Showing posts with label 302. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 302. Show all posts
Friday, July 24, 2009
302 Cleveland
Later two barrel 302C’s fitted to XB Falcons adopted the large, ‘second’ style 4V air cleaners with non-belled mouth and non-tapered snorkel.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
302 Cleveland
This shows how to identify the heads when they are off the car. From the factory, Ford differentiated the two engines by painting the 302C’s rocker covers red as seen on these XA’s.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
302 Cleveland
As has been mentioned before, the 302C engine was unique to Australia. Effectively, it was short stroke - 3” as opposed to 3.5” - 351C engine, which used a different crank and shorter rods. Early in its life in the XA and XB Falcon range and ZF and ZG Fairlanes, the 302C was available only as a two barrel carbed engine, but later, when Ford introduced the XC Falcon and ZH Fairlane, they swapped to a four barrel carburetor. This was primarily an emissions driven change and the carb fitted was the Carter Thermoquad which is a spreadbore type of carb with small primaries and larger secondaries. Again, there was some logic to Ford’s move as it redesigned the inlet manifold to take the Thermoquad but could use it on both 351C and 302C.
The most interesting thing about the 302C engine is that fact the Australian heads that were fitted to it are different from the Australian heads fitted to 351C engines. The 302C 2V heads are closed chamber heads - sometimes called quench design - and have a chamber size significantly smaller than that of the Aus 351C 2V head. The chamber size for the 302C is 58cc, in comparison with 74cc for the 351C. The difference between the two is compensated for in the actual difference in the combustion chamber size between the shorter stroke 302C and the longer stroke 351C. Considering the engines as fitted to cars, for example an XB, the actual compression ratio is 9.4 to 1 for the 302C and 9.1 to 1 for the 351C.
Now, the closed chamber quench design of the 302C head is more efficient, so it would theoretically be a good idea to fit the 302C heads to the 351C block and rods ? The problem is that the compression ratio for an engine configured like this hits 11 to 1. Great in the days of high octane petrol, not so good now. It can be done, and done successfully, but it has to be watched carefully for detonation. The other side of the coin, of course, is that if you put 351C heads on your 302C engine, then you get awful compression, and it is a waste of time.
To illustrate. This is a 351C open chamber head.
And this is a 302C closed chamber head.
The most interesting thing about the 302C engine is that fact the Australian heads that were fitted to it are different from the Australian heads fitted to 351C engines. The 302C 2V heads are closed chamber heads - sometimes called quench design - and have a chamber size significantly smaller than that of the Aus 351C 2V head. The chamber size for the 302C is 58cc, in comparison with 74cc for the 351C. The difference between the two is compensated for in the actual difference in the combustion chamber size between the shorter stroke 302C and the longer stroke 351C. Considering the engines as fitted to cars, for example an XB, the actual compression ratio is 9.4 to 1 for the 302C and 9.1 to 1 for the 351C.
Now, the closed chamber quench design of the 302C head is more efficient, so it would theoretically be a good idea to fit the 302C heads to the 351C block and rods ? The problem is that the compression ratio for an engine configured like this hits 11 to 1. Great in the days of high octane petrol, not so good now. It can be done, and done successfully, but it has to be watched carefully for detonation. The other side of the coin, of course, is that if you put 351C heads on your 302C engine, then you get awful compression, and it is a waste of time.
To illustrate. This is a 351C open chamber head.
And this is a 302C closed chamber head.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Thorn Red 2
Perhaps the most famous, and continuing the success carried over from racing the XW and XY, was Allan Moffat who drove some quite awesome looking hardtops at Bathurst.
This is the car Allan Moffat drove in the 1975 Bathurst race.
And this is the XB hardtop that is privately owned.
The car is a 1975 XB Falcon 500 hardtop, fitted with a 302ci Cleveland V8, three speed automatic trans, and factory ordered GT/GS options - dash, steering wheel, bonnet, grille and rear wing.
This is the car Allan Moffat drove in the 1975 Bathurst race.
And this is the XB hardtop that is privately owned.
The car is a 1975 XB Falcon 500 hardtop, fitted with a 302ci Cleveland V8, three speed automatic trans, and factory ordered GT/GS options - dash, steering wheel, bonnet, grille and rear wing.
Monday, July 09, 2007
EB Scoop
1992 saw the 25th anniversary of the first Falcon GT and Ford were keen to celebrate the fact and re-introduce their most famous of models. Making full use of their involvement with Tickford Vehicle Engineering, Ford produced approximately 300 examples of the EB GT. Limited in colour choice and fitted with a 200kw 302ci V8, the EB GT also gave Ford a great opportunity to resurrect the scoop.
1992 saw the 25th anniversary of the first Falcon GT and Ford were keen to celebrate the fact and re-introduce their most famous of models. Making full use of their involvement with Tickford Vehicle Engineering, Ford produced approximately 300 examples of the EB GT. Limited in colour choice and fitted with a 200kw 302ci V8, the EB GT also gave Ford a great opportunity to resurrect the scoop.
Monday, June 18, 2007
XB GS exterior treatments
This is an 302ci V8 powered XB Fairmont GS without the displacement badges.
Careful inspection of the GS stripes on the XB at the front reveals some variation in their placement. Some have the stripe right up against the ‘seam’ for the little end cap, like the wagon above, and some have them set back from that. In fact, some cars even have different placement from side to side as in this car, although, there is some evidence that the drivers wing was replaced at some stage. The decal may well not have been re-applied with the same ‘factory care’.
Careful inspection of the GS stripes on the XB at the front reveals some variation in their placement. Some have the stripe right up against the ‘seam’ for the little end cap, like the wagon above, and some have them set back from that. In fact, some cars even have different placement from side to side as in this car, although, there is some evidence that the drivers wing was replaced at some stage. The decal may well not have been re-applied with the same ‘factory care’.
Saturday, June 02, 2007
XW GS
Available on the Falcon 500, Futura and Fairmont sedan, the GS added the following features; GS Rally stripes that ran from the front indicators to the middle of the rear wing and ended with the GS insignia and full wheel covers that were the same as the stainless steel wheel covers used on the XR and XT GT models. Inside, a three spoke, deep dished wooden rimmed steering wheel with rim squeeze horn and full dash instrumentation were the same as on the GT model.
From there the buyer could then run riot through the normal options list adding; bucket seats and sports console with four speed or T-Bar automatic, a 302ci 220hp V8, power disk brakes, air conditioning, tinted windscreen, vinyl roof; anything, in fact, that was available in the catalogue. Ford advertised the GS as - ‘Make up your own Grand Sport’ - and, while the car did not have the appeal of the GT, it did offer the cost conscious a distinctive alternative.
From there the buyer could then run riot through the normal options list adding; bucket seats and sports console with four speed or T-Bar automatic, a 302ci 220hp V8, power disk brakes, air conditioning, tinted windscreen, vinyl roof; anything, in fact, that was available in the catalogue. Ford advertised the GS as - ‘Make up your own Grand Sport’ - and, while the car did not have the appeal of the GT, it did offer the cost conscious a distinctive alternative.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Engine schemes 2
The XD and XE engine, both 302C and 351C had black painted blocks and silver rocker covers and air cleaners.
While it could be easy to dismiss the later Clevelands as fitted to XD and XE’s as mere shadows of their former selves, and not worth much merit, we actually find that they can throw up as much controversy as the earlier U.S. versus Australian engines, or 4V versus 2V. Welcome to the world of ‘Nascar’ blocks and ‘pillow’ blocks.
While it could be easy to dismiss the later Clevelands as fitted to XD and XE’s as mere shadows of their former selves, and not worth much merit, we actually find that they can throw up as much controversy as the earlier U.S. versus Australian engines, or 4V versus 2V. Welcome to the world of ‘Nascar’ blocks and ‘pillow’ blocks.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Cleveland cylinder heads
To fit 351C engines, it is generally accepted that there are seven types of production Cleveland heads that you may come across, five U.S. and two Australian.
They are:-
U.S. 4V Closed chamber with a ‘4’ cast in the corner
U.S. 4V Open chamber with a ‘4’ cast in the corner
U.S. 4V Closed chamber with a ‘4’ and a ‘dot’ cast in the corner
U.S. 2V Open chamber with a ‘2’ cast in the corner
U.S. 2V Open chamber with a ‘2’ and a ‘dot’ cast in the corner
Aus 2V Open chamber with nothing cast in the corner as fitted to Aus 351C
Aus 2V Closed chamber with nothing cast in the corner as fitted to Aus 302C
To take them in turn.
The U.S. 4V closed chamber head with the ‘4’ casting is the head fitted to the CK608 and CK609 engines installed in XW and XY GT’s. These heads were fitted to imported ‘D’ block engines.
The U.S. 4V open chamber head was not fitted to any Australian Ford.
The U.S. 4V closed chamber head with the ‘4’ and ‘dot’ casting is the head fitted to the CK617 engines installed from mid 1972 XA through to end of 1973 XB manual transmission equipped GT’s. It has a slightly larger chamber than the ‘4’ only casting with a resultant half a point compression drop in C.R. These engines were imported ‘square’ block engines.
The U.S. 2V open chamber head with the ‘2’ casting is the head used on the CK601 and CK604 engines in XY’s and ZD’s. These were imported ‘D’ block engines.
The U.S. 2V open chamber heads with the ‘2’ and ‘dot’ casting in the head were used on the CK614 engines fitted to late XY’s and ZD’s. These engines were imported ‘square’ block engines.
The Aus 2V open chamber head with no casting mark is the head fitted to Australian built 351C’s fitted to XA’s through to XE’s with both four barrel and two barrel carbs.
The Aus 2V closed chamber head with no casting mark is the head fitted to Australian built 302C’s fitted to XA’s to XE’s with two barrel and four barrel carbs. It has the smallest chamber size of any of the production Cleveland heads.
They are:-
U.S. 4V Closed chamber with a ‘4’ cast in the corner
U.S. 4V Open chamber with a ‘4’ cast in the corner
U.S. 4V Closed chamber with a ‘4’ and a ‘dot’ cast in the corner
U.S. 2V Open chamber with a ‘2’ cast in the corner
U.S. 2V Open chamber with a ‘2’ and a ‘dot’ cast in the corner
Aus 2V Open chamber with nothing cast in the corner as fitted to Aus 351C
Aus 2V Closed chamber with nothing cast in the corner as fitted to Aus 302C
To take them in turn.
The U.S. 4V closed chamber head with the ‘4’ casting is the head fitted to the CK608 and CK609 engines installed in XW and XY GT’s. These heads were fitted to imported ‘D’ block engines.
The U.S. 4V open chamber head was not fitted to any Australian Ford.
The U.S. 4V closed chamber head with the ‘4’ and ‘dot’ casting is the head fitted to the CK617 engines installed from mid 1972 XA through to end of 1973 XB manual transmission equipped GT’s. It has a slightly larger chamber than the ‘4’ only casting with a resultant half a point compression drop in C.R. These engines were imported ‘square’ block engines.
The U.S. 2V open chamber head with the ‘2’ casting is the head used on the CK601 and CK604 engines in XY’s and ZD’s. These were imported ‘D’ block engines.
The U.S. 2V open chamber heads with the ‘2’ and ‘dot’ casting in the head were used on the CK614 engines fitted to late XY’s and ZD’s. These engines were imported ‘square’ block engines.
The Aus 2V open chamber head with no casting mark is the head fitted to Australian built 351C’s fitted to XA’s through to XE’s with both four barrel and two barrel carbs.
The Aus 2V closed chamber head with no casting mark is the head fitted to Australian built 302C’s fitted to XA’s to XE’s with two barrel and four barrel carbs. It has the smallest chamber size of any of the production Cleveland heads.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Cleveland engines continued
In the U.S. for the very brief period that the musclecar/horsepower craze continued during the 351C’s early life, the 4V spawned a small clutch of developments:- the 1971 Boss 351; the 351CobraJets, or CJs; and four bolt mains caps. These were U.S. only developments and never made it to the Australian chapter of the 351C story to which we now turn.
The first 351C engines to appear in an Australian Ford were those fitted to the XW GT Phase 1.5s built in February, 1970. The U.S. 351C was announced for the 1970 model year and introduced in September, 1969, so it took less than six months for the Cleveland to appear in Australia. The Phase 1.5 - one and a half - was to all intents and purposes an XW GTHO with all the running gear from the 351 Windsor powered Phase1 but with an imported 351C 4V engines fitted. They were cars to tide the market over until the full production Cleveland powered XW GTs were released in April, 1970. The regular production XWGT, powered by the 351C, then ran out the XW model to October, 1970. Later, introduced in June, 1970, was the XW GTHO Phase2 fitted with the U.S. imported 351C engine which had a solid lifter camshaft, and a 750cfm Holley carburettor. You can see that the 351C was regarded first and foremost as its flagship engine.
With the October, 1970 introduction of the XY Falcon and ZD Fairmont range of cars, the Cleveland progressed beyond its performance image and 250hp, two barrel carburetored, 2V versions were offered as the top option on both models. The 300hp, four barrelled, 4V version of the engine was only offered on the XY GT and GTHO. Both these engines were still imported, but Ford Australia was keen to build its own and had tooled up to provide locally manfactured 351C and 302C engines. Why tool for a 302C engine when they had been using the 302W ? Well, it provided economies of scale, being able to use all of the ancilliary parts from one engine on another, and all for the sake of a different crank and rods.
And so the March, 1972 introduction of the Australian designed XA Falcon range also saw the debut of Australian built 351C and 302C in two barrel carbed, 2V form. There have been some reports that 302C’s were fitted to Brisbane built, December, 1971 XY Falcons. Brisbane cars have the letter ‘H’ as the second leter of their VIN. For the moment, the four barrel, 4V engines were imported, but by the early/middle of 1973 Ford Australia had developed their own four barrel fed 351C but used their own 2V style heads on the engine.
This is where the 2V and 4V descriptive terms become somewhat entwined. The distinct separation that applied in the U.S. between 2V and 4V ensured that a 2V Cleveland had a two barrel carb and inlet manifold, small inlet and exhaust ports and an enlarged chamber volume, while the 4V Cleveland had a four barrel carb, large inlet and exhaust ports and reduced size chamber volume which created a higher compression ratio. Now the Australians introduced a 2V head that took either a two or a four barrel carb inlet manifold, and had a large, but not as large as the U.S. 2V, open chamber size, plus, for further confusion, they introduced a 302C engine that had 2V heads which had a two barrel carb but a chamber volume smaller than anything the U.S. had offered, even on their highest performance Clevelands.
The first 351C engines to appear in an Australian Ford were those fitted to the XW GT Phase 1.5s built in February, 1970. The U.S. 351C was announced for the 1970 model year and introduced in September, 1969, so it took less than six months for the Cleveland to appear in Australia. The Phase 1.5 - one and a half - was to all intents and purposes an XW GTHO with all the running gear from the 351 Windsor powered Phase1 but with an imported 351C 4V engines fitted. They were cars to tide the market over until the full production Cleveland powered XW GTs were released in April, 1970. The regular production XWGT, powered by the 351C, then ran out the XW model to October, 1970. Later, introduced in June, 1970, was the XW GTHO Phase2 fitted with the U.S. imported 351C engine which had a solid lifter camshaft, and a 750cfm Holley carburettor. You can see that the 351C was regarded first and foremost as its flagship engine.
With the October, 1970 introduction of the XY Falcon and ZD Fairmont range of cars, the Cleveland progressed beyond its performance image and 250hp, two barrel carburetored, 2V versions were offered as the top option on both models. The 300hp, four barrelled, 4V version of the engine was only offered on the XY GT and GTHO. Both these engines were still imported, but Ford Australia was keen to build its own and had tooled up to provide locally manfactured 351C and 302C engines. Why tool for a 302C engine when they had been using the 302W ? Well, it provided economies of scale, being able to use all of the ancilliary parts from one engine on another, and all for the sake of a different crank and rods.
And so the March, 1972 introduction of the Australian designed XA Falcon range also saw the debut of Australian built 351C and 302C in two barrel carbed, 2V form. There have been some reports that 302C’s were fitted to Brisbane built, December, 1971 XY Falcons. Brisbane cars have the letter ‘H’ as the second leter of their VIN. For the moment, the four barrel, 4V engines were imported, but by the early/middle of 1973 Ford Australia had developed their own four barrel fed 351C but used their own 2V style heads on the engine.
This is where the 2V and 4V descriptive terms become somewhat entwined. The distinct separation that applied in the U.S. between 2V and 4V ensured that a 2V Cleveland had a two barrel carb and inlet manifold, small inlet and exhaust ports and an enlarged chamber volume, while the 4V Cleveland had a four barrel carb, large inlet and exhaust ports and reduced size chamber volume which created a higher compression ratio. Now the Australians introduced a 2V head that took either a two or a four barrel carb inlet manifold, and had a large, but not as large as the U.S. 2V, open chamber size, plus, for further confusion, they introduced a 302C engine that had 2V heads which had a two barrel carb but a chamber volume smaller than anything the U.S. had offered, even on their highest performance Clevelands.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
XA Superbird
Although the “Superbird” isn’t a GT, I felt that an article on the XA’s would be incomplete without it. Whilst essentially aimed at a different market to the XA GT, the XA Falcon “Superbird” was still a close cousin in many respects. A car that always looked the goods, the “Superbird” was aimed at a younger and less well healed market than the GT.
The original concept car was designed by Ford Product Planning Manager – Nick Bartolini – as a styling exercise to stop crowds at the Melbourne and Sydney Motor Show. This car was actually an XA GT hardtop featuring H.O. running gear , power steering , a 36 gallon tank and a really large “Superbird” decal. A feature that was exclusive to Show “Superbird” was a rough wool upholstery and pale grey rooflining. From a marketing point of view, the car was a success from day one and it wasn’t long before Ford executives decided that it should be put into production. However, in stark contrast to the show car, the one actually sold to the public was a lot tamer in regards to its mechanical specification.
“The 302 V8 Superbird from Ford - an exiting package of Power , Comfort and Individuality”.
These words – from the advertising of the day – give an indication that this car was designed as a mid-point between the standard Falcon and the GT. Sporting in nature and distinctive in style, but without the sheer grunt and overt masculinity that was the GT.
The “Superbird”came standard with a 240 BHP 302 CID V8 engine under the bonnet - and a 4-speed floor shift to make the most of it. (T-Bar automatic transmission with sports console was optional). Other standard equipment included front power disc brakes, 185 SR x 14 radials, sport handling suspension, GT instrumentation – including tachometer, volt meter, oil pressure, temperature and fuel gauges, speedometer, odometer and a prismatic day / night rear view mirror.
Internally, the “Superbird” was luxuriously carpeted wall-to-wall and had high-backed, deeply-contoured front bucket seats with a choice of white or black vinyl trim. To enhance the feeling of individuality, the car featured styled rear window louvres, a matt black front grille, 6" x 14" styled steel wheels with GT chrome wheel trim rings, chrome centre cap and wheel nuts, “Superbird” identification decals on glove box and on rear body panels, and a unique, colour-keyed exterior paint treatment on bonnet, side and rear panels.
In keeping with an exclusive type of vehicle in the great GT tradition, you could only choose from three exclusive paint combinations - Polar White with Cosmic Blue accent, Yellow Fire with Walnut Glow accent and Lime Glaze with Jewel Green accent.
Special retail price for the “Superbird” was $3590 for the manual version, with the optional T-Bar automatic and sports console totalling $3735. This was a saving of $410 on normal retail price for the manual model, and $423 on the automatic model. Sounds like good value to me.
The original concept car was designed by Ford Product Planning Manager – Nick Bartolini – as a styling exercise to stop crowds at the Melbourne and Sydney Motor Show. This car was actually an XA GT hardtop featuring H.O. running gear , power steering , a 36 gallon tank and a really large “Superbird” decal. A feature that was exclusive to Show “Superbird” was a rough wool upholstery and pale grey rooflining. From a marketing point of view, the car was a success from day one and it wasn’t long before Ford executives decided that it should be put into production. However, in stark contrast to the show car, the one actually sold to the public was a lot tamer in regards to its mechanical specification.
“The 302 V8 Superbird from Ford - an exiting package of Power , Comfort and Individuality”.
These words – from the advertising of the day – give an indication that this car was designed as a mid-point between the standard Falcon and the GT. Sporting in nature and distinctive in style, but without the sheer grunt and overt masculinity that was the GT.
The “Superbird”came standard with a 240 BHP 302 CID V8 engine under the bonnet - and a 4-speed floor shift to make the most of it. (T-Bar automatic transmission with sports console was optional). Other standard equipment included front power disc brakes, 185 SR x 14 radials, sport handling suspension, GT instrumentation – including tachometer, volt meter, oil pressure, temperature and fuel gauges, speedometer, odometer and a prismatic day / night rear view mirror.
Internally, the “Superbird” was luxuriously carpeted wall-to-wall and had high-backed, deeply-contoured front bucket seats with a choice of white or black vinyl trim. To enhance the feeling of individuality, the car featured styled rear window louvres, a matt black front grille, 6" x 14" styled steel wheels with GT chrome wheel trim rings, chrome centre cap and wheel nuts, “Superbird” identification decals on glove box and on rear body panels, and a unique, colour-keyed exterior paint treatment on bonnet, side and rear panels.
In keeping with an exclusive type of vehicle in the great GT tradition, you could only choose from three exclusive paint combinations - Polar White with Cosmic Blue accent, Yellow Fire with Walnut Glow accent and Lime Glaze with Jewel Green accent.
Special retail price for the “Superbird” was $3590 for the manual version, with the optional T-Bar automatic and sports console totalling $3735. This was a saving of $410 on normal retail price for the manual model, and $423 on the automatic model. Sounds like good value to me.
Friday, March 09, 2007
XW GT - The Super Roo
Following the sales success of both the XR and XT GTs, Ford Australia decided that the GT would continue in its upcoming model and in May 1969, production of the XW GT - flagship of the XW Falcon range - commenced. However the new GT was a far cry from the relatively subdued XT GT.
The new model was much bolder and meaner looking, with a new front and rear end treatment, a large range of striking colours, blackouts around the doors and on the bonnet, bonnet scoop, driving lights, chrome strips, badges on the guards and boot lid, a big wide stripe down each side and a decal of a V8 powered kangaroo burning rubber, described as the Super Roo. The new GT certainly made an impact and was not the type of car for those looking for anonymity.
Mechanically, the 302 cu.in. V8 in the XT GT was initially replaced by the larger and more powerful 351 cu.in. version of the Windsor motor. This increase in size, along with compression being raised from 10 to 1, to 10.7 to 1, increased engine power from 230 HP at 4800 rpm to 290 HP at 4800 rpm and torque from 310 lbs/ft at 3800 rpm to 385 lbs/ft at 3800 rpm. To handle the extra power and torque, the XW GT received the venerable Ford 9 inch limited slip diff, running 3.25:1 gears. As with the XT GT, automatic transmission was also available in the XW GT, however the stronger FMX auto replaced the C4 auto of the previous model.
With the growing importance of the Bathurst race, a number of other changes were made to improve the XW GTs race winning potential. These included stiffer suspension, 11.25 in. ventilated front disc brakes and an enormous 36 gallon fuel tank - obviously to minimise fuel stops in the great race. Wheels and tyres were also upgraded to 6.0 in. wide Kelsey Hayes riveted ‘12 slot’ rims running ER 70 x 14 HR Dunlop SP or Olympic ‘Wide Ride’ radial ply tyres.
Although these changes made the new GT a much more performance oriented vehicle than it’s predecessor, the XW GTs increased weight ensured that its top speed (125-130 MPH) and quarter mile times (15.5-16.0 sec.) were very similar to those of the XT GT. Only in the 0-100 MPH times (20.3-20.9 sec) did the XW GT show its potential, being around 3 sec. quicker than the XT GT.
It is generally accepted that Windsor powered XW GTs were produced up until the end of February 1970, with total production up to this point being 1268 vehicles. The exact change over date for the Cleveland engine is however unclear and some may have continued into March 1970. At a cost of only $4250 incl. tax, the new GT was considered by ‘Wheels’ magazine, to be “the best performance bargain in Australia”.
As good as the new model was, the factory wanted something better to race at Bathurst and so an even more potent version - the XW GTHO - was developed.
THE GTHO
Production of the XW GTHO - with HO standing for Handling Option (not High Output) - commenced in July 1969. Changes from the standard model included replacing the cast iron inlet manifold and Autolite 450 cfm carburettor with a Ford (Buddy Bar) aluminium inlet manifold and 600cfm Holley carburettor (similar to the one used on the 390 Mustang GT), a bigger cam, heavy duty alternator, a 3 in. tailshaft, bigger front sway bar and a rear sway bar. For marketing reasons, Ford still claimed only 290 bhp for the GTHO - the same as for the standard XW GT, even though it was obviously more powerful. So special was the GTHO, that Ford gave it a different model number (18939) compared to the standard GT (18938). Interestingly, this convention was not carried through to the Phase 3, with the XY GT and HO of that year, having the same model number. More about the vagaries of model numbers for a later issue.
Although top speed for the GTHO (130 MPH) was similar to the standard model, how it got there was a vast improvement over the GT. The quarter mile times (14.4-15.0 sec.) show a dramatic improvement over the GT, with the 0-100 MPH times (16.7-16.8 sec) confirming its acceleration capabilities.
Having produced a 1-2-3 victory at the Sandown 3 Hour race only weeks before, great things were expected of the GTHO at Bathurst, on that first weekend in October. Everything looked good in practice and qualifying. The Geoghegan brothers took pole position with a time of 2:48.9 sec. - nearly 8 sec. faster than in 1968 - and the GTHOs were able to reach 136 MPH down Conrod Straight, compared to 130 MPH for the Monaros.
Unfortunately history shows that even the best laid plans can often go astray. Apart from a massive accident on the first lap, where Bill Brown rolled his GTHO coming off the top Skyline, the main thing that stopped a Ford victory on the day of the big race, was the selection of untried Goodyear racing rubber by the Ford works racing team manager Al Turner. A non-factory GTHO driven by running XAS Michelins almost took out the race and finished 2nd by only 44 seconds.
Where the Monaros were lapping in 2:55s, the GTHOs were lapping in 2:52s. Interestingly, Ford - quick to try to negate the effect of their loss to Holden - ran an advertising campaign which showed a photo of destroyed Goodyear tyres in front of a GTHO having its rear tyres replaced and with the caption "We were a little deflated".
Production of Windsor powered GTHOs stopped in December 1969 with a total of around 260 being built - making them one of the rarest GTs. Cost of the GTHO was only $4495 - just $245 more than the standard model - to ensure that it was still eligible for Class D ($3100-$4500) at Bathurst. If ‘Wheels’ considered the GT to be a bargain, then the GTHO must have been a steal.
Unfortunately, the original GTHO will always be remembered as the car that lost Bathurst, even though it was a winner on the road. Such was the demand for the GTHO, that in early 1970 - prior to the introduction of the Phase 2, Ford produced around 57 GTHOs using the Phase 1 running gear, but with a standard ‘Cleveland’ 351 4V engine. Commonly refereed to as Phase 11/2s, these are some of the rarest of the full production GTs.
The CLEVELAND
The ‘Cleveland’ designation for the 351 cu. in. motor fitted to XW GTs built from March 1970, comes from the location of the engine plant where they were originally assembled; Cleveland, Ohio, in the USA. (Windsor motors were assembled in
Windsor, Ontario, in Canada) Although having the same capacity, bore and stroke as the 351W, the 351C was a completely different motor, with completely different characteristics. Where the ‘Windsor’ was designed to be very robust and torquey, the 4V ‘Cleveland’ as used in the GT was designed more with outright performance (horsepower) in mind. Revised sizing of journals and extra large intake and exhaust valves and ports enabled the new motor to rev a lot harder than the previous one.
Mechanically, the 351C had an increased compression ratio of 11 to 1, provided peak power of 300 BHP at 5400 rpm (10 BHP more than the 351W at 600 RPM higher) and peak torque of 380 lbs/ft at 3400 rpm (5 lbs/ft less than the 351W at 400 RPM lower). With the extra power Ford decided to lower the diff ratio from, 3.25:1 to 3.00:1.
Apart from the engine, the only other obvious changes were to the tachometer (increased from 6000 RPM to 8000 RPM) and the oil pressure gauge (increased from 80 psi to 100 psi). Although initially fitted with the Kelsey Hayes riveted ‘12 slot’ rims, in May 1970 Ford introduced the Kelsey Hayes riveted ‘5 slot’ rims, still running ER 70 x 14 HR Dunlop SP or Olympic ‘Wide Ride’ radial ply tyres. Performance of the Cleveland powered XW GTs was similar to the Windsor powered ones. Although the change in diff ratios ensured a slightly higher top speed (130-135 MPH) for the Cleveland powered XW GTs, it also meant that acceleration figures remained fairly similar..
Having commenced in March, production of the Cleveland powered XW GTs continued on until some time in October 1970, with total production up to this point being around 1019 vehicles. With the production of XY falcons commencing in September 1970, it is interesting to note that some of the late XWs were fitted with XY radiator support panels whilst some early XYs were fitted with XW radiator support panels.
With the failure of the XW GTHO (Phase I) to win at Bathurst in 1969 (although not the fault of the car), Ford decided to go all out in developing its new Bathurst weapon, the Cleveland powered XW GTHO (Phase II).
THE GTHO (Phase II)
Production of the XW GTHO (Phase II) commenced in June 1970. Changes from the standard model included modifying the cast iron inlet manifold and replacing the Autolite 450 cfm carburettor with a Ford 750cfm Holley carburettor, a fairly lumpy solid cam with coresponding upgrades to the valve train, heavy duty alternator, a 31/2 in. tailshaft with larger universal joints, bigger front sway bar and a rear sway bar, revised front and rear spring rates, unique upper control arm and spindle to provide an increased front track, 31 spline close ratio gearbox, 3.50:1 diff with nodular iron housing and 31 spline axles and 21/2 in. wide and finned rear drums. For marketing reasons, Ford still claimed only 300 bhp for the GTHO - the same as for the standard Cleveland XW GT, even though it was much more powerful.
Even with the lower diff ratio, top speed for the new GTHO was improved (135-144 MPH). Although acceleration for the new GTHO was also a vast improvement over the standard GT the quarter mile times provided by the testers of the day were fairly inconsistent (14.2-15.2 sec.). Interestingly, these figures along with the 0-100 MPH times (16.7 sec) were almost identical to those of the Phase I. In fact the Phase I was equally as good as the Phase II in many respects, much to the surprise I’m sure, of a lot of you.
BATHURST 1970
Although Moffat provided a win in the Sandown 250 race only weeks before, mechanical problems plagued the rest of the HOs entered and this lack of reliability of the new HO provided some concern to the Ford camp in the lead up to Bathurst. But they should not have worried, as the mountain is a place where the Fords excel. As in 1969, everything looked good in practice and qualifying. The new GTHOs filled the first three positions on the grid, with Moffat taking pole with a time of of 2min 49.0sec.; surprisingly slower than Geoghegan’s time of 2 min 48.9sec. in 1969.
With the experience of 1969 behind them and no untried Goodyear racing rubber the factory GTHOs driven by Moffat and McPhee, ran faultlessly all day and although having a good battle with the XU-1 Toranas of Bond and Chivas, were able to make it a Ford 1-2 victory. Moffat also set a new Class E race lap record of 2 min 55.0sec, again slower than his Class D race lap record of 2 min 52.1sec set in the Phase I.
Official records indicate that production of the proper Phase II GTHOs stopped in October 1970 with a total of around 292 (not including the Phase 11/2’s) being built. Cost of the Phase II was only $4790 - just $425 more than the standard model.
With the push towards total performance, production racing wasn’t the only area of motor sport that Ford was interested in. With Ian (Pete) Geoghegan and Moffat having had a great deal of success in touring class racing with their Mustangs, Ford decided to develop their own car for improved production. The car that we all know of as the Geoghegan Super Falcon, actually started life as an XW GTHO. Two cars were originally built, with one for use by Moffat (see photos).
As can be seen from the picture of the engine bay, with the fuel injection pipes sticking up, this was a car that meant business. Ford spent a lot of money developing these cars, and although they proved to be very quick, they were unfortunately also a little unreliable.
Whilst the original GTHO will always be remembered as the car that lost Bathurst, the Phase II was the one that restored the faith in the Ford hierarchy of the benefits that could be achieved from an involvement in motorsport - “Win on Sunday, Sell on Monday”.
With success at the mountain and a new model (XY) being released to the public with rave reviews (especially the ‘Shaker’ XYGT), Ford could do no wrong. As good as the Phase I and II had been, Ford had something better waiting in the wings. In late 1970, the first XYGT buyers had the opportunity to get a taste for what was to come. They could order, as a $425 option, a Phase II engine for their XYGT. Now that would have been an interesting proposition.
The new model was much bolder and meaner looking, with a new front and rear end treatment, a large range of striking colours, blackouts around the doors and on the bonnet, bonnet scoop, driving lights, chrome strips, badges on the guards and boot lid, a big wide stripe down each side and a decal of a V8 powered kangaroo burning rubber, described as the Super Roo. The new GT certainly made an impact and was not the type of car for those looking for anonymity.
Mechanically, the 302 cu.in. V8 in the XT GT was initially replaced by the larger and more powerful 351 cu.in. version of the Windsor motor. This increase in size, along with compression being raised from 10 to 1, to 10.7 to 1, increased engine power from 230 HP at 4800 rpm to 290 HP at 4800 rpm and torque from 310 lbs/ft at 3800 rpm to 385 lbs/ft at 3800 rpm. To handle the extra power and torque, the XW GT received the venerable Ford 9 inch limited slip diff, running 3.25:1 gears. As with the XT GT, automatic transmission was also available in the XW GT, however the stronger FMX auto replaced the C4 auto of the previous model.
With the growing importance of the Bathurst race, a number of other changes were made to improve the XW GTs race winning potential. These included stiffer suspension, 11.25 in. ventilated front disc brakes and an enormous 36 gallon fuel tank - obviously to minimise fuel stops in the great race. Wheels and tyres were also upgraded to 6.0 in. wide Kelsey Hayes riveted ‘12 slot’ rims running ER 70 x 14 HR Dunlop SP or Olympic ‘Wide Ride’ radial ply tyres.
Although these changes made the new GT a much more performance oriented vehicle than it’s predecessor, the XW GTs increased weight ensured that its top speed (125-130 MPH) and quarter mile times (15.5-16.0 sec.) were very similar to those of the XT GT. Only in the 0-100 MPH times (20.3-20.9 sec) did the XW GT show its potential, being around 3 sec. quicker than the XT GT.
It is generally accepted that Windsor powered XW GTs were produced up until the end of February 1970, with total production up to this point being 1268 vehicles. The exact change over date for the Cleveland engine is however unclear and some may have continued into March 1970. At a cost of only $4250 incl. tax, the new GT was considered by ‘Wheels’ magazine, to be “the best performance bargain in Australia”.
As good as the new model was, the factory wanted something better to race at Bathurst and so an even more potent version - the XW GTHO - was developed.
THE GTHO
Production of the XW GTHO - with HO standing for Handling Option (not High Output) - commenced in July 1969. Changes from the standard model included replacing the cast iron inlet manifold and Autolite 450 cfm carburettor with a Ford (Buddy Bar) aluminium inlet manifold and 600cfm Holley carburettor (similar to the one used on the 390 Mustang GT), a bigger cam, heavy duty alternator, a 3 in. tailshaft, bigger front sway bar and a rear sway bar. For marketing reasons, Ford still claimed only 290 bhp for the GTHO - the same as for the standard XW GT, even though it was obviously more powerful. So special was the GTHO, that Ford gave it a different model number (18939) compared to the standard GT (18938). Interestingly, this convention was not carried through to the Phase 3, with the XY GT and HO of that year, having the same model number. More about the vagaries of model numbers for a later issue.
Although top speed for the GTHO (130 MPH) was similar to the standard model, how it got there was a vast improvement over the GT. The quarter mile times (14.4-15.0 sec.) show a dramatic improvement over the GT, with the 0-100 MPH times (16.7-16.8 sec) confirming its acceleration capabilities.
Having produced a 1-2-3 victory at the Sandown 3 Hour race only weeks before, great things were expected of the GTHO at Bathurst, on that first weekend in October. Everything looked good in practice and qualifying. The Geoghegan brothers took pole position with a time of 2:48.9 sec. - nearly 8 sec. faster than in 1968 - and the GTHOs were able to reach 136 MPH down Conrod Straight, compared to 130 MPH for the Monaros.
Unfortunately history shows that even the best laid plans can often go astray. Apart from a massive accident on the first lap, where Bill Brown rolled his GTHO coming off the top Skyline, the main thing that stopped a Ford victory on the day of the big race, was the selection of untried Goodyear racing rubber by the Ford works racing team manager Al Turner. A non-factory GTHO driven by running XAS Michelins almost took out the race and finished 2nd by only 44 seconds.
Where the Monaros were lapping in 2:55s, the GTHOs were lapping in 2:52s. Interestingly, Ford - quick to try to negate the effect of their loss to Holden - ran an advertising campaign which showed a photo of destroyed Goodyear tyres in front of a GTHO having its rear tyres replaced and with the caption "We were a little deflated".
Production of Windsor powered GTHOs stopped in December 1969 with a total of around 260 being built - making them one of the rarest GTs. Cost of the GTHO was only $4495 - just $245 more than the standard model - to ensure that it was still eligible for Class D ($3100-$4500) at Bathurst. If ‘Wheels’ considered the GT to be a bargain, then the GTHO must have been a steal.
Unfortunately, the original GTHO will always be remembered as the car that lost Bathurst, even though it was a winner on the road. Such was the demand for the GTHO, that in early 1970 - prior to the introduction of the Phase 2, Ford produced around 57 GTHOs using the Phase 1 running gear, but with a standard ‘Cleveland’ 351 4V engine. Commonly refereed to as Phase 11/2s, these are some of the rarest of the full production GTs.
The CLEVELAND
The ‘Cleveland’ designation for the 351 cu. in. motor fitted to XW GTs built from March 1970, comes from the location of the engine plant where they were originally assembled; Cleveland, Ohio, in the USA. (Windsor motors were assembled in
Windsor, Ontario, in Canada) Although having the same capacity, bore and stroke as the 351W, the 351C was a completely different motor, with completely different characteristics. Where the ‘Windsor’ was designed to be very robust and torquey, the 4V ‘Cleveland’ as used in the GT was designed more with outright performance (horsepower) in mind. Revised sizing of journals and extra large intake and exhaust valves and ports enabled the new motor to rev a lot harder than the previous one.
Mechanically, the 351C had an increased compression ratio of 11 to 1, provided peak power of 300 BHP at 5400 rpm (10 BHP more than the 351W at 600 RPM higher) and peak torque of 380 lbs/ft at 3400 rpm (5 lbs/ft less than the 351W at 400 RPM lower). With the extra power Ford decided to lower the diff ratio from, 3.25:1 to 3.00:1.
Apart from the engine, the only other obvious changes were to the tachometer (increased from 6000 RPM to 8000 RPM) and the oil pressure gauge (increased from 80 psi to 100 psi). Although initially fitted with the Kelsey Hayes riveted ‘12 slot’ rims, in May 1970 Ford introduced the Kelsey Hayes riveted ‘5 slot’ rims, still running ER 70 x 14 HR Dunlop SP or Olympic ‘Wide Ride’ radial ply tyres. Performance of the Cleveland powered XW GTs was similar to the Windsor powered ones. Although the change in diff ratios ensured a slightly higher top speed (130-135 MPH) for the Cleveland powered XW GTs, it also meant that acceleration figures remained fairly similar..
Having commenced in March, production of the Cleveland powered XW GTs continued on until some time in October 1970, with total production up to this point being around 1019 vehicles. With the production of XY falcons commencing in September 1970, it is interesting to note that some of the late XWs were fitted with XY radiator support panels whilst some early XYs were fitted with XW radiator support panels.
With the failure of the XW GTHO (Phase I) to win at Bathurst in 1969 (although not the fault of the car), Ford decided to go all out in developing its new Bathurst weapon, the Cleveland powered XW GTHO (Phase II).
THE GTHO (Phase II)
Production of the XW GTHO (Phase II) commenced in June 1970. Changes from the standard model included modifying the cast iron inlet manifold and replacing the Autolite 450 cfm carburettor with a Ford 750cfm Holley carburettor, a fairly lumpy solid cam with coresponding upgrades to the valve train, heavy duty alternator, a 31/2 in. tailshaft with larger universal joints, bigger front sway bar and a rear sway bar, revised front and rear spring rates, unique upper control arm and spindle to provide an increased front track, 31 spline close ratio gearbox, 3.50:1 diff with nodular iron housing and 31 spline axles and 21/2 in. wide and finned rear drums. For marketing reasons, Ford still claimed only 300 bhp for the GTHO - the same as for the standard Cleveland XW GT, even though it was much more powerful.
Even with the lower diff ratio, top speed for the new GTHO was improved (135-144 MPH). Although acceleration for the new GTHO was also a vast improvement over the standard GT the quarter mile times provided by the testers of the day were fairly inconsistent (14.2-15.2 sec.). Interestingly, these figures along with the 0-100 MPH times (16.7 sec) were almost identical to those of the Phase I. In fact the Phase I was equally as good as the Phase II in many respects, much to the surprise I’m sure, of a lot of you.
BATHURST 1970
Although Moffat provided a win in the Sandown 250 race only weeks before, mechanical problems plagued the rest of the HOs entered and this lack of reliability of the new HO provided some concern to the Ford camp in the lead up to Bathurst. But they should not have worried, as the mountain is a place where the Fords excel. As in 1969, everything looked good in practice and qualifying. The new GTHOs filled the first three positions on the grid, with Moffat taking pole with a time of of 2min 49.0sec.; surprisingly slower than Geoghegan’s time of 2 min 48.9sec. in 1969.
With the experience of 1969 behind them and no untried Goodyear racing rubber the factory GTHOs driven by Moffat and McPhee, ran faultlessly all day and although having a good battle with the XU-1 Toranas of Bond and Chivas, were able to make it a Ford 1-2 victory. Moffat also set a new Class E race lap record of 2 min 55.0sec, again slower than his Class D race lap record of 2 min 52.1sec set in the Phase I.
Official records indicate that production of the proper Phase II GTHOs stopped in October 1970 with a total of around 292 (not including the Phase 11/2’s) being built. Cost of the Phase II was only $4790 - just $425 more than the standard model.
With the push towards total performance, production racing wasn’t the only area of motor sport that Ford was interested in. With Ian (Pete) Geoghegan and Moffat having had a great deal of success in touring class racing with their Mustangs, Ford decided to develop their own car for improved production. The car that we all know of as the Geoghegan Super Falcon, actually started life as an XW GTHO. Two cars were originally built, with one for use by Moffat (see photos).
As can be seen from the picture of the engine bay, with the fuel injection pipes sticking up, this was a car that meant business. Ford spent a lot of money developing these cars, and although they proved to be very quick, they were unfortunately also a little unreliable.
Whilst the original GTHO will always be remembered as the car that lost Bathurst, the Phase II was the one that restored the faith in the Ford hierarchy of the benefits that could be achieved from an involvement in motorsport - “Win on Sunday, Sell on Monday”.
With success at the mountain and a new model (XY) being released to the public with rave reviews (especially the ‘Shaker’ XYGT), Ford could do no wrong. As good as the Phase I and II had been, Ford had something better waiting in the wings. In late 1970, the first XYGT buyers had the opportunity to get a taste for what was to come. They could order, as a $425 option, a Phase II engine for their XYGT. Now that would have been an interesting proposition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
