Rubbish HD radiator makes no difference at all.
HD clutch BS as well.
Air pressure and temp etc is controlled in both DIN and more so in ECE.
The fan makes bugger all difference the exhaust bends are all good as DIN picks up any loose and the person is now informed that something is different.

It's all about being informed as to what is truly what with DIN figures they maybe the same engine exactly but they don't perform the same and that's what people would want to know.

Your argument is like a simple wage earners position and votes ALP as he does not give a toss about reality or the facts and as such just puts what they want to hear up front.

If I were to run a business like that I would not know what the hell is truly going on.
I want to know truly what the hell is truly what at all times so I am truly in control of every thing in reality.
That's the difference between leadership and just following along with the flow.

Look at the XA-B gross figures for the 302 240HP they say !!! and a 308 is 240HP as well in Gross HP, so ok then should one believe that this is truly a fact, to you it is ? but hang about the 308 has a 4 barrel carby and the 302 has only a 2 barrel on it, something is up ? I have drags a lot of XA-B 302 V8's and driven them and they sure did not perform like a 308 did.
Now in the pub a dude will inform me that his 302 is just as powerful as my 308 because the Gross figures say so.

A XB 302 Net HP is 159HP at 4400RPM and 251LB at 2500RPM this is reality or a 2 barrel carby that they only have.

A XC 302 Net HP is 202HP at 4600RPM and 268LB at 3000RPM but this has a 4 barrel on it.

So just by this 2 barrel vs 4 barrel carby point we can see that we have a loss of at least 40HP regardless and it just goes to prove Gross is just rubbish.

It's like some fool that knows my business turns over 4 million a year, so that clown thinks I am filthy rich and doing so well, but in fact the reality is, it could be a shockingly bad performance.

The fan and the weight of the HD clutch as go bugger all to do with it.

7 blade fan on my HG 253 Premier with air con ? would be bugger all to a 4 blade or a HD 1 tonne clutch behind a 202 and with Gross HP no one would know or care and with net it would be nothing to bugger all.

The VC and WB DIN power figures are all the same, the only difference is the Statesman comes std with twin exhaust.

No one cares what a engine power is in Gross HP because it does not represent what power it makes in the car, it's totally useless.

The 5.0L VB commodore engine is just the same engine as the HZ it has a claimed 216HP Gross.

The VH and VK SS Group 3 has 184KW at 4700 and 418 NM at 3500 That = 247HP

The VK SS GROUP A has 196KW to 200KW at 5200 and 418NM at 3600 That = 263HP or 268HP DIN in my books but maybe 315HP in Gross HP.
I don't know why the discrepancy over the 196 KW but the two people I know who bought this blue VK from new had a big single exhaust on it and the engine was red and had a nice sounding cam at idle.

Brock did make a 5.6L Holden engine in the VL Calais Director with 310HP Gross at 4400 and 396LB at 3200 .

I have the info for the VH Group 1 2 and 3 some where.

I have never heard of the 308 you are on about in the VH.

The 308 in the VB had only 315 to 320HP when Brock HDT raced in 1980 with the small valve heads.

I do not believe that the 5.0L from HX had 9.7:1 as only the HJ got 9.7:1

So the Gross HP of the HX-Z is 216HP 161KW as it's stated.

My original HX Owner manual publication May 1976 says 9.7:1 so maybe the next publication says 9.4:1 so it may all have to do with a print mistake, as the engine was not announced as yet in May.
So we may just find this is a fact in the next publication owner book.

HX and HZ are 9.7:1. The only V8 rotating assembly change at HX release was the compression ratio on the 4.2L changed from 9.0:1 to 9.4:1. HZ then changed to 9.4:1 at VB release.

It is why i'm trying to find all the correct data, however I think a lot of HDT stuff is not the same as others.

Original GMH documentation for the VB 5.0 is (DIN):

114kW@4000rpm 344Nm2200rpm single.
125kW@4200rpm 352Nm@2600rpm dual.

XT5 5.0L:

117kW@4000rpm 336Nm2400rpm single.
126kW@4400rpm 361Nm@2800rpm dual.

These figures are straight from the VB Service manual and the Service Manual supplement for the XT5 improved performance engines.

There isn't much between them, it doesn't look like the red engine revs out quite as well as the blue engine which could be the manifold on the red engine, or it could be the aircleaner on them both beginning to restrict performance or it could just be the slightly better spark on the blue engine allowing slightly more revs before the power curve dips.

It is 344Nm not 244Nm. Service manuals appear to reflect the Features Manuals and Engineering Technical data for all other Series, so i'd trust it. You'd have to ask Dr Terry where he got the figures from. The VB Service manual is dated 1/79.

You've also displayed why DIN figures are a pain in the proverbial when comparing engines, as you don't know if it is internal or external influences on power and torque variations. A gross figure would show you which engine has the most potential given optimised externals.

Edited by user Sunday, 28 February 2016 4:32:29 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

As before, nope. The variation in DIN figures between Commodore series has too many extra external (to the engine) variables to make a meaningful comparison between the engines. As you found it makes you start to wonder what else is going on to affect peak power and torque that is not internal to the engine assembly. Items such as aircleaner and exhaust have a massive effect on the situation. Gross allows you to compare them directly - the figures quoted in Gross are not rubbish, they are a true peak figure read straight off the engine dyno curves when a GM1 test is applied. Such a test has no or minimal external influence on the engine to worry about. It is as simple as that and will always remain as simple as that!