180 replies to this topic

[S pack]

Mines only a scabby 72 JP .......  

That's OK Ian, so is Anthony's

 

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

What's yours Dave ?

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

Not to bad for someone who has never owned an XU-1 or ever seen a dual cast block...........

[S pack]

Not to bad for someone who has never owned an XU-1 or ever seen a dual cast JP block...........

Thanks........

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

How old did you say you were ?

[dattoman]

Don't start children

[S pack]

How old did you say you were ?

I could get insurance for my daily through APIA but their premiums are actually dearer than RACQ and Shannons.

 

edit: I haven't looked at what the pattern number is on my JP and I don't really care.

Edited by S pack, 07 March 2016 - 11:36 PM.

[crabba67]

Not to bad for someone who has never owned an XU-1 or ever seen a dual cast block...........

One more fact.

[S pack]

One more fact.

Yeah, we all know how true some of your facts are. Pfffffft.

[yel327]

Not to bad for someone who has never owned an XU-1 or ever seen a dual cast block...........

 

I don't think people studying Dinosaurs ever owned one either, and yes the early ones studying them also did what you clowns have done and come to incorrect conclusions. However once more and more people studied them the real facts are known and they are contradictory to the old theories. But as we know the old theories die hard, especially when people or an organisation profit from them - look at what happened to Galileo when he challenged the foundations of the Western Catholic Church......

Remember those studying Dinosaurs only have a fossil record, but with GMH product we have first hand documentation where GMH tells us exactly what they were doing - it is all there in plain sight. This is far better evidence than the 40 year old memories of people.
 

[xu2308]

Guys, the problem with the 3 Amigos is that they cannot prove their position and continually attempt to undermine the evidence presented by others (eg they will not accept pictures of genuine single cast, non number '3', Bathurst list motors, leaving nowhere for the debate to progress). Their intransigence on this matter indicates that probably do not want this argument settled eg A beautiful 72 Bathurst XU1 will never be as valuable as beautiful 73 and that's the end of it ($20 to $40K at a guess)

The trouble with the debate however is that it is causing ongoing angst and confusion to many owners who are having the credibility of their vehicles continually challenged by if they do not have a dual cast or number '3' then their engine is not the real deal - ie it has been restamped. This is of course an outrageous position for this forum to be a part of so I recommend that anybody who continues to suggest (directly or by inference) that somebody else vehicle has been a part of fraudulent activity should be banned from this site. Doing nothing is discrediting this forum - over to you Mr Moderator.

Ummmm the First 200 LJ XU1's should be more valuable than the 1973 XU1's as the first 200 were Built so the XU1's could race, any XU1 after that were made to homo the parts for CAMS, the first 200 need reevaluating

Edited by xu2308, 08 March 2016 - 11:55 AM.

[xu2308]

Haaaa Skap, someone has to stick up for the under valued first 200 LJ XU1's, as it wasn't for them the LJ XU1 would not be racing, hence there understated value needs to be reevaluated

Edited by xu2308, 08 March 2016 - 12:07 PM.

[xu2308]

Did the other guy get that memo

[xu2308]

Then come on get them Dual Cast photos on here boys, don't be shy

[N/A-PWR]

Just asking a question,

 

would this quote be why JP/NP block castings have dual date codes?

 

'A proper LJ JP or NP block is different to a normal red 202, and they weren't cast by GMH but by Commonwealth Aircraft Castings'

 

ref:- http://www.fastlane.....aspx#post33715

 

 

 

on the other hand, have read that no blocks were made at CAC? 

[xu2308]

Wouldn't Eddie Matthews know about the Dual Cast Blocks, as Eddie did all the special metal casting stuff for Harry's HDT, he would know about the JP Blocks if they were any different as per metal casting wise etc.

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

It was Eddie Matthews and Graham Docker who wrote to Norm Darwin. Eddie was a engineer/Metalurgist, Graham was the Head Mechanical Engineer in 1973.

 

 

 

BUT WHAT WOULD THEY KNOW............

[yel327]

Just asking a question,

 

would this quote be why JP/NP block castings have dual date codes?

 

'A proper LJ JP or NP block is different to a normal red 202, and they weren't cast by GMH but by Commonwealth Aircraft Castings'

 

ref:- http://www.fastlane.....aspx#post33715

 

 

 

on the other hand, have read that no blocks were made at CAC? 

 

I have to quiz Dave McLean about this further. As stated above 40 year old memories are not always reliable. Dave would not be wrong about his memory of going to CAC to hand pick blocks, but the exact details of when and why the blocks were there needs more work. One suggestion that has come up is it is possible some were machined there due to harder block material, GMH not wanting to damage their production tooling. Repco machined the harder F5000 blocks in 1973 away from GMH so there is some merit to this suggestion. If this is the case at least some of the XU1 engine blocks are made from harder material, and again if so common sense says it won't be those with second date codes as these also appear elsewhere outside of XU1 and in far too great a number to be that limited. This is only speculation, but if there are some special versions they are going to be different from the norm. If we can believe that most earlier XU1 blocks were made from certain patterns with a 3 in one location (again Dave McLean has told me that from early on XU1 blocks are slightly different to normal 202 - this fits with the theory of limited patterns), then common sense says a special will differ away from the norm. This may (or may not) explain why we are seeing evidence of original 150 list engines with a 6 on the pattern. But more research is required.