Jump to content


Photo

HJGTS 4door Monaro? or Not

Started by Indy Orange , Feb 19 2014 09:43 PM

  • Please log in to reply
355 replies to this topic

#126 yel327

yel327

    Oh My, Don't you post alot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,633 posts
  • Joined: 10-February 08

Posted 03 March 2014 - 08:10 PM

  • I don't see much difference...............
  •  
  • 350 V8 HG Monaro GTS V8 4 speed manual:
    • 1st: 55 mph (88 km/h)
    • 2nd: 79 mph (127 km/h)
    • 3rd: 98 mph (159 km/h)
    • 4th: 130 mph (208 km/h)
    • 0-60 mph (0-97 km/h): 7.5 seconds
    • Standing Quarter Mile (400 metres): 16.0 seconds

attachicon.gifToranaSpecs.jpg

 

I rest my case ............   :)

 

That isn't the final spec HG GTS350. Try 14's over the quarter. These had a proper 300hp engine, not a claimed 300hp like the earlier cars. Line ball with a PhaseIII, only a mickey hair between them.

The other problem with those cars is look immediately to the left of the A9X. The immediate pre-decessor to the A9X, the early spec LX SLR5000 or SS with 5.0L is quicker both to 60mph and over the quarter by a significant margin.


Edited by yel327, 03 March 2014 - 08:14 PM.

#127 _outer control_

_outer control_
  • Guests

Posted 03 March 2014 - 08:17 PM

Missing from that list is the final spec HG GTS350. Try 14's over the quarter. These had a proper 300hp engine, not a claimed 300hp like the earlier cars. Line ball with a PhaseIII, only a mickey hair between them.

The other problem with those cars is look immediately to the left of the A9X. The immediate pre-decessor to the A9X, the early spec LX SLR5000 or SS with 5.0L is quicker both to 60mph and over the quarter by a significant margin.

 

I rest my case if it was in print it must be true


#128 _ChaosWeaver_

_ChaosWeaver_
  • Guests

Posted 03 March 2014 - 08:18 PM

OK what ever ..........  you call em what you want, and I'll do the same..   when your given proof of your own silly argument, you still dispute it .....   :banghead:    

 

PERFORMANCE WHEN NEW

Model:Monaro GTS 350
Engine:350 ci (5740 cc) V8
Final drive:3.36:1

Top speeds in gears 
1st (2.54:1):54.3 mph (87.5 km/h)
2nd (1.80:1):78.9 mph (127 km/h)
3rd (1.44:1):98.7 mph (159 km/h)
4th (1.00:1):129.2 mph (208 km/h)
Elapsed time 0-100 km/h:7.5 seconds
Standing 400 metres:16.0 seconds

#129 _imj411_

_imj411_
  • Guests

Posted 03 March 2014 - 08:25 PM

Hi all, I love this topic, the A9X was definitely a muscle car in my book and with 3.08 diff gears was a much fastest car than the 16 flat recorded with 2.60 rear end. It would have been able to rev higher up top so it would have a potentialy higher top speed or at least the same I am sure I have seen 15.2and 210 quoted, cheers Aaron.

#130 _outer control_

_outer control_
  • Guests

Posted 03 March 2014 - 08:27 PM

I rest my case if it was in print it must be true

bump


#131 _outer control_

_outer control_
  • Guests

Posted 03 March 2014 - 08:34 PM

Missing from that list is the final spec HG GTS350. Try 14's over the quarter. These had a proper 300hp engine, not a claimed 300hp like the earlier cars. Line ball with a PhaseIII, only a mickey hair between them.

The other problem with those cars is look immediately to the left of the A9X. The immediate pre-decessor to the A9X, the early spec LX SLR5000 or SS with 5.0L is quicker both to 60mph and over the quarter by a significant margin.

 

I rest my case if it was in print it must be true

Attached Files


#132 _imj411_

_imj411_
  • Guests

Posted 03 March 2014 - 08:57 PM

What diff gears did the phase 3 use to run 14.4 3.00, 3.25 or 3.50? look the times don't tell the full story some cars may have run on damp tracks, hot days, new engines or out of tune. LC could do it in 15.6 and I am betting a LJ was faster I have seen all the 15.8 runs but they said the car was out of tune mabey Holden was playing it smart and not giving them the good ones. same for the HT they get one but dont officialy time it and run a few numbers, then Holden give them another to test and it can't beat a high 15.
have even seen a full road test were a LH 5000 ran 14.9 and did 210 and read other that thought with a few extra KM on the clock would run 15.5 or under with 2.78 diff gears. cheers Aaron.

#133 _LXSS350_

_LXSS350_
  • Guests

Posted 03 March 2014 - 09:03 PM

:stirpot: :stirpot: Outer don't you have to be at Phillip Island with all the other taxis to workout if you need to change your flagfall rates and how to change to an efficient LED vacant/engaged roof sign?

 

I did notice a hell of a lot of trailers heading that way with L34's on them as we all know Bango diffs are getting rare. They didn't make that many EH Holdens for the amount that taxi divers have broken. :stirpot: :stirpot:

 

 

What diff gears did the phase 3 use to run 14.4 3.00, 3.25 or 3.50?

3.25

 

have even seen a full road test were a LH 5000 ran 14.9 and did 210

 

I can assure you they where never capable of a 14.9 standard or 210kph.

The fastest through the traps was 87mph so not enough Hp standard.

They where 2600-2650lbs depending on fuel load with no driver.


Edited by LXSS350, 03 March 2014 - 09:08 PM.

#134 _SmartE_

_SmartE_
  • Guests

Posted 03 March 2014 - 09:28 PM

Just going to add this here, if a car makes the cover of AMC is it a muscle car?

 

So I take it that my 434 SBC LX hatch is not a muscle car, I guess it's a street machine then.  :D

 

 

http://www.musclecar...back-issues.php


#135 _outer control_

_outer control_
  • Guests

Posted 03 March 2014 - 09:33 PM

:stirpot: :stirpot: Outer don't you have to be at Phillip Island with all the other taxis to workout if you need to change your flagfall rates and how to change to an efficient LED vacant/engaged roof sign?

 

I did notice a hell of a lot of trailers heading that way with L34's on them as we all know Bango diffs are getting rare. They didn't make that many EH Holdens for the amount that taxi divers have broken. :stirpot: :stirpot:

 

 

3.25

 

 

I can assure you they where never capable of a 14.9 standard or 210kph.

The fastest through the traps was 87mph so not enough Hp standard.

They where 2600-2650lbs depending on fuel load with no driver.

I live in the Adelaide hills and we have roads with corners maybe not suitable for heavy chevies boat anchors hanging out the front :thebird:


#136 _LXSS350_

_LXSS350_
  • Guests

Posted 03 March 2014 - 09:39 PM

Harry said your safe if you run a 40 litre sump on the old plastic, that way you can still have at least 10litres in the sump once the rockers covers are full.

 

Just don't rev it to hard .... it needs time to drain back. !!!!!

Normally though with the taxi you get drain back time while your doing the ring around for a new bango centre or an axle.

 

Better show Wayne that hatch of yours so he can ditch the Fraud and drive back in style !!!!

 

LOL :stirpot:


Edited by LXSS350, 03 March 2014 - 09:42 PM.

#137 _imj411_

_imj411_
  • Guests

Posted 03 March 2014 - 09:43 PM

I will have to find the test and it was a Full test of the 5000 that was capable of such numbers. Everone always talks about the poor handling of a pre rts Toranas and poor brakes Mabey they weren't perfect for a race car but the only Australian car that had better brakes was the XB GT the first with 4 wheel discs and what handled better or was easier to drive? I think that if all of those cars late 60s and early 70's musle cars used 3.23 or lower diffs. You have think how they would have prefomed with the big Toranas 2.60, 2.78 or 3.08 ratios, the cheers Aaron

#138 _LXSS350_

_LXSS350_
  • Guests

Posted 03 March 2014 - 10:17 PM

Pre RTS the torries where terrible they pushed (understeered) like crazy, you couldn't go fast into corners or you would end up hitting the armco or with luck end up in the sand trap. The front brakes overheated far too easily and the rears would lock with monotonous regularity. Once you tried to drive with the throttle and tried to induce a little rear slide you never wanted to over do it as you could find they would just go snap as the rear bit and bound up because of the offset upper trailing arm geometry.

 

They where terrible things to go fast in, they where however better for mild touring on rough roads than the HG GTS350 but in performance the plastic was not even close to the reality promised by the loud big wild decals and in your face rear spoiler.

 

The RTS was simple but it actually really worked. Holden actually thought about geometry and that and the rear discs are what made the A9X a good touring coupe for spirited touring. Great thing is everyone who has a LH or LX can do this and make a big difference to how it turns.


#139 _LXSS350_

_LXSS350_
  • Guests

Posted 04 March 2014 - 12:37 AM

Dr Terry I am satisfied and content with my viewpoint. My side of the fence still has Bagshaw, Pruneau and Taylor whom all agree both at the time and in hindsight (1994) with my feelings on the importance of releasing the ground breaking image making GTR-X.  GM's corvette has not been a good seller for decades, but GM knows its vital importance to the brand even at a loss (much like the volt).

 

I understand that it hadn't gone in final production phase, but still don't understand why you don't think it would have sold even with the very good 240z as competition? Do you really think Holden couldn't build such a car or was it your pet peeve of  Australian wages that would have made it non viable. All the ex Holden guys seem to think it was a big mistake and sales would have exceeded expectations?

 

Maybe your right we will never know unfortunately. I think Holden and every model after the GTR-X would have been radically different had it been produced. Everything would have changed with that one sliding door.Of course you opinion seems to ignore how Holden was positioned as a tour de force within Australia during the period the GTR-X would have run.

 

During this period Holden could have put wheels on a broomstick and it would have sold like crazy..

We had Holden ........... daylight ............ space ...................... then everyone else.

 

They where winning and walking on water in a very very Australian bias market that penalised non Australian made.

Football Meat Pies and Holden Cars.

 

For me to survive Holden needed to become very innovative, very distinctive and very desirable like they did with their pre 79 history. That's why imo cars like the GTR-X with 4 wheel discs 7yrs earlier (like the usa had) makes your product stand out and get buyers looking at your product. Unfortunately Holden just wanted to stay producing the same old same old.

 

I agree that on this subject we will agree to disagree, as we do on the bland horrible dunnydores that made Holden obsolete and finally sent Holden into a death spiral.


#140 _outer control_

_outer control_
  • Guests

Posted 04 March 2014 - 01:37 AM

Harry said your safe if you run a 40 litre sump on the old plastic, that way you can still have at least 10litres in the sump once the rockers covers are full.

 

Just don't rev it to hard .... it needs time to drain back. !!!!!

Normally though with the taxi you get drain back time while your doing the ring around for a new bango centre or an axle.

 

Better show Wayne that hatch of yours so he can ditch the Fraud and drive back in style !!!!

 

LOL :stirpot:

 

I have driven a hatchback

Attached Files


#141 _LXSS350_

_LXSS350_
  • Guests

Posted 04 March 2014 - 02:14 AM

I have driven a hatchback

 

Wayne your collection is something to be very proud of. :spoton: :clap:

 

PS: All Torrie's 2 door, 4 door it matters not ... they will always hold a big place in my life.

Hell we even had my grandfather owning a HB run around .... many moons ago.


#142 yel327

yel327

    Oh My, Don't you post alot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,633 posts
  • Joined: 10-February 08

Posted 04 March 2014 - 06:04 AM

OK what ever ..........  you call em what you want, and I'll do the same..   when your given proof of your own silly argument, you still dispute it .....   :banghead:    

 

PERFORMANCE WHEN NEW

Model:Monaro GTS 350
Engine:350 ci (5740 cc) V8
Final drive:3.36:1

Top speeds in gears 
1st (2.54:1):54.3 mph (87.5 km/h)
2nd (1.80:1):78.9 mph (127 km/h)
3rd (1.44:1):98.7 mph (159 km/h)
4th (1.00:1):129.2 mph (208 km/h)
Elapsed time 0-100 km/h:7.5 seconds
Standing 400 metres:16.0 seconds

 

Again using those HG figures is like using the first LJ XU-1 figures for all LJ XU-1's. I'll see if I can dig up Roboo's test of the HG for Wheels. AMC also tested a mint one a fair few years back and got near identical figres to Wheels.

 

My argument is not silly, and I have all the proof I need! All those Torana perfromance figures prove is the A9X is far from a muscle car, it isn't even the fastest LX hatchbck! As I said before if the A9X is, then so is a Toyota 86 - great handling/steering car 15.3 sec quarter, 7.4s 0-100, but grossly underpowered.

 

Wayne, I agree with you, if the A9X had got the L34's engine it'd fit the bill.


#143 _ChaosWeaver_

_ChaosWeaver_
  • Guests

Posted 04 March 2014 - 08:15 AM

Mate......  FFS  ....  I have found 3 different source's that say 16 sec 1/4 mile times for the HG350 Monaro, roughly the same time for all the Torana's from LC to LX...  using your example about how hard a car accelerates to define it as a Muscle Car, they must be all Muscle car's.....  unless now you are saying, that only the HG 350 with a Genuine 300 HP engine is a Muscle Car, and everyone that just has an every day run of the mill HG 350 Monaro isn't...........   your argument is silly mate...   i'm sure there are people on this forum that can say they have seen tests where XU-1's, L34's and A9X's have all gone well under 16 seconds also......  

 

 And if the 5.7 Ltr HG 350 V8 Monaro was so fast, why was it replaced by a 3 Ltr LC 186 6 cylinder Torana, to go racing all the other Muscle cars at Bathurst ??...  Ford didn't go racing with a 6 or 8 cylinder Cortina, they stuck with their fastest option, the GT Falcon... same with Valiant, they didn't race a Centura, they stuck with the 6 & 8 cylinder Charger.....  any reason behind Holden doing this ??.......... (other than fuel economy, because the other two could have changed for that reason too).......     was it because they performed better.... ??

 

mate an Xu-1 V8 was a small car with a big V8, and would have been a Muscle Car.......

mate an A9X V8 was a small car with a big V8, and it is a Muscle Car ......      see the similarities .....      

 

But seriously Yel..........   time to get back to HJ GTS 4 Door, Monaro or not ??  because you and LXSS350 are just repeating the same thing over & over, with froCk all proof..... and if you are serious about the difference between 1/4 mile times being the rule to classify a Muscle Car..  you's really are missing the point....   cheers Ian..........................................................   


#144 yel327

yel327

    Oh My, Don't you post alot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,633 posts
  • Joined: 10-February 08

Posted 04 March 2014 - 09:23 AM

OK i'm out after this. Like arguing with the mrs, no point in the end! A9X is not a muscle car and GMH never intended it to be one. It was not me either who started comparing 1/4 mile times as proof of anything.
What proof is required? The proof is in the cars?? Not some emotive BS about cars smacking the field's butt at Bathurst when they are nothing at all like the road cars or using modified cars as proof they are a muscle car.
The answer to the question as to why the Torana replaced the Monaro has a few answers and is it well documentrd, one of the main one is brakes. The change in engine performance during a model is common, LH SLR5000 had a huge performance gain once HJ spec engines were fitted. It changed again at LX release with better exhaust. Same for LJ XU1. Others went backwards in engine performance as the model progressed eg LX SLR5000.

#145 _chrome yella_

_chrome yella_
  • Guests

Posted 04 March 2014 - 10:08 AM

Byron and Terry would know the correct numbers (I think 21) HG Monaro GTS 350's were made with the extra bits, and the 1/4 mile times for those cars was every bit as good as the phase111.

It would be an embarrassment to put a stock A9X up against one, both on same tyres of course.

#146 Redzone

Redzone

    Forum Fixture

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 517 posts
  • Name:Dave
  • Location:Sunshine Coast
  • Car:Mini torana's - Gemini coupe 10.787@123mph, log booked Group A DOHC Gemini under resto..
  • Joined: 02-November 10

Posted 04 March 2014 - 11:12 AM

The mckinnon engined final spec hg gts350 was well into the 14's on the 1/4, plus it's a well known fact that Holden knobbled the magazine road test ht & hg gts350's as they didn't want to be seen to be producing a race car. There are a couple of relevant amc mags that show all this, including the robbo article from back in the day...

#147 _LXSS350_

_LXSS350_
  • Guests

Posted 04 March 2014 - 01:01 PM

Wheels reported in that test that the test car had problems. As they reported in the road test of the HG GTS350 called  GMH's HOT WHEELS it was capable of better. They initially got in only one pass 16.3sec for 0-100mph but then couldn't get better than 16.5sec for 0-90mph. Obviously something was wrong as they couldn't go over 5500rpm  so they couldn't  confirm the tests. It was also pouring rain and their timing test gear was playing up as reported in the test hence why they put the astrix in the test numbers.

 

Those reprints where they convert etc to kph are open to all sorts of mistakes.

 

This has been deeply covered some years ago I will find the thread its just more mistakes that are not from original tests.

 

The spreadsheet of what looks like road tests that Chaos Weaver showed the jpg image of is full of crap made up rubbish. Its been dissected before ...... its some editor that's grabbed some tests and put them into one chart and got some things right and some things wrong. The key is its more rubbish that has been reprinted re-edited and not checked then sprouted as gospel. The original tests are the best as they explain the numbers and any issues like the HG test car had.

 

I will try to scan some of the old wheels but seriously that chart shouldn't be taken for what it shows and these early 70's car tests where in 10 MPH increments so KPH are reprints.

 

The LX of course was done in kph unlike the LH which was in 1974 still being dialled in on MPH.

 

The SS 5litre was part of the Wheels test for the fastest car in Australia won by the Fraud GXL 5.8.

The SS 5litres best was 1/4mile = 16.8sec, 0-160 = 26.2sec , 186Kph top speed.

The HX GTS Monaro (4 door) best was 1/4mile = 17.2sec , 0-160 = 29.2sec , 178Kph top speed.


Edited by LXSS350, 04 March 2014 - 01:06 PM.

#148 _LXSS350_

_LXSS350_
  • Guests

Posted 04 March 2014 - 01:34 PM

Mate......  FFS  ....  I have found 3 different source's that say 16 sec 1/4 mile times for the HG350 Monaro, roughly the same time for all the Torana's from LC to LX...  using your example about how hard a car accelerates to define it as a Muscle Car, they must be all Muscle car's.....  unless now you are saying, that only the HG 350 with a Genuine 300 HP engine is a Muscle Car, and everyone that just has an every day run of the mill HG 350 Monaro isn't...........   your argument is silly mate...   i'm sure there are people on this forum that can say they have seen tests where XU-1's, L34's and A9X's have all gone well under 16 seconds also......  

 

 And if the 5.7 Ltr HG 350 V8 Monaro was so fast, why was it replaced by a 3 Ltr LC 186 6 cylinder Torana, to go racing all the other Muscle cars at Bathurst ??...  Ford didn't go racing with a 6 or 8 cylinder Cortina, they stuck with their fastest option, the GT Falcon... same with Valiant, they didn't race a Centura, they stuck with the 6 & 8 cylinder Charger.....  any reason behind Holden doing this ??.......... (other than fuel economy, because the other two could have changed for that reason too).......     was it because they performed better.... ??

 

mate an Xu-1 V8 was a small car with a big V8, and would have been a Muscle Car.......

mate an A9X V8 was a small car with a big V8, and it is a Muscle Car ......      see the similarities .....      

 

But seriously Yel..........   time to get back to HJ GTS 4 Door, Monaro or not ??  because you and LXSS350 are just repeating the same thing over & over, with froCk all proof..... and if you are serious about the difference between 1/4 mile times being the rule to classify a Muscle Car..  you's really are missing the point....   cheers Ian..........................................................   

 

To answer the main question which is a good question. The racing rules changed and Holden was stopping the expensive import of the SBC. Obviously with the new plant in full swing by the time the HG was in the showroom. Holden wanted to support and raise the image of its own 308 not promote something (chev) it was stopping. But there was a changeover period hence the fill in with the baby toranas, during which the unfortunate 1973 supercar chaos threw things into a longer hold mode (eg v8 babys, phase4 etc)

 

Remember Holden promoted via its race sunday buy monday its latest car. The 308 was fragile and a lot less hp (at best) so the lighter,more nimble, rack and pinion LH made more sense to race against the Fraud 351's than putting the plastic in say the HJ or HX and go racing (this was never an option).

 

The v8 baby torana was bypassed so the slr was the only option even though none of the teams liked it for racing but it was still new. The L34 helped.


Edited by LXSS350, 04 March 2014 - 01:36 PM.

#149 _ChaosWeaver_

_ChaosWeaver_
  • Guests

Posted 04 March 2014 - 01:58 PM

LXSS.....  I think as Yel said the reason to drop the GTS was more a brake issue than a 308 motor thing.....  the 350 was still available in a HQ, and if they had a decent brake package they surly would have raced them........  and yes i'm sure a GTS 350 in Bathurst trim would be into the 14's.........  but that is not that special when an XU-1 & L34 in Bathurst trim were pulling 13.5 & 13.0 respectively.....   but as it has become painfully odvious, that it comes down to a matter of opinion on what constitutes a Muscle Car.... I agree to disagree, and move on......   but before i go, just a bit more Stats.............

I know it's a bit hard to read.... sorry  :)

Attached File  WP_20140304_005 (800x450).jpg   186.99K   0 downloadsAttached File  WP_20140304_006 (800x450).jpg   163.59K   0 downloads


#150 _LS1 Taxi_

_LS1 Taxi_
  • Guests

Posted 04 March 2014 - 01:59 PM

Wheels reported in that test that the test car had problems. As they reported in the road test of the HG GTS350 called  GMH's HOT WHEELS it was capable of better. They initially got in only one pass 16.3sec for 0-100mph but then couldn't get better than 16.5sec for 0-90mph. Obviously something was wrong as they couldn't go over 5500rpm  so they couldn't  confirm the tests. It was also pouring rain and their timing test gear was playing up as reported in the test hence why they put the astrix in the test numbers.

 

Whether or not this is true it sounds very much like the wankers who talk up their car saying "ran 13.4 qtr mile on pump gas, street tyres, street trim, humid night and a full tank of fuel" or "ran 13.4 qtr mile but that was before I fitted a bigger blower, missus lost weight, new seat covers and had it tuned blah blah blah.....".   The fact is it ran 13.4. Bin the excuses, stop talking and prove it!  :)

 

Not really relevant and totally off topic but, to be fair, so is the HG GTS350 qtr mile time.....and pretty much everything else in this thread  :tease:


Back to General Discussion


1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users

  1. GMH-Torana
  2. → General
  3. → General Discussion
  4. Privacy Policy
  5. The Rules! ·