355 replies to this topic

[yel327]

And I get your point too, but the way I see it to be a muscle car it really needs to be the highest performance version of its series/model along with the other criteria. And the A9X is significamtly down on performance compared to the original LX 5 litre cars. I guess you can't even blame the car for the performance as it wasn't designed to be a performance car as one of purposes afaik was to homologate the 2.6:1 rear axle. If GMH seriously wanted it to be seen as a performance car they'd have fitted 3.36 or 3.55 gears into the press cars, just like they changed the standard 4.2L ratio at HX release from 3.08 to 3.55 as a way of masking how bad the ADR27A 4.2L engine was.

You should wear the Aussie Muscle Car badge with pride for your XU1! I know the traditional MC's were V8's but to exclude 6cyls would mean excluding Chargers and we all know how good they were. I don't think anyone seriously sees a GTR as a muscle car but the XU1's have to be.

[Ice]

Did the A9X win bathurst yes but its not classed as a muscle car oh please byron let it go
its the best racing car ever to be built in this country

In the 70s that is

[yel327]

I think L34 owner's would argue that point with you Gene! I think you'll find no true A9X ever won Bathurst. A facsimile did ie purpose built car car, built from a specially prepared body shell, but not a production car nor counted in A9X build statistics, or even able to be purchased as a new car past its first few months of competition. Yes far closer to the production version (as at least it had a GMH engine and suspension) but not dissimilar to claiming most of the V8 Supercars as Fords or Holdens when they are very far from that at least for the last 8-9 years or so.

 

Someone will know, how high up in the finishing lists for 1977-1979 did proper A9X's (ie cars counted in the production records) finish? Would be interesting to know aside form this discussion.

[yel327]

I was referring more to the stuff right at the start of the use of Chevrolet design engines, when the body shells came from the manufacturer similar to how GMP&A rolling shells were purchased to build into race cars, not how they are done right now.

[yel327]

Prior to that it was a very similar formula when they had to run on their road car's suspension design. AFAIK the body shells back then were purpose built race shells supplied by Holden just like the race shells supplied by GMH. Yes there was much more purposebuilt stuff like the rear ends and gearboxes and brakes, but the race car in the Torana days was a VERY different car to what you could buy from a GMH dealer just like a VR/S V8 Supercar was. So drawing the parallel would we say that just because Perkins Engineering built V8 supercars were very successful that the road going version of that car was a muscle car? Yes there is great differences, but i'm just joining the dots for comparison's sake. The Toranas you saw racing in 1977-1979/80 were very different to the road going version, so much so that they are not even really an A9X just like a 1995 V8 Supercar isn't really a Commodore anymore. Just made to look that way. Not the car's fault, that was the rules at the time.

[Dr Terry]

Someone will know, how high up in the finishing lists for 1977-1979 did proper A9X's (ie cars counted in the production records) finish? Would be interesting to know aside form this discussion.

I think that quite a few of the A9Xs which raced were real cars. The only one than comes to mind that I've had hands-on experience with, was the 3rd placed car from 1979. It was the Radburn/Smith 4-door. I had to get it ready for street rego in early 1980 for a car yard on Parramatta Rd. 

 

I think a lot of the 1977 cars were too, because there wasn't enough to build up a car from a race shell in the few short weeks between the A9X release & Sandown & Bathurst that year. OK, some were converted L34s & some the hatches were just earlier hatches modified, but I think most of the 1977 lot had Compliance plates & were 'real' production cars of one type or other. 1978 & 79 probably saw more cars built from race shells.

 

Dr Terry

[Dr Terry]

They've been full blown tube chassis race cars for a long time.

Since around 1995-96 I believe. The early V8 touring cars (post Group A, but before they were called V8 Supercars), they were still real complete production shells, with the frame added. Nothing compared to what they have now.

 

Dr Terry

[RallyRed]

post real production, but pre Supercar / Car of the Future...weren't a lot of the Commodores out of the Dencar factory?

Again, splitting hairs, as the was only the shell

Edited by RallyRed, 10 March 2014 - 07:36 PM.

[RallyRed]

its like a slow train wreck..you try to look away..but you cant,cause its too interesting....

[Kirk]

Were the A9X's raced in 1977?

 

If Brock didnt win by 6 laps in 1979 would the A9X thought of as a muscle car?

 

Wasnt the early L31 SS or the SLR 5000's quicker than the A9X as they left the factory?

Edited by Kirk, 10 March 2014 - 11:42 PM.

[Ice]

Were the A9X's raced in 1977?

Yes kirk

[Kirk]

thanks Gene

[Dr Terry]

Dr Terry

             So where would you like the reliance and FACTS to come from? Are we basing this all on personal opinions, pub stories, Bathurst results or a Dart Board??

 

We are discussing factory muscle cars and factory period horsepower comparisons. For our purposes of course we are only interested in the timing gear and measurements, not in their opinions. People like Wheels and Peter Robbo Robinson have been around for as long as I have, but unlike you or I  they have done thousands of tests which required the timing gear and variables for performance testing of new cars.

 

Now that's not to say that no mistakes are made (humans do make mistakes even Peter Perfect) but if you have several independent sources (i.e. modern motor, wheels, re-tests) then you have a reasonable assumption that those numbers are in the ball park. That gives you a base to compare a variety of cars with FAR BETTER rational and clarity than going on our memory or guesswork. The fact that Chev, Holden,Chrysler or Fraud say their engine is 200Hp doesn't mean jack in a comparison.

 

This dead horse has been flogged to death but even by talking and getting details direct from Harry Firth, Peter Brock, Harvey, Morris,Tate etc 30-40yrs latter just shows 30/40yr old MEMORIES are not a reliable or confirmed source. This has been shown with dozens of mistakes and contradictions over different discussions. You can only verify from multiple cross references that where done back when it was happening not 35,40,45yrs or so latter and in BS hindsight.

 

Once again the total mistrust for magazines and now the internet comes from the absolute rubbish that was printed/spread decades later by the likes of Street Machine magazine and all the wives tales, hindsight, pub talk about how my best mate, his dad or grandad worked for Holden for 40yrs and had the the keys to the top secret room and filing cabinets at Holden etc.

 

Legitimate magazines like Wheels and Modern Motor had no vested interest or reason to lie about what at the time a new not so rare Holden car (they couldn't sell the $11k A9X's). Wheels & MM both invested heavily in accurate timing gear and procedural checks and balances for averaging runs and reporting obvious vehicle issues that effected such tests.

 

I mean come on lets be real spec sheet speculation or selective memory is useless ..... unless its was done in REAL TIME (not hindsight memory) by a non-biased independent source that preferably is confirmed by a second and even third non-biased independent source is the ONLY WAY TO BE BALANCED.

 

I understand what most here are saying as I have my own memories of what all of these cars where like when driving them brand new, and that's why jumping into an fully restored and stock  GTS350, A9X or L34 now in 2014 quickly brings me back to the reality and not my youthful starry eyed inexperience.

 

I just find that it is funny that Holden can throw a standard plastic V8 motor into a car add some stripes, fibreglass and badges and put out an image ( i.e Torana, GTS Monaro) and all of a sudden Wam Bam Thank You Madam we have a MUSCLE CAR.

 

Racecars are NOT FACTORY PRODUCTION CARS. They are HOTRODDED MODIFIED PRODUCTION CARS, so that little chestnut has ZERO to do with being a Factory Muscle Car.

 

Otherwise its a free for all discussion that is pointless and we might as well discuss Top Fuel Dragsters vs F1 cars vs Sprintcars.

 

Its what came out of "Holden's Factory" not Brock, Hsv, Duggans, Perkins Engineering or Ian Tate bench.

If any of that is aimed at me I don't get your point. I'm beginning to think that you have a huge 'chip' on both shoulders.

 

My only 2 points were:-

 

1. Motor magazine tests have always been notoriously unreliable (I have been involved in many) but for historic purposes it's all we have to go on.

 

2. Byron asked if any real cars (not race shell) A9Xs actually raced & I gave an example of one particular that I had personal experience with.

 

I haven't related any 'pub stories' or recollections of somebody's grandfather. I haven't even weighed in on what I think the definition of a 'muscle car' is. My suggestion if you take your blinkers off, was to refer to them as performance cars.

 

I did not say the Wheels or Modern Motor LIED !!

 

Also I did not get a reasoned answer to the question of the relevance of the 455 Trans-Am & 427 Corvette in a discussion about HJ Monaros.

Dr Terry

[Dr Terry]

I think we are using the incorrect terminology in naming the 'fastest' Torana.

 

There are 2 terms which are often confused, 'quickest'  & 'fastest'. Quick is a 13 sec 1/4 mile or 0-60 mph in 5 sec. Fastest on the other hand is 138 mph top speed which is 'faster' than say 125 mph.

 

The reason I bring this up, is that while the A9X only had a stock ADR27A 5-litre V8 (minus the engine fan) many did come with a 2.60 rear axle ratio, maybe allowing it to achieve a higher top speed that a car with a more powerful motor coupled to a lower-geared rear end.

 

Now all Toranas got 13-inch wheels (exc. L34 & A9X) so is it possible that our HJ-motored late LH, early LX 308 with 'only' 13-inch wheels & a 3.08 or 3.36 rear axle was actually slower in top speed than an A9X with 14-wheels & a 2.60 gearing ?

 

Yes, I realise that you need power & torque to make a 2.60 work to its advantage, but the A9X wasn't really 'short' of either in the great scheme of things.

 

Food for thought ?

 

BTW for the benefit of LXSS350, I'm not saying that any of these are muscle cars, just in case that you misread my comments.

 

Dr Terry

[Ice]

Let it go ian we know nothing

[xu2308]

2014 VF GTS the most powerful muscle car built in OZ, so there is one LXSS350

Edited by xu2308, 11 March 2014 - 06:57 PM.