HJ Kingswood question -

[fairBA]

Quick question -
what sort of times (roughly) should one expect a standard (as much as can be), mechanically sound, manual, 4 door, 4.2 and 5.0l Hj's to do for a 0-100 and 1/4?

[Peter B - CV8]

Google is your friend......
- HJ (Auto) 253 = 14.4 seconds (0-100kph) & 19.3 seconds for the quarter.
- HJ (Auto) 308 = 13.4 seconds (0-100kph) & 18.1 seconds for the quarter.
I don't think a manual would be appreciably faster - a bit sad isn't it ????

[Boosh Brus]

I googled as well and got:

# 253 HJ Premier Tri-Matic automatic:

* 1st: 56 mph (90 km/h)
* 2nd: 83 mph (134 km/h)
* 3rd: n/a
* 0-100 km/h: 14.4 seconds
* Standing Quarter Mile (400 metres): 19.3 seconds

# 308 V8 HJ Monaro GTS four-door Tri-Matic automatic:

* 1st: 56 mph (90 km/h)
* 2nd: 91 mph (147 km/h)
* 3rd: 113 mph (182 km/h)
* 0-100 km/h: 10.4 seconds
* Standing Quarter Mile (400 metres): 18.1 seconds

# 308 V8 Statesman Caprice Tri-Matic automatic:

* 1st: 48 mph (77 km/h)
* 2nd: 82 mph (132 km/h)
* 3rd: 113 mph (182 km/h)
* 0-100 km/h: 13.4 seconds
* Standing Quarter Mile (400 metres): 17.9 seconds

# 308 V8 Statesman Caprice Turbo-Hydramatic automatic:

* 1st: 56 mph (90 km/h)
* 2nd: 93 mph (150 km/h)
* 3rd: 112 mph (180 km/h)
* 0-100 km/h: 11.2 seconds
* Standing Quarter Mile (400 metres): 17.6 seconds

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Boosh Brus

I googled as well and got:

# 253 HJ Premier Tri-Matic automatic:

* 1st: 56 mph (90 km/h)
* 2nd: 83 mph (134 km/h)
* 3rd: n/a
* 0-100 km/h: 14.4 seconds
* Standing Quarter Mile (400 metres): 19.3 seconds

# 308 V8 HJ Monaro GTS four-door Tri-Matic automatic:

* 1st: 56 mph (90 km/h)
* 2nd: 91 mph (147 km/h)
* 3rd: 113 mph (182 km/h)
* 0-100 km/h: 10.4 seconds
* Standing Quarter Mile (400 metres): 18.1 seconds

# 308 V8 Statesman Caprice Tri-Matic automatic:

* 1st: 48 mph (77 km/h)
* 2nd: 82 mph (132 km/h)
* 3rd: 113 mph (182 km/h)
* 0-100 km/h: 13.4 seconds
* Standing Quarter Mile (400 metres): 17.9 seconds

# 308 V8 Statesman Caprice Turbo-Hydramatic automatic:

* 1st: 56 mph (90 km/h)
* 2nd: 93 mph (150 km/h)
* 3rd: 112 mph (180 km/h)
* 0-100 km/h: 11.2 seconds
* Standing Quarter Mile (400 metres): 17.6 seconds

Which is probably why it was never a problem to have P platers driving V8s 30 years ago....

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by flappist

Which is probably why it was never a problem to have P platers driving V8s 30 years ago....

Exactly.. My first car; a 351 4spd XC sounds scary but in reality would get hosed off by my FG XR6..
Today's base 6 cyls are probably too powerful for inexperienced drivers now.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Exactly.. My first car; a 351 4spd XC sounds scary but in reality would get hosed off by my FG XR6..
Today's base 6 cyls are probably too powerful for inexperienced drivers now.

Yep old V8s are still banned and new 6s are fine, hence why we should introduce banning by power to weight ratio, let the P platers drive the older V8s, government wins anyway because all it does is use more fuel, which means more $$$ for government. Honda S2000 does 0-100km/h in 6.6 seconds, its a 172kw naturally aspirated 2L 4 cylinder.

[calais]

The HJ V8 was a heap in standard form. The 253 made do with the weak as 2 barrel stromberg solex. The 308 with the four barrel rochester, was streets ahead as far as performance went.

The little 253 never went better than when Brock breathed on it in the VH group 2, it that guise it packed around 148kw. The group two package included cylinder heads, brock exhaust and a cam.

If you want the best of the Holden Carburetted V8 experience, the VK 5.0 SS group A was the best they ever got.

The HX Kingswood rates amongst the worst, along with the VL 5.0 Black motor. The VL was particularly bad, with a terrible cam, and marketed as a torque machine (the 322nm wouldn't have pulled a drunken sailor off your sister)

[ea90gl]

Originally Posted by calais

The HJ V8 was a heap in standard form. The 253 made do with the weak as 2 barrel stromberg solex. The 308 with the four barrel rochester, was streets ahead as far as performance went.

The little 253 never went better than when Brock breathed on it in the VH group 2, it that guise it packed around 148kw. The group two package included cylinder heads, brock exhaust and a cam.

If you want the best of the Holden Carburetted V8 experience, the VK 5.0 SS group A was the best they ever got.

The HX Kingswood rates amongst the worst, along with the VL 5.0 Black motor. The VL was particularly bad, with a terrible cam, and marketed as a torque machine (the 322nm wouldn't have pulled a drunken sailor off your sister)

There was nothing wrong with the VL black motor infact it is one of the better 5.0 ltrs (304ci) to start with as a project motor. The problem was with the pollution laws, Holden had to choke it to death in order for it to be released. In stock form with a pea shooter single exhaust system, crossover tube in the intake, tiny valve in the factory headers, low enough compression to slap on a blower, stuff all ignition advance, a cam profile that hindered the donk and corked up carby it was no wonder it made a measly 122KW and 322NM. The rochester they had fitted was one of the best, the motor had the big valve heads and apparently the block was lighter (hence the reduction in cubes to meet racing guidlines or something) so with minor mods the 304 would produce very decent results. They are by no means the best motor going around but plenty of people overlook this, anyone remember the early-mid 70's american big blocks that struggled to make 250HP?

[irish2]

Originally Posted by Boosh Brus

I googled as well and got:

# 308 V8 HJ Monaro GTS four-door Tri-Matic automatic:

* 1st: 56 mph (90 km/h)
* 2nd: 91 mph (147 km/h)
* 3rd: 113 mph (182 km/h)
* 0-100 km/h: 10.4 seconds
* Standing Quarter Mile (400 metres): 18.1 seconds

# 308 V8 Statesman Caprice Tri-Matic automatic:

* 1st: 48 mph (77 km/h)
* 2nd: 82 mph (132 km/h)
* 3rd: 113 mph (182 km/h)
* 0-100 km/h: 13.4 seconds
* Standing Quarter Mile (400 metres): 17.9 seconds

How can the statesman be so muchslower to 100 but quicker down the quarter? I think there must be an error here somewhere.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by Boosh Brus

I googled as well and got:

# 253 HJ Premier Tri-Matic automatic:

* 1st: 56 mph (90 km/h)
* 2nd: 83 mph (134 km/h)
* 3rd: n/a
* 0-100 km/h: 14.4 seconds
* Standing Quarter Mile (400 metres): 19.3 seconds

I had a 253 HX. Felt quicker than the majority of the cars on the road at the time and certainly was quicker than the 250 XD it replaced, but boy.. did it sound sexy not going very fast. I miss that car.

[castellan]

Originally Posted by Boosh Brus

I googled as well and got:

# 253 HJ Premier Tri-Matic automatic:

* 1st: 56 mph (90 km/h)
* 2nd: 83 mph (134 km/h)
* 3rd: n/a
* 0-100 km/h: 14.4 seconds
* Standing Quarter Mile (400 metres): 19.3 seconds

# 308 V8 HJ Monaro GTS four-door Tri-Matic automatic:

* 1st: 56 mph (90 km/h)
* 2nd: 91 mph (147 km/h)
* 3rd: 113 mph (182 km/h)
* 0-100 km/h: 10.4 seconds
* Standing Quarter Mile (400 metres): 18.1 seconds

# 308 V8 Statesman Caprice Tri-Matic automatic:

* 1st: 48 mph (77 km/h)
* 2nd: 82 mph (132 km/h)
* 3rd: 113 mph (182 km/h)
* 0-100 km/h: 13.4 seconds
* Standing Quarter Mile (400 metres): 17.9 seconds

# 308 V8 Statesman Caprice Turbo-Hydramatic automatic:

* 1st: 56 mph (90 km/h)
* 2nd: 93 mph (150 km/h)
* 3rd: 112 mph (180 km/h)
* 0-100 km/h: 11.2 seconds
* Standing Quarter Mile (400 metres): 17.6 seconds

If we are to be realistic about these cars performance being in std factory spec.
Those old test magazine testings were not always good examples.
They were not tuned before hand.
You can always get a slack motor or a good one in the same type of motor.
In the above test it does not say what diff ratios are used, the temperature of the day. or a wet day. how many miles it had up on it. who was driving it ect.
I have seen test where one driver could get 15 sec over the 400m and a other driver on the same day could only get 16 sec over the 400m.

But having said that. i would have to say i was some one who was out looking for and experimenting with basically stock type cars mainly.
And how to tune them to perform there best. i would say am not prejudice because i don't care, the truth is the truth.
A 202 HQ performed about the same as a 250 XY-B only the 250 had more low down torque. a 250 2V went better but could not cut it with a VG 245 2 barrel.
A 253 was about the same performance as a 302, why because most 302's only had a 2 barrel carb and the falcon was bigger heavier car. but the 302 had more torque down low.
The 308 was gutless if it only had a single exhaust it performed about the same as a 253 only with more torque down low. but if a 308 had a twin exhaust even the 351 2V with 4 barrel carb had to look out. but the 351 had more torque.
But if you had a GT 4V 351, well a 308 had nothing on it.

[irish2]

XR falcon 289;

Engine Specifications:

* Windsor 289 V8 - 4.727 litres
* Bore & Stroke - 102 x 73mm (4.00 x 2.87in)
* Power: 168kW (225bhp) @ 4800rpm
* Torque: 414Nm (305lb-ft) @ 3200rpm

XT falcon 302;

Engine Specifications:

* Type: Windsor 302 V8
* Capacity: 4.942lt (302ci)
* Bore & Stroke: 102 x 76mm (4.00 x 3.00in)
* Power: (DIN) 172kW (230bhp) @ 4800rpm
* Torque: (DIN) 420Nm (310lb-ft) @ 3200rpm

HJ 253;

Engine Specifications:

* Capacity: 253 cubic inches (4.146 litres)
* Bore and Stroke: 3.625 x 3.062 inches (92.0 x 77.7mm)
* Power: 185bhp (138kw) at 4400rpm
* Torque: 262lb-ft (355Nm) at 2400rpm

HJ 308;

Engine Specifications:

* Capacity: 308 cubic inches (5.044 litres)
* Bore and Stroke: 4.00 x 3.06 inches (101.6 x 77.7mm)
* Power: 240bhp (179kw) at 4800rpm
* Torque: 315lb-ft (427Nm) at 3000rpm


A little more accurate than times posted from differently weighted cars that have different gearing. There isn't much in it!

[castellan]

Originally Posted by irish2

XR falcon 289;

Engine Specifications:

* Windsor 289 V8 - 4.727 litres
* Bore & Stroke - 102 x 73mm (4.00 x 2.87in)
* Power: 168kW (225bhp) @ 4800rpm
* Torque: 414Nm (305lb-ft) @ 3200rpm

XT falcon 302;

Engine Specifications:

* Type: Windsor 302 V8
* Capacity: 4.942lt (302ci)
* Bore & Stroke: 102 x 76mm (4.00 x 3.00in)
* Power: (DIN) 172kW (230bhp) @ 4800rpm
* Torque: (DIN) 420Nm (310lb-ft) @ 3200rpm

HJ 253;

Engine Specifications:

* Capacity: 253 cubic inches (4.146 litres)
* Bore and Stroke: 3.625 x 3.062 inches (92.0 x 77.7mm)
* Power: 185bhp (138kw) at 4400rpm
* Torque: 262lb-ft (355Nm) at 2400rpm

HJ 308;

Engine Specifications:

* Capacity: 308 cubic inches (5.044 litres)
* Bore and Stroke: 4.00 x 3.06 inches (101.6 x 77.7mm)
* Power: 240bhp (179kw) at 4800rpm
* Torque: 315lb-ft (427Nm) at 3000rpm


A little more accurate than times posted from differently weighted cars that have different gearing. There isn't much in it!

But still it's only the advertised HP ect. not the real truth of the facts.
A 308 HQ is advertised 240 HP SAE. but in reality they had single exhaust and twin option, if you drove them both you would comprehend the difference.

A XT GT 302 is rated at 230 HP it has a 4 barrel carb & twin exhaust but a XA or XB 302 is rated at 240 HP with a 2 barrel carb & single exhaust and could they hose of a XT GT 302 no way!

[irish2]

Originally Posted by castellan

A XT GT 302 is rated at 230 HP it has a 4 barrel carb & twin exhaust but a XA or XB 302 is rated at 240 HP with a 2 barrel carb & single exhaust and could they hose of a XT GT 302 no way!

Wouldn't have something to do with the fact the XB was a heavier car? There are too many variable to compare a 'seat of the pants' feel in a car. There have been recent articles comparing the 270kw SS to the 290kw XR8 where the journos said the SS felt quicker but when comparing the times the XR was faster.

[mik]

amazeing how far we have come, a 4 cylander these days would leave them in dust.

[Boosh Brus]

Originally Posted by mik

amazeing how far we have come, a 4 cylander these days would leave them in dust.

I had to Google that as well:
Hyundai Accent GS hatchback 3-door – I4 1.6L (110 hp) 5M + (no ABS):
0-60mph - 9.35 seconds
1/4 mile - 17.17 seconds
1/4 mile speed - 81.70 mph

Does this mean in 35 years we will have 12 second 4 bangers?

[paule11]

Pollution gear crippled most of the cars after 1974a different cam and a bit of fiddling made them run well.
I agree the VL was a horrible car to drive I was very dissapointed when I drove one in 1987.

[302 XC]

didnt the VH 253 come standard with a four barrell ????
or was it optional
sure mate had one , not 100 %
didnt really take much noticed about anything "general"
went like a cut snake
anyway back to the quarter times for the dirty old kingswood
1/4 times
were about 3 sandwiches and 6 beers wasnt it ???
PS
bloke i worked with had an hx stocka 253 auto,
against my stocko 179 3 spd hd ute , he had 1 guard on me
when i put twin carbs on the ute
the 253 was dusted

[calais]

Originally Posted by 302 XC

didnt the VH 253 come standard with a four barrell ????
or was it optional
sure mate had one , not 100 %
didnt really take much noticed about anything "general"
went like a cut snake
anyway back to the quarter times for the dirty old kingswood
1/4 times
were about 3 sandwiches and 6 beers wasnt it ???
PS
bloke i worked with had an hx stocka 253 auto,
against my stocko 179 3 spd hd ute , he had 1 guard on me
when i put twin carbs on the ute
the 253 was dusted

Yes, the 1982 VH brought with it the last time the 253 would be fitted to a commodore. The 'blue' update bought the four barrel Rochester and host of other changes, mostly to the cylinder heads and inlet manifold. Holden didnt quote any power or torque changes, but anyone who knows their way around a Rochester and how to tune them could unleash a few more neddies.

Sadly way too many Rochester four barrel carbies were junked in favour of Holleys and the like just because people couldn't be stuffed getting them running right. The Rochester is a damn good carburettor and for their size, flow very very well.

[Fairlane]

A long time.

Ive got a HX with a 202. 0-100 probably comes up around 15 sec. Short diff ratio helps if off the line, but by 145kmh its all over. Once you get over 115 or so acceloration doesnt happen easily and besides its too noisy at that speed. The v8s would certainly be better, and ADR27a really knoced the Hp about, so a HJ would be a fair bit quicker.

[Mr Hardware]

Yeah my VH isn't tooo bad 0-100, but it'd be well in excess of 10sec. Probably around 12-13 i'd estimate. Blue 202.

The 253, what was they saying? Performance of a six, economy of an eight?

[JACK250]

Originally Posted by Mr Hardware

The 253, what was they saying? Performance of a six, economy of an eight?

And the sound of a tractor!

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by JACK250

And the sound of a tractor!

More like the sound of 2 thongs slapping together very fast....

[Stoney!]

Originally Posted by Mr Hardware

Yeah my VH isn't tooo bad 0-100, but it'd be well in excess of 10sec. Probably around 12-13 i'd estimate. Blue 202.

The 253, what was they saying? Performance of a six, economy of an eight?

Aint that the truth, what a lemon of an engine. Had one in the HZ! However I disagree with it sounding like a tractor, I think it sounded sweet.

Stoney!

[J.C.]

Have a look in the May Motor mag. Yeah yeah. I know. Don't believe what they say blah blah blah.
There is a write up on "The first Aussie V8". Apparently, the little 253 was it and started Australia love for the V8.
0-100 times. About 10ish I think.
It's worth a read. Other then that, it maybe five minutes of your life you'll never get back, pending on what you get out of the article.

[calais]

IMHO The little 253 never got the credit it deserved for serving up V8 grunt for six cylinder money for all those years. It was Australias first home grown V8, and was priced where any working man could afford to have one in the shed.

Just like Ford's flathead which ignited the American love affair of the V8, the Holden 253 and 308, should get some kind of recognition for dispensing V8 grunt to the Australian masses!

Fair enough they might not have the cachet amongst the ford fans here on the Forums like the Mighty Cleveland, Humble Windsor and the Boss, but a little credit where credit is due perhaps?

[xy500]

Originally Posted by calais

IMHO The little 253 never got the credit it deserved for serving up V8 grunt for six cylinder money for all those years. It was Australias first home grown V8, and was priced where any working man could afford to have one in the shed.

Just like Ford's flathead which ignited the American love affair of the V8, the Holden 253 and 308, should get some kind of recognition for dispensing V8 grunt to the Australian masses!

Fair enough they might not have the cachet amongst the ford fans here on the Forums like the Mighty Cleveland, Humble Windsor and the Boss, but a little credit where credit is due perhaps?

"grunt" you say? they delivered ******** all power and guzzled like you wouldn't believe. The only difference was the all amazing v8 exhaust sound.

It really gets my goat people talking up 308's especially" Myne has 400hp NA or myne has 500 hp stock standard with an exhaust" too bad they get blown away by six cylinders. I don't even want to get started on 253's. I knew a bloke who had a holley 650 on his 253, he didn't understand when i tried to explain it would actually go better with a smaller carby. "bigger carby is better" apparently.

[calais]

Originally Posted by xy500

"grunt" you say? they delivered ******** all power and guzzled like you wouldn't believe. The only difference was the all amazing v8 exhaust sound.

It really gets my goat people talking up 308's especially" Myne has 400hp NA or myne has 500 hp stock standard with an exhaust" too bad they get blown away by six cylinders. I don't even want to get started on 253's. I knew a bloke who had a holley 650 on his 253, he didn't understand when i tried to explain it would actually go better with a smaller carby. "bigger carby is better" apparently.

Err. Regardless of your previous experience, I don't believe anyone has made such outrageous calls in this thread.

And, just to clarify, I used the term "grunt" loosely.

[xy500]

Originally Posted by calais

Err. Regardless of your previous experience, I don't believe anyone has made such outrageous calls in this thread.

And, just to clarify, I used the term "grunt" loosely.

how many ford blokes would talk up a 308? you see it all the time in street machine readers rides - blokes with fair on stock engines claiming enormous power (never dynoed though). just idiots.
i'd take a 202 or even a 186 over a 253 any day.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by calais

IMHO The little 253 never got the credit it deserved for serving up V8 grunt for six cylinder money for all those years. It was Australias first home grown V8, and was priced where any working man could afford to have one in the shed.

Just like Ford's flathead which ignited the American love affair of the V8, the Holden 253 and 308, should get some kind of recognition for dispensing V8 grunt to the Australian masses!

Fair enough they might not have the cachet amongst the ford fans here on the Forums like the Mighty Cleveland, Humble Windsor and the Boss, but a little credit where credit is due perhaps?

This is the funniest post of the thread. The 253 was utter garbage, commonly referred to as the Claytons V8. The V8 you had when you didn't really have a V8. You only need to look up the acceleration (I use that term loosely) figures to see how much of a gutless waste of iron it really was. Hosed by 6's of the day and chewed juice like a supertanker.

Why the hell anyone chose a 253 over a 308 is beyond me, the price difference would have been bugger all.