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

Notification

Icon
Error

Login


Take the time to read our Privacy Policy.

castellan Offline
#1 Posted : Sunday, 25 July 2021 4:57:25 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,554

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 26 time(s) in 24 post(s)
I am just looking at this lot contending, forget about the XU-1 that's a side dish.

Just when did the LC GTR come on the market Jun 1970 ?
The Ford GT V6 Capri we got was 25/2/1970 on the market.

So the GT V6 Capri contended with the LC GTR 161S 4sp and then in July 1971 the big 173s and Aussie M20 both running the 3.08 diff and 13in wheels and then when the LJ Torana came out it was dealing with a Stock big 202 6 cyl with 3.08 diff.

Looks to me that the price of the Capri is much higher than the Torana's ?
If I am correct the GT V6 4sp is as of Jun 1970 $3230
If I am correct the GTR as of Jun 1970 was $2766 but maybe tax is not added to the Holden figures ? and Ford is ?

I do not like the ford V6 I think it was a chaff cutter but it had a 2bbl carby and being a V6 could help it handle better.

I remember a mates mum down the road had a GT V6 Capri 4sp with option driving lights and sports wheels and steering wheel and radio from new. so such things were optional as well and it was Red and black.

The GT V6 Capri must of been a much better car than the Torana GTR ? what do you think ?

The last production of the Capri was 11/1972 and the 1972 got high bucket seats.

A GT V6 Capri would hose off any GTR ? maybe the LJ 202 Pray Anxious Eh? Shhh .
HK1837 Offline
#2 Posted : Sunday, 25 July 2021 5:24:15 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,861

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 313 time(s) in 302 post(s)
LC GTR was released to the Press at the same time as other LC at a Press Convention over 24-26 October 1969. You could buy one starting 31/10/69. Dr Terry has the LC GTS at release at $2778.

The LC GTR was probably the only LC outside of XU1 that could exceed 100mph. The road tests of the day had it with top speeds of 105-107mph. 1/4 mile times vary between 17.2-17.9s.

I have no idea what a Capri was like, but $500 was a lot of money in 1969-70. LC-LJ aren't nice to sit in with your feet off one way and the steering wheel off the other way, and even though the 2600S had afar nicer cam and intake/exhaust than the stock 2600, it would still be a slug just like a 186S in a HK-HG was compared to a V8 model. The later 2850S with aussie 4spd would have to have been a better car. Most people in the day simply threw the little engines away and fitted a 186 or 202 with the S intake/exhaust setup and aftermarket cam, just like we all threw away 253's and replaced with 308 or 327/350.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
 1 user thanked HK1837 for this useful post.
Smitty2 on 26/07/2021(UTC)
castellan Offline
#3 Posted : Monday, 26 July 2021 1:40:27 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,554

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 26 time(s) in 24 post(s)
As to the 161S and the big 173S stock back in the day the 4sp ratios are different and the 173 has to contend with the big Aussie box ? for a start, then the 173 maybe a little harsher when revving it out and not just as sweet as the 161 ? that being said now for the big 202 GTR well I am sure it would flog both the 161S and 173S easy as with all that torque, I am sure it would be a good goer in stock form for most people and overall better to drive car, It would kill a 202 HQ and HK-T-G GTS186S Monaro.

I did not mind the HG Premier 253 I had auto and 2.78 diff with Air, it was a good overall car performance was fine and good highway car, the LC-J Torana can not make such a claim as that but was a good runabout to flog about and go to the next town like, most people could not handle a HT-G GTS308 back in the days really remember the tyres were total shit back in the day, so you could easy get into trouble hooking in.

I was just thinking that such little shit boxes were not all that bad in the day with such rubbish tyres maybe they had a place of worth. as it's not all about max power that people are chasing, I thought the 253 was clearly the car for the masses over all if they knew better and the 308 was for real men pre ADR27A.

I am just thinking that the V6 GT Capri was not a bad little run about car. with a 3.22 diff and 13in wheels that's about 3.5 ratio with 14in wheels so not really a highway car as say 3000rpm at 100KM/H they claim 195KM/H is flat out ? well I am not convinced of that because it would be revving at about 5800rpm and max HP is only at 4750rpm is about 160KM/H.

Just as the Falcon norm was the 250 6 cyl and the Valiant was the 245 norm, well sadly the 202 was the norm in the Holden's ok on manual sort of but with an automatic they were just a shit cart to drive really. but how about a V6 GT Capri auto ? one could live with that ? and not say it's just a gutless shit box. I am sure it would flog a falcon 250 6cyl and maybe even give a 302 a go ?
HK1837 Offline
#4 Posted : Monday, 26 July 2021 2:35:01 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,861

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 313 time(s) in 302 post(s)
Remember an LJ 3300 is a stock 202 regardless of what LJ it was in. It was 202ci but it had the old 161 camshaft in it, just like a stock HQ 202. Road tests of the day on a 3300 4spd manual SL saw 0-60mph of 15.2sec, 1/4 mile of 17.6s and a top speed of 101mph. This would be with a 3.08 rear axle like the GTR. I think the 15.2s 0-100mph is a typo, should be 12.5s as a stock 2850 4spd LJ SL sedan would do 13.5s with the same camshaft and rear axle as the 3300.

An LC GTR with 2600S tested (across 5 different road tests of 4 different cars) as 0-60mph of 11s, 11.4s and 11.7s adn 1/4 mile of 17.2, 17.5, 17.8 and 17.9s. Top speeds 105, 106 and 107mph. Same 3.08 rear axle ratio. So you can see the extra torque of the 202 over the quarter as it is close but it runs out of breath with the 2600S exceeding its top speed by a considerable margin. The 2850S would rev better than the 2600S as it had the same stroke, just a bigger bore with the same induction and camshaft.

The 2600S was rated at [email protected], [email protected]
The 2850S was rated at [email protected], [email protected]
The 3300H was rated at [email protected], [email protected]

The above are all advertised hp so they are comparable.

The only HK-HG 186S road test I have is for a HK. 0-60mph in 11.5s, 1/4mile of 18.3 and top speed of 101mph. These were a 3.36 rear axle which is reasonably close to 3.08 with 13" tyres.

I found a road test for a HQ 202 4spd Monaro. It did 0-60mph in 13.4s, 1/4 mile in 19.2s and 0-100mph NEVER (top speed 94mph). Rear axle would be 3.55.

The cars quoted above that exceed 100mph are pretty much the only Holden 6 powered cars that ever did outside of XU1 until around 1980. Although I do have a road test for a 2850 auto LJ SL that just got to 100mph however it had a 2.78 rear axle. If that car could just reach 100mph then an LC 2850auto would do the same. The 2850 manual cars could only get to 97mph courtesy of the 3.08 rear axle.

The ratios are slightly different between the M20 boxes across LC:

3.43 - 2.16 - 1.37 - 1 for the imported box from the Phillipines.
3.05 - 2.19 - 1.51 - 1 for the local 4spd box.

That wouldn't make a huge difference in 0-60mph and top speed times though.

Edited by user Monday, 26 July 2021 2:40:06 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Smitty2 Offline
#5 Posted : Monday, 26 July 2021 8:37:57 PM(UTC)
Smitty2

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/07/2019(UTC)
Posts: 192
Australia
Location: bayside Melbourne

Thanks: 123 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 11 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
LC GTR was released to the Press at the same time as other LC at a Press Convention over 24-26 October 1969. You could buy one starting 31/10/69. Dr Terry has the LC GTS at release at $2778.

The LC GTR was probably the only LC outside of XU1 that could exceed 100mph. The road tests of the day had it with top speeds of 105-107mph. 1/4 mile times vary between 17.2-17.9s.

I have no idea what a Capri was like, but $500 was a lot of money in 1969-70. LC-LJ aren't nice to sit in with your feet off one way and the steering wheel off the other way, and even though the 2600S had afar nicer cam and intake/exhaust than the stock 2600, it would still be a slug just like a 186S in a HK-HG was compared to a V8 model. The later 2850S with aussie 4spd would have to have been a better car. Most people in the day simply threw the little engines away and fitted a 186 or 202 with the S intake/exhaust setup and aftermarket cam, just like we all threw away 253's and replaced with 308 or 327/350.


I bought my then missus a M20 4 speed 2850S 4 door... that in its day was a nice gigger Applause

Personally I did not mind the weird sit in the C/J Torries.. just stick ya elbow out the window. All comfy then

That Torrie was quicker than my neighbours 2600S LC GTR , maybe a bit more grunt?
box ratios? with a single spinner diff, it would torch seriously a rear wheel Dancing

I bought one for myself... but one that had an engine bay/under dash wiring fire. $50 and
the resources of GMP&A (was working at the Bend).. where could I go wrong?
(that is another story for another time, the result was quicker than any Ford every built)

Edited by user Monday, 26 July 2021 8:38:34 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Club circuit racing...the best fun you can have with your pants on
castellan Offline
#6 Posted : Tuesday, 27 July 2021 2:43:46 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,554

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 26 time(s) in 24 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Smitty2 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
LC GTR was released to the Press at the same time as other LC at a Press Convention over 24-26 October 1969. You could buy one starting 31/10/69. Dr Terry has the LC GTS at release at $2778.

The LC GTR was probably the only LC outside of XU1 that could exceed 100mph. The road tests of the day had it with top speeds of 105-107mph. 1/4 mile times vary between 17.2-17.9s.

I have no idea what a Capri was like, but $500 was a lot of money in 1969-70. LC-LJ aren't nice to sit in with your feet off one way and the steering wheel off the other way, and even though the 2600S had afar nicer cam and intake/exhaust than the stock 2600, it would still be a slug just like a 186S in a HK-HG was compared to a V8 model. The later 2850S with aussie 4spd would have to have been a better car. Most people in the day simply threw the little engines away and fitted a 186 or 202 with the S intake/exhaust setup and aftermarket cam, just like we all threw away 253's and replaced with 308 or 327/350.


I bought my then missus a M20 4 speed 2850S 4 door... that in its day was a nice gigger Applause

Personally I did not mind the weird sit in the C/J Torries.. just stick ya elbow out the window. All comfy then

That Torrie was quicker than my neighbours 2600S LC GTR , maybe a bit more grunt?
box ratios? with a single spinner diff, it would torch seriously a rear wheel Dancing

I bought one for myself... but one that had an engine bay/under dash wiring fire. $50 and
the resources of GMP&A (was working at the Bend).. where could I go wrong?
(that is another story for another time, the result was quicker than any Ford every built)

I Remember a mate up the road making claims of some dude spinning the wheel all the way up our street in a XU-1 or such, but a mate around the corner had a VF SSV ute with 375KW that up it going by and old Ray was not impressed, but I said get in it with him and you will shit yourself. f that fly's !
castellan Offline
#7 Posted : Tuesday, 27 July 2021 5:09:44 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,554

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 26 time(s) in 24 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Remember an LJ 3300 is a stock 202 regardless of what LJ it was in. It was 202ci but it had the old 161 camshaft in it, just like a stock HQ 202. Road tests of the day on a 3300 4spd manual SL saw 0-60mph of 15.2sec, 1/4 mile of 17.6s and a top speed of 101mph. This would be with a 3.08 rear axle like the GTR. I think the 15.2s 0-100mph is a typo, should be 12.5s as a stock 2850 4spd LJ SL sedan would do 13.5s with the same camshaft and rear axle as the 3300.

An LC GTR with 2600S tested (across 5 different road tests of 4 different cars) as 0-60mph of 11s, 11.4s and 11.7s adn 1/4 mile of 17.2, 17.5, 17.8 and 17.9s. Top speeds 105, 106 and 107mph. Same 3.08 rear axle ratio. So you can see the extra torque of the 202 over the quarter as it is close but it runs out of breath with the 2600S exceeding its top speed by a considerable margin. The 2850S would rev better than the 2600S as it had the same stroke, just a bigger bore with the same induction and camshaft.

The 2600S was rated at [email protected], [email protected]
The 2850S was rated at [email protected], [email protected]
The 3300H was rated at [email protected], [email protected]

The above are all advertised hp so they are comparable.

The only HK-HG 186S road test I have is for a HK. 0-60mph in 11.5s, 1/4mile of 18.3 and top speed of 101mph. These were a 3.36 rear axle which is reasonably close to 3.08 with 13" tyres.

I found a road test for a HQ 202 4spd Monaro. It did 0-60mph in 13.4s, 1/4 mile in 19.2s and 0-100mph NEVER (top speed 94mph). Rear axle would be 3.55.

The cars quoted above that exceed 100mph are pretty much the only Holden 6 powered cars that ever did outside of XU1 until around 1980. Although I do have a road test for a 2850 auto LJ SL that just got to 100mph however it had a 2.78 rear axle. If that car could just reach 100mph then an LC 2850auto would do the same. The 2850 manual cars could only get to 97mph courtesy of the 3.08 rear axle.

The ratios are slightly different between the M20 boxes across LC:

3.43 - 2.16 - 1.37 - 1 for the imported box from the Phillipines.
3.05 - 2.19 - 1.51 - 1 for the local 4spd box.

That wouldn't make a huge difference in 0-60mph and top speed times though.


I would think that the 161s would rev sweeter than a 173s by rights.
My elder brother had a HQ 173 and then got a 161 HR, he would try and blow up that 173 revving it out all the way to valve bounce and holding it their in 1st or 2ed and could not blow it up. the 161 had twin carby's and he would flog that as well and it was sweeter revving for sure.
I am surer some red six engines are better balanced than others of the same size as well and that is easy to see by just looking at the conrods as the weights are totally shitful that such is it's a blight. but having said that the fact is that a fully balanced 202 is harsher than a 186 when being revved out to 7000RPM and for sure the 173 would be smother and the 161 a bit smoother again.

As for the early 6cyl LC 4sp box ratios I have a calculated performance figures place to go to that give such results.
LC GTR 161s 173s XU-1 XU-1 XU-1 Bathurst LJ GTR
0-40MPH 5.1sec 5.2 3.9 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.7
50 7 7.1 5.3 5.7 6 5.6 6.8
60 10.1 10.0 7.5 8.0 7.9 7.6 9.2
70 13.6 13.2 9.9 10.5 10.6 9.8 12.4
80 18.2 18.5 13.1 14.2 13.8 12.9 17.2
90 26.6 25.1 18.0 18.6 18.4 16.9 23.6
100 25.4 26.6 26.1 22.5
Opel M20 Opel M20 M21 M20 M20
1/4 17.5 17.5 15.8 17.1
1st 34 39 34 38 46 52 35 MPH to redline for such a engine type ?
2ed 55 54 54 53 63 73 50 MPH
3rd 86 78 85 77 93 106 72 MPH
Diff 3.08 3.08 3.36 3.36 3.36 3.36 3.08 Ratio

Look at how well the XU-1 Opel box goes against the M20 XU-1 not bad for an Opel box.
Then look at the M20 VS M21
The Bathurst XU-1 186 has more powerful engine.
castellan Offline
#8 Posted : Tuesday, 27 July 2021 5:13:19 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,554

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 26 time(s) in 24 post(s)
Oh the bastard has gone and f ed up how I put it forward and scrunched it all up for f sake.
HK1837 Offline
#9 Posted : Tuesday, 27 July 2021 5:16:30 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,861

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 313 time(s) in 302 post(s)
2850S and 2600S are essentially the same bottom end and same head, intake and exhaust. The difference is the bore is 1/8" bigger in the 2850S. The bigger bore engine should always rev out more. Like a 307 vs 327. Or a 302 vs 283.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
 1 user thanked HK1837 for this useful post.
Smitty2 on 27/07/2021(UTC)
Smitty2 Offline
#10 Posted : Tuesday, 27 July 2021 8:28:57 PM(UTC)
Smitty2

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/07/2019(UTC)
Posts: 192
Australia
Location: bayside Melbourne

Thanks: 123 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 11 post(s)
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
[quote=HK1837;182620].......................
I am surer some red six engines are better balanced than others of the same size as well and that is easy to see by just looking at the conrods as the weights are totally shitful that such is it's a blight. but having said that the fact is that a fully balanced 202 is harsher than a 186 when being revved out to 7000RPM and for sure the 173 would be smother and the 161 a bit smoother again.

As for the early 6cyl LC 4sp box ratios I have a calculated performance figures place to go to that give such results.
LC GTR 161s 173s XU-1 XU-1 XU-1 Bathurst LJ GTR
0-40MPH 5.1sec 5.2 3.9 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.7
50 7 7.1 5.3 5.7 6 5.6 6.8
60 10.1 10.0 7.5 8.0 7.9 7.6 9.2
70 13.6 13.2 9.9 10.5 10.6 9.8 12.4
80 18.2 18.5 13.1 14.2 13.8 12.9 17.2
90 26.6 25.1 18.0 18.6 18.4 16.9 23.6
100 25.4 26.6 26.1 22.5
Opel M20 Opel M20 M21 M20 M20
1/4 17.5 17.5 15.8 17.1
1st 34 39 34 38 46 52 35 MPH to redline for such a engine type ?
2ed 55 54 54 53 63 73 50 MPH
3rd 86 78 85 77 93 106 72 MPH
Diff 3.08 3.08 3.36 3.36 3.36 3.36 3.08 Ratio

Look at how well the XU-1 Opel box goes against the M20 XU-1 not bad for an Opel box.
Then look at the M20 VS M21
The Bathurst XU-1 186 has more powerful engine.


firstly .. no 6 cyl Torrie ever got an M21 box
every single one of them were plated M20...

secondly.. having being, modified, raced a variety of red motors...179, 186 and 202
the smaller ones were nicer up to about 6500.. especially after you go thru the dreaded shake zone.
never hold a 186 red between 5600 and 6000, you get a present. The balancer thru the bonnet
or the flywheel thru the floor. they REALLY had a bad vibe rev zone.

I moved to 202s with the counter balanced crank because of that issue... with 179 and 186s, dowels,
retaining plates (like on XU1s) alloy flywheels or very light steel flywheels? the engine still tried to throw them off.
I ended up using a Massey Ferguson tractor engine balancer on the last of the 186s I built
Only thing i found that actually balanced out the vibes.

Back to 202s with that counter balanced crank. With good rods, forged pistons, studs and a good
balance job .. they were smooth up to about 7800. Not really suffering the range of bad engine vibes
the 179 and 186 suffered from. Oh.. and made more power as a bonus ...Applause

Club circuit racing...the best fun you can have with your pants on
HK1837 Offline
#11 Posted : Tuesday, 27 July 2021 8:40:30 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,861

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 313 time(s) in 302 post(s)
They weren’t even plated M20 Smitty, XU1 were blank on the body plate once the plate fitted had the driveline codes. Means the same thing, ie the XU1 box wasn’t option M21 as if it was the plates would have M21 stamped but they were blank meaning there was no gearbox option code applied. I have seen M21 on the body plate of one 6cyl car though, but that was a VB Commodore.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Smitty2 Offline
#12 Posted : Tuesday, 27 July 2021 8:41:15 PM(UTC)
Smitty2

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/07/2019(UTC)
Posts: 192
Australia
Location: bayside Melbourne

Thanks: 123 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 11 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
2850S and 2600S are essentially the same bottom end and same head, intake and exhaust. The difference is the bore is 1/8" bigger in the 2850S. The bigger bore engine should always rev out more. Like a 307 vs 327. Or a 302 vs 283.


except with blue / black Holden V8s
a stock 253 with twin exhaust revs far more than the
equivalent blue/black 308 .. also with twin exhaust

My missus had a VH 253 manual wagon that saw 6400-6500 (superb out on the country roads passing someone)
compared with my VH 5.0 SS which struggled to make 6000 and a bit , ditto my VK 234 pack which went to HDT (and got their exhaust)

Club circuit racing...the best fun you can have with your pants on
HK1837 Offline
#13 Posted : Tuesday, 27 July 2021 9:05:44 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,861

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 313 time(s) in 302 post(s)
That is probably more to do with the heads limiting the 5.0L than anything else. There is 55ci between a 253 and 308 using the same heads allows the 4.2 to breathe better. The 173 is only 12ci bigger than the 161. If you put heads that work good on a 307 (1.72/1.5 and small ports) onto a 350 they don’t rev either, but fit bigger intake valve (1.94/1.5) fuelies and they do. I bet the same 5.0L you had in the VH SS if you fitted V5H heads to it it’d rev.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#14 Posted : Wednesday, 28 July 2021 10:50:20 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,554

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 26 time(s) in 24 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
2850S and 2600S are essentially the same bottom end and same head, intake and exhaust. The difference is the bore is 1/8" bigger in the 2850S. The bigger bore engine should always rev out more. Like a 307 vs 327. Or a 302 vs 283.


I would think that the 161s and 173s would rive to valve bounce so both would be the same max rev, maybe 6200rpm I would think ?
But the 161 would be a bit sweeter quality harshness wise and should have power a little higher in the top end of the power curve say 100 rpm more maybe. like if you put the same cam grind in a 149 such will be bigger in a sense in relation to CID, so it's a bigger cam in such regards by rights.
If you have a set camshaft grind you will or could see the range of power stated in regards to a 283 chev to a 400 such changes the range that the cam states.
castellan Offline
#15 Posted : Wednesday, 28 July 2021 11:53:00 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,554

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 26 time(s) in 24 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Smitty2 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
[quote=HK1837;182620].......................
I am surer some red six engines are better balanced than others of the same size as well and that is easy to see by just looking at the conrods as the weights are totally shitful that such is it's a blight. but having said that the fact is that a fully balanced 202 is harsher than a 186 when being revved out to 7000RPM and for sure the 173 would be smother and the 161 a bit smoother again.

As for the early 6cyl LC 4sp box ratios I have a calculated performance figures place to go to that give such results.
LC GTR 161s 173s XU-1 XU-1 XU-1 Bathurst LJ GTR
0-40MPH 5.1sec 5.2 3.9 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.7
50 7 7.1 5.3 5.7 6 5.6 6.8
60 10.1 10.0 7.5 8.0 7.9 7.6 9.2
70 13.6 13.2 9.9 10.5 10.6 9.8 12.4
80 18.2 18.5 13.1 14.2 13.8 12.9 17.2
90 26.6 25.1 18.0 18.6 18.4 16.9 23.6
100 25.4 26.6 26.1 22.5
Opel M20 Opel M20 M21 M20 M20
1/4 17.5 17.5 15.8 17.1
1st 34 39 34 38 46 52 35 MPH to redline for such a engine type ?
2ed 55 54 54 53 63 73 50 MPH
3rd 86 78 85 77 93 106 72 MPH
Diff 3.08 3.08 3.36 3.36 3.36 3.36 3.08 Ratio

Look at how well the XU-1 Opel box goes against the M20 XU-1 not bad for an Opel box.
Then look at the M20 VS M21
The Bathurst XU-1 186 has more powerful engine.


firstly .. no 6 cyl Torrie ever got an M21 box
every single one of them were plated M20...

secondly.. having being, modified, raced a variety of red motors...179, 186 and 202
the smaller ones were nicer up to about 6500.. especially after you go thru the dreaded shake zone.
never hold a 186 red between 5600 and 6000, you get a present. The balancer thru the bonnet
or the flywheel thru the floor. they REALLY had a bad vibe rev zone.

I moved to 202s with the counter balanced crank because of that issue... with 179 and 186s, dowels,
retaining plates (like on XU1s) alloy flywheels or very light steel flywheels? the engine still tried to throw them off.
I ended up using a Massey Ferguson tractor engine balancer on the last of the 186s I built
Only thing i found that actually balanced out the vibes.

Back to 202s with that counter balanced crank. With good rods, forged pistons, studs and a good
balance job .. they were smooth up to about 7800. Not really suffering the range of bad engine vibes
the 179 and 186 suffered from. Oh.. and made more power as a bonus ...Applause



A 6 CYL red if it's not fully balanced will not rev past 6200rpm with any cam grind, they will just get so harsh that it's a joke.
Had one bloke with a 173 torana with a big cam it went well but was not balanced and I said listen you should of got the engine fully balanced and you would have a sweet motor to flog the piss and pick handles out of it with pride with anyone in it with him, it was tragic as it stood, if only he knew before hand the difference that balancing makes.
Another mate had a 186 with a 40/80 grind but not balanced and he did a rod bearing and got it recoed but the fool did not get it fully balanced, the engine rebuilder was an old moron, no one would build such a hot engine and not fully balance it. that 186 would only rev to 6200 and the strain you could feel was huge shocking rubbish.

A mate with a worked 202 fully balanced would be nice to 6200 and then go through the shakes crap to 6400 and then rev sweet to 7000rpm and at that point you could not rev it past 7000 because it had std thickness rings and they just can not hold compression after that but their is no point in revving past 6200rpm anyway as their is no true value in doing so, bar if you were on a race track do to a spot on the track that may make it worthy to do so. Maybe 6600 could be good but for the harmonic problem becoming a sore point that you want to avoid, unless you are a drug dealer with money to splash about with no regards at all.
Box heads worked red 202 made good power at 7000rpm tho but the point was only for showing off truly. the only thing that he came across was splitting the blocks. they claim the 3 ribbed blocks are better castings for such power as it limits the flex. I think engine mounts may play a part in such cracking as well as if they are getting soft they top out on the latch that stops them from ripping apart and sending the fan up to cut off the top radiator hose.

If I were to go by the 202 fully balanced and the 186 fully balanced as to smoothness or sweetness they are both good but not as sweet as a 161 due to the lighter pistons.

Box heads 202 I could feel through my feet would hammer through the ground as you stood as it went by revving up to 7000 when we were doing test tuning out on back roads.
He never did a harmonic balancer that I know of, some of them were just shit regardless letting go on old farts cars who just plodded about and sat on 80KM/H at most if ever. My dad had a HR 186 from new to over 250,000 miles up with the stock balancer caked in old grubby oil and he and mum flogged the piss and pick handles out of it flat out on the highway flat up the road from cold, it never even did chew up the fibber cam gear. but my sisters HK that was owned by a old plodder chewed a balancer before 60.000miles and then a fibber cam gear at about 64.000 miles.
My brothers 173 only went through alt's and dreaded 1st to 2ed link 3 on the tree crap and exhaust manifold gaskets at the pipe.
HK1837 Offline
#16 Posted : Wednesday, 28 July 2021 12:07:59 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 13,861

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 313 time(s) in 302 post(s)
There is 1/16" bore difference between 179 and 186 so only 7ci rather than the 12ci between 161 and 173. The 179 and 186 share the same cam, and the X2 engines share the same cam. The X2 engines have peak power at the same rpm, however the larger bore 186 develops peak power 200rpm higher than the smaller bore 179. The engines are otherwise identical.

179 in HD is [email protected], [email protected]
186 in HR is [email protected], [email protected]
179X2 in HD is [email protected], [email protected]
186X2 in HR is [email protected], [email protected]

I actually have the power plots for all HR engines, for advertised, GM20 (gross) and GM1 (as installed). The 161 and the 186 share the same camshaft. Yes the heads are different combustion chambers but only major difference is the bore.

161H peak power is just over 4300rpm (quoted as 4400) for advertised and GM20, drops back to 4200 for GM1.
186 peak power is basically at 4300rpm for advertised and drops back to just over 4000rpm for GM20 and just under 4000rpm for as installed.

With the above you can probably start to see the 186ci engine starting to hit the limitation of the tiny camshaft, intake valves/ports (and the exhaust on the car with the as-installed figure). That camshaft is quoted as (without ramps) 15/45 240 50/10 240. Same camshaft as 202 in HQ and HJ. For HT-HG they fitted the X2/186S camshaft to the 186 engine (except when Trimatic used).

That X2/186S camshaft was designed for those two engines, and it was later used in 2600S and 2850S so it was big enough for both of them and you don't see a drop off in performance as a result.


_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#17 Posted : Wednesday, 28 July 2021 12:08:03 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,554

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 26 time(s) in 24 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Smitty2 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
2850S and 2600S are essentially the same bottom end and same head, intake and exhaust. The difference is the bore is 1/8" bigger in the 2850S. The bigger bore engine should always rev out more. Like a 307 vs 327. Or a 302 vs 283.


except with blue / black Holden V8s
a stock 253 with twin exhaust revs far more than the
equivalent blue/black 308 .. also with twin exhaust

My missus had a VH 253 manual wagon that saw 6400-6500 (superb out on the country roads passing someone)
compared with my VH 5.0 SS which struggled to make 6000 and a bit , ditto my VK 234 pack which went to HDT (and got their exhaust)



Stock red v8's could only rev to 5500 through the gears and in top gear 5000rpm as I believe due to the time frame in top the springs get into a shimmy state so then they can not hold 5500rpm for long.
That shimmy point of the spring would not be good for the collets I would think, and when one has got the engine to hot like driving with a crappy radiator on the brink of boiling much of the time or they have busted a hose getting the engine too hot then the valve springs become weaker and I have driven a 202 that valve bounced at 4500, so what is crap like that going to do with the collets, let alone them collets had a %rate of dodgy ones, just like the rod bolts and nut that were not the best quality standards, so the bolt would stretch and then you ended up hammering a rod bearing.
castellan Offline
#18 Posted : Wednesday, 28 July 2021 12:50:25 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,554

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 26 time(s) in 24 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
There is 1/16" bore difference between 179 and 186 so only 7ci rather than the 12ci between 161 and 173. The 179 and 186 share the same cam, and the X2 engines share the same cam. The X2 engines have peak power at the same rpm, however the larger bore 186 develops peak power 200rpm higher than the smaller bore 179. The engines are otherwise identical.

179 in HD is [email protected], [email protected]
186 in HR is [email protected], [email protected]
179X2 in HD is [email protected], [email protected]
186X2 in HR is [email protected], [email protected]

I actually have the power plots for all HR engines, for advertised, GM20 (gross) and GM1 (as installed). The 161 and the 186 share the same camshaft. Yes the heads are different combustion chambers but only major difference is the bore.

161H peak power is just over 4300rpm (quoted as 4400) for advertised and GM20, drops back to 4200 for GM1.
186 peak power is basically at 4300rpm for advertised and drops back to just over 4000rpm for GM20 and just under 4000rpm for as installed.

With the above you can probably start to see the 186ci engine starting to hit the limitation of the tiny camshaft, intake valves/ports (and the exhaust on the car with the as-installed figure). That camshaft is quoted as (without ramps) 15/45 240 50/10 240. Same camshaft as 202 in HQ and HJ. For HT-HG they fitted the X2/186S camshaft to the 186 engine (except when Trimatic used).

That X2/186S camshaft was designed for those two engines, and it was later used in 2600S and 2850S so it was big enough for both of them and you don't see a drop off in performance as a result.



The HR 186 has a alloy intake manifold to the 179 cast iron one.

As for the power range ? such is stated in the Camshaft regarding engine size.

As for a 161 vs 186 or 202 with the same came and all, I think the range of such a small cam grind is a basic point of function for a std car, but still the 161 should be a bit more livelier at the 4400 plus range some what, not that the power is better than the bigger no doubt.
But when flogging a LC GTR 161 around and then jumping into a HG GTS186 I am sure by rights that the 161 would be the sweeter revving, well were one would change with the 186 the 161 one may give it just a bit more revs feeling more content in doing so. not that such is going to give better performance but just fun factor.

A mate had just got this Kawasaki KLR 600 and he was crowing about how well this thing went, as it had a hot cam in it, well off I went and came back and said it's nothing more than any Honda XR600 is ! you are pissing into the wind mateEh? and he said, no rev it right out and I thought sure right I have and the power started dropping off, well ok lets be abusive to old mate bike then in 3rd gear I thought and ok power dropping off and then she came alive and just f ing screamed out, holy f ing hell ! did it go ! as to a power graph you would of seen a great dip around 6000rpm and then come alive all the way to 1100rpm I would suppose.

I have played about a bit and had a 186 with a good hot 30/70 with stock heads and boy do good head mods make a hell of the difference to power in that regards.
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
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 © 2003-2021, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.510 seconds.