#1
Posted 10 June 2014 - 12:25 PM
t 001.jpg 50.86K 21 downloads
#2
Posted 10 June 2014 - 12:37 PM
I have seen that photo a few times over the years, I think I read somewhere that car was an SS done up for display at either the Melbourne or Sydney Motor Show in 1977, I believe those wheels are the Honeycombe style that were used on the HX Monaro LE, I stand to be corrected though
#3
Posted 10 June 2014 - 02:19 PM
The Honeycomb rims are different, these are the snowflake rims as used on Pontiac cars like the Trans-Am.
The honeycomb rim was also used on the HX GTS 4 door Monaro.
#4
Posted 10 June 2014 - 09:10 PM
Pretty sure this is the same one Laurie - the concept hatch
Has been discussed a couple of times
http://www.gmh-toran...n-torana-hatch/
#5 _LXSS350_
Posted 10 June 2014 - 10:39 PM
It was just before the A9X but it was not displayed as an A9X even though it had much of the upcoming A9X kit on it. They added the scoop in later showings. As eyepeeler said the wheels where pontiac snowflakes. There is a replica being built by a forum member (conceptss) that was in the build section. He sold it but now brought it back again.
Edited by LXSS350, 10 June 2014 - 10:50 PM.
#6
Posted 10 June 2014 - 10:51 PM
OK. I was searching for Sydney Show Hatch. You just have to choose the right words to find what you are looking for. Sorry for bringing up second hand stuff.Pretty sure this is the same one Laurie - the concept hatch
Has been discussed a couple of times
#7 _LXSS350_
Posted 10 June 2014 - 11:17 PM
One of the real interesting things about this car was how Journalists missed the whole upcoming A9X styling that Leo did with this concept hatch. But GMH didn't want any attention on the upcoming A9X and this pre-show was just another way to dissipate what was to come. You can see with Kevin Dennis using the image of the show car to advertise the upcoming A9X, because plain and simple GMH had zip and didn't want a fuss made. That's why most people though the first GMH with rear disc brakes was the HZ. Try getting an A9X sales brochure or literature, we used to go into a dealer before release and they had nothing. It was like pulling teeth.
#8
Posted 16 June 2014 - 12:32 PM
Looks like Sunbird seats doortrims and rear moulds around tailights. Only tags would tell could have been anything
#9
Posted 16 June 2014 - 05:49 PM
The car wasn't anything, no tags, show car only and was cut up after it was displayed. There was a show A9X built though.
#10
Posted 16 June 2014 - 06:45 PM
You sure it was cut up REDA9X, as GMH Track Record on that is not good, it looks to me they used a LX Torana Sunbird with the A9X Spoiler Kit that Leo invented, it could still be out there. As the Barney Shirt LJ XU1 (Show Car) had ID Tags.
AL
Edited by xu2308, 16 June 2014 - 06:59 PM.
#11
Posted 16 June 2014 - 07:15 PM
Mike Prowse told me straight up it was built specifiaclly for the shows and was cut up afterwards. It was not a complianced car.
#12 _LXSS350_
Posted 16 June 2014 - 10:11 PM
Mike Prowse told me straight up it was built specifiaclly for the shows and was cut up afterwards. It was not a complianced car.
What did they not spot weld it or just put in 1/2 the bolts? Not doubting what Mike said to you but it makes no sense for it to not to be able to be complianced. I mean lets be honest besides a few minor differences they are all 98% all the same A9X, Sunbird, SL, SS. I just find it funny how that car was anything but a production torana hatch. It's not a Hurricane or GTR-X etc that hadn't been built on a production line. After all we have seen production hatch's with floor dip switch and LH headlights stamped 1975. Just seems really weird why this car would not be able to comply with ADR's.
Red not saying your wrong just that it seems left of centre to scrap it even though it was used at shows. Its nothing special except the A9X fibreglass kit that was soon released anyhow. Leo new the car well as it was the first showing of the new kit. I wonder if he ever said anything about why?
Edited by LXSS350, 16 June 2014 - 10:12 PM.
#13
Posted 16 June 2014 - 10:27 PM
Theres no doubt it would have just been a shell that came down the line, nothing special at all. When I say not complianced I mean it didn't have any tags. All cars that are intended for sale have to leave the factory with compliance plates. This one had nothing at all. It went back to the factory and they destroyed it.
What did they not spot weld it or just put in 1/2 the bolts? Not doubting what Mike said to you but it makes no sense for it to not to be able to be complianced. I mean lets be honest besides a few minor differences they are all 98% all the same A9X, Sunbird, SL, SS. I just find it funny how that car was anything but a production torana hatch. It's not a Hurricane or GTR-X etc that hadn't been built on a production line. After all we have seen production hatch's with floor dip switch and LH headlights stamped 1975. Just seems really weird why this car would not be able to comply with ADR's.
Red not saying your wrong just that it seems left of centre to scrap it even though it was used at shows. Its nothing special except the A9X fibreglass kit that was soon released anyhow. Leo new the car well as it was the first showing of the new kit. I wonder if he ever said anything about why?
#14 _The Baron_
Posted 16 June 2014 - 10:33 PM
Mike Prowse told me straight up it was built specifiaclly for the shows and was cut up afterwards. It was not a complianced car.
This was what Mike said here in Adelaide at an A9X meeting he attended. At Calder park at an A9X Nationals Leo talked about all sorts of styling projects and I am sure this car came up then and the same outcome was stated.
#15 _LXSS350_
Posted 16 June 2014 - 10:56 PM
Either, neither - not an issue or a case to doubt, but it is just pure curiosity to understand the logic in the decision.
Kill that Cat. LOL (curiosity)
Just funny because what really is the issue/drama of putting on 3 compliance plates against the cost of crushing a whole complete car that is perfectly capable of being road legal. As I say I don't really care but just seems strange logic when GMH was scared to spend 1c more than they had to.
Obviously had the car been out of spec (i.e. bent or some other structural defect) then that makes perfect sense. I have seen many cars get imported and have to be crushed because they where imported for R&D purposes and could never be licensed (i.e.USA LHD corvette/camaro etc). Have to remember with GMH if they produced and sold Tomato Sauce and they worked out they could save 1c by selling them without lids then little doubt that GMH would have been the first in the world to sell Tomato Sauce without lids. They never ever spent 1c more than they absolutely had to.
Edited by LXSS350, 16 June 2014 - 11:00 PM.
#17
Posted 17 June 2014 - 12:22 AM
Ooops, I didn't click on Dave's link to the same pic but I propose this question, where did the information "originate" from about the LJ V8 prototypes being crushed
As that story has been around for a long time and even Harry said that is what happened to them so some one had to tell him.
It is no wonder that very few are willing to put their name to any story regarding Torana history as some one will definitely question it.
Barry
#18
Posted 17 June 2014 - 09:37 AM
My understanding that Harry was told by Ray Borrett that the V8 LJ's were Destroyed, as Ian Tate said to me that Ray came into work and told them the last one hit the wall today, but Ray. told me that he was only told that, and he did not know for sure, so going off that, Ray did not know for sure, i would not be shocked if the Styling yellow LX Hatch was not Destroyed, who ever has the LX Torana Disc List, needs to look for a (000 M) LX Sunbird that was built before the A9X's, my guess early 1977 for the Car Show's . and I think you will find said hatch.
AL
Edited by xu2308, 17 June 2014 - 09:52 AM.
#19
Posted 17 June 2014 - 10:06 AM
The L34 Prototype had ID Tags and the Barney Shirt Show Car has ID Tags, so why would this Yellow LX Hatch not have ID Tags, Stories I have heard, GMH would not get rid of any thing,
#20
Posted 17 June 2014 - 10:25 AM
This L34 Prototype has ID Tags and in pic if you look it has its little ID Tag (PSN Tag) Main ID Tag.
AL
Attached Files
#21
Posted 17 June 2014 - 05:09 PM
As you say Ian tate was told by Ray Borret they put the last LJ V8 into the wall, Ian told me the same thing. Ray was there at the testing ground, he would know.
Mike Prowse was the production manager at the time this yellow hatch was around. It was his job to select the car and forward it onto the styling department for the show. It's really simple rally and i find it hard to unerstand why it's not hard to use a bit of logic.
Hey Mike, can you get a shell for the styling department to take to a motor show? Sure, no problem. Mike goes down, grabs a shell before it's complianced and trundles it off down to the styling department. Shell gets fitted with some nice bits and pieces for the show, shoved on a truck and shipped off to the show. Car comes back and gets put in a corner and later destroyed.
lets remember it's mid 1977, the LX finishes up at the end of 77. A9X becomes priority. By the time this thing even would have got looked at again, the LX was finished. Why bother with it? Holden didn't think about putting things in museums at the time, and this car more than likely wasn't even a complete car. It's obviously had mods to fit the larger pattern wheels too. So what do they sell it as? Why bother? You have to realise their way of thinking at the time.
Mike clearly started the car was destroyed. Being that he can remember every team every A9X race shell was supplied to, I'd say he would remember a significant car like this one and what happened to it.
The L34 prototype pictured there, as I've said a number of times before is a production SLR5000 with L34 gear put into it, so why wouldn't it have tags?
This L34 Prototype has ID Tags and in pic if you look it has its little ID Tag (PSN Tag) Main ID Tag.
AL
#22
Posted 17 June 2014 - 05:22 PM
As I said REDA9X
Ray told me, he was only told they were Destroyed, he did not know for sure, I take that as Ray does not know 100% at all, its funny they were used as Engineering Hacks the 3 GTR's, and not Destroyed when the Program was Stopped, even the Head Guy at Lang Lang said Why would we Destroy them when the LH Program was nearly over, even more funny the Orange one was rego as a V8 in the Sept of 1972, two months after the XW7 Program was stopped, So I would have doubts about the LX Show Car been scrapped and any other thing they say they scrapped. I guess we will agree to disagree,
AL
Edited by xu2308, 17 June 2014 - 05:31 PM.
#23
Posted 17 June 2014 - 05:47 PM
Well if Ray apparently only says he was told, then thats something different, and theres a posibility he was told something incorrect. Mike on the other hand stated in no uncertain terms it was destroyed, no questions asked.
#24
Posted 17 June 2014 - 05:57 PM
You might be right with the Yellow Show Car, Yes that's what Ray told me, and believe me I have asked Ray a few times on the subject.
AL
#25 _LXSS350_
Posted 17 June 2014 - 09:40 PM
What is the actual cost of putting the tags on the shell? (compliance on a production shell).
Why put and assemble a complete production car with engine,driveline, interior etc everything in it for just a few shows and then throw it away because of the cost of compliance plates?
Doe's the cost of the compliance plates far outweigh the cost of all the components in a complete car. like this hatch??
Interesting to hear people thoughts that it makes more sense to throw it away rather than put plates on it? IMHO something in this story just doesn't make sense these guys at GMH don't give away an extra Philips head screw unless they have a very good reason. Now if this was a one off chassis and was unroadworthy or something then that might make sense.
Hell why did they not crush all of the GTR-X or Hurricane bits which where show cars and definitely had no compliance plates?
Why did they just choose to crush a production car like the LX show hatch?
Something really smells very wrong in this story and doesn't follow GMH's policy of tightness.
Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Hatchback
Holden Tech →
General Questions and Help →
Hatchback rust repair new panelsStarted by ljgtr427 , 04 Aug 2019 hatchback |
|
|
||
General →
General Discussion →
Michael Chamberlan, passed away.Started by LX2DR , 09 Jan 2017 Azaria, Lindy, Hatchback |
|
|
||
Holden Tech →
General LH-LX-UC →
Hatckback centre console not fitting under centre vents - Anyone had this problem and can help with a fix for it?Started by Tyre biter , 30 Apr 2015 hatchback, centre console and 1 more... |
|
|
||
Holden Tech →
Driveline →
MUNCHIE BOXStarted by _UC Kid_ , 27 Jan 2015 Munchie, gearbox, v8, uc and 2 more... |
|
|
||
General →
General Discussion →
CAN I DRIVE MY CAR WITH THE NEW P-PLATE LAWS?Started by _UC Kid_ , 21 Jan 2015 torana, v8, laws, help, blue 308 and 3 more... |
|
|
4 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users