From: Noddy on

"atec77" <atec77(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i1auie$oeo$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...

> I remember seeing a blue mayflower customised with a big block in
> pommiegolia , google should find it

You'll find it under "Most ridiculous waste of a big block"......

--
Regards,
Noddy.


From: Clocky on
Athol wrote:
> Clocky <notgonn(a)happen.com> wrote:
>> Athol wrote:
>
>>> Which had a large chunk of copying (suspension in particular) from
>>> the 2-series Volvo, which came out in 1974.
>
>> The Commodore didn't share any mechanicals (suspension, steering and
>> driveline) with the Rekord.
>
>> The Rekord didn't even have rack and pinion steering.
>
> So it was Holden who copied the Volvo rear suspension?
>

I don't think there was a significant difference between the two in regards
to the rear suspension, was that design pioneered by Volvo? I thought it
dates back much earlier than that?

> Obviously, given that the first shells came from Europe bare and
> were assembled with Australian mechanicals, the strut front end
> has to have had some commonality to the Opel that provided the
> strut towers...

Possibly, but the Rekord strut towers were known to be weak and that is
something the Commodore didn't suffer from so they were probably
strengthened.

The rear suspension was probably the same kind of setup as the Rekord.


From: Toby on
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:58:06 +0800, Clocky wrote:

> Athol wrote:
>> Clocky <notgonn(a)happen.com> wrote:
>>> Athol wrote:
>>
>>>> Which had a large chunk of copying (suspension in particular) from
>>>> the 2-series Volvo, which came out in 1974.
>>
>>> The Commodore didn't share any mechanicals (suspension, steering and
>>> driveline) with the Rekord.
>>
>>> The Rekord didn't even have rack and pinion steering.
>>
>> So it was Holden who copied the Volvo rear suspension?
>>
>
> I don't think there was a significant difference between the two in regards
> to the rear suspension, was that design pioneered by Volvo? I thought it
> dates back much earlier than that?
>
>> Obviously, given that the first shells came from Europe bare and
>> were assembled with Australian mechanicals, the strut front end
>> has to have had some commonality to the Opel that provided the
>> strut towers...
>
> Possibly, but the Rekord strut towers were known to be weak and that is
> something the Commodore didn't suffer from so they were probably
> strengthened.
>
> The rear suspension was probably the same kind of setup as the Rekord.

What was that story about 100mm odd being added in front of the A pillar?
All bullshit, or did the thing need to be longer on account of the L6?

--
Toby.
Caveat Lector
From: Clocky on
Toby wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:58:06 +0800, Clocky wrote:
>
>> Athol wrote:
>>> Clocky <notgonn(a)happen.com> wrote:
>>>> Athol wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Which had a large chunk of copying (suspension in particular) from
>>>>> the 2-series Volvo, which came out in 1974.
>>>
>>>> The Commodore didn't share any mechanicals (suspension, steering
>>>> and driveline) with the Rekord.
>>>
>>>> The Rekord didn't even have rack and pinion steering.
>>>
>>> So it was Holden who copied the Volvo rear suspension?
>>>
>>
>> I don't think there was a significant difference between the two in
>> regards to the rear suspension, was that design pioneered by Volvo?
>> I thought it dates back much earlier than that?
>>
>>> Obviously, given that the first shells came from Europe bare and
>>> were assembled with Australian mechanicals, the strut front end
>>> has to have had some commonality to the Opel that provided the
>>> strut towers...
>>
>> Possibly, but the Rekord strut towers were known to be weak and that
>> is something the Commodore didn't suffer from so they were probably
>> strengthened.
>>
>> The rear suspension was probably the same kind of setup as the
>> Rekord.
>
> What was that story about 100mm odd being added in front of the A
> pillar? All bullshit, or did the thing need to be longer on account
> of the L6?

Dunno, but the front end certainly looks to be longer.


From: Clocky on
Toby wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 20:23:14 +1000, Milton wrote:
>
>> "D Walford" <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message
>> news:4c367866$0$11118$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> We had a 67 Mk1 for a while, reliability was comparable with
>>> anything else of that vintage, not without problems but a good car
>>> in its day and a much better drive than any same year Falcodore.
>>
>> What??The XR was the first of the mustang bred Falcons and were a
>> great car of the day. The Commodores weren't even invented til way
>> way later in '79 (I think it was).
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Milton
>
> Huh?
> And here's me thinking that Falcon begat Mustang for all those
> years:-)

Probably a conspiracy...


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Why Not Just Shoot Him?
Next: From the olden days