Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Login


Take the time to read our Privacy Policy.

2 Pages12>
bazza30555 Offline
#1 Posted : Thursday, 1 March 2018 8:26:25 PM(UTC)
bazza30555

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/05/2007(UTC)
Posts: 228

Thanks: 2 times
VW Amarok ute laps Bathursts faster, how things have changed.
griffo Offline
#2 Posted : Thursday, 1 March 2018 8:48:13 PM(UTC)
griffo

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/05/2016(UTC)
Posts: 150
Australia
Location: SEQld

Thanks: 11 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
So what are you saying here?....So the speculation of the new Aussie draw card to Bathurst is going to be the Crew Cab race.Anxious

Ranger..vs Toyate hilux.. vs ..Navara.. vs Amarok.. ect ect....Now that we have no real race cars made here...here we go again alah Ford Sierra Nissan GTR days.

This has over tones of the law fraternity ...I have climbed to the top only top end up at the bottom...LMAOLaugh LOL
griffo Offline
#3 Posted : Thursday, 1 March 2018 8:59:19 PM(UTC)
griffo

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/05/2016(UTC)
Posts: 150
Australia
Location: SEQld

Thanks: 11 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
Well Ford have the Raptor yet to hit the MOUNTAIN!!

Apparently Engineered & developed by Ford here in Aussie...
HK1837 Offline
#4 Posted : Friday, 2 March 2018 5:54:03 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 12,517

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 130 time(s) in 128 post(s)
Originally Posted by: griffo Go to Quoted Post
Well Ford have the Raptor yet to hit the MOUNTAIN!!

Apparently Engineered & developed by Ford here in Aussie...


Yep, all 2.0L of it! I cannot believe how nancy the Australian vehicle market has gone where a Company makes a big song and dance about producing a mardi-gras float with a 2.0T TD engine and people will buy it. I just shake my head sometimes.....
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Dr Terry Offline
#5 Posted : Friday, 2 March 2018 6:51:34 AM(UTC)
Dr Terry

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 5,399

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 65 time(s) in 62 post(s)
Getting back to Bathurst lap times, things sure have changed since the days of the GTS327.

AFAIK Bruce McPhee's HK was the first Series Production car to break the 3.00 barrier, but the times quickly tumbled in the next few years.

1969 Geoghegan's GTHO qualified with a 2.48, while the best times during the race were the Moffat/Hamilton & Gibson/Seton GTHOs with 2.52.

1970 was a fraction slower with Moffat's 2.49 qualifier.

1971 saw Moff do a 2.38 qualifier & Bob Morris did 2.40 during the race.

1972 had Moffat qualifying in 2.35 & racing in 2.36. PB qualified with a 2.38 & won the race !! This was the last year of Series Prod rules.

1973, the first Group C year didn't see the huge improvement expected. Moff qualified & raced at 2.34.

By 1979 PB had his A9X qualify at 2.20 & race at 2.21, on the last lap IIRC.

These are are all on the shorter track before the Chase was added. It seems to add about 4 seconds. I think the biggest improvement has been with tyres, not so much engines.

I'll have to say that I'm not a fan of the new 'racing trucks' with smaller engines & a high centre of gravity, they won't be quite the same as the Holden/Ford V8 utes.

Dr Terry
If at first you don't succeed, just call it Version 1.0
Warren Turnbull Offline
#6 Posted : Friday, 2 March 2018 7:23:59 AM(UTC)
Warren Turnbull

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered, Veteran
Joined: 10/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 2,212

Was thanked: 9 time(s) in 9 post(s)
Also suspension and brakes would give advantage today.

I believe the 1991 XR6 is almost as quick around the mountain as the XY GTHO.

Warren
griffo Offline
#7 Posted : Friday, 2 March 2018 7:34:26 AM(UTC)
griffo

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/05/2016(UTC)
Posts: 150
Australia
Location: SEQld

Thanks: 11 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: griffo Go to Quoted Post
Well Ford have the Raptor yet to hit the MOUNTAIN!!

Apparently Engineered & developed by Ford here in Aussie...


Yep, all 2.0L of it! I cannot believe how nancy the Australian vehicle market has gone where a Company makes a big song and dance about producing a mardi-gras float with a 2.0T TD engine and people will buy it. I just shake my head sometimes.....



I laughed when i read it too....Apparently the twin Turbo 2.0 litre outperforms or equals their 3.2 5 cylinder,weighs less and uses less fuel with a 10 speed gearbox.
More responsive down low. The 3.2's are 147kW 470Nm.

Not sure if we (Aussie)get the 3.5-liter twin-turbo EcoBoost V-6 would make 450 horsepower and 510 lb-ft of torque/336kW of power and 690Nm of torque.

Estimated value over $80,000.

I own a current Ranger and am toying with putting chip in it...The 3.0 Navara I chipped and it made it dangerous.

HK1837 Offline
#8 Posted : Friday, 2 March 2018 9:15:16 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 12,517

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 130 time(s) in 128 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Dr Terry Go to Quoted Post
Getting back to Bathurst lap times, things sure have changed since the days of the GTS327.

AFAIK Bruce McPhee's HK was the first Series Production car to break the 3.00 barrier, but the times quickly tumbled in the next few years.

1969 Geoghegan's GTHO qualified with a 2.48, while the best times during the race were the Moffat/Hamilton & Gibson/Seton GTHOs with 2.52.

1970 was a fraction slower with Moffat's 2.49 qualifier.

1971 saw Moff do a 2.38 qualifier & Bob Morris did 2.40 during the race.

1972 had Moffat qualifying in 2.35 & racing in 2.36. PB qualified with a 2.38 & won the race !! This was the last year of Series Prod rules.

1973, the first Group C year didn't see the huge improvement expected. Moff qualified & raced at 2.34.

By 1979 PB had his A9X qualify at 2.20 & race at 2.21, on the last lap IIRC.

These are are all on the shorter track before the Chase was added. It seems to add about 4 seconds. I think the biggest improvement has been with tyres, not so much engines.

I'll have to say that I'm not a fan of the new 'racing trucks' with smaller engines & a high centre of gravity, they won't be quite the same as the Holden/Ford V8 utes.

Dr Terry


Des West did 2.56.9 in early qualifying for Bathurst 1968, and Nick Petrilli was similar. Both were exceeding 130mph on Conrod. Bruce McPhee qualified late with 2.56.7, must have been a screamer of a lap as Bruce did not have the race pace of the West and Petrilli cars as he had a 3.08 rear axle, where the other two had 3.36. During the race it was clear the 3.36 rear axle was the one to have as West and Brown (23D) pulled away from the rest. The other car on the front row was 23D that also qualified with a sub 3 minute of lap of 2.59.3. The Geoghegan GT on the second row managed 2.59.8. West starting lapping other cars by the end of the 6th lap when he overtook 19D which had problems. There was no other car in sight from Murray's at the end of lap 6 than a GTS327:
http://autopics.com.au/6...otographer-ray-simpson/

The fastest official lap in 1968 by McPhee of 2.58 was not the actual fastest. It was Des West's but all his times were erased from the record in the cover up. I have seen copies of the original time sheets.
All the Holdens ran road tyres in 1968.

In early qualifying Geoghegan pulled off a 2.51.6 on racing rubber, remembering the track was fully resurfaced after the 1968 race. Digby Cooke then did a 2.50.2 on racing rubber. Quickest cars on XAS were Bond with 2.54 and McPhee's GT with 2.55.4. Final qualifying times saw Geoghegan on 2.48.9 (GT race rubber), Cooke (HT race rubber), McPhee 2.51.1 (GT XAS), Bond 2.53.8 (HT XAS). Even 64D (Tuckey, Petralia HT) on row 5 with a time of 2.56.2 on Firestone racing rubber was faster than the 1968 pole. The only showroom stock car in that class in 1969 (49D HT of Sheldon/Holland running the stock GTS350 tyres) did 2.56.5 and qualified on the 6th row of the grid, also faster than the 1968 pole. The fastest officially recorded lap was Geoghegan's 2.52.1, although unofficial records show Brock doing a faster lap.

The 1970 race times show you that the BS hype about the PhaseII being superior to the original GT-HO is just that. The 1969 qualifying times, fastest race lap times and the total race time in 1970 were slower than 1969, despite the 1969 race being stopped for a period before the first lap was completed by the field to clear up Bill Brown's crash. I still believe that if HDT had kept the GTS350 for 1970 rather than switching to the XU1 that a HG may well have won the 1970 race. As it was Don Holland's XU1 in 3rd place was on the same lap as the two ailing XW's that filled the first two places and was rapidly catching them. Magazine articles from reporters who were there state that another few laps and the XU1 would have won. The official record of Holland being a lap down is wrong.

You cannot beat modern technology in engines, brakes, suspension and track surface! Not surprised many modern road cars are quicker than 1960's race cars. I bet not many are quicker than the 1968-72 Group C cars at Bathurst though!

After 1970 I don't think much year to year comparisons can be made as the tyres used were stating to really show up in lap times.



_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Dr Terry Offline
#9 Posted : Friday, 2 March 2018 9:16:31 AM(UTC)
Dr Terry

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 5,399

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 65 time(s) in 62 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Warren Turnbull Go to Quoted Post
Also suspension and brakes would give advantage today.

I believe the 1991 XR6 is almost as quick around the mountain as the XY GTHO.

Warren


I was just looking at some old HQ Racing series times from the 90s & they were doing 2.50 back then.

202 ci, control pistons, cam & head, single barrel Stromberg & a 3-speed manual trans. Not bad.

They did however have lowered suspension & 7-inch rims & tyres.

Dr Terry
If at first you don't succeed, just call it Version 1.0
Dr Terry Offline
#10 Posted : Friday, 2 March 2018 9:26:39 AM(UTC)
Dr Terry

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 5,399

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 65 time(s) in 62 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post

The 1970 race times show you that the BS hype about the PhaseII being superior to the original GT-HO is just that. The 1969 qualifying times, fastest race lap times and the total race time in 1970 were slower than 1969, despite the 1969 race being stopped for a period before the first lap was completed by the field to clear up Bill Brown's crash.


I wasn't aware that the race 1969 race was actually stopped due to the first lap crash. I was always of the belief that they just continued on but observed the flags waved & slowed down in that section of the rack.

Dr Terry

Edited by user Friday, 2 March 2018 9:34:19 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

If at first you don't succeed, just call it Version 1.0
HK1837 Offline
#11 Posted : Friday, 2 March 2018 9:27:10 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 12,517

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 130 time(s) in 128 post(s)
Originally Posted by: griffo Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: griffo Go to Quoted Post
Well Ford have the Raptor yet to hit the MOUNTAIN!!

Apparently Engineered & developed by Ford here in Aussie...


Yep, all 2.0L of it! I cannot believe how nancy the Australian vehicle market has gone where a Company makes a big song and dance about producing a mardi-gras float with a 2.0T TD engine and people will buy it. I just shake my head sometimes.....



I laughed when i read it too....Apparently the twin Turbo 2.0 litre outperforms or equals their 3.2 5 cylinder,weighs less and uses less fuel with a 10 speed gearbox.
More responsive down low. The 3.2's are 147kW 470Nm.

Not sure if we (Aussie)get the 3.5-liter twin-turbo EcoBoost V-6 would make 450 horsepower and 510 lb-ft of torque/336kW of power and 690Nm of torque.

Estimated value over $80,000.

I own a current Ranger and am toying with putting chip in it...The 3.0 Navara I chipped and it made it dangerous.



My 4.0L Hilux has around 330hp/250kW (flywheel) and 440lb-ft/600nm (at back wheels) and probably is the minimum you'd want in one of these for NSW country roads towing. Bit more boost (only has 6.5psi) and lift the rev limit and it'd push 300kW. Is a breeze for everyday driving and makes it easy to lug around 2tonnes on the highway, effortless and safe overtaking (to get around the mobile road block diesel dual cabs towing vans that can't manage much more 80km/h up hills like those between Scone and Tamworth). So i'd love it if they put that 3.5L supercharged V6 in the Ranger but my guess is they won't, they want to keep force feeding us baby diesel junk. Nissan have announced in the last few weeks that they are going to bring the Titan here, it at least comes with a 5.0L V8 diesel and hopefully the Patrol's 5.6L V8 petrol too!
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
HK1837 Offline
#12 Posted : Friday, 2 March 2018 9:33:59 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 12,517

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 130 time(s) in 128 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Dr Terry Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post

The 1970 race times show you that the BS hype about the PhaseII being superior to the original GT-HO is just that. The 1969 qualifying times, fastest race lap times and the total race time in 1970 were slower than 1969, despite the 1969 race being stopped for a period before the first lap was completed by the field to clear up Bill Brown's crash.


I wasn't aware that the race 1969 race was actually stopped due to the first lap crash. I was always of the belief that they just continued on but observed the flags waved in that section of the rack.

Dr Terry


You are probably right that there was probably not much time that cars were actually stooped dead, but every lap whilst the (from memory) 15 cars were untangled and sorted out was an increase in lap time by a lot of time. The point is 1969 total race time had this included, 1970 total time was slower despite this.

Edited by user Friday, 2 March 2018 9:38:08 AM(UTC)  | Reason: spelling

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Dr Terry Offline
#13 Posted : Friday, 2 March 2018 9:46:39 AM(UTC)
Dr Terry

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 5,399

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 65 time(s) in 62 post(s)
Yeah, spot on. The 1969 Bathurst was more of a real 'race'.

Dr Terry
If at first you don't succeed, just call it Version 1.0
abi Offline
#14 Posted : Friday, 2 March 2018 10:35:16 AM(UTC)
abi

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/07/2010(UTC)
Posts: 53

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
I think Holden should have done a 200 car run of L46 powered HG's for the 70 race. M20 Muncie and 12 Bolt to stay within GM Engineering guidlines. The front rotor mass or heat sink as well as the pad area would have still been an issue though.
ABI
Dr Terry Offline
#15 Posted : Friday, 2 March 2018 10:42:29 AM(UTC)
Dr Terry

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 5,399

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 65 time(s) in 62 post(s)
Originally Posted by: abi Go to Quoted Post
I think Holden should have done a 200 car run of L46 powered HG's for the 70 race. M20 Muncie and 12 Bolt to stay within GM Engineering guidlines. The front rotor mass or heat sink as well as the pad area would have still been an issue though.
ABI


You would have thought, with the vented front rotors becoming the norm for HQ in 1971, it wouldn't have been too difficult for them to do a small run for the HG GTS350.

Guys have been fitting them for years as a quick cheap brake upgrade, they are virtually a bolt-on mod. Fords had the vented rotors since the XW in 1969.

Dr Terry
If at first you don't succeed, just call it Version 1.0
griffo Offline
#16 Posted : Friday, 2 March 2018 10:48:55 AM(UTC)
griffo

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/05/2016(UTC)
Posts: 150
Australia
Location: SEQld

Thanks: 11 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: griffo Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: griffo Go to Quoted Post
Well Ford have the Raptor yet to hit the MOUNTAIN!!

Apparently Engineered & developed by Ford here in Aussie...


Yep, all 2.0L of it! I cannot believe how nancy the Australian vehicle market has gone where a Company makes a big song and dance about producing a mardi-gras float with a 2.0T TD engine and people will buy it. I just shake my head sometimes.....



I laughed when i read it too....Apparently the twin Turbo 2.0 litre outperforms or equals their 3.2 5 cylinder,weighs less and uses less fuel with a 10 speed gearbox.
More responsive down low. The 3.2's are 147kW 470Nm.

Not sure if we (Aussie)get the 3.5-liter twin-turbo EcoBoost V-6 would make 450 horsepower and 510 lb-ft of torque/336kW of power and 690Nm of torque.

Estimated value over $80,000.

I own a current Ranger and am toying with putting chip in it...The 3.0 Navara I chipped and it made it dangerous.



My 4.0L Hilux has around 330hp/250kW (flywheel) and 440lb-ft/600nm (at back wheels) and probably is the minimum you'd want in one of these for NSW country roads towing. Bit more boost (only has 6.5psi) and lift the rev limit and it'd push 300kW. Is a breeze for everyday driving and makes it easy to lug around 2tonnes on the highway, effortless and safe overtaking (to get around the mobile road block diesel dual cabs towing vans that can't manage much more 80km/h up hills like those between Scone and Tamworth). So i'd love it if they put that 3.5L supercharged V6 in the Ranger but my guess is they won't, they want to keep force feeding us baby diesel junk. Nissan have announced in the last few weeks that they are going to bring the Titan here, it at least comes with a 5.0L V8 diesel and hopefully the Patrol's 5.6L V8 petrol too!



Agreed HK....I think some of these old boys are ex Biro Pilots that retire , grab the cheap 4x4 and van and are shite scared of putting their foot in it for the fear of using fuel and lack of ability....We won't get the V6 ....its all about fuel saving here...Yet I did see yesterday two Toyota Tundra's outside Toyota in Beauie...Now thats what I am on next...Dancing One was red...It looked magnificent.
Ok....so the Patrol is for a come back....My son inlaw have them in the Force and they DYMO'd "SLUG" on the dash.Good it needs a V8...bloody 4's were useless in them.
abi Offline
#17 Posted : Friday, 2 March 2018 11:15:48 AM(UTC)
abi

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/07/2010(UTC)
Posts: 53

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
You would have thought, with the vented front rotors becoming the norm for HQ in 1971, it wouldn't have been too difficult for them to do a small run for the HG GTS350.

Guys have been fitting them for years as a quick cheap brake upgrade, they are virtually a bolt-on mod. Fords had the vented rotors since the XW in 1969.

Dr Terry


I have often thought Holden could have debut the vented rotor assy on the HG but I suspect it would not have been ready for sign off around July or August 1970 with HQ 1.5 years away. The US General Motors 1in x 11inch front brake arrangement would have been available though. 4 piston fixed calipers for 67 and 68 and sliding single piston caliper for the 69 model year.
ABI

Edited by user Friday, 2 March 2018 11:17:02 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

HK1837 Offline
#18 Posted : Friday, 2 March 2018 11:16:37 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 12,517

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 130 time(s) in 128 post(s)
Originally Posted by: abi Go to Quoted Post
I think Holden should have done a 200 car run of L46 powered HG's for the 70 race. M20 Muncie and 12 Bolt to stay within GM Engineering guidlines. The front rotor mass or heat sink as well as the pad area would have still been an issue though.
ABI


This is sort of what Old Man Emu was, a HT GTS350 with 1970 LT1 (370hp with Corvette exhaust manifolds, 360hp with Camaro) engine with M22 Muncie and 12-bolt rear axle. It was to have oil cooled brakes but after a failure at Lang Lang they were consigned to the Hurricane and thus history. The L46 was still 350hp (with Corvette exhaust manifolds) and heavier due to the cast iron intake. The L46 had a weird electronic dizzy with no vacuum advance, I just picked up a 1969 L46 dizzy for the 350 in my HK GTS the other day - no vacuum advance port on it! L46 also had hydraulic cam, LT1 used the old Duntov solid cam from the earlier 60's hipo 327's.

Harry developed a lightweight HG version with GMH for Bathurst 1971 after the Torana failed to win in 1970. There was at least one of these, possibly two of them. This car was 308, HK-HT 6cyl Saginaw (wide ratio with 2.85:1 1st) and 2.55:1 10-bolt plus factory 7" and 8" rims. Harry always talked about a 3spd Saginaw version as well. The surviving car is Silver Mist metallic with black trim and still sports its GMH Engineering tag. It is most likely this is the development car for Harry's L34 engine mods.

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
HK1837 Offline
#19 Posted : Friday, 2 March 2018 11:29:30 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 12,517

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 130 time(s) in 128 post(s)
Originally Posted by: abi Go to Quoted Post
You would have thought, with the vented front rotors becoming the norm for HQ in 1971, it wouldn't have been too difficult for them to do a small run for the HG GTS350.

Guys have been fitting them for years as a quick cheap brake upgrade, they are virtually a bolt-on mod. Fords had the vented rotors since the XW in 1969.

Dr Terry


I have often thought Holden could have debut the vented rotor assy on the HG but I suspect it would not have been ready for sign off around July or August 1970 with HQ 1.5 years away. The US General Motors 1in x 11inch front brake arrangement would have been available though. 4 piston fixed calipers for 67 and 68 and sliding single piston caliper for the 69 model year.
ABI


You have to remember that HG was a very quick facelift of HT as the original HQ (a facelifted HT) that was to replace the HT around 1970 was canned very late in the piece and they didn't want the HT running into 1971. GMH weren't given the HQ design that we got from North America until around late 1968 into 1969, and it wasn't that far from completion (or there is no way it would have been ready when it was). So by the time they got the HQ to complete the HG would have been all but locked in bar the shouting.

As far as I'm aware some CKD HK-HG run 4.75" PCD wheels, they must have made some Chevrolet wheels locally (where assembled) for use on then to increase local content. Some of the rotors have turned up over the years that are HK-HG but with 4.75" PCD. We think this is what was on the 1969 Woelders HT, Harry told Bondy the wheels wouldn't fit his car but this never made sense until we found the 4.75" PCD HT/G rotors.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
abi Offline
#20 Posted : Friday, 2 March 2018 11:34:23 AM(UTC)
abi

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/07/2010(UTC)
Posts: 53

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
I'm not sure the 308 3 speed would have hit the performance goals needed for success in production car racing in a Monaro body, LC Torana yes but not HG. Really the 308 needed to be factory stroked to say 340CI to 360CI and the cyninder heads revised to include a 2.00in intake valve and 1.6 ex valve plus valve timing revisions so peak power arrived at 4800 to 5100RPM with the stroker.
I think the 3 speed would have been too wide between gears for a 5.0L in a HG Monaro body, even with the HT only 2.5 1st gear ratio.

Harry Firth was a Wonder for GM and did a lot for the brand over the decade or so but this exercise would have been difficult I feel.

The LT1 would have been great but as we know GM takes small steps so the hydraulic lifter Qjet fed L46 would have been seamless for dealership servicing and warranty pleasing.

ABI
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF | YAF © 2003-2018, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.735 seconds.