481 replies to this topic

[S pack]

Who are the fab 3 in terms of XU1s?

Are they the heads of clubs?

What are their credentials?

Were they involved in trying to get extra cars into the 150 list?

Did they have a relationship to a particular member who hasnt been heard from in ages?

 

As an outsider they seem to be trying to prove something that by all accounts has been disproven.

All I am left with is the question as to why?

Yes, there is one person who is notable for banging on about 150 list engines who is profoundly quiet about this dual cast and #3 stuff.

Could it be he does not agree with his comrades or just that he will not stick his neck out without any documentation to prove the claims?

[crabba67]

Jon,Under your thread 186 engine rebuild is your block 186P54####.

Cheers

[crabba67]

A 173 Dual Cast CD372###.

Attached Files

•  173 2g3 dc 5.jpg   327.07K   2 downloads
•  173 2g3 dc 1.jpg   199.51K   0 downloads
•  173 2g3 dc 3.jpg   308.23K   0 downloads

[crabba67]

More photo's

Attached Files

•  173 2g3 dc 4.jpg   308.75K   0 downloads
•  173 2g3 1.jpg   234.22K   3 downloads
•  173 2g3 dc.jpg   248.61K   0 downloads
•  173 2g3 dc 7.jpg   74.2K   0 downloads

[yel327]

Good find, just shows you that the second cast date is not 9/2E related. Would be great to find out one day what it's for.

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

They look like 9/2E bearings to me...........

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

Those pistons are not standard pistons either.......

[XU-1 RAT]

thats gold Anth...and so original.

[yel327]

March has 31 days guys. Tomorrow is April 1.......

[S pack]

They look like 9/2E bearings to me...........

Yeah they may look like 9/2e bearings because of the oil groove in the upper shell but if they were 9/2e they would be tri metal and marked 700 not 500 which is std 173 bearing material.

 

Also what is the R5K. Is that 5 thou under size? That looks like it could be an u/s bearing.

Edited by S pack, 31 March 2016 - 07:15 PM.

[RallyRed]

are the sand casts used to make these engines,  in 2   1/2s?

[yel327]

How are you going to fit 9/2E bearings in a 1973 173 anyway? I thought it was during LH/HJ that 173 changed to 202 main size.

Did 2600S and 2850S get XU1 bearings? 186S did but LC/LJ parts catalogues don't show them that I can see.

[S pack]

How are you going to fit 9/2E bearings in a 1973 173 anyway? I thought it was during LH/HJ that 173 changed to 202 main size.

Did 2600S and 2850S get XU1 bearings? 186S did but LC/LJ parts catalogues don't show them that I can see.

It appears the 2600s and 2850s used the same crankshaft bearings as std 2250, 2600 and 2850 engines.

[yel327]

are the sand casts used to make these engines, in 2 1/2s?

Most castings done using sand moulds off a timber pattern are done in halves or at least halves (maybe more for complicated castings). I remember some of the patterns at the DM Foundry and Steel Foundry at the Steelworks, pretty cool stuff.

[S pack]

Yeah they may look like 9/2e bearings because of the oil groove in the upper shell but if they were 9/2e they would be tri metal and marked 700 not 500 which is std 173 bearing material.

 

Also what is the R5K. Is that 5 thou under size? That looks like it could be an u/s bearing.

Well it has been a long and tiring day.

 

It is the lower bearing shell of the 9/2e crankshaft bearing that has the oil groove added. All Holden Red, Blue, Black 6 crankshaft bearings have the oil groove in the upper shell.

Edited by S pack, 31 March 2016 - 08:38 PM.

[S pack]

Those pistons are not standard pistons either.......

You may think that piston doesn't look standard but it does not look the same as 9/2e either.

[crabba67]

No April fools joke this

Attached Files

•  9.2e 3.jpg   93.73K   3 downloads

[yel327]

No April fools joke this

 

That's right. That is a 202, and is what the 150 list engines are. All 150 of those 202's are in cars produced after around 23rd August, and all the ones I know of personally don't have a second cast date, never seen one, only photos on this site that could have come from anywhere. No mention of 9/2e 173's. CD372xxx will have been in an LJ S or SL, probably auto or 3spd that had a car sales date before 15th August, and any that went in this late will be stragglers as they start to appear in later July. Not sure what is trying to be proven, but it ain't working. I know the BS will now start, try to discredit me, try to call original engines restamps etc. It's all over guys. Give up. The straws are getting even shorter. If you find actual proof then bring it here, but rehashing the same BS is stupid.
 

[crabba67]

Why is it that all photo's of 150 listed JP blocks that are single cast have been Ex cop cars shown on the forum.

Attached Files

•  cop vin.jpg   334.37K   13 downloads

[yel327]

Good question. Maybe you are starting to go down the right track! Just think about it for a while, if there were actually specially cast blocks made out of the same material used for the F5000 blocks only a few months earlier, where is the best place to put those not used by race teams? Perhaps this would explain your dilemma. As I said i'll talk to Dave Mclean again soon and ask him further about how they got the blocks they used. He was adamant they are harder material. If you blokes are being honest with finding 150 list engines with a second date code then there is definitely two different blocks used in those 150 engines.

[WhiteA9XS]

 Anthony , glad to hear your comment above , so do the owners of single cast 150 ex police car blocks get an apology for your previous comments claiming they were restamps ?