Thread: The Best And Worst Australian Cars.

Actually that is not quite correct, There were effectively 2 types of A9X, 1 built by Holden and the other built as you say from shells and parts in Brisbane and then on forwarded to teams. Some of the Holden built cars were transformed into Race cars and the rest were road cars. The Brisbane built cars were generally race cars, but some of the shells left over were built into road cars and some of the race cars rebuilt as road cars. There is a bit of controversy in Torana circles as to whether the ones built in Brisbane are in fact true A9Xs as they were not factory, but parts cars. Real A9X enthusiasts will look for the Holden factory cars for road cars and these command a higher price.As far as I am aware the A9xs still had to comply with pollution regs at the time and from memory as the rules did not change until mid 76 could get away without complying. Mainly for the 4 doors. As for the 2 doors from 77 there were modifications and exemptions on what they could run though I am not aware of too many running genuine L34 engines, but engines with similar specs. The A9X in any trim was not ordinary as you say and would still out run any Falcon of the day. The A9x was much more refined than the L34 and the L34 though powerful was thought of as unreliable. A lot depends on who you believe. There is conjecture that some the 78 4 door A9X may have run L34 running gear or vice versa. The 2 doors were not introduced until after the start of the 78 season. My understanding is the A9X 2 door did not run L34 engines at all, but of course they would have had some similarities during the development of these engines. The l34 Toranas could not compete with the new 2 door A9X. Not too say that some teams did not use smoke and mirrors. The pollution regs changed after June 76 so I cannot see how they would have gotten away running L34 non pollution engines in 78. My SS is right on the cut off in 76.

Originally Posted by JBM770

A9X wasnt the all conquering car most people think it was.
Compared to what they were allowed to raced it was like a HQ 350 compared to a HG 350.
It was a homologation package that allowed vented front HQ/J disc brakes, stronger diff with rear discs, T10 option and revised front suspension geometry. The racecars were shells made up as a spare part, the top teams swapped their L34 running gear into the new shell and carried on where they left off.
Without the pre pollution L34 heads the racecars would have been ordinary.
James

Originally Posted by SuperMono

You can make judgements on all sorts of criteria, best for one = worst for another.

Standouts without thinking too much.
Bad
Marina: drive one, you will be scared, really scared.
Centura: I owned one and the 4ltr lump unbalanced the car dangerously, went like the clappers though, until the torque ripped the rear suspension out of the monocoque.

Good
Mitsubishi Verada AWD: Best family car you could get at the time.
Austin 1800 ute: Brilliant.

Interestingly, I was almost going to put the Austin 1800 ute as a candidate for worst. While the concept was very good, the low ground clearance (and the fact that the sump was what hit!) made them doubtful for use on typical roads of the time, and the only ones I saw actually used as utes suffered from an early death due to structural failure of the rear suspension. These problems were probably exacerbated by the comfortable, stable ride on rough surfaces that encouraged travel at high speeds on these surfaces, and by the large, low, easy to load tray that encouraged overloading.

John

CraigE, by then only two plants could build Toranas, Dandenong and Acacia Ridge. Shells were probably made in Brisbane as the plant was under-utilised, never built full range, and never built to capacity.

Originally Posted by 460cixy

holden camira anyone?

Or a diesel Gemini

Originally Posted by harro

Or a diesel Gemini

Going to have to disagree on that one. Yes slow as a wet weekend but the little Isuzu diesel was reliable and econemy was good also as you would expect. Just soooooooo gutless like an early diesel Peugeot

Originally Posted by 460cixy

Going to have to disagree on that one. Yes slow as a wet weekend but the little Isuzu diesel was reliable and econemy was good also as you would expect. Just soooooooo gutless like an early diesel Peugeot

A mates mum had one for years (500,000 Klms)
I just thought it was worth a mention, maybe best or worst but certainly ahead of it's time, in this country anyway.

Originally Posted by 460cixy

Going to have to disagree on that one. Yes slow as a wet weekend but the little Isuzu diesel was reliable and econemy was good also as you would expect. Just soooooooo gutless like an early diesel Peugeot

A mate bought one new to use as a commuter from near Beaudesert to Wacol. He won't hear an unkind word said against them. 50+ mpg and near 400,000 k's on it when he retired. Another guy, one of the vintage speedway fraternity, has one still as a daily driver cum shopping cart. He lives outside Laidley on 200 acres and has 4 or 5 of them stored there for parts. He has used a couple of the engines on a home made fire pump and an auxiliary gen set.

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Interestingly, I was almost going to put the Austin 1800 ute as a candidate for worst. While the concept was very good, the low ground clearance (and the fact that the sump was what hit!) made them doubtful for use on typical roads of the time, and the only ones I saw actually used as utes suffered from an early death due to structural failure of the rear suspension. These problems were probably exacerbated by the comfortable, stable ride on rough surfaces that encouraged travel at high speeds on these surfaces, and by the large, low, easy to load tray that encouraged overloading.

John

JDS, I was in a share house with a guy who was a mechanic at Zetland. Their workshop utes of course were 1800's. There was an amazing amount of vacant space underneath the plywood floor. The workers unscrewed the floor panel so parts could be smuggled out of the plant in bulk.