HEMI 6 POWER

It's too late now, but Dusty had plans of doing this to his Monaro. Not sure how far he'd got with it motor-wise, unfortunately he's severed all ties with oldholden...

im into mopars myself, but dont kid yourself that a hemi 6 will use less fuel than a v8. if its babied it might, but any performance driving will see worse consumption than many v8's.

otherwise, i think its a great conversion. most holdens were (are) better looking than the valiants, most valiants had better engines than the holdens. best of both worlds.

im still tossing up whether i should put a 360 chrysler (stroked to 408 cubes) in my wb caprice, complete with the torqueflite of course...

seen 265's in lj torana, hg monaro so it certainly can be done.

try and paint it appropriate holden colours and add factory looking holden stickers to air cleaner and/or tappet cover to fool people just quickly glancing when you pop the bonnet lol!!

Lame is fairly harsh considering the humble Holden 6 won Bathurst in-front of Henry's finest V8's but good luck with the conversion!

yeah they sure are lame, how do you recon the torries would have gone with a 265 or dare say it a 250 ford, you know they are lame emu man, and, ben, thats why I said equally worked. Drive any motor hard its gonna use juce, its all about cubes and Volumetric efficiency . I wish my 355 only burnt the same amount as a 265. ie 265 tripple webers bigt cam verses a 308 quad webers big cam, and so on, to make power you need to burn fuel.

perhaps reliable, not powerfull enough to break. they dont call the 265 the holey grail of 6's for nothing,
Should have remembered im talking to car club holden fans..... wonder if the e49's would have gone faster with a mighty 202 ?

hang arround , iv got to smash my head against a brick wall for a bit to get onto brhill's level

typical holden fan...... defeated by facts.

hands up, whos running a 9 "

aussie 4 speed box

;)

Had a VG E34 Pacer years ago, with the 245 factory 4 barrel carb, big tank, went like stink in a straight line scary, even more scary when you went to stop! MPG about 12 to the gallon so the massive tank that took up most of the boot was handy. Wish I had it now, would sell it and pay of a chunk of the mortgage or maybe a HQ Coupe....mmmmmmmm. Cheers Guys Drew

???????????????what the fkcu am i reading?the 265 is a very harsh light truck engine.

Hang on..... think I need to spend a few more hours smashing my head against that brick wall, im still not quite down to your levels.
The June 1997 issue of Australia's Motor magazine did a comparison between Australia's greatest muscle cars from 1971 on, including the GTS-R and E49. Despite being the only six in the group, the 25 year old Valiant Charger E49 was still the fastest and marginally quicker than the GTS-R to 100 kph and through the quarter. The figures used for the E49 were based on 1972 road tests, 0-100 kph 6.1 seconds and 14.4 seconds for the quarter. The GTS-R was quoted as 0-100 kph 6.2 seconds and 14.45 for the quarter.

To add salt into GM and Ford's wounds, stock standard E49s on modern rubber have quite easily broken the 14 second barrier for the quarter. Jim Little has done a 13.8 quarter in his and another of our club cars won a production prize at a major drag meeting with a 13.9 quarter. A previous owner took my E49 to a sprint meeting and was doing 14.1 quarters on old wide oval tires, limiting the car to 5000 rpm (redline 6500) and in a howling headwind! A Ferrari owner who couldn't match those times was absolutely horrified when he discovered that the Charger had a Valiant 6 under the bonnet! An unmodified standard production Valiant 6 at that.

Dont hear any mention of a holden 6 there ?

.

To be fair to Hking.... Iv done the home work assignment you set me, vh 215 has .6511 hp. per ci. , hq QL 202 has .6683 hp. per ci. Therefore the 202 is more powerfull than the 215 per ci. but I wont shock you with torque comparisons. Ill give you a few more, QR 253 / .73122 , e38 265 / 1.0188 , QT HQ 308 / .7792 , HQ Chev 350 / .7857 , to be fair standard bottom of the range 265 / .8679 !! Interesting hey. Oh ! almost forgot the mythical Duggan or Sissell 12 port headed 292 cu chev six with a massive 1.541 horsepower per cubic inch based on some ledgends claim of 450 horsepower. bet thats standard.

Anyhow, iv worked out that if need be I can remove the oil pump from inside the sump, blank off the spot it went, place a filter sandwich between the filter and the block and pump oil into the dirty side of the filter via a single stage oil pump sucking from a line into the bottom of the sump with a screen fixed inside the sump. All that should give plenty of room for a neat rear hump sump that will clear the cross member.

www.valiant.org/vali...

YYYYEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH !!!!! hook line and sinker ! You old holden car cluby blokes are the most highly strung mob of freaks Iv ever come across, with the exception of a few who know what game I play. But on a serious note Ill add a few pictures in my shead of the hemi in a tonner.... with the other pictures of the ,z gts that was soooo poxy I had to slip a gen 3 with a 6 speed manual into it just so it would make it to the shops and back, might also add a shot or two of the wb that was so weak with its gay little 308 that I had to slipped in a harrop 355 crank, big cam and carb just to make sure it would go up hill instead of just down !

They all used to start the same, jump in turn the key you'd get about 10 seconds of rew rew rew rew rew rew rew rew rew rew rew. Mast have dried up stocks of high torque starters when they came available.

the chamber isnt included in these engine size calculations,it has no effect on the swept volume which is what you work out with the bore and stroke,the chamber size is used when calculating the static compression ratio.

pi x r squared x stroke times number of cylinders.