Bryce has posted a ton of cars, but these two Holden HQs caught my interest. Bryce has repeatedly said that these are essentially re-bodied gen2 Camaros (or 1975+ Novas), and that a Camaro front clip would fit on the front of one of these. I’ve googled trying to find one with a Camaro front end, to no avail. So let’s look at a couple of comparison shots and decide how possible that might be, or not.
Here’s an HQ and a ’75+ Nova. Despite the differences in styling, the basic architectural hard points are hard to disguise. And they both had the same 111″ wheelbase and the same front and rear tracks, which strongly support the supposition. Of course, the HQ preceded this generation Nova by a few years, as the HQ arrived in 1971, shortly after the 1970 Camaro, which also shares the same track numbers, suspension, and plenty of other under-skin aspects, except for a shorter 108″ wheelbase. But it’s also clear the the HQ door cuts quite a bit further into the front fender. No clip-swapping here.
Here’s the Camaro and HQ Coupe lined up. Looking at these and taking a few measurements shows that they’re even further apart than the sedan. The big difference: the Camaro’s body was unique from the Nova, in that the passenger compartment sits further back. The Holden HQ shares the HQ sedan’s basic body, the result being that it sits more forward. The distance between the front wheel opening and the front of the front door on the Camaro is substantially longer than the HQ Coupe’s. And the way the doors run into the cowl are is also quite different. And the Camaro is several inches lower than the HQ.
There’s no question that it would be a major hack job to adapt a Camaro front clip to this a Holden HQ. But there’s no doubt that they all share plenty under their bodies, although the Holden does have a coil-spring rear suspension unlike the F and X Body leaf springs.
Here’s Bryce’s parting shot: the HQ may have been a Camaro and Nova under the skin, but the rear bumper screams 1969 Bel Air. Although I doubt it would swap either.
Are these Aussie cars Chuck Jordan designs?
If not directly so, they certainly bear his stamp of approval.
No, design is credited to a few people; John Schinella, Phil Zmood and Leo Pruneau. I’m still trying to figure out who did what, but Schinella did the silhouette and seems the senior figure. Aussie designers like Zmood were rotated in and out of projects so its a bits a.
Apologies Perry, I just contradicted myself below. Might Chuck Jordan’s hand be visible in the side greenhouse?
Yes, and in the canted forward grille. Reminiscent of the Opel Rekord D.
Interesting. Was that Rekord his? Its very neue klasse, but it looks like it established the proportions for the E24 6-series. Very nice design.
These yank eyes enjoy the alternate universe aspect. Impala, Monte Carlo, Chevelle, Camaro, Nova and even some LeMans – all melded together.
Me too, fascinating. That Holden coupe is a looker, or would be without the junk on the back window.
The front of the sedan looks like a first-gen Mustang, especially around the headlights. Weird to see a 4-door Nova behind it.
With the burgundy paint, rear spoiler and gold pinstriping that Monaro looks like it might be a last-of-the-line Limited Edition or LE model, which also should have a front spoiler and Pontiac style gold honeycomb wheels.
Isn’t the ’68 Nova the grandaddy of them all? Wasn’t the ’75 just a rebody of the same 111″ wheelbase “X” platform?
The ’67 Camaro is, strictly speaking. But the front suspension of the gen1 F body and the ’68-’74 Nova is considered to be a weak link. The ’70 Camaro had a completely new front end and sub-frame, with wider track to go along with it. That really transformed the handling of these cars (and the ’75+ Nova).
The HQ used that new front suspension too.
It was decided at the last moment that the HQ would feature terminal understeer for a ‘boulevard ride’ by chief engineer Howard Field (ex Cadillac). There is an author online who claims some of the mounting holes are the same as a ‘US model’, but I asked a local Camaro resto expert who says he never heard of any interchangeability. Do the Nova and Camaro share same front end elements? I’m sure the HQ must as well somehow.
I’m relying on what I’ve heard, read and the essentially-identical track measurements. Meaning, yes, the ’75+ Nova and 70+ Camaro share the same front suspensions, as did their previous generations. And yes, it seems extremely likely (and logical) that the HQ used that (newer) front suspension too.
It also seems very likely (and logical) that Holden used aspects of the X-Body as a starting point for the HQ; how much was kept or changed, I don’t know. But it’s always advantageous (and cheaper) to start with something and adapt rather than start with a clean sheet. Unibodies are not easy and cheap to engineer, hence the X-Body donor.
GM did this all through its empire, to some extent or another. Opels were widened to become Holdens too. etc……
But it’s clear that there is enough difference between the HQ and the Camaro or Nova that a front clip won’t just bolt on. A subframe? Maybe.
Leo Pruneau described the front sub frame as the longest he ever saw; it stopped at the B pillar and was gradually shortened for subsequent models. I’m not a head in the sand Aussie and agree about the Opel/Vauxhall and GM parts bins aspects. Pruneau had just returned from a stint at Opel when he was asked to design the front face.
Most curious for me is the side greenhouse treatment; the launch of the HQ predates the FE Vauxhall by eight months. Someone up on high in GM gave this to Holden because it was to be a continuing theme into other GM vehicles.
The inner structure is the pieces I meant the bolt holes line up but the pressings are all wrong, the ahead of the axle steering and 3/4 subframe was all new previously they ran the steering box at the firewall and had light moderately accurate steering all that changed with the HQ the steering became heavy at low speed and the cars had pronounced understeer touted as a safety feature the 4 coil suspension they learned from Opel/Vauxhall Vivas rebadged as Toranas the cars took ideas and parts from everywhere
By the way Paul there was a minor industry in NZ converting HQs back into Camaro/Firebird replicas using factory US front sheet metal and fibreglass rear panels quite a bit of cutting was involved and the are hard to tell apart. If I ever see another I’ll shoot it.
Nice I see a bit of Vauxhall FE Victor in the lines.
And an Opel mouth.
The FE Vauxhall was rejigged into the Torana using the donor Opel body/suspension and fitting 4,6,& V8 motors,
the last Torana the 78/79 UC actually was a Vauxhall rebadged it shared almost nothing mechanical with previous Toranas other than the engine it even still had the fluted bonnet and just a grille headlifght and tail light change, the new Commodore wasnt quite ready, in 78 it had structural problems so GMH ran the HZ model and UC as a stopgap,
The Vauxhall/Victor/Holden UC Torana then went to India and became the Hindustan Contessa with Isuzu diesel power.
The FE Victor is quite different to the LH Torana. The FE and the Opel Reckord D shared a floorpan, which was basically that of the older Reckord C. The LH Torana was a ground-up new design (although likely sharing some LJ bits), with a wheelbase of 2590mm, which everyone noted was shorter then the rival Cortina. By comparion, the Victor and Reckord wheelbase was the same 2668 as the Reckord C – and the VB Commodore was also 2668, logical given that it was based on the Reckord E.
The LH was a uniquely Australian design: “…although it certainly does have the current international GM styling treatment – as on Holden HQ, Opel Ascona, Reckord and Kadett – it doesn’t share any panels or even the inner shell with any of these cars.” (Wheels, March ’74).
The UC Torana is absolutely not a rebadged Vauxhall. Vauxhall was ending the FE-replacement VX Victor production in 1978 just as Holden was facelifting the LX Torana into the UC. The UC Torana/Sunbird is a lightly facelifted LH-X.
No its not Scott you keep quoting wheels and they were wrong Aussie got no Vauxhalls so they nothing to compare with and they really kept quiet about the LJ being a HK engine bayed Viva didnt they did they even know? New front and rear panels on an Opel produced the LH/LJ and it had run its course by 77, GMH used the Vauxhall shell with different rear lights grille and headlamps but the Vauxhall bonnet and rear suspension the diffs do not interchange with the earlier model all the pickup points were different the UC uses a UK Salsbury rear axle not the Holden banjo very little other than the doors are the same and the doors are Opel. I just googled one ah you might want to do that before you tell me I’m wrong grille rear lights only difference to UC
Wheels and Modern Motor were very open about the LJ being Viva-based car. The LJ was the last of the narrow Viva-based designs; the LH was the first Aussie design. The UC is absolutely a lightly facelifted LH-LX. The FE Victor/Reckord D shared parts with each other but are not the same car as the Torana. They are a completely different size platform – being longer and narrower and a longer wheelbase. Suspension is similar but different; the Victor/Reckord have recirculated ball steering, the Torana rack & pinion.
Rest assured I never rely on a single source, I use a variety of books, publicity materials, magazines and websites. These include wikipedia, Unique Cars and Parts, the Daily Express World Car Guides, a huge variety of cars mags, the Italian Automobile Club World Car Guides, the brochures and in this case, the Torana Fan Club site and the unexpectedly interesting Complete History of Vauxhall book (not many pics, but pages of fascinating info).
The Torana definitely shares common genes in the styling, and had the Opel 4-cylinder engine, but door cutouts are different, and no panels are interchangeable. Pic is Victor at top, Torana in middle (customised sorry, it was the only profile shot I could find), Reckord D at the bottom. Similar looking, absolutely; same car, no.
The UC Torrie was just an updated front and rear on the previous LX and not a rebadged Vauxhall. Mechanically it was the same as previous models except for deletion of the V8 options and eventual replacement of the Opel 1.9 with the dreaded Starfire motor. Hindustan bought the Vauxhall tooling.
The lines of the HQ Sedan are clearly borrowed from the 1970 Pontiac LeMans. Premier versions with twin headlights have a similar face and lwb Statesmans with split grill even more so.
During the late 70s a Pontiac Firebird look-a-like nose cone was available for the full size Holdens (after market).
I can see why you think its a face lift model I did too right up untill when I bought a crashed one and tried fixing it. I bought a roo hit 79 UC Torana with 5 cylinder fuming 173 auto 3.9 rear axle with major front panel damage L/F guard grille bonnet etc all badly buckled.
First step beat it back into some sort of shape and replace the engine in went a HZ 3.3 next get rid of the whining diff and thats where the fun starts the entire rear floorpan is different and the earlier diff housings do NOT swap in all the pickup points are different you must use the Salsbury rear entry diff NOT the earlier Holden banjo,thats why there was no V8 the euro diff might not take the torque, the wrecker I was dealing with was very patient and even showed me the two side by side and explained the UC used some odd Opel parts, ok no probs I’ll wait till it blows, it never did,
The entire front sheet metal design is different as is the attachment system and you have to use UC parts which are quitye hard to find those cars were considered ugly and did not sell well the park indicator lights I got had a griffin on therm along with the part number not a Holden lion and the Holden specialist wrecker in Riverstone filled in the details of what Holdens actually did to produce it and advised me to go to Londonderry and look at the Vauxhalls the collector had there and Lo and behold mystery solved
That top picture Scott is a FD Victor not the FE you plainly do not realise there was another model after the popular NZ model it used the Opel centre section and unique front and rear sheet metal and wheels were never going to tell the Aussie public their belove L34 race cars were not actually Holdens the earlier Viva scam was well known and couldnt be denied if I knew how to vacuum photos off the web I could show you but I cant be bothered trying but as I said google the last Victor not the 60s model you have shown 3 totaly different cars not the 3 cars that share a centre section
Holden had fitted RTS suspension to the Torana by the time the UC came around so there are indeed differences in mountings and the rear part of the floorpan was changed to accomodate these. The UC has different panels from the windscreen forward, and the inner guard structure is slightly different to accomodate these, but the frame rails are unchanged. It takes some work on the inner guards, but with some work the LX panels will fit on a UC. Many a street machiner has done this. http://www.GMH-Torana.com.au is one of the many excellent resources out there, and it goes into quite detailed description and explanation of the differences between the various ‘ranas, what’s interchangeable etc.
The gold FE is an FE; I do know my cars, and I know them pretty darn well. The FE is very rare here but we did get them new for a short while. The FE replaced the FD, it had similar dimensions as the FD but the platform was repackaged and a lot more roomy inside. It didn’t use the same centre section as the equivalent Opel (the Reckord D in the pic above), but they were very similar under the skin and shared much of the platform. The FE was notorious because Vauxhall refused to put a quarter-window in the back doors, so the window only wound down a short way. Pic here is FE above, FD below.
Yes very good but you didnt show a front on shot which will show the shared panels I know they can be bodged to fit the LX front it involves more mucking about than the cars are worth and the UC never sold well anyway I drove some new a couple of rentals and ny fathers 78 before I ever bought one the one I bought was $200 cheap as chips and not worth spending more than the minimum on it was a horrible car I palmed it off to a wrecker the day after I got my 63 EH registered and would never countenance another.
The UC was quite an extensive revision of the Torana (perhaps too much given its short production run), they made a lot of structural changes to save costs because the V8 was being dropped which would explain the undercarriage changes you mention Bryce.
Front shot, showing the LH and UC are similarly-styled to the Victor/Reckord, but not the same. Top to bottom: FD Victor, FE Victor, LH Torana, UC Torana/Sunbird, Reckord D. Tell you what, the FE front end isn’t terribly pretty!
Is it just me or does it look like the door between the Camaro and HQ is almost a direct swap?
The hinges line up but it wont fit
I see a couple styling elements in the four door version pictured above, that I find unique and unusual.
Perhaps it’s my eyes, but…
The rocker panels seem quite low. Lower than the Nova shown below, for comparison.
Also, the depth of the front door intrusion into the front fender is unique. Creating a very long front door. Whereas, the Nova front door ends just below the base of the windshield. With a longer fender. I’m used to seeing long doors like this, more commonly on two door models.
An old boss used to disparagingly describe my HQ Monaro LS as a two door Kingswood. The rear glass is different but the wheelbase is same and profile is similar.
Don, have you seen the pre-production designs considered for the HQ Monaro? Wheels published them years ago; they’re fascinating to study. There were quite a variety of rear glass shapes considered. I think they chose the prettiest glass shape, but not the most aggressive looking (sort of the opposite of Ford who went as aggressive as poosible with the XA Falc hardtop!).
EDIT: Just read your comment below, so I’m guessing you have seen the Monaro design ideas/prototypes. 🙂
My Dad photographed them, his tour group of NZ dealers were left with their cameras in the design studios and all over the LangLang proving grounds the word was already out in NZ so they told wheels some of what they were doing,
Wheels did not get to see the SouthAfrican Chevrolets or they woulda published the pictures but only NZ got any of those Australians even today dont believe they exist let alone GMH built them
Those Chevies sold well around my home area people would rather Chevs than Holdens and hadnt had any since the 67 Impala.
KiwiBryce, there was a rush of South African Fairmont GTs and HK-HG based ‘Chev’ coupes into Australia when GTHO and GTS prices went stratospheric a few years ago. They were advertised in Justauto or Unique Cars. No-one seems to have brought in the Statesman version that I’ve seen, but the cover has been blown on the other abovementioneds.
LS Munro was Premier level trim vinyl top and all I shot one at the show Paul featured at the top next to a HJ fronted HQ.
And the back view showing the silver GTS to be a bitza GMh moved the taillights out of the bumper for the 75 HJ model.
Not for the tudor munro, but. Taillights stayed in bumper to the end of the runout LE.
That car has been lowered from standard a considerable amount, ground clearance was a key thing for Holdens for use in rural areas.
It looks like the door opening extend beyond the dashboard a bit further than the Nova, but I think the difference would be the outer door skin of the HQ has a lot of curvature which which requires more length in front of the hinge to allow it to open.
There is also an unconfirmed rumour that in 1968 an experimental Buick or Olds body was shipped to oz for some reason. My guess is because they anticipated the Brougham disaster and might have been looking for a longer wheelbase alternative. The progression of design sketches for the HQ indicate something very different at the end from what was started with. I would be very, very interested if any Buick or Olds experts could shed some light on this exp model.
Story I heard said there were intended to be three lamps per side in the rear bumper but the accountants decided it looked mighty fine with just the two. A few retro fits are getting about and do look better to me, but hey, I’m no accountant.
Yep, a close-to-the-end full size mockup had three lights per side in the bumper and a split grille as per the Statesman for all models.
Mmmm…I love split grille Statesmans. In orchid, with a black vinyl top and brocade facings. Brougham-y goodness! Less enthusiastic about the plastic tree veneer and disintegrating internal door releases, but I’ll give them a pass.
The HQ split-grille is indeed a great looker.
I love it on the one tonner.
I’ve also seen HQs with retrofitted 3 lights per side on the Kiwi side of the Tassie. In fact I’ve seen so many that after seeing one for sale on trademe recently, I turned to google to see if someone offered a kit/service to do this. Couldn’t find anyone though, so I guess it’s folks getting busy at home with two bumpers, a tape measure and a welder.
Three lights per side would have allowed dedicated reversing lights – as a child I could always tell an HQ reversing at night because the indicators shone continually, serving as reversing lights. It always seemed dumb to me (as a child) because they cast rubbish light compared with nice bright white reversing lights!
As a child I was at the level to see how using a lamp cut out as a toe hold could easliy break the flange around the lens. Not to worry, just turn upside down and refit, or was that left to right? Can’t say that about many other designs.
Yep, upside-down or left-to-right both work with HQs – although indicator lens had the red reflector at one end, so if you turned an indicator upside-down, you’d want to do the same on the other side so that the indicator-reflector was a mirror image. Fun times lol!
Austin Princess taillights were interchangable left-to-right as a whole, though not upside down. The gen3 Toyota Cressida taillights can also be swapped left-to-right, but need to be flipped upside down. Toyota actually flipped them themselves on some models to create subtle model variation.
Check if your launch issue still has the 7″ record attached!
Don’t think so, but will do!
Hmm: Paul/Perry, this was in reply to jim’s comment, but keeps coming up as a new comment. And one of my other comments was rejected as spam. No biggie, just an fyi!
Hmm x2; the replies are all out of chronological order for me now too, dunno if that’s affecting anyone else. Computers: gotta love ’em!
X2. Twin carbs, bro.
X2 HR twin throat Stromberg downdraft single and Opel 4 speed that was the hot Holden ticket in 66 but both Ford and Chrysler had V8s.
So GMH sawed a 63 Opel Commodore in half lengthways widened it and slotted a 327 in called in Monaro after the high altitude plains highway and a legend was xeroxed.
Cheers for the correction cuz.
HR was the first Holden sold as a Chevrolet in SouthAfrica it had a 4.1 Chevy 6 fitted in place of the red 186 ans all subsequent models were fitted with Chev powertrains, Custom Rodder did an article on them in about 75 but of course some of us already knew and in NZ we actually had the cars.
How did it handle? The HR had a pretty narrow track didn’t it?
I dont know but yeah HR front suspension retrofits back to the FX they did reccess the firewall some so that would help HRs weren much to ride in new my Dad had one and often complained how rough and primitive it was compared to the Vauxhall he had previous a 63 PBX the last big Vauxhall built in OZ by GMH even us kids noticed you were bounced about in the Holden it didnt even have syncro on 1st.
theres a real good reason the kept those off the Aussie market even compared to NZs 3.3 Victors the UK didnt get the XU1 was a bit of a joke and it took a 5L V8 holden to out run a 3.3 Cresta or a V6 Zodiacs our traffic police drove.
@Bryce: tend to agree re the HR. My great-great Uncle (who worked at Ebbetts from the 50s onwards) had an HR sedan from the somewhere near new until the late 90s. I don’t remember much about how it went, fairly mushy handling from memory. Wasn’t my cup of tea, but it certainly had character. Good times!
I had 2 well used HRs yeah not much of a car really I had 2 Ehs that were better I kept one 8 years only selling it in 03 when we emigrated back to NZ, good enough cars in OZ but poor handlers and underbraked in NZ conditions
It would be great to se a full CC on the Chevy Constantia. Brings to mind this great jingle:
There was a version of that jingle for every market.
What was the Kiwi version? You don’t have kangaroos, do you?
@MikePDX: I think the NZ version was “Football, fish & chips, Kiwi birds and Holden cars”. Bryce is older than I am, so would be more likely to remember.
@whatnext2010: I shot a great Constantia last year (we got ’em new in NZ), so watch this space for a decent write-up!
Yeah sold through Chevrolet/Vauxhall dealers pure Holden agents were excluded these sold well along with the Chevrolet Statesman.
Amazingly familiar tune to my American ears, but South Africa, what’s that first one mean: “Braaivleis, Rugby, Sunny Skies and Chevrolet”
How about Australia? “Football, Meat Pies, Kangaroos and Holden cars”
Braaivleis = barbeque.
And of course in the USA it’s “Baseball, Hot Dogs, Apple Pies and Chevrolet”
No, it doesn’t darn it! But it is otherwise as new, so I just enjoyed reading it again for the first time in years 🙂
Rubgy Football fish and chips Kiwi birds and Holden cars Ive got that somewhere it was a GMH promotional record Dad brought home, I also have some dealership cuff links in Holden 2 models and Vauxhall.
I’ve commented previously that I’m unconvinced that the HQ shares the platform/clip/hardpoints with the Camaro/Nova. To quantify that though, my belief comes about because I don’t remember such depth of sharing being mentioned by Australia’s motoring magazines of the time – and the mags were perfectly happy to note the XA Falcon shared a lot with previous US Falcons. Having said that, I’m sure some under-the-skin HQ parts are from the GM parts bin.
I have a full set of Aussie’s Wheels magazine from 1953′s issue 1 to today (I have OCD, swapmeets, internet auctions and a subscription to thank for that!), so have issues covering the HQ launch in depth, as well as issues from later years/decades where the HQ birth is discussed. I’ll dig them out when I get time and see what they actually say re HQ origins and sharing.
I tend to agree with you that it doesn’t share much with the North American X/F-body. What I’d like to see is detailed photos of the front suspension and bolt on sub frame. The fact that the HQ has a coil suspension in the rear is a significant difference from the North American cars.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the overall designs were similar and some parts like the suspension control arms were shared. Even if they do share the control arms, keep in mind the Astro van and Caprice shared the same lower control arms. How much do they have in common besides that?
Does anyone know if the HQ was a front steer or rear steer? The 1967-69 Camaros were rear, and in 1970 they became front steer.
The HQ was front steer, and the first Holden to be so. That’s a key element.
The pronounced under steer was billed as a US safety feature,
its the most lethal idea ever fine in the US where you have multiple lanes heading the same direction on two lane twisty blacktop there is very little room for that sort of error,
Radial tyres mostly cured the problem though it took GMH several years to introduce them as standard and retune the suspension then of course backyard bogans like me retrofitted rear sway bars into the prettier HQ from the later attempts.
Apparently, the local execs were gobsmacked at the understeer decision. I think in the end they decided to push it as a safety feature which was a strong facet of the HQs broader marketing.
Important to keep in mind, though. By this time, it had been decided that the Torana was going to tackle the GTHO on the hill. The HQ was never going to need the same race ‘breeding’ as the HK-HG.
Front steer? Does that mean steering box in front of the axle?
Yes, here’s a pic of a gen2 Camaro front end, with aftermarket knuckles.
Here’s the Holden HQ front subframe:
In this photo you can see the steering box on the inside of the chassis rail closest to the photo – right-hand drive of course.
There are also two large holes in the rail for the body mounts located on the section of rail under the firewall area where it widens towards the perimeter of the car. I would expect they have done that to allow more clearance under the car, or to put it another way more interior space without the subframe rail under the floorpan. Ground clearance was an important consideration.
I have the same conclusion, they started with the same basic idea and it adapted for whatever reason to end up slightly different. Parts sharing would barely be relevant with production on different continents.
Re the understeer, I believe that the strong understeer characteristic was done for safety reasons so that you would get plenty of early warning to slow down, the car gives you a vivid “not happy” message well before you reach the limits of grip. Most people (enthusiastic drivers anyway) would say this occurs too soon and is bad for tire wear if nothing else, the fact that the suspension geometry was later changed after a management personnel change (Peter Hanenberger) says a lot.
And another Camaro gen2 front subframe
Another gen2 Camaro subframe
What’s your call? They look similar to me but I’m a layperson on internals.
Thanks for all the pics Paul. After looking at the two, they are definitely different. The front end of the fame on the HQ is shaped differently and seems to kick up, while the Camaro doesn’t, it seems to go wider. The upper control arms are different. The Camaro has a body mount support near the firewall area that the HQ does not. It also looks like the rear part of the HQ subframe widens (like a perimeter frame) while the Camaro stays the same width. The frame rail shape looks different too. Overall, similar in design, but I don’t see much, if anything, that is directly shared. Only maybe the lower control arms could be shared, but we can’t see them in these photos.
I’d say Bill made the call, and rightfully so, as he’s much more familiar with these than I am. Yes, plenty of fundamental similarity, but certainly not identical. Like so much else with these cars 🙂 GM cousins.
Front steer is when the steering linkage is in front of the front axle, rear steer being behind the front axle.
Scott Aussies are firmly convinced its all Australian there is no knowledge of other similar cars there anf GMH kept it that way untill the advent of the internet. Especially Wheels magazine they are terminally stupid and were horribly underinformed in 1971.
Totally disagree re Wheels being terminally stupid, they’ve long been one of the most highly respected motoring mags in the world. They definitely improved in July 1971 though when Peter Robinson became editor. 43 years later he’s still writing for them, and is one of the most respected names in the business worldwide – and despite crashing a new Lambo Diablo back in the day, he’s on top level terms with all the major manufacturers and their exec.
I agree with Scott as to the integrity of Wheels Magazine. I mean, even exPM Malcolm Fraser agreed to an interview (I’ve got to find that article). I’m also not blind to the jingoism inherent in some Australian behaviours and think maybe this and other magazines perhaps didn’t look hard enough at the origins of Holden models up to the mid 60s. I did read recently that the styling for the kidney-killing HD came out of GM’s Advanced Design Studio.
The HD was designed in the US and was not popular after the very popular EH it shares its platform with GMH redesigned it to eliminate moisture traps and the ugly kidney buster front guards, HDs often failed WOF inspections in NZ at one year old from rust through, the HR adressed those issues and got discs as standard(here) not in OZ Holden drums are quite ordinary single leading shoe even my 59 Minx has twin leading shoe front brakes and can out stop and out steer a Holden. Holdens subsequently didnt use anymore US body designs again and did their own cribbing in house
The HK was a pretty good crib of the 65 Olds. Veeeeeerrrrrrry clean lines.
Wheels got sucked into the P76 Hype in the early 70s and touted it mercilessly the buying public wasnt fooled however and didnt buy them and July 71 was when the Kiwi Holden dealers were taken to OZ to see the yet to be released HQ range Wheels barely knew a new model was coming out GMH wanted it kept quiet as the were desperately trying to unload the last HGs so wheels were told very little untill the launch in September.
I did read Paul’s P76 article and subsequent fracas. Not going there.
Wheels had the factory photos and specs in the June ’71 issue. The front cover has “Big changes in new Holden” in big letters – no pic though. The styling was described thus: “HQ body styling is an amalgam of the best in current overseas GM styling trends. It has been entirely designed [in] Melbourne, but logically owes much to the parent company. We can see Camaro, Impala, Chevelle, Firebird and Opel influences.”
They didn’t mention anything about borrowing the slant boot profile from the Renault 12? Joking.
Lol, no they didn’t Don. Funny that 😉 Of course in one of those weird connections the Renault Australia factory assembled all the TE/TF Ford Cortina wagons sold in Australia…
I think that’s a trifle harsh, what no one seems to mention is the importance of Australian content, back in the 60’s and through the early 80’s Australia had crippling import duties on motor vehicles, Australian built cars were exempt from these taxes. Sure there’s similarities but don’t forget General Motors Holdens had the ability to design and press their own car bodies, I’m sure you know plenty about cars but slagging everything off and whinging all the time is really boring
The XA sat on a XY floorpan suspension etc it had been strengthened and ball joint sizes upped from the XW model which has issues under severe service a longer gearbox rear housing was used to shorten the tailshaft and just a rebody job Ive juggled parts back and forth on the Falcon range and pretty much know where to find what,
but Holden parts change with the HQ to Chev parts in places little things like wheel stud pattern and ball joints and things are common to both One day I’ll go and find those pics my Dad shot they are 500kms away buried in a cousins basement.
Please find them mate. I would love to see them and they would be a great exclusive for CC.
Yeah have to make a pilgrimage but yeah this is where to share them, I said nice things to the P76 owner at that show, they are a sensitive mob.
I suppose hearing all the negative stuff for nearly 40 years would do that to you!
500 clicks is a bloody short drive. Like a supermarket run for us 😀
Double walk in wardrobe of photos in storage the drive is the best part I’m looking for one projector cartridge with no viewer.
Wheels March 1984 is the most comprehensive I’ve found. Note the HQ sketch with the extremely similar side treatment to Herlitz’s mopar intermediates.
That’ll be one of the ones I’m thinking of. You realise I’m now gonna have to dig them out in the next day or so and reminisce! 😉
There’s an earlier one featuring some of Zmood’s general concept sketches. I do agree with KiwiBryce that Aussies were perhaps too proud to admit overseas influences, particularly the press at the time. It’s really, really hard to track things here because we had overseas staff flying in and out as well as Aussie’s being rotated within the various GMH products. I’m hoping to find Phil Zmood himself as someone I know (g’day David) might know how to get in touch. For example, no-one knows who designed the Hurricane or even if the canopy was brought in from the States.
Shot ya a rare Nissan Gloria Scott, right up your alley bro, I’m gunna write up the MK4s one day unless someone beats me to them but from godzones angle not the UK.
Nice! Look forward to a Mk 4 write up too – assuming you mean the Zephyr? I don’t know much about them, be good to learn more.
KiwiBryce, I got a mk3 Z-car around the corner. Let me know if you need, there’s a shot of it on my cohort page I think.
Quite a few suvivors here NZ was Zephyrland for 20 odd years but I shot an Abbott and Farnham MK4 Estate and they are quite rare and like Vauxhalls NZ had its own models that dont correspond to Uk versions a friend has a MK2 ute under restoration nearby a Aussie model they are everything the feeble Falcon wasnt in a ute.
Those Mk2 utes are really nice looking. Used to see them around, not so much now. That Mk4 wagon is a super rareby, much looking forward to your article.
The front panels all bolting to the subframe could be handy…. I had a mate that loaned his HQ ute to his (crazy) younger brother, who ran into the back of a van stopped at a traffic light – sun was in his eyes or something. He had a massive break when the driver of the van turned out to be an illegal immigrant who just wanted to get out of there, no concern about the damage etc just didn’t want the police involved. Anyway all the sheetmetal (inner & outer) was mashed but the subframe was still straight so they got the front end off another car and just bolted it on – fixed! Well apart from the color.
Yep guards and bonnets are generic the radiator support and nose cone determine the trim level
Nope. GTS guards are vented. Will interchange but are not ‘generic’
Across the whole HQ range of sedan, LWB sedan, wagon, ute, panel van & one tonner, the only common external panels are the bonnet & the cowl.
I’m having some similar trouble with my replies.
Scott, I do remember a Wheels article showing a heavily disguised XA wagon and featuring a pic of a two door Torino, so I’m not saying the press were blinkered. I actually think what ended up as the HQ was mostly done here, albeit by an international crew.
I believe the comparisons made here between a 1975-79 Chevrolet Nova 4 Door Sedan and a 1971 Holden Kingswood HQ 4 Door Sedan would be like comparing apples & oranges because both cars were never based from the same chassis/platforms even though both cars had a front subframe or the Holden may even have a full perimeter ladder type frame as I will also post this one after the photo comparison of the 1971 Chevrolet Nova 4 Door Sedan vs. the 1971 Holden Kingswood HQ 4 Door Sedan. The 1967-73 Camaro and the 1968-74 Nova were the only two cars which used identical unitized bodies with front subframes. For the sake of true comparisons, the 1971 Nova was only about 2″ longer than the 1971 Kingswood. 189.4″ for the 1971 Nova vs. 187.5″ for the Kingswood. The wheelbase were exactly the same at 111.0″ for both cars. The Holden was only less than 2″ wider than the ’71 Nova, 74.0″ for the former and 72.3″ for the latter. The Kingswood Sedan weighs in at 2,950 pounds while the ’71 Nova weighs in at 2,976 pounds with a 250 L6 which by itself is debatable because depending upon the standard and some optional required equipments weight differences between the two cars can fluctuate widely. The Holden Kingswood HQ 4 Door Sedan was also sold as a Chevrolet in South Africa and elsewhere and were given the name Chevrolet Kommando while the truck version was called the El Camino which was unrelated to the North American Chevelle based model of the same name.
The passenger cars have front subframe only and coil spring rear axle, the commercials have full length frame and leaf springs.
I like the ground clearance of the Chevy Nova (top pic) more than the ground clearance of the Holden (bottom pic). Unless the suspension was lowered by the owner of the Holden, I can’t imagine Holden lowering the car to such an extant.
As I mentioned on my previous posting moments ago, here is the photo of the chassis of the 1971 Holden Kingswood HQ which really appeared to be a separate full perimeter ladder type frame much more similar to the larger 1971 Chevelle Malibu of that time than the Nova. The Nova and Camaro have much more of a unitized body construction with only a separate front subframes for the engines.
Pedro; Attached is an ad that appeared in Autosafe Australia Magazine, Aug 72 showing the front subframe. IIRC the utes, particularly the one-tonner, had a full chassis, but I’m not sure the family variants did.
Don, the larger Holden Kingswood HQ & Monaro probably used an embedded frame which can still have a subframe integrated into its unibody much like a uniframe similar (and giving it a full frame appearance) to the unrelated mid 1990s Dodge Stratus 4 Door Sedan models we have here in the US. The Nova and the Camaro only had Subframes bolted on into its floorpan which is semi permanently attached to those models
Pedro; ‘The HQ was the first Holden to feature a three-quarter chassis frame instead of full monocoque construction. Commercials had a full chassis… As the HQ moved into HJ, HX, HZ and WB developments, the engineers found they could shorten the three-quarter chassis without detracting from the car’s strength. It is much shorter in the current Statesman than it was in the HQ.’ John Wright, Wheels Magazine, March 1984.
I’m more an aesthetic appreciator, so my technical acumen is limited. Is this quote in line with what you’re saying?
Don, it relates to our discussion. I am not an expert on technical stuff either but if lets say if I have a 1:43 Scale Trax model of the Holden Kingswood HQ which I do have and if its chassis was the true representation of the actual car sans other engraved features and I compared it to 1:43 Scale version of the GMP 1971 Nova which its chassis does represent the actual model well, then that’s how I see their chassis differences.
Ute Wagon and Statesman all share a longer wheelbase than the lower trim sedans of Premier, Kingswood and Belmont in that order. Belmont and Kingswood were used on commerrcials.
@ Pedro. The photo of the HQ chassis you have posted is from a Utility or Panel Van not a sedan.
To clarify. The HQ sedan, coupe, station wagon and the long wheel base Statesman variant all used a half length perimeter chassis.
The Utility and Panel van used the exactly the same front half but Holden simply welded the a second half on to create the chassis shown in your photo.
The One Tonner Cab Chassis used the same full length frame but with extra box sections to carry extra weight.
I cannot comment on whether the HQ chassis is based on a Nova because I have never seen one but I remember seeing a 68 Camarowith all of the front panels removed and thinking to myself that the design was identical to the HQ to WB Holden chassis. There was probably some different key dimensions but it was perfectly clear to me that Holden definitely based their design on the Camaro.
@Richarbl, THX for the clarifications I guess Google Wikipedia made an error in identifying the chassis as Holden Kingswood HQ when it should really have mentioned Holden Commercial Vehicles. The ’68 Camaro’ chassis was identical to the ’68-74 Nova and was the basis of that 3G Nova’s new chassis.
Thanks Richarbl. Some of my readings indicate the one-tonner had a slightly longer wheelbase than the ute. It’s buried in a pile somewhere so one day I’ll be able to confirm.
Re: your observation about the similarity to the Camaro. When I finished the conversation with the resto expert here in Melbourne, I wondered whether he might be leading me up the garden path a bit. After all, would you tell someone off the street how to save money on Camaro internal parts?
Pedro, Kingswood was a trim level, not a model name and was available on the utes as well so it is not technically incorrect (it may have been a top-trim level ute). You can also see the fuel tank located where the rear seat of the sedan would be, which is under the forward part of the bed.
The one tonner chassis can be easily distinguished because has a triangular structure above the kick-up for the rear axle, it runs forward under the flat/tabletop tray and vertically behind the cab. The one tonner had a longer wheelbase to enable better weight distribution between the axles, which was repeated in the more recent Commodore one tonne model.
The HQ used a 3/4 subframe Holdens were unitary construction from day one the 1tonner Panel van and ute used a full frame, a Hiolden first the 1 tonner uses Impala suspension parts bigger than Camaro for extra strength.
Funny, in the US at that time, “It’s what’s up front that counts” was a very famous cigarette slogan with some very unsubtle advertising.
I’m not sure you can sell a car with ‘Blow in her face and she’ll follow you anywhere.’ Or maybe you could…
That cracks me up thats definitely a Aussie ad, drum brakes were not available on HQ Holdens in New Zealand it was discs or nothing.
The frame in this photo doesn’t to appear to have much in common with any North American GM vehicles. I can’t see much detail, but it looks significantly different than a 68-72 GM A-body.
YES the Holden’s chassis does not share any chassis with their Cousins from North America but I only used the Chevelle Malibu as a point of comparison since most Holden Cars from that era were shorter than the Camaros and Novas of that time. In other words, The Holden chassis from their larger cars like the Kingswood HQ & Monaro were only unique to their own model line.
I wasn’t trying to imply that you thought there was similarities. I just was surprised how much different it looks from anything produced by GM in North America. The ’78-88 A/G bodies were much smaller than previous GM midsize cars, but there chassis were basically a shrunken version of the GM B-body chassis (which was similar to most other GM perimeter chassis designs).
@Bill M, you actually hit the right target but the Downsized GM RWD 1977-96 B-Bodies so as their larger RWD C & D Bodies brothers were actually based from an updated archaic chassis from the 1973-77 RWD A-Bodies which underpins the Chevelle Malibu, El Camino & Monte Carlo plus their cousins in the Pontiac, GMC Sprint, Oldsmobile & Buick. The Downsized 1978-80 RWD A & later 1981-88 RWD G Bodies used a new full perimeter ladder type frame which were different from the Downsized RWD 1977-96 B/C/D Bodies and not a shrunken versions of those. Sure the 1977-96 B/C/D full perimeter ladder type frames along with the Downsized 1978-88 RWD A/G Bodies, but they were two different types of chassis/frames.
It makes me wonder if it would’ve been possible to make a ’75-79 Nova wagon using the Holden HQ wagon bodyshell.
hmmm… The recent Nova/Seville article might have a sequel if we could ship an HQ wagon to CCHQ.
For that matter, the Seville body with its’ square rear door window frames and narrow taillights might’ve been a good jumping-off point for a Nova wagon.
This one was an actual car which unfortunately did not survive its conversion to a 1969 Chevrolet Nova 4 Door Station Wagon according to its owner. But nice effort on his part.
@nlprint, only if GM had a wherewithal and resourceful enough, this is how the Nova and along with its divisional cousins’ Wagon would appear using the 1975-79 RWD X-Bodied Chassis would look like and they should have produce this rather than the hatchbacks which were no more than glorified coupes. Had GM thought about putting this when these cars were redesigned for 1975, they would had the compact wagon along with the AMC Hornet by themselves. Speaking of those when Chrysler brought the Plymouth Volare’ and Dodge Aspen in 1976, they had a full pledge compact station wagon in their compact lineup.
I was 13 when my Dad returned from Aussie after viewing these cars before release and we owned the first station wagon into Aotearoa Dad ordered it at the factory primrose yellow, 202 6, 3 on the tree manual, same colour as that sedan, but it was the only one around for months, only the VH Valiant was a “new” car Ford were still using the old body as the XY the XA arrived 6 months later, HQs sold like beer at a rugby match in NZ.
What a great thread.
My primary thoughts on the HQ is that is was a dreadful car to drive. It had countless flaws particularly in the areas of ergonomics and road holding.
The interior was the first worst. Base models were strictly poverty pack with minimal styling and probably the ugliest dashboard known to man. the steering wheel was oval in shape and had a thin rim with overly sharp finger holds. The gear lever had very sharp edges and the indicator wand was no better.
But that was only the start of an uncomfortable experience because the standard bench had no support and to make matters worse the accelerator pedal was about three inches lower than the height of the brake pedal.
All of this coupled with a lazy clutch, underpowered engines and extremely poor road holding, especially at high speed, made for a very very average driving experience.
In short, the HQ’s cabin was an unpleasant place to be and it was slow and discouraged any kind of spirited driving, This was most notable when compared against its nearest rival, the XA Falcon.
However the HQ had a lot of other things going for it. For a start it was one of the cleanest car designs ever made. If one chose to analyse the overall shape it became almost impossible to find any fault with the design or any of the details.
Perhaps some might find fault with the droopy tail but in the metal it was difficult to imagine anything better.
Another thing the HQ had was unrivalled forward vision, the seating position was high and the A pillars impossibly slim for a large car. Plus the HQ had superb body engineering. It was incredibly smooth to drive and and the body was free from rattles and it a had rock solid feel.
For all its faults the HQ has an enviable record, it was the highest selling Australian car of all time.
A total of 486 000 HQ’s were made over three and a half years. A small percentage were exported but the vast majority were sold in a tiny market with a population of approx 15 million people. A remarkable effort considering the countless flaws
and the opposition that included a full Chrysler line up and the marketing juggernaut of the the Ford Falcon.
+1 on all you wrote Richarbl, particularly on the design, except I didn’t mind the orig velour seats in my LS. Honest opinion my VG hardtop was more fun.
HQ Holdens withstood rough roads better than Falcons and would keep alignment with in spec for a long time something Fords were hopeless at requiring spot welding of the adjusters to last at all airborne over cattle grids and burying the front beam into the road will not hurt a Holden, Falcons and Valiants not so much, hit a roo at speed in a HQ just unbolt it all and wrecking yard new panels on in a Falcon not so easy the inner structure is fixed in place and buckles badly Falcons and Valiants had better engines but they rusted worse too and Valiant K members crack badly allowing the chassis rail to bend instead of the steer wheels turning in extreme cases like my 73 Ranger wagon, boy that thing was a mission on the New England highway just keeping on the tar was hard work never mind wheeling it through hard turns but it went Shepparton to Mareeba and back without dieing on me it was still going when it went for scrap.
Lol, one of my old teachers had a ’71 HQ Belmont sedan. 173 and 3-on-the-tree. He was also on the carpool for our Scout camps, so I rode in the Belmont numerous times in the late 80s. It was phenomenally slow for a 6-cylinder (our 2.0 Cortina would run rings around it), and made a vacuum-cleaner noise when “accelerating” through the gears. I didn’t like the dash design, but that front bench was the worst thing ever! The seat base “support” was designed so that most was in the middle and reduced dramatically as it got closer to either side door. Sort of like draping a thin mattress over an upturned dinghy.
A friend’s parents had a ’73 Kingswood 202; it was nicer inside than the Belmont but still had terrible seats. Someone else had an HQ Premier V8, factory black and bog standard, it looked and sounded awesome (but was’t especially fast). One of the other fathers in the carpool had an HZ wagon; its seats were vastly better.
Even though the Belmont was awful to be inside of, the styling was excellent. Not nearly as aggressive as the XA Falc, but a beautifully balanced subtle piece of work. I was a Ford kid through and through, but once I grew up and threw away my silly childhood biases, I realised the HQ was an outstanding design – styling-wise at least!
This a great post Paul – all you have to do is post something on a ’70s Australian car and us Kiwis and Kangaroos will leap out of the bush and discuss and cheerfully debate for hours on end 🙂
A bit of Holden prototype action for you guys! http://www.flickr.com/photos/glenhsparky/sets/72157606922126475/
That EF prototype is interesting. I just googled it to find out what year and you came in at number one. Rice one granny.
Ther was an excellent feature on that EF Holden a few years ago. Not in Wheels I don’t think – maybe Street Machine. I know I have the magazine, I’ll dig it out in the weekend.
Well a Nova front clip might not fit, but a Mustang one does 🙂
Yeah that mashup is way cool.
In countries where the 1968-74 Chevrolet Novas were never imported from the US nor Canada, the other identical sized Chevys from the same era were the Nova’s exact equivalents: 1971 Chevrolet Compact 4 Door Sedans from other countries. 1971 Chevrolet Nova 4 Door Sedan (Top Center), 1971 Chevrolet (Brazil) Opala (Opel Rekord) 4 Door Sedan (Bottom Row Left) & 1971 Chevrolet (South Africa) 1971 Chevrolet Kommando (Holden HQ) 4 Door Sedan (Bottom Row Right).
The HQ suspension owes more to the GM A bodies than the Camaro/ Nova.
The 4 link rear is nearly identical,so much so that I wonder if the A body control arms would fit. The rear suspension bushes certainly interchange. Rear shocks don’t.
Otherwise I’d have reused my HQ Konis on my Skylark.
Front ball joints are different. The importer of my Skylark told me, and I belive him
since they’ve imported & restored many A bodies. Front shocks interchange, ditto the upper control arm bushes. Wheels too. The HQ had the Pontiac Rally II wheel as an option. Looked good on ’em too. Other odd things like viscous fans, brake pedal pads&
steering box rag joints interchange too. Gotta love GM interchange! Makes life a lot easier when your car is half a world away from where it was made.
“X2 HR twin throat Stromberg downdraft single and Opel 4 speed that was the hot Holden ticket in 66 but both Ford and Chrysler had V8s.
So GMH sawed a 63 Opel Commodore in half lengthways widened it and slotted a 327 in called in Monaro after the high altitude plains highway and a legend was xeroxed.”
HR had the X2 with single thoat carbs. Later replaced by the 186S ( which did have the 2 BBL Stromberg WW carby)
And no way was the Monaro a widened Opel. Full stop.
an HQ was seen in the first Mad Max film as the cop car jacked by the Nightrider