA models - and the diffs
were the same - it would have had to have been from a later 4 cylinder,
or is there any chance that the crownwheel and pinion from these early 4
cylinder diffs fit a banjo?
Considering the difficulty in even confirming the source for banjo (or
banjo adaptable) ratios, it's little wonder the ford 9 inch is so
fucking popular, let alone the strength difference. for fuck's sake bw78
ratios are easy to find from 2.77 through to 4.1 - i can name off the
top of my head where to find each and every gear set available....
athol
> athol wrote:
> Noddy mentioned in another post
> that the 6cylinder wb one tonner had a 4.something ratio - so that seems
> to be the main suspect as of now
I've never seen an original 1-tonner with anything but a salisbury. The
WB Supplement lists a different axle housing assembly to HZ, but it only
lists one housing for *all* WB 1-tonners, so I think it's safe to bet
that it is a V8 size salisbury... HX book lists only Salisbury housing
for 1-tonner (same housing as V8 ute/van).
> they were all 4 stud drivelines on the LC/J/TA models - and the diffs
> were the same - it would have had to have been from a later 4 cylinder,
> or is there any chance that the crownwheel and pinion from these early 4
> cylinder diffs fit a banjo?
LH on are all banjos or compatible (small salisbury), lowest ratio 3.90.
> Considering the difficulty in even confirming the source for banjo (or
> banjo adaptable) ratios, it's little wonder the ford 9 inch is so
> fucking popular, let alone the strength difference. for fuck's sake bw78
> ratios are easy to find from 2.77 through to 4.1 - i can name off the
> top of my head where to find each and every gear set available....
I can name where to find 2.47 gears for a Ford nine-inch, with a detroit
hemisphere, Volvo axle tubes... :-p
One really good thing about the 9-inch is that *all* ratios fit the same
hemisphere.
--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol>
Jules
> athol wrote:
>
> > According to the LC parts book, the 4.125 ratio, like all 4-cyl diffs,
> > was a completely different diff
>
> I thought so too. It seems that the 4.something gears can be had - but
> no-one is certain where they are from. Noddy mentioned in another post
> that the 6cylinder wb one tonner had a 4.something ratio - so that seems
> to be the main suspect as of now (since posts here and on the torana
> forums have both indicated that the smaller salisbury pinion and
> crownheel are interchangeable
>
> (sailsbury style), probably a vauxhall
> > one to match the engine... The only possibility that I can think of is
> > if the later 4-cyl models got a Holden banjo instead.
>
> they were all 4 stud drivelines on the LC/J/TA models - and the diffs
> were the same - it would have had to have been from a later 4 cylinder,
> or is there any chance that the crownwheel and pinion from these early 4
> cylinder diffs fit a banjo?
>
> Considering the difficulty in even confirming the source for banjo (or
> banjo adaptable) ratios, it's little wonder the ford 9 inch is so
> fucking popular, let alone the strength difference. for fuck's sake bw78
> ratios are easy to find from 2.77 through to 4.1 - i can name off the
> top of my head where to find each and every gear set available....
>
> --
> John McKenzie
I was under the impression that *all* one-tonners from HQ-WB had a 10 bolt
salisbury from the factory, even the 6cyl ones...
Cheers
Forg
...
> I really couldn't tell you the last time I saw
> an LC/LJ Torana in the flesh,
> and it's something I find really strange...
...
Considering that there were quite a few around
when I was at school, I agree; they were about
on-par with older Corollas at our school, in
numbers. But then they did tend to be driven by
the sort of person who needed to have a 6cyl car,
even if in reality it went no harder than a
Corolla or Gemini, so probably tended to get
mached more often ... did they rust more than
other cars?
--
--
Forg! -DUH#6=- (Y1)
"...
this crazy Forg surrounds me
..."
[Live - "When Dolphins Cry"]
Noddy
"Jules" <andreas...@dier.tas.gov.au> wrote in message
> I was under the impression that *all* one-tonners from HQ-WB had a 10 bolt
> salisbury from the factory, even the 6cyl ones...
Yeah, they did.
Sorry, but I thought that's what the topic was. I've only just realised John
meant a Banjo :)
I'll go and get pissed now :)
Regards,
Noddy.
Forg
...
> It's something that's got my attention over the last few days in that the
> more I look for one, the more I see just about every model of older Holden
> and Falcon *except* them.
>
> Weird...
...
Are you sure you're not seeing Premiers, Monaros &
Fairmonts? 'Cos when i think about it, the only
old Fords I see are upper-spec ones & GT replicas.
Considering that Toranas didn't really have an
"upper spec" model that was worth looking after,
apart from the relatively rare GTR & GTR-XU1,
maybe that's why you don't see many?
Do you see Cortinas though? I never see them any
more either; I probably see more Mk 1's & 2's than
all the TC to TF's put together.
Noddy
"Forg" <fo...@zip.com.au> wrote in message
news:3DD0EA27...@zip.com.au...
> Do you see Cortinas though? I never see them any
> more either; I probably see more Mk 1's & 2's than
> all the TC to TF's put together.
The odd one or two, but no great numbers of anything in particular.
It's kinda funny lately as I'm still not able to drive as well as I'd like
to, spending most of my time in the passenger's seat, and that gives me a
heap of time to observe things I normally miss from behind the wheel.
The amount of *crap* driving around is amazing... :)
Regards,
Noddy.
st3ph3nm
> Are you sure you're not seeing Premiers, Monaros &
> Fairmonts? 'Cos when i think about it, the only
> old Fords I see are upper-spec ones & GT replicas.
> Considering that Toranas didn't really have an
> "upper spec" model that was worth looking after,
> apart from the relatively rare GTR & GTR-XU1,
> maybe that's why you don't see many?
That's probably true. Except I see a fair few bog-stock Kingswoods
(of all varieties) come to our car-park at Autobarn. XB-XC's are
really rare, though - in any version (did have a Landau the other
week, though)
Having said that, we get more Torana GTR's (mostly replicas, of
course) than Kingswoods. But our car-park, admittedly, isn't a good
representation of what's on the road (or you'd see more R33 Skylines
than Hyundais driving around!). It's actually quite difficult to find
an LC-LJ in the Trading Post in the sort of condition and price that I
was hoping for, too. Most that are left are done up, with big stereos
and paint jobs, etc.
(I started semi-looking around for a project car to build a fake GTR
or XU-1 to enter in historic rallies.)
>
> Do you see Cortinas though? I never see them any
> more either; I probably see more Mk 1's & 2's than
> all the TC to TF's put together.
Not that that's a real loss 8^)
(sorry Dennis)
Cheers,
Steve
Sonny
"Noddy" <pon...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:aqqo3l$btkcn$1...@ID-132740.news.dfncis.de...
athol
> from memory, 1970ish toyota crown's had banjo's too?..
Yes, they had a banjo style diff. I have a 1967 one lying around...
The Toyota diff is different to a Holden banjo. What we were talking
about was the gear ratios available for Holden banjo diffs.
Sometimes it is possible to adapt crownwheel and pinion sets from one
diff type into another, but I don't think that the Toyota ones are
all that similar to Holden.
--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol>
John McKenzie
probably not correctly ordered in the thread.
Yes, the holden 1 tonners had salisburys, but apparently some or all of
them can be crownwheel and pinion donors. The original post on the
torana forums wasn't cleared up until recently....factory ratios
actually fitted to the toranas were from 2.78 through to 3.9 . It would
seem that one (lh-uc) model had a banjo (A9x? I homnestly forget)
available with a 2.6 option.
Dangerous
(ute, traytop etc). I have an A9X diff with a 4.44 LSD in it - could be fun
;)
Have never heard of a Holden Banjo ratio above 3.9:1
"Noddy" <pon...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:aqo6qg$boh1n$1...@ID-132740.news.dfncis.de...
John McKenzie
>
> 4.44:1 was an option for the WB series V8 Salisbury diff - commercial use
> (ute, traytop etc). I have an A9X diff with a 4.44 LSD in it - could be fun
> ;)
>
> Have never heard of a Holden Banjo ratio above 3.9:1
just to bust your nads a little more - what salisbury ratios are
availble between 3.55 - 4.44?