HJ Kingswood question -

[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!

[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?

[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!

[302 XC]

pottery,
yeah sorry champ mates torrie i mentioned wasnt an XU 1 as such
but had a 2 door torrie with a stock bottom end 202 that ran flat 13 s
have your ever looked into wat the bathurst toranas actually did down the quarter
not the ones the general public bought , but the ones they raced
but i still doubt that a 253 powered lc/lj toriie would get near an xu1
anyway back to baggin the dirty ol 253

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by 302 XC

pottery,
yeah sorry champ mates torrie i mentioned wasnt an XU 1 as such
but had a 2 door torrie with a stock bottom end 202 that ran flat 13 s
have your ever looked into wat the bathurst toranas actually did down the quarter
not the ones the general public bought , but the ones they raced
but i still doubt that a 253 powered lc/lj toriie would get near an xu1
anyway back to baggin the dirty ol 253

man we're going way back, just rang a mate and had a laugh about the old 'gold beast'.. it use to absolutely bury his XU-1 motored LJ in third gear.. too much of that bigblock 253 torque.. lol.. i wont bag the 253 as i seem to have had a good one in a very light car, a very potent combo.....

[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.

[castellan]

Originally Posted by irish2

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.

NO!
It has got nothing to do with that.
The 302 windsor was always a better performing motor then the 302 cleveland.
The ford advertised 240 HP was just straight out nonsense just a advertisement to compare to holdens 308.
The real HP of a HQ 308 with twin exhaust is about 196 FW,HP. so i can't see a XA 302 with only a 2V carb and single exhaust coming near that.
Even a HQ 350 only had about 205 FW,HP.

[xy500]

Originally Posted by castellan

NO!
It has got nothing to do with that.
The 302 windsor was always a better performing motor then the 302 cleveland.
The ford advertised 240 HP was just straight out nonsense just a advertisement to compare to holdens 308.
The real HP of a HQ 308 with twin exhaust is about 196 FW,HP. so i can't see a XA 302 with only a 2V carb and single exhaust coming near that.
Even a HQ 350 only had about 205 FW,HP.

your point being?

[castellan]

Originally Posted by xy500

your point being?

The HP ratings were only SAE advertised HP ratings. not facts!
SAE power figures are like
DIN power figures are way more accurate.

And the 302 clevo was not really designed to be a 302 in the first place. we only did that hear in aus, because it was mainly to do with the been counters. you never seen anyone racing 302 clevo's do ya. they always use windsor 302.
Just stating facts.

And i will tell ya another thing lower diff ratio gears don't always mean it will perform better.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by castellan

The HP ratings were only SAE advertised HP ratings. not facts!
SAE power figures are like
DIN power figures are way more accurate.

And the 302 clevo was not really designed to be a 302 in the first place. we only did that hear in aus, because it was mainly to do with the been counters. you never seen anyone racing 302 clevo's do ya. they always use windsor 302.
Just stating facts.

And i will tell ya another thing lower diff ratio gears don't always mean it will perform better.

The 302 clevo closed chamber head has been used on many a tough motor. Clevo heads breathe way better than a windsor stock vs stock.

[4Vman]

People dont race 302C's because there is a 351C... Put 302C heads on a 302W bottom end and you get a Better 302 than using W heads...

[robbyg]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

A lot of people might have forgotten the old 221 motor (3.6 litre) in the XW s they were an awesome bit of kit for its day.

Mate i havent forgotton, my first falcon and first car, XW sedan, 3.6 litre, three on the tree, absolutly hammered any holden six at the time, the chrysler slant 6 i think also an awesome donk at that time. So much loved the XW falcon 500 3.6 litre, three on the tree, bench seats, looking for one to resto shortly.

[castellan]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

People dont race 302C's because there is a 351C... Put 302C heads on a 302W bottom end and you get a Better 302 than using W heads...

Yes true.

[Express]

Wow this thread has taken my memory back and proves that technology has really advanced and that I’m well over thirty. I had a number of manual trans 253’s and 308’s in various cars in the late 70’s and early 80’s, vans, utes, sedans and Toranas.

In my opinion, the 253 had a great sound when teamed with nothing more than two hotdogs but as far as power output, it was as weak as. I saw most of them blown away by 6 cylinder Fords, Valiants and Holdens. Those few that had anything to offer and only a little at that, had too much money thrown at them that would have been better served sourcing a 308 and spending a bit.

The best stock 308 I had was an L34 (the A9X spec motor) in a HX Ute and the low gearing from the M21 box and 3.36 diff was its only saving grace. After spending a wad of cash on it using the technology of the time, I had a powerful, mean sounding 308, but not what I considered a fast car. Worked over 351 powered Fords were still my nemesis. That was until I discovered the possibilities of the 350 Chev. My best effort for the day was a 350 in an LX Torana sedan (with a Toploader and 9inch for strength).

I have fond memories of these cars and they were ok for the times but fond memories are all they are. They don’t compare to what’s on offer today. Still times haven’t changed and the same adages still apply, if you choose the right motor and install the right goodies, you can scare yourself. I’m a V8 man through and through and I’m always looking to see what the future brings in the way of improvements and that’s why I’ve joined this forum. I want to find out how much the new V8 when released in the Ford will enhance my day.

[Spinner5711]

People,

253s don't deserve such a bagging. My experience with them, all those years ago, was always WOW. They may not have been the fastest engines on the street, but in their time, they weren't too bad.

As for the 302C protagonists, I had a car that used to embarrass them. My first car was a Morris 1100S. With a little work on the engine (single 1½" SU changed for twin 1 1/4" SUs, Sonic extractors and straight through 2" exhaust), I used to blow XAs & XBs off at any traffic light that I met one willing to try it on.

The 253 that I knew was in my father's HT Kingswood Wagon. It was a 253H coupled to a Powerglide. We made some mods - twin exhaust, 350 cfm Holley, twin point distributor and GTS instrument panel. I used to have fun at teh traffic lights with that, the look on other driver's faces, when I still hadn't changed gears at 85 mph while they were winding out third, was a huge source of mirth for me & my mates.

I think that most of you are missing the point with a 253. They weren't marketed as all out performance engines. The 253 was released circa May 1969 as the first Australian designed & made V-8, and hit the streets at a time when a lot of blokes (and more than a few women) were ready to buy new, having been mightily impressed by V-8s in such cars from teh far off days of yore like Customlines, Fairlanes/Galaxies, Cadillacs, Buicks, Impalas, Parisiennes, Royals & Custom Royals. Most (all) of these would have been unattainable to the families of these people but were held up as seriously wow factor cars due to their performance, luxury, style and sheer road presence.

Before some of you pigeon hole me as a GM apologist, since 1980, when I got my licence, I've sampled models from each of the Big 3 and I have to say that i love 'em all.

1) Morris 1100S.
2) FC panelvan.
3) VE Regal, Slant 2BBL.
4) VF Regal 770 Series Coupe.
5) ZL Fairlane.
6) NA Fairlane.
7) FE 225 (still own).
8) BA G220, current daily driver.

I've had a few Japanese cars, for my other half too. While she likes the look of the big 'uns, she's to scared to drive them, in part because of the size and in part because the car 'wiggles scarily' when driving off from stop signs & traffic lights in the wet.

Everyone, we should be happy that we've had the diversity of V-8 cars available to local designs, on the local market, so that we can debate them. GM-H, with something like eight different displacements (4 Holden, 4 Chev), FoMoCo with something like six different displacements (2 sidevalve, 4 Windsor, 2 Cleveland, 1 Modular), Chrysler with four different displacements and Leyland with the 269 CID V-8 in the P76. Imagine how depressed you'd be if you were in Scandinavia or some such place. Enjoy what we have.

[xbgs351]

During the 1980's our family car was an auto HJ Kingswood with a 308 and tow camshaft. Compared to the majority of the cars of that era it was a swift car. I recall visits to Melbourne when we were towing our nineteen foot ski race boat which contained a 454 Chev. At the traffics lights the HJ would still leave most other cars for dead.

[bingoTE50]

I owned a HX Deluxe trimatic 253 and it was very ordinary until I put extractors and twin exhaust on it ,and this made a big difference.It still was not as quick as my VJ regal I had with a 265 Hemi ,but you good sit on 140km/h all day with the 253 and it would not worry it and it used less fuel than a 202 .That why they were popular ,they used less fuel than the 202.The HZ with a 253 ,4.2litre was a big seller for holden.
I used to travel from Sydney to Kew ,just south of Port Macquarie ,and hammer the 253 and use 3/4 tank,years later the same trip with better roads and slower speed the HQ premier I had used a full tank with a 202.Both had extractors and exhausts,std carbs.