So if thats anywhere close to true, youre saying the Walkinshaw also had more than 180kw? ss nut, is that wagon a stroker, there were a few HDT models released with stroker motors werent there?

Quote: Originally Posted by Injection [View Post] don't forget that they changes the method of recording power outputs during that era and the 137kw was a lot higher in the former measure of output, around the 190 mark. As for the normal VL V8, that was ordinary. Your maths is a little out mate.

Quote: Originally Posted by VL 5.0L [View Post] bought it from melbourne totally immaculate, everything works and for a reasonable price, is this worth keeping original and stored away What model? RB30 or V8? ---------- Post added 07-02-11 at 16:10 ---------- Quote: Originally Posted by NSNPWR [View Post] So if thats anywhere close to true, youre saying the Walkinshaw also had more than 180kw? ss nut, is that wagon a stroker, there were a few HDT models released with stroker motors werent there? 1. Doubt it 2. Yip 5.6 stroker

Quote: Originally Posted by PROGMH [View Post] Agreed. How can you possibly compare a base model with a HDT Brock? LOL. Well the weezy strangled stocker was easy to unstrangle, it had big valve unleaded heads, HDT spec 955 inlet manifold, A9L rods and rejettable rochester so if you chromed the rocker covers and carby lid, port matched the inlet, added a Wade cam, extractors opened up the aircleaner and had the dizzy blueprinted you would have that HDT exhaust note. It's all there ready to be tweaked, and looks very eighties era. A pretty pic for the boyz and girls. Some original photos have not been recovered yet.

Quote: Originally Posted by NZ EVLHSV [View Post] 1. Doubt it 2. Yip 5.6 stroker 1. But if we apply 'Injections' logic, it must have been making more! 2. Thought so and might explain 'ss nut' and his wagon having 196kw...not exactly comparing apples with apples though is it. ---------- Post added 07-02-11 at 16:43 ---------- Quote: Originally Posted by Boyracer [View Post] Well the weezy strangled stocker was easy to unstrangle, it had big valve unleaded heads, HDT spec 955 inlet manifold, A9L rods and rejettable rochester so if you chromed the rocker covers and carby lid, port matched the inlet, added a Wade cam, extractors opened up the aircleaner and had the dizzy blueprinted you would have that HDT exhaust note. It's all there ready to be tweaked, and looks very eighties era. A pretty pic for the boyz and girls. So what part of them mods makes would make this example the OP bought a factory 137kw, 63000km VL 5.0? Some original photos have not been recovered yet.

It's a pity original power figures vary. Some old cars were measured with no pipes and air cleaners off, others are blatant lies.

Come one VL 5.0L, pics or its bull**** Dazz Some original photos have not been recovered yet.

Quote: Originally Posted by Injection [View Post] don't forget that they changes the method of recording power outputs during that era and the 137kw was a lot higher in the former measure of output, around the 190 mark. As for the normal VL V8, that was ordinary. In what way? - as far as I know a kilowatt has ALWAYS equalled 1.34 horsepower. I can tell you that when the VL came out, the power listed by the manufacturer was listed in kilowatts and the way kilowatts are measured (mathematics) have always been the same. A dyno will only tell you the measured kilowatts at the rear wheels. Or you can get the engine dyno which it's bolted directly to - measured at the flywheel (which is alot higher than rear wheels) As far as I know, the mathematics hasn't changed. Manufacturers still quote from the flywheel. Theres been a push in recent years for manufacturers / car magazines to determine both the KW at the flywheel and rear wheels when testing vehicles. But from a marketing / sales point of view, flywheel still rules. So back then if 137kw was claim by the manufacturer, then at the rear wheels it would have been lower. ---------- Post added 08-02-11 at 06:33 ---------- Quote: Originally Posted by PROGMH [View Post] It's a pity original power figures vary. Some old cars were measured with no pipes and air cleaners off, others are blatant lies. Which ones? A manufacturer would not blatantly lie in its power claims. That's something they can get into a lot of hot water with. ALL tests and stats on a vehicle has to be substantiated / verified by some empirical means.

Quote: Originally Posted by EvilPet [View Post] A manufacturer would not blatantly lie in its power claims. That's something they can get into a lot of hot water with. ALL tests and stats on a vehicle has to be substantiated / verified by some empirical means. Nissan GTR - 206kw... that's a lie!

Quote: Originally Posted by NZ EVLHSV [View Post] Nissan GTR - 206kw... that's a lie! And a very good lie at that Some original photos have not been recovered yet.

that's a capped figure due to legislation in Japan

Quote: Originally Posted by aus880 [View Post] that's a capped figure due to legislation in Japan Not "Legislation" it was actually a "gentlemans agreement." No written paperwork or laws to actually hold them to that power (AFAIK) Some original photos have not been recovered yet.

Quote: Originally Posted by EvilPet [View Post] ---------- Post added 08-02-11 at 06:33 ---------- [/COLOR] Which ones? A manufacturer would not blatantly lie in its power claims. That's something they can get into a lot of hot water with. ALL tests and stats on a vehicle has to be substantiated / verified by some empirical means. It's well known that many manufacturers underquote power outputs, especially back in the mid 70's when the Government was cracking down on supercars.

the difference is they went form the DIN measurement of power to the SAE or something like that, what brock was doing was measuring his engines without the PS AC, they are both correct power rating in KW they are just meausured differently remeber the red vl group A's could be brought as a plus pack that wore brock signiture and had the poleriser and the holden one that was built at hdt but didnt have the poleriser therefor brock said it couldnt wear his signiture, they are exactly the same engines ---------- Post added 08-02-11 at 22:44 ---------- and you better not have stolen my v8 exec oh wait mines done 77k

Quote: Originally Posted by PROGMH [View Post] It's well known that many manufacturers underquote power outputs, especially back in the mid 70's when the Government was cracking down on supercars. Absolutely correct. Underquote yes. But to say a vehicle has say for example 300kw when the engine produces nothing in that vicinity is to create outcry by misled buyers. As consumers we're always happy when we get something for nothing. but short change us, and suddenly you're on "A Current Affair".

Quote: Originally Posted by Woggster [View Post] Not "Legislation" it was actually a "gentlemans agreement." No written paperwork or laws to actually hold them to that power (AFAIK) from memory legislation in Japan meant they couldn't produce a car that exceeded 206kw so manufacturers then said their cars were 'only' 206kw despite many producing much more Some original photos have not been recovered yet.

Our wagon is 4.9 litre,(196kw)the other HDT wagon you refer which has the 5.6 has 245kw. Cheers Marty

Can you link to anywhere that confirms those power figures? Only thing I get for 196kw when I search are VK HDTs?

well it wasnt till the vl that holden released the real numbers for there hdt built group a so all the older models were measured by brock

Heres a pic again,trying imagebam as image shack seems to delete them?? just click on thumb nail to increase the size. cheers Marty Some original photos have not been recovered yet.