Group A or V8 Supercars? (Merged)

[Umai Naa]

Fantastic insight, Henry.

Puts a lot of things into greater perspective.

[DAVID PATERSON]

post of the day Henry.

[Henry]

Originally Posted by Swedish Brick

Well said.


I'm sure I read back in the day that Johnson also visited McLaren/Tag to learn about the ECU side of things.

He did. Bosch had been instrumental in the TAG engine management on the TAG-Porsche powerplants they used until 1988. Neal Lowe, who was managing the team, went to the length of learning German, so that the language barrier was at least partially overcome during the many late-night phonecalls back and forth.

Johnson's team also pooled their season's worth of fuel at the start of the year in 1988, tuning their cars to run on that, and thus maximising their reliability, when many of the other Sierra teams were forced to run the best they could get round-to-round... and then paying the price of busted engines when the local brew wasn't up to the standard of whatever they had used to set the donk up on the dyno...

They also homologated the 9" diff for the Sierra - many folk noted the DJR team wetting the track down on the grid prior to race starts, with what they suspected was some sort of grip compound... it was later reported that it was nothing more than water, to try to get the car to unload into wheelspin to protect the original diffs... I do recall Dick doing in-car commentary with a nasty vibration from a half-shaft that had twisted itself helically under the load...

Everyone pushed hard on Ford turbo engine development; there are countless stories of Ford YB blocks falling in half on the dyno, and DJR reckoned if a motor lasted half an hour on the dyne, it'd probably be good enough to run 1000km at Bathurst.

The best thing anybody ever did for Sierra reliability was the introduction of a 7,500rpm limiter - a number of years ago, a noted Escort authority mentioned a bad harmonic that the Pintos and their derivatives suffered in the mid 8-rev range, which led to all sorts of catastrophes - and from hooning around with mates in my youth, I certainly knew that prolonged and repeated trips to up near the 10-grand range would eventually see the bottom end turn to custard, despite the motor's apparent lust for big, big revs...

[chunterer]

Fabulous insight Henry, certainly expands on a few of the titbits I had picked up over the years about Dicko's own engineering efforts and where he might have gained an advantage and in doing so became the numero uno in Sierra engine development to top even Rouse, who was a fantastic driver/engineer in his own right over many many years with Ford and other makes.

As to the overall notion of Group A, the category had massive manufacturer and importer led potential in terms of available hardware which was largely achieved in various domestic championships, and there weren't many mainstream models that didn't get tried out as contenders in the category's history. But ultimately it fell foul of obvious under the radar efforts to knobble it on the world stage. (Nothing in the 80's was permitted to gain non-F1 popularity by the FIA) The ridiculous and somewhat extortionate hike in entry fees for the WTCC shortly before it began didn't bear believing!

If, just if, the powers that be had removed the 500 car run-off allowance then I strongly suspect Group A would have carried on for many years and we may not even have seen Class 2/Super touring as there would have been no need for it. The homolgation specials killed Group A but the rules allowed them, so the makes bent over backwards to produce the things which individually were fab racing cars but not what Group A was designed for!

The thing is, today a stricter version of Group A would work very well with the types and styles of vehicles around the world today. There's enough heavy metal multi cylinder model to please the old shool Australian race fan and smalller capacity techy models for lower classes. (Heck you could even run a subdivison for MPV's, the makes would love that!)

Overll, for me the 1985-1986 seasons were the ultimate particularly in the big class the battles between Jaguar Ford Rover BMW Holden Volvo, Colt, Toyota and Nissan were spectacular and it is easy to think that other makes would have come in (if there were any left!) Merc could've run the 500 SEC that AMG built for some mobile testing at Spa and Nurby and the Maserati could've gone better with more development etc etc.

I could go on but long posts get a bit boring....

[davyboy]

Brilliant insight Henry... you're clearly more knowledgeable on this than anyone I've come across to date. You need to write a book !

[lloyd12a]

Originally Posted by Stand21

So from 1985 to 1991, Group A (in Aus) had the BMW 635 dominate, then the M3, then the Sierra RS500 & finally the R32 GTR.
A 7 year span that saw 4 completely different cars lead the pack, with at times stiff competition from Volvo 240s, VK & VL Commodores, Skylines & Jags.

Turn the clock forward to the V8SC era, where its supposed to be a level playing field with no dominant car, we've seen one team basically dominate the series for the last 5 years. And who will bet against 888/Whincup making it 5 titles from the last 6?

Now, which category is overated again??

Well said, I for one would love to see more manufacturers and different engines racing in our top category, using a genuine car chassis.

[mayhem]

Originally Posted by Henry

He did. Bosch had been instrumental in the TAG engine management on the TAG-Porsche powerplants they used until 1988. Neal Lowe, who was managing the team, went to the length of learning German, so that the language barrier was at least partially overcome during the many late-night phonecalls back and forth.

...

Do you remember the April Fools joke pulled by AA (or was it MSNews) that said Johnson was going to run a third McLaren in the AGP through their link with Shell? Sadly, I bought it....

[Reload]

Originally Posted by Stand21

So from 1985 to 1991, Group A (in Aus) had the BMW 635 dominate, then the M3, then the Sierra RS500 & finally the R32 GTR.
A 7 year span that saw 4 completely different cars lead the pack, with at times stiff competition from Volvo 240s, VK & VL Commodores, Skylines & Jags.

Turn the clock forward to the V8SC era, where its supposed to be a level playing field with no dominant car, we've seen one team basically dominate the series for the last 5 years. And who will bet against 888/Whincup making it 5 titles from the last 6?

Now, which category is overated again??

Yeah that

[formerf1champ]

When the likely outcome was that this was going to be a terrible thread started by FAS33. Henry has turned it into one of the more interesting ones (if not, the most interesting) since I've been here, at least

[formerf1champ]

Originally Posted by racer69

Dick Johnson had established himself as the post-Moffat Ford hero, changing manufacturers in many ways was not an option.

Yeah, fair enough.

Originally Posted by racer69

He came 2nd in the 1985 ATCC, so the Mustang can hardly have been described as a bad choice.

I've got books of the 85 season. I've read interviews of Dick's about the car. He wasn't thrilled about it. The impression I get is that it was the best of a bad lot.

Originally Posted by racer69

What about one of the the most revered models in Australian sedan car history, the Ford Falcon GT

The Nissan GTR's success was not just on the spec sheet, Gibson Motorsport worked bloody hard to get those cars winning and they were driven superbly too.

You've made it too hard for me, picking out the Falcon GT. I don't know what to make of it. I'm looking at the results of the 93 B12h in Australian Motor Racing Year 1993/4. The GT-R was in class T, along with RX-7s, Supras and the Lotus Esprit, the outright class. Commodores and Falcons were in either class C or D, I can't make the distinction between those two. I'm not sure where the Sierra and M3 would sat in the field, though a Laser TX3 was in the T class, so a Sierra may've been there. However, the best Laser was 14th outright and 5th in class, 30 laps behind the winner, so I'm not sure why it was there.


I'm saying my opinion is the GT-R was too far removed from a "touring" car to compete in a TCC. From my pov, a legit touring car is a big sedan, medium sedan, sedan hatch, and I'll leave it at that. Another view I'll take is that a beefed up GT-R could participate at Le Mans. The Sierra. Commodore, Falcon, and dare I say the M3 are not Le Mans cars. Don't pick out any holes of my pov. You know what I'm trying to say.

[formerf1champ]

Originally Posted by Arney

Try this page for a pic of the Anderson 'Group a' Falcon.
http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...67601&page=158

Ahh, thank you. Unfortunately, a bit of an anti-climax. If you'd told me it was a GpC car, I'd believed it.

[Arney]

Originally Posted by formerf1champ

Ahh, thank you. Unfortunately, a bit of an anti-climax. If you'd told me it was a GpC car, I'd believed it.

First thing I notice from the Group C car is the lack of large fibreglass Flared wheel arches and the front spoiler.

[Arney]

Originally Posted by formerf1champ

Ahh, thank you. Unfortunately, a bit of an anti-climax. If you'd told me it was a GpC car, I'd believed it.

Another crazy thing about the "V8 Group A" Falcon proposition is that a lot of people say it was ineligble due to the fact that the last year of production was 1982/3, But it was alright to race older or just as old geminis, alfas, capris, BMWs, rovers? & Jags? in 1985/6

[racer69]

Originally Posted by formerf1champ

I've got books of the 85 season. I've read interviews of Dick's about the car. He wasn't thrilled about it. The impression I get is that it was the best of a bad lot.

Johnson wasn't thrilled about it because the homologation updates he was planning on using for the 1985 ATCC were not homologated until August 1, after the ATCC had finished. It meant he had to run the series in the 'older' spec.

When the car was upgraded following August 1, Johnson proceeded to dominate the Pepsi 250 at Oran Park until retiring, qualified 'best of the rest' behind the Jags at Bathurst & ultimatly won the AGP support race (admittedly Richards wasn't there). The post-August 1 updates made the Mustang in Johnson's hands much more competitive against the JPS 635.

Originally Posted by formerf1champ

You've made it too hard for me, picking out the Falcon GT. I don't know what to make of it. I'm looking at the results of the 93 B12h in Australian Motor Racing Year 1993/4. The GT-R was in class T, along with RX-7s, Supras and the Lotus Esprit, the outright class. Commodores and Falcons were in either class C or D, I can't make the distinction between those two. I'm not sure where the Sierra and M3 would sat in the field, though a Laser TX3 was in the T class, so a Sierra may've been there. However, the best Laser was 14th outright and 5th in class, 30 laps behind the winner, so I'm not sure why it was there.

In the 12hr the GTR was in "class T" because the 'T' stood for Turbo. Hence why the class also featured Mitsubishi Lancer's

Class C was for 2501cc-4000cc normally aspirated cars, hence the likes of Falcon XR6 & Porsche 968, while Class D was for over 4000cc normally aspirated cars, with the V8 Commodore's & Falcon's in there.

Originally Posted by formerf1champ

I'm saying my opinion is the GT-R was too far removed from a "touring" car to compete in a TCC. From my pov, a legit touring car is a big sedan, medium sedan, sedan hatch, and I'll leave it at that. Another view I'll take is that a beefed up GT-R could participate at Le Mans. The Sierra. Commodore, Falcon, and dare I say the M3 are not Le Mans cars.

When you write a set of regulations, you can't all of a sudden pick and choose what cars you want to race and what can't based on a theory of 'should' be a touring, especially when in this case the Nissan GTR met every aspect of the Group A Touring Car regulations.

[VIVA GT]

There always was controversy about 'what constitutes a Touring Car', IIRC it was alal about the room around the rear seats or something like that. This was also why numerous Mazda Coupe's also managed to run in Group A.

[David Towe]

FAS33, If Group A was so bad, why do we attract the largest crowds of any category at an historic meeting?

Originally Posted by peckstar

in Australia we didnt want to see cylinder turbos. We wanted v8's.

I haven't heard that line since we had the V8 only formula forced upon us back in 93 and 94.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by David Towe

I haven't heard that line since we had the V8 only formula forced upon us back in 93 and 94.

see i wasnt making it up, it was a common thought pattern at the time

[DAVID PATERSON]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

There always was controversy about 'what constitutes a Touring Car', IIRC it was alal about the room around the rear seats or something like that. This was also why numerous Mazda Coupe's also managed to run in Group A.

Correct, the FIA defines a Touring car as a 4 seater production based car that complies with a long list of minimum dimensions for various aspects of the car's interior.

The Nissan R32 Skyline GT-R is absolutely a Touring Car. They made over 5,000 of them and it has room for four adults, unlike a GT car. Let's not forget that the R32 Skyline was also available as a four door sedan, which shared many parts with the GT-R.

Group A homolgation had a time limit, it expired on 31 December, 5 years after the initial homologation. e.g a car homolgated any day in 1982 would expire on 31 December 1987. That said, in later years of Group A, CAMS did not enforce the expiry dates, hence there were privateers running a Mustang, a 635, a Starion and numerous AE86 Corollas in the early '90s.

[FAS33]

Originally Posted by David Towe

FAS33, If Group A was so bad, why do we attract the largest crowds of any category at an historic meeting?

what happened to the crowd figures as they progressed thru the years though?

[Umai Naa]

We did have a recession in the early '90s.

[one five five]

Originally Posted by FAS33

what happened to the crowd figures as they progressed thru the years though?

Just look at the crowd in the background here for the last ATCC round run to Group A rules..... doesn't look like the crowds dropped off too much.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW3whO0d97c

[Crash Test]

Yes, but Oran Park always had well promoted races, and it was a great spectator venue. They would draw a crowd to a brown paper bag opening.

[formerf1champ]

Originally Posted by racer69

In the 12hr the GTR was in "class T" because the 'T' stood for Turbo. Hence why the class also featured Mitsubishi Lancer's

Class C was for 2501cc-4000cc normally aspirated cars, hence the likes of Falcon XR6 & Porsche 968, while Class D was for over 4000cc normally aspirated cars, with the V8 Commodore's & Falcon's in there.

Please tell me you looked that up and did not know that off the top of your head?

Originally Posted by racer69

When you write a set of regulations, you can't all of a sudden pick and choose what cars you want to race and what can't based on a theory of 'should' be a touring, especially when in this case the Nissan GTR met every aspect of the Group A Touring Car regulations.

I'm just saying, if I were the ruler of motorsport, the car wouldn't have got in. Sure, it may've fitted in the criterion, but I think my theory is fair. Maybe people aren't able to express it in such a way so that everybody else understands, but they weren't upset for no reason. They knew what they were looking at.

[Umai Naa]

We could also speculate over other odd-ball rules, particularly at Bathurst, regarding cross-entering cars, and so on.

Those years of the Group A Bathursts where teams would have two cars between two drivers in the shoot-out, only for one to be withdrawn after it had run a time, were a complete farce.

Wouldn't have happened if I were King of the world.

[DangerousMomentsHere]

Originally Posted by Henry

T
HRT's strategy to ruthlessly run the Sierras hard between pace car periods - and to hope that the GTR failed (as it ultimately did) - netted a Bathurst win, but by 1991, even revving the 304 to 9,100rpm wasn't enough to run with the imports...

.

Whole post was very interesting Henry,
They were revving the ol' V8 to 9,100RPM?
Im not doubting you at all but where did you read that?
Those poor pushrods haha