180 replies to this topic

[crabba67]

 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.

 

Mr Rich,Were are all HQ dual cast looked in four states for years and years and found three common that is bulls#it and also find a HQ standard block with a 3 on the side the ones you will find will be the same cast date as JP standard block all to most HQ blocks have a 6 and 2 until the end of September 1973.

Cheers

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

If you want to do some research : Look for 1973 QL 202 blocks, they will have either a 2 or 6, also look for 1973 QL 202 blocks with a 3 or  dual cast blocks and see which ones you can find !!!!!

 

Ill bet you cant find a dual cast block.......

[xu2308]

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............

 

Eddie Matthews would know, Eddie did Harry Firth's HDT needs were it come to Metal Casting items,  Harry used thicker SG iron (sperodial graphite iron as used in crankshafts)for the front rotors and rear drums for the V8 LJ Torana, so he says in the V8 XU1 Story in AMC Magazine on page 53.

 

So was it the SG iron used on these JP Blocks, as the SG iron is thicker iron and stronger and lighter than the Norm, Didn't HDT in later half of 1972, blew some Donks ??????? up, was it around that time line when this happened, might explain the engines in 1973 may of used the SG iron maybe.

Edited by xu2308, 08 March 2016 - 04:07 PM.

[yel327]

Mr Rich,Were are all HQ dual cast looked in four states for years and years and found three common that is bulls#it and also find a HQ standard block with a 3 on the side the ones you will find will be the same cast date as JP standard block all to most HQ blocks have a 6 and 2 until the end of September 1973.

Cheers

 

Come again? Very cryptic reply and very poorly worded.....I don't get what you are asking or implying?

[crabba67]

Come again? Very cryptic reply and very poorly worded.....I don't get what you are asking or implying?

 

 

Mr Rich,Were are all HQ dual cast looked in four states for years and years and found three common that is bulls#it and also find a HQ standard block with a 3 on the side the ones you will find will be the same cast date as JP standard block all to most HQ blocks have a 6 and 2 until the end of September 1973.

Cheers

 Yes my mistake should have said QL not HQ so where are all the QL dual cast blocks? 

Edited by crabba67, 08 March 2016 - 04:16 PM.

[yel327]

If you want to do some research : Look for 1973 QL 202 blocks, they will have either a 2 or 6, also look for 1973 QL 202 blocks with a 3 or  dual cast blocks and see which ones you can find !!!!!

 

Ill bet you cant find a dual cast block.......

 

There should be approx. 5400 of them, dual date coded that is. Spread across all 6cyl engine sizes cast at the time. If the second cast date is what I believe its for.

 

In the end it doesn't really matter. Other than to categorically state again NOT ALL 150 LIST XU1 ENGINES HAVE 2 x DATE CODES. This has been shown without a shadow of a doubt to be 100% correct. Whether some or any have 2 x date codes is of no real relevance from my perspective, although it is remains a curiosity to find the GMH documentation that nails the exact reason for the second date code. At the moment we only have documentation that strongly points towards it (see first line).  

[yel327]

Make simple where are all the QL dual cast blocks you speak

 

Where are all the QL dual cast blocks? 

 

You tell me, you guys are the ones looking for them?

Gone to Korea like most all other red 6's is my guess.

Where are all the GTS327 engines gone? There were nearly 1200 of them and they are simply not around today.

Where are all the 150 list engines gone? There are bugger all of these to be found today.

Too many red 6's with a second date code have shown up for them to be as limited as you guys claim them to be.

 

Ask yourself the question, if GMH were SO CAREFUL to make exactly the amount of special engine BLOCKS to comply with CAMS rules, where is the documentation to show they were hidden in HQ, LJ, Bedford etc and not in the race cars where it would have mattered? GMH would have made such documents readily available to CAMS like they did for every other homologated item. Parts catalogues would state it, or if not parts catalogue amendments would state it. The truth is the information is available, GMH published documents to alert dealers that 150 engines were different to the rest, and that is it. It has already been proven that not all 150 list engines have the second date code, and the second date code appears across other 6 cylinder engines thus the whole theory is wrong.

 

[yel327]

And when questioned about the email the person whose name appears on it at the top said it has been taken out of context, some of the "conversation" was a round F5000 and L34 blocks (which are each a few months either side of this period. He is actually looking for the original email for me, will have to remind him. Will see what else is there in the conversation.

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

GOLD it is ! ! ! !

 

Byron, For Christ sake, please get in contact with CAMS ( historical section ) and start getting your so called facts right.............

 

Ian, You do realize my old car is a 8/72 Bathurst Homologation Special ( GTR XU-1 ) and Anthony,s is a 9/72 Bathurst Homologation Special ( GTR XU-1 ) and never had dual cast blocks. The only GTR XU-1,s to have the homologated Duel Cast blocks were the final 250 7/73, 8/73 & 9/73 Bathurst Homologation Specials. The minimum number being 250 under the 1973 Group C rules............

 

Now, Anthony, is the only one that has put up pictures of these GENUINE 1973 homologated Bathurst JP blocks. How many more do you need and what is the point. Are you trying to prove they exsist ? Are you like Dave and Byron and never seen one ?

[yel327]

Why would I want to do that Bruce? I am trying to prove nothing. You guys are the ones making up the BS story with "so called facts" that all of the final 150 XU1s (not 250) have two date codes. I agree with you that the final 150 are special engines, but they definitely are NOT all double date coded. Anthony IS NOT the only one to put up proper original 150 list engines, others have been shown too. Anything that isn't on the list of 150 engines has no relevance unless it is an NP replacement. Double date casting is not an homologation thing. If it was it would be on homologation papers and not secret squirrelled away where if scrutineered GMH would have no way to prove it.

[S pack]

i would love to see a pic of these two engine numbers, regardless of them not being dual cast...

Unfortunately the engine for Bruce's 8/72 was long gone before he got it.

[yel327]

What cast number was on the side of your 8/72, and Anthony's 9/72 ??? 

 

Bruce,  I appreciate you actually writing sentences I can understand, instead of the cryptic responses you have been giving..     

 

Bruce, It is not up to me to prove your & Anthony's theory, that is your job.   All I am doing is pointing out that you's have failed to show any documentation or reference, other than for that loosely worded Email....   And as you know I love a good theory thread.  But for me to start to accept your theory, it must hold water, so to speak..  and at present, your theory really has too many holes in it for me to accept it..

 

I have never seen a Dual Cast Motor, and with 44 years of hearing every thing about these cars, Not once have I ever heard a mention of a Dual Date Cast motor in an XU-1, or anything else for that matter....

 

I mean no animosity to you or Anthony, This is a very emotive topic, and things can get said (in print) in the heat of the moment,  that may not be said in real life. I understand that, but when statements are made, indicating that a group of owners of very special cars have fakes/restamps, you can understand why people want proof of what you say, or a retraction of the statement......  Nothing more Bruce.   cheers Ian .

 

PS ... Why is it that Anthony is the only one posting pics ?? ...

 

I'm with Ian. I don't really care what the truth is, just that it is factual. Dr Terry has called me pedantic before, however for technical purposes there is only ever one correct answer and if giving that answer correctly appears pedantic then so be it. If it isn't factual then it is an opinion or a suspicion until concrete evidence appears, and even then there can be multiple sources of "concrete" evidence that do not agree - like the compression ratio of HZ 5.0L engines after VB release. I know for certain what is being presented cannot be factual as I know that there are some 150 list engines that do not have a second date code on them. Whether the second date coded blocks are special/different etc. is not really relevant to this discussion, however given some of the 150 list engines (which GMH tell us are all the same) do not have the second date code then the suggestion that the second date code has anything to do with homologation is tenuous at best. If proof is obtained that it is, well so be it. The fact still remains that not all 150 list engines have the second date code - this should be the starting point of your research not your stumbling block that you keep trying to bog over. 
 

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

Firstly : Under the global banner of GM, GMH were not permitted to go motor racing, rally yes, motor racing no.

 

GMH did not go motor racing

GMH did not build race cars

GMH did not build race engines

 

Good luck finding proof that GMH did any of these things that they were not permitted to be doing under the global banner of GM.

 

 

Byron : By getting in contact with CAMS ( Historical Section ) you will get all the real facts you need, instead of dribbling on with complete rubbish. Anthony is the only one on this thread to put up pictures of any GENUINE duel cast 1973 Bathurst homologation JP engine blocks. Why would you want to do some real research and get to the truth when you can dribble on and on with a whole heap of crap. Under homologation 9/2E a new block was homologated, simply open your eyes or get in contact with cams, but why would you want to do that...............

 

Ian : Anthony is the only one posting pictures because he and myself are the only ones that's done real factual research. Most others on this thread have never seen a duel cast block let alone understand or research it.

When I sold my car it had an NP in it, cast date 7H3, Anthony's has a 28F2 from memory.

Ian , Was there a new block homologated under homologation 9/2E ?

[crabba67]

Byron, The proof will be next time a single cast 150 block is for sale

 

 

 

9/2e block dual cast block

Cheers

Attached Files

•  9.2e 3.jpg   93.73K   12 downloads

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

 

 

Time to open your eyes.........

[crabba67]

Bruce,Yes mine is 28F2.......... From JP17#### to JP216 the cast dates i have are 1F2,28F2,13G2.17G2 and 3H2 all with number 3 around 300 blocks still researching for more dates in the block range will be more i'm thinking.

Cheers

[yel327]

 

 

Time to open your eyes.........

 

It ain't me who has my eyes closed. You guys simply cannot accept that you are wrong can you? Or probably cannot afford to accept you are wrong if the truth be known. You accuse others of dribbling, my god the irony.

 

NOT ALL 150 LIST ENGINES HAVE THE SECOND DATE CODE. End of story.

Byron, The proof will be next time a single cast 150 block is for sale

 

 

 

9/2e block dual cast block

Cheers

 

Oh yes I see, it says there in black and white that these blocks have a second date code! Garbage, rubbish, BS. Why do 100% original 150 list cars have engines in them that do not have the second date code? Simple answer - you are wrong.

 

Almost forgot - why only when one is for sale? Is someone going to falsely accuse it of being a restamp too like has happened with every other one that doesn't fit the story? In my experience guilty parties often seem to try and deflect their actions onto others.
 

Edited by yel327, 09 March 2016 - 09:17 AM.