Re: 190HP AND A 13.5 SECOND 1/4 MILE!!!!

Discussion in '1972 Holden LJ Torana GTR XU1' started by shefx, Aug 10, 2002.

  1. 190HP AND A 13.5 SECOND 1/4 MILE!!!!

    stop hating this is a very "small" engine for its time it produces very little hp for its time and look at the 1.4 mile times just amazing.
    <!-- Signature -->
     
  2. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from shefx</i>
    <b>stop hating this is a very "small" engine for its time it produces very little hp for its time and look at the 1.4 mile times just amazing.
    </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->How did you find out about this?<!-- Signature -->
     
  3. how much does this car weigh? that's pretty amazing if you ask me.
     
  4. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from shefx</i>
    <b>stop hating this is a very "small" engine for its time it produces very little hp for its time and look at the 1.4 mile times just amazing.
    </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    1.25 mile..

    and I agree, it is a nice car.<!-- Signature -->
     
  5. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from MCLARENF1LM</i>
    <b>I HAVN'T BEEN IN OR POSTED IN THIS SITE FOR LIKE 2 YEARS, I COULD HAVE HAD 20 000 POSTS BY NOW...</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    who cares?<!-- Signature -->
     
  6. yeh i think we all know not to judge a man on how many posts he has put up, it could mean that he has put up 20 000 wrong posts. anyways yeah your riet, and i Don't care how many posts you have. But it still was a good car for it's time whether or not there were better, it is still a supercar, as are most of the cars on this site, some i'd definately have to disagree. it is better than the Z cars of it's time for the .25 mile. And yes it's a good car, yes there were better, and i don't carem this car is a good one and one that australia can be proud of. Good car for it's time, and can you even afford a mcLaren?
     
  7. I don't know what the truth is about this car but it is impressive nevertheless.<!-- Signature -->
     
  8. Yep this car never even made it into the 15's! It's speed and potential was never experienced till on the race track, where it could exploit its light body and great handling to full potential.

    Australia's fastest car was The R/T (Roand & Track) E49 Charger. It could do 14.1 1/4, and has been capable of getting into the 13's STOCK on modern Rubber. It's accleration times were closely followed by the Phase 3 GTHO.<!-- Signature -->
     
  9. Torana's were never made for straight line performance, unlike the GTHO Falcons, which were true muscle cars. Torana's were superb on tracks however, and the Bathurst wins attest to this. 13.5 seconds or 15 seconds over the quater..it doesnt matter, the XU-1 is a true classic, and a great aussie car.<!-- Signature -->
     
  10. Unless it could resist exploding in a shower of rust flakes (which it can't) I would never own one. <!-- Signature -->
     
  11. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from MrMetalHead82</i>
    <b>Unless it could resist exploding in a shower of rust flakes (which it can't) I would never own one. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    What does that mean? All cars with steel components get rust..

    If you're just bashing american cars, you must not realize that Saturns don't rust, neither do Corvettes.

    Asian cars can rust too you know.. if that didn't Fucking occur to you!

    Sorry to state the obvious fact that oxidizes iron is known as rust, but I gathered that you don't understand the concept. I'll also state the obvious and call you a moron, alright?<!-- Signature -->
     
  12. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Aussie HSV</i>
    <b>Torana's were never made for straight line performance...</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    That must mean they weren't made for anything...
     
  13. Ferrari Nut, in saying that I meant that Holden knew an inline 6 could never keep up with a 351 V8, so they aimed to make the Torana as nimble as possible.

    You're an idiot..<!-- Signature -->
     
  14. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from shefx</i>
    <b>stop hating this is a very "small" engine for its time it produces very little hp for its time and look at the 1.4 mile times just amazing.
    </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->Pretty good for a non-musclecar 1972.<!-- Signature -->
     
  15. its a lame car in its class and 4 its time too...<!-- Signature -->
     
  16. Unless you have something to back that up, i suggest you keep your unwanted and immature comments to yourself.<!-- Signature -->
     
  17. most of you bashing this great icon car, are comparing it to v8 muscle cars. your dickheads, plain and simple.

    anyway, hopefully soon they will put the SLR_5000 on here. now theres some great classing Holden muscle.<!-- Signature -->
     
  18. The inline 6 doesnt make it any nimbler its the fact that the car is quite small the inline 6 does help (lighter front end). But they did put V8's in it and they were faster and better.
     
  19. IF these numbers are true, and I have come to believe that they aren't ( the numbers on this site get messed up a lot sometimes ), then this car is a marvel of engineering. ANY car with less than 200 horsepower and running sub 14 second quarters is a miracle machine to me. But unfortunately, I think these numbers are wrong<!-- Signature -->
     
  20. anyone know the weight of this car? that could be what makes this 1/4 mile time so impressive. power to weight ratio means a lot. however, it does seem kinda iffy, considering i doan know how light this car could've been, it was made in the 70's. was it production model or a one off?<!-- Signature -->
     
  21. #21 mikezx6, Aug 10, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    I just thought I would put this little website in which may fill in afew gaps

    http://www.smasa.com.au/documents/fact_files/holden/torana_lc.html

    the car here is currently being driven and is in fine form. Yes I am a Ford fan and I am also a patriot to Australia, but I believe that the stat's on this car in this site are incorrect. As far as this car being quick, it certainly was, but 0-100 doesn't guage quickness. A simple trick around the Nurburgring, or Bathurst does, something like that. Anyway.. above gives some details including gear ratios etc... no... it's not my site
     
  22. ok, then I'll compare it to a Datsun 1600 SSS. Datsun beat it everywhere, quarter mile, track, rally. for 3.3 litres, this tank isn't anything to be proud of.... I don't think I've ever seen one not completely eaten by rust...
     
  23. its quite a lot to be proud of

    15 second quarters
    nimble handling
    155 kw

    and its not a gook pack datsun

    be proud that a small country has such a great auto culture


     
  24. I wouldnt mind driving this. it might even beat my sisters Tracer in a 1/4mile race<!-- Signature -->
     
  25. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from MCLARENF1LM</i>
    <b>SORRY TO SPOIL YOUR FUN PEOPLE, BUT THE LJ TORANA XU-1 GTR WAS ONLY CAPABLE OF 15.2 FOR THE QUARTER, IT HAD 200HP (149KW). THESE CARS WEREN'T TOO ADVANCED FOR THEIR TIME, SO LEAVE IT BE. BY THE WAY, THE PHASE 3 GTHO FALCON WAS LIKE 14.5 SEC FOR THE QUARTER AND THE VH CHARGER R/T E49 LIKE 14.4 SECS.


    JUST A FEW USEFUL STATS TO CHUCK AROUND, I HAVN'T BEEN IN OR POSTED IN THIS SITE FOR LIKE 2 YEARS, I COULD HAVE HAD 20 000 POSTS BY NOW...</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    would you f*ck up about your fords, go back to your crappy forum... coes it must be if you keep coming over here<!-- Signature -->
     

Share This Page