Oh My, Don't you post alot
Posted 18 April 2016 - 08:39 PM
LOL
" QUOTE "
Wikipedia
Homologation
the FIA allowed " Evolution " models to be homologated with a minimum of 500 cars.
( CAMS ) fully homologated the vn commodore for racing.
" END QUOTE "
LOL
Wrong about what ??????????
Are you a politician Fly? You pick words out of a whole document to totally change its meaning. It is like arguing with a woman, no logic applies.
Forum Fixture
Posted 18 April 2016 - 08:50 PM
The E49 was a 1972 car, with the E38 being a 1971 car. In 1972 the Group E rules required a minimum of 200 cars with a minimum of 50% or 100 cars to allow any homologations to proceed............
_oz772_
Posted 18 April 2016 - 09:09 PM
_ChaosWeaver_
Posted 18 April 2016 - 09:28 PM
E49's came 6th and 11th at 1973 Bathurst......
Oh My, Don't you post alot
Posted 18 April 2016 - 09:35 PM
_oz772_
Posted 18 April 2016 - 09:37 PM
Because it was already homologated for Series Production is how I read it. Same way LC GTR, LC XU1 and other older stuff were allowed under Group C.. The GTS sedan that raced in 1974 is another example of numbers not adding up either.
Scrivet Counter
Posted 18 April 2016 - 10:01 PM
The above clause does not appear on any of the CAMS Manual of Motor Sport pages for Group C (valid until 31st December 1973).
You will note the clause contains the wording 'made and/or sold on series production terms'
Edited by S pack, 18 April 2016 - 10:02 PM.
Scrivet Counter
Posted 18 April 2016 - 11:58 PM
For what it's worth, CAL made 316 E38's. 234 of these had the A84 option pack, which included the 35 gallon fuel tank. The remainder had option pack A87 that was identical except for having a 16 gallon fuel tank.
CAL made 149 E49 Chargers, of which 21 had option pack A84 with the 35 gallon fuel tank, and the remainder had option pack A87 with the 16 gallon fuel tank. Three Valiant sedans were made with E49 motors as well. The E49 engine had a very different, much more aggressive, camshaft from the E38 engine. E49 equipped Chargers also had the new 4 speed single rail gearbox, and different rear shockers.
E49 Chargers were raced under Group C regulations in 1973.
Finally, four E49 engined VJ chargers were made in 1973. Three had the 16 gallon tank, and one had the 36 gallon tank. It raced at Bathurst as a group C car in 1973, albeit with a VH front clip.
From what has gone before in this dialogue, for my own interest, and also for the current owner of the VJ E49 that raced at Bathurst in 1973, could someone explain how the E49 was allowed to race in Group C in 1973?
Whenever the scrutiny of a car shows complete compliance of it with its recognition or acceptance form, the year of manufacture shall be immaterial.
Also, all vehicles recognised as eligible for Group E (Series Production) were also eligible for Group C.
Edited by S pack, 19 April 2016 - 12:04 AM.
Forum Fixture
Posted 20 April 2016 - 12:38 PM
300 1971 GT HO Phase III,s : 200 + 100 for the Detroit locker
300 1971 CK XU-1,s : 200 + 100 for the 3.08 diff ratio
316 1971 RT E38 Chargers : 200 + 100 for the ???????
I am " guessing " that the extra 16 1971 RT E38 Chargers were perhaps the cars earmarked for the race teams ? As 10 1971 RT E38 Chargers did compete at Bathurst in 1971 I believe. I have never seen any CAMS homologation paperwork in regards to the 1971 RT E38 chargers, however going from the numbers produced, indications are that it may of had a diff centre or diff ratio homologated also.
Does anyone know if the 1971 RT E38,s were fitted with a different diff centre or if 2 different diff ratios were available ? ( oz772 ? )
_xr8250_
Posted 20 April 2016 - 04:14 PM
_oz772_
Posted 20 April 2016 - 04:59 PM
300 1971 GT HO Phase III,s : 200 + 100 for the Detroit locker
300 1971 CK XU-1,s : 200 + 100 for the 3.08 diff ratio
316 1971 RT E38 Chargers : 200 + 100 for the ???????
I am " guessing " that the extra 16 1971 RT E38 Chargers were perhaps the cars earmarked for the race teams ? As 10 1971 RT E38 Chargers did compete at Bathurst in 1971 I believe. I have never seen any CAMS homologation paperwork in regards to the 1971 RT E38 chargers, however going from the numbers produced, indications are that it may of had a diff centre or diff ratio homologated also.
Does anyone know if the 1971 RT E38,s were fitted with a different diff centre or if 2 different diff ratios were available ? ( oz772 ? )
Oh My, Don't you post alot
Posted 20 April 2016 - 09:30 PM
you guys have lost me with all of this stuff - what is the point?
""thread drift""......but still all good info.....
_oz772_
Posted 22 April 2016 - 10:32 AM
300 1971 GT HO Phase III,s : 200 + 100 for the Detroit locker
300 1971 CK XU-1,s : 200 + 100 for the 3.08 diff ratio
316 1971 RT E38 Chargers : 200 + 100 for the ???????
I am " guessing " that the extra 16 1971 RT E38 Chargers were perhaps the cars earmarked for the race teams ? As 10 1971 RT E38 Chargers did compete at Bathurst in 1971 I believe. I have never seen any CAMS homologation paperwork in regards to the 1971 RT E38 chargers, however going from the numbers produced, indications are that it may of had a diff centre or diff ratio homologated also.
Does anyone know if the 1971 RT E38,s were fitted with a different diff centre or if 2 different diff ratios were available ? ( oz772 ? )
Checked the E38 build list. All were made with the D53 3.23 axle ratio.
I have the CAMS homologation documentation for the E34 4 Barrel Pacer as well. They were homologated to run an automatic gearbox as well as the 3 speed manual (no automatic E34's were ever made). They were also homologated to run a 3.5 and a 3.7 axle ratio. All E34's were made with 3.23 ratios. None were produced with the 3.5 and 3.7 axle ratios. Finally, roughly 180 E34's were made (hard to pin it down exactly, but definitely not the 200+ numbers the press quotes at times). I'm guessing all was not as it seemed in homologating series production cars.
Forum Fixture
Posted 24 April 2016 - 12:07 PM
Was D53 an " Option " ?
_oz772_
Posted 24 April 2016 - 04:17 PM
Was D53 an " Option " ?
Scrivet Counter
Posted 24 April 2016 - 10:59 PM
Checked the E38 build list. All were made with the D53 3.23 axle ratio.
I have the CAMS homologation documentation for the E34 4 Barrel Pacer as well. They were homologated to run an automatic gearbox as well as the 3 speed manual (no automatic E34's were ever made). They were also homologated to run a 3.5 and a 3.7 axle ratio. All E34's were made with 3.23 ratios. None were produced with the 3.5 and 3.7 axle ratios. Finally, roughly 180 E34's were made (hard to pin it down exactly, but definitely not the 200+ numbers the press quotes at times). I'm guessing all was not as it seemed in homologating series production cars.
Yeah, no need to produce any E34's with the auto for it to be recognised.
Edited by S pack, 24 April 2016 - 11:00 PM.
Forum Fixture
Posted 24 April 2016 - 11:35 PM
Did the E34,s run LSD,s ?
_oz772_
Posted 25 April 2016 - 06:08 AM
Did the E34,s run LSD,s ?
Forum Fixture
Posted 25 April 2016 - 11:00 AM
What were the E38,s homologations ?
_oz772_
Posted 25 April 2016 - 01:00 PM
What were the E38,s homologations ?
E38 is actually an engine option, as was E49 (and E28, E33, E37, E 48, E55, E74 etc etc). It's just that the race special Chargers became known by the name of the engine option. The first 'special' Chargers came with option E38 (engine), A84 (track pack with 35 gallon tank - 234 made) or A87 (track pack with 16 gallon tank - 82 made) and D53 (3.23 LSD). Most also had A95 (interior dress up package) and a majority had A66 (bonnet black outs and bumble bee stripe). The second 'special Chargers came with option E49 (engine), A84 (track pack with 35 gallon tank - 21 made) or A87 (track pack with 16 gallon tank - 128 made), D56 (3.50 LSD) and D20 (4 speed gearbox). Again, most (possibly all) had the A95 (interior dress up package), but only a handful had the A66 (bonnet black outs). The bumble bee stripe with a '4' in it was standard on these cars.
Edited by oz772, 25 April 2016 - 01:01 PM.
Forum Fixture
Posted 25 April 2016 - 02:35 PM
On the australianmusclecarsales.com.au website under the SOLD section " Charger ". They have sold 14 E38,s in the last decade. Most have a photo of their tag.
14 Have option E38
12 Have option A84 2 Have option A87
12 Have ADR,s of 8/71
11 Have option D53
Of the 3 that never had option D53 they were bodies 0030, 00?? & 0098 with body 0101 being the first with option D53.............
_oz772_
Posted 25 April 2016 - 06:03 PM
On the australianmusclecarsales.com.au website under the SOLD section " Charger ". They have sold 14 E38,s in the last decade. Most have a photo of their tag.
14 Have option E38
12 Have option A84 2 Have option A87
12 Have ADR,s of 8/71
11 Have option D53
Of the 3 that never had option D53 they were bodies 0030, 00?? & 0098 with body 0101 being the first with option D53.............
Ok, the first 70 or so cars with E38 engines didn't have D53 stamped on their tags, but they still ran the 3.23 LSD. The first hundred or so E38 cars were referred to as J82 cars. When you look at the paperwork, J82 says the cars have options E38, A84 and D53. However, the tags weren't stamped J82; and the D53 was not stamped until around car #100. It's been discussed among six pack owners over the years, and from John Ellis (head of the racing team), there was no real reason for doing it other than the people in the office at the time did it that way, essentially. My old E38 (#128) appears on the lists as a J82 car, but it had D53 stamped on the tag (I think it may be one of the 11 you refer to above). CAL were also notorious for stamping tags incorrectly. Mine E38 had a mistake on the interior code, as did my E31.
_Skapinad_
Posted 11 June 2016 - 08:11 PM
_ChaosWeaver_
Posted 11 June 2016 - 08:35 PM
LOL ....... maybe 11 ... Crabba has to be real ..... well at least he is facebook real ...
I will give my view on this topic once more... because i can ..
But the thing that has always made this whole topic a load of shit in my mind is the lack of Co-Operation of those with the information .. Yel, and Dave have a wealth of knowledge and information on all things Holden, but in particular Toranas.. If the likes of Anthony Crabtree (Crabba) had any information, Why would they not join forces with Dave and Byron, to research what they have found ?? .... The truth is they took Dave and Byron head on in an atempt to proove their own point of view, and they have tried to discredit both Dave and Bryron on every thread ....
Now we have a new bunch that are targeting Skap in a way that suggests they have had run in's in the past ???...
Skap you annoy me too.... But you do not get ragged on by Jonny come lately's while i'm here ... as the wise man from the west says.. a pinch of salt will help with these tools 
_Skapinad_
Posted 11 June 2016 - 08:41 PM
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
