22 replies to this topic

[Pete]

The parts book lists the front springs as 10.95" free length and Lt Green

1. Were they really Lt Green, or Black?

2. Are the rear coils the same length? Length not given in the parts book.

[RallyRed]

Front and rear coils are totally different.

Attached Files

•  Screenshot_20240510_104156_Adobe Acrobat.jpg   91.46K   8 downloads
•  Screenshot_20240510_104211_Adobe Acrobat.jpg   64.14K   8 downloads

Edited by RallyRed, 10 May 2024 - 10:43 AM.

[Pete]

Awesome information Col. Can I ask where that came from?

[yel327]

GMH Engineering Technical Specifications. Later known as Features Manual.

[RallyRed]

Actually from LJ supplement to LC Shop manual

[yel327]

Same info is in the Eng Tech Specs. Except it shows slightly different specs for the F71 (front and rear) than XU1/GTR. I looked back at the early revs and XU1/GTR was the same as F71 but F71 changed by 1973.

Edited by yel327, 10 May 2024 - 03:44 PM.

[Pete]

Thanks very much guys. Much appreciated.

[Kevrev]

Springs were black with a daub of light green paint to identify them. Here is a pic of NOS front "red" springs

Attached Files

•  Front spring colour ID.PNG   404.47K   5 downloads

[ewe-one]

What colour was the daub of paint on the late 72 5/5V springs?  Front 2813561 - 10" +- .25.  Rear 2813562 - 7" +- .25.  These part numbers don't appear in the parts cat only in the 5/5V amendment.

[S pack]

What colour was the daub of paint on the late 72 5/5V springs?  Front 2813561 - 10" +- .25.  Rear 2813562 - 7" +- .25.  These part numbers don't appear in the parts cat only in the 5/5V amendment.

You will find those part numbers in the LC Torana Parts catalogue. They are LC Torana H/duty springs to suit 823 & 825 models.

Identifying paint daub colours not mentioned.

Edited by S pack, 17 May 2024 - 07:51 AM.

[Kevrev]

I have a copy of an LC CK XU-1 broadcast sheet that I have been asked not to share online. The rear spring colour is shown as yellow, unfortunately I can't read the entry for the front spring

[S pack]

The CK evolution had the same front springs as all 3100x XU1s.

[S pack]

I have a copy of an LC CK XU-1 broadcast sheet that I have been asked not to share online. The rear spring colour is shown as yellow, unfortunately I can't read the entry for the front spring

I think the LC catalogue says Ochre for the rear springs and Pink for the front.

[S pack]

I have a copy of an LC CK XU-1 broadcast sheet that I have been asked not to share online. The rear spring colour is shown as yellow, unfortunately I can't read the entry for the front spring

There is no separate entry for the front springs on the Broadcast sheet. Box 18 on the sheet is for the complete front suspension assy.

Refreshing my memory from the LC Catalogue.

From SOP the LC GTR Front springs were identified with a daub of Light Green paint, Rear springs a daub of Ochre.

During LC GTR production, but before LC XU1 production commenced, the 82911 front & rear springs rates were changed due to customer complaints.

The revised Front springs were identified by a daub of Pink paint and the Rear springs with Yellow.

All LC XU1 used the same front & rear springs as the GTR.
 

Edited by S pack, 17 May 2024 - 11:37 PM.

[ewe-one]

You will find those part numbers in the LC Torana Parts catalogue. They are LC Torana H/duty springs to suit 823 & 825 models.

Identifying paint daub colours not mentioned.

Now I didn't know that!  Interesting that HD springs from S & SL LC models were spec'd in the 5/5V amendment.  Guess must of had the right height and rate and probably a stocked item.  From what I read these were the only changes fitted to post august 72 production cars - please correct me if this isn't right.

[S pack]

Now I didn't know that!  Interesting that HD springs from S & SL LC models were spec'd in the 5/5V amendment.  Guess must of had the right height and rate and probably a stocked item.  From what I read these were the only changes fitted to post august 72 production cars - please correct me if this isn't right.

Amendment 5/5V is a 'Variant'. A Variant is a limited production run. Only the 5/5V cars (if any were actually fitted with the parts) got the parts that were the subject of the homologation. All XU1 manufactured after the requirements of 5/5V were satisfied reverted back to the original, standard, XU1 mechanical specification. ie; the same mechanical specification as the 1st 200 LJ XU1 made in January/February 1972.
 

Edited by S pack, 23 May 2024 - 03:28 PM.

[ewe-one]

I think that's spot on "if any were actually fitted with these parts".  Surely if any were fitted they would be listed in the last Parts Catalogue (M37608) - even for a limited run?  As we all know only from JP386598 was when any substantial changes were made and that was a short production run.  Shorter than any of the amendments/variant if the books are to be beleived.  The only amendment that stands out to me is the 2/2V to include the sprintmasters (4/4V track change), which interestingly is the only externally visual change, that is listed in the parts catalogue.  

 

I've been following these threads for many years and wouldn't even like to attempt to theorise about what went on 52 years ago but the parts catalogue seems to a good source of truth.  Really all I can go by is what's on my 9/72 car thats been owned for 35 years.

 

Btw, if ever 5/5v was satisfied then I wouldn't the vehicles after this would have had the Aug production specs having steel fuel pipes, alternator (eliz only) etc., not Jan/Feb specs?

 

Sorry if this is off topic:)

[S pack]

I think that's spot on "if any were actually fitted with these parts". Surely if any were fitted they would be listed in the last Parts Catalogue (M37608) - even for a limited run? As we all know only from JP386598 was when any substantial changes were made and that was a short production run. Shorter than any of the amendments/variant if the books are to be beleived. The only amendment that stands out to me is the 2/2V to include the sprintmasters (4/4V track change), which interestingly is the only externally visual change, that is listed in the parts catalogue.

I've been following these threads for many years and wouldn't even like to attempt to theorise about what went on 52 years ago but the parts catalogue seems to a good source of truth. Really all I can go by is what's on my 9/72 car thats been owned for 35 years.

Btw, if ever 5/5v was satisfied then I wouldn't the vehicles after this would have had the Aug production specs having steel fuel pipes, alternator (eliz only) etc., not Jan/Feb specs?

Sorry if this is off topic:)

Rubber or steel carby fuel pipes are neither here nor there. The type of carby fuel pipes are not specifically mentioned on the LJ XU1 homologation documents so what GMH used is not an issue. 5/5V was satisfied, CAMS rubber stamped it.

Edited by S pack, 24 May 2024 - 10:52 AM.

[S pack]

I think that's spot on "if any were actually fitted with these parts".  Surely if any were fitted they would be listed in the last Parts Catalogue (M37608) - even for a limited run?

No, why would they list parts that were not used in 'normal' production and were NLA by the time the Green LJ parts catalogue was published in 1975?

[yel327]

Parts books are the worst source of factual info. They are not an historical record, they were simply a means to keep the used car fleet in service. GMH supplied what would fit. The best source are original books and then bulletins when things changed.

 

The other thing to keep in mind, things did get added to parts books by those wishing to keep the ARDC and the CAMS off GMH's back. For example. GMH added the actual casting number of the Saginaw cast fuelie heads to the parts book just in case there were scrutineering issues, Harry Firth was no novice. The heads were already there in the HT parts catalogue, the heads fitted to production GTS350 were the same part number but being Tonawanda cast they had a different casting number to the Saginaw cast heads fitted to some of the 1969 HDT cars, as GMH were supplied with engines from Flint for race purposes. Tonawanda cast heads were 041 heads and Saginaw were 186. I'm surprised they didn't add the block casting numbers as these varied too, Tonawanda were 388 and Saginaw/Flint were 618. Same part numbers though.

[S pack]

 

 

 

The only amendment that stands out to me is the 2/2V to include the sprintmasters (4/4V track change). 4/4V is an Errata. 4/4V did not make any physical changes to the production. 4/4V simply corrected a specification error listed on 2/2V.

 

Really all I can go by is what's on my 9/72 car thats been owned for 35 years. What do you believe your XU1 is? A 5/5V car or a 2/2V car?

 

Btw, if ever 5/5v was satisfied then I wouldn't the vehicles after this would have had the Aug production specs having steel fuel pipes, alternator (eliz only) etc., not Jan/Feb specs? Alternator is basically the same deal as the XU1 fuel pipe change. If it does not directly or indirectly improve the performance, handling or braking then whether it is external reg or internal reg is inconsequential.

I realise that I should have said the production reverted back to basically the same std LJ XU1 mechanical specifications as the 1st 200 LJ XU1 produced in Jan/Feb or the XU1's built in March or April or May etc.

Edited by S pack, 24 May 2024 - 05:56 PM.

[ewe-one]

Sorry if I've upset anyone.  I'll crawl back in my hole and continue watching from the sidelines.  

[S pack]

Sorry if I've upset anyone.  I'll crawl back in my hole and continue watching from the sidelines.  

None of us learn if we don't seek answers to the questions we have. Get involved, don't keep watching from the sideline.