Wouldn’t a high performance Chevette have been a blast? With rear wheel drive and plenty of power, it would have been one hell of a drifter before that term became a cliche. In the UK, Vauxhall made that wild dream a reality, with their rally-ready Chevette HS and HSR. The HS was first cobbled up in 1976, using the bigger 2.3 four with a sixteen valve head; pretty heady stuff back then. The rear suspension was donated by an Opel Kadett C GT/E, and Getrag was tapped for the five speed transmission. With an honest 135 hp, the HS was a fast car (especially considering that the ill-fated Cosworth Vega made all of 110 hp).
The Chevette HS won some rally titles, and gave top dog Ford Escort a run for the money. I cant find details on how the HSR was different from the HS, but it was a further evolution to keep it competitive. The world’s fastest pizza delivery vehicle.
Posted at the Cohort by Roger Carr Chevy Chevette CC here
Who knew the lowly Chevette contained the fixin’s for a fun, attractive little sport-hatch?
Just further proof of what the previous CC on the Chevette and its many worldwide cousins contended: that of all the various Chevette incarnations produced on several continents, the version sold in North America was the worst of the bunch.
I just hope to hell the Vauxhall customers got a better-quality product than was given us on this side of the pond. Which is entirely possible, since they were made in entirely-different plants and the American engineers simply used Vauxhall’s name for it. The Vauxhall engineering was only a START; the Chevrolet bean-counters would have a veritable orgy with it in Detroit.
Vauxhall had Lotus doing development work on their engines I learned what some of the differences are because I thought I found one I hadn’t but I worked out how to make one.
My Dad sold Vauxhalls but he taught me how they swapped parts back and forth across GMs range in the 30s and how their numerical system was worked. NZ GM cars were serviced with surprisingly to me identical parts throughout the range chassis parts I mean bushings etc were shared, Vauxhall shared everything it had with the Bedford range a CF Bedford van gearbox will hold up in a cresta quite happily and in a JO Bedford truck of course your SBC wont break it, thats a bolt in swap our Jumbo Bedford Vans also came with a low comp 283. A Bedford truck motor bolts into a stovebolt chev and being pressure fed will do 1000rpm more, GM stuff swaps around easily , As much multiplicity of models using the most commonality of parts was what General Motors stood for Sloanes tree was only as far as HE thought they could get away with it for.
We didn’t get any better a Chevette than anyone else unfortunately.The British climate and Vauxhall’s lack of decent rustproofing mean’t survivors are few.This was probably the last Vauxhall with a reputation for rusting badly.Never seen an HSR in the metal it was a rare sight when new
well I had a chevette been long time ago but I put a 4.3 out of a 97 s10 pick up and the computer set up and all in it what blast that was to drive but fun to work on
I’ll let you guys in on a little secret. The Chevrolet 60-degree V6 ( 2.8, 3.1, 3.4 ) is a straight bolt-in substitute for the gutless four-banger these cars are saddled with from the factory. Many clever hot rodders have already done this swap, and even GM itself once considered making an “SS” version of the Chevette using that engine.
The only thing that stopped them was Chevrolet already had their 2.8 high output in the Citation X-11, making a V6 Chevette pointless and redundant- at least in GM’s eyes.
I still wouldn’t mind building one myself though 🙂 .
Yeah, but that kind of power in a rear wheel drive car, that had a better reliability record than the Citation, and would have sold for less money to boot . . . . . . . .
Of course, GM wasn’t exactly up on making intelligent decisions in the early 80’s.
I think the low profile of the Multi-Port 2.8 intake and the engines narrow width would make a Camaro 2.8 or 3.1 engine a very nice substitute for the carbed 1.6 engine.
Chevettes were available with the T-5 Borg-Warner transmission so the 2.8/T-5 would probably be a great combo in such a light car. I’ve heard the differential & axles do not hold up very well to the added torque though.
My best friends brother back in the day had an old chevete he manged to shoehorn a v6, with the help of a 10lb shedgehmer. He used to love coming up to the lights and reving his engine on some unsuspecting 320i BMW driver or the like and leaving them in a cloud of smoke. His other trick was driving it on the city bike path as it would just fit past the barriers…. Those were the days…
Down here Geminis (T-body cousin) get either copious amounts of turbocharging or 3800 (NA or SC) swaps. And a lot of love.
In Venezuela, Chevettes got from Rochester 2BBL carbs+headers, to 2.8 V6, 4.3 V6, 2.8 Cologne V6, Corsa 1.6 EFI swaps and who knows what else. Back in the 80’s they even had a dedicated race series.
Locally a Gemini running a supercharged Rover V8 looks good its light too we have corners and Geminis are crap on a corner the one make race series proved that beyond doubt and smart people avoid them.
Isn’t it funny that the Buick(Rover) 3.5L aluminum V8 was a GM transplant (circa 1964) to the Brit side of the Atlantic so make your ‘T’ car Chevette ALL GM! I learned to drive on an 1963 Oldsmobile F85 with this (Buick) engine…
This car was so easy for Vauxhall to build The Firenza already had the hot motor it comes from a Bedford Van with a new head it puts out as you’ve discovered good power all Vauxhall did was reinstall existing running gear either they or Lotus were currently using into a light small body, The only thing faster on a NZ forestry rally stage of the time was a 450 SL Mercedes coup’e at 140mph the baby Vauxhall could hit 135mph timed on a cop radar.
Yes they were streets ahead of the awful american version even the originators Opel didnt know how to build a fast Chevette and the Japanese version is pretty bad too in the dyunamics department but sold well in Aussie with their straight roads.
I can remember the print ads for these when I was a kid. Was the engine the Vega engine or something tweaked by Lotus?
As far as I know there were two engine choices initially- a 1.4 liter gas and a 1.9 liter diesel, both built by Isuzu.
It’s early, so someone correct me if I’m wrong LOL.
Vauxhall used its own engines in this Isuzu used its engines in the Gemini and Opel T car each market tuned its own cars GMNA made the worst example as usual. We had both British Vauxhalls and Aussie/japanese Geminis side by side in the showroom. Vauxhalls sold well Geminis wouldnt go around corners despite the reliability reputation and we could plainly see it wasnt a Holden so it didnt sell well at all. Some Geminis survive here very few and a Chevette is an easy find many survived due to more careful local assembly.
In the US, Chevrolet used parts from the Brazilian Chevette.. the 70mm 4 speed transmission was Very durable and two versions of the gas engine 1.4L and 1.6L both with 82mm bores and different strokes.. and from 82-87 used an American Borg-Warner T5 5 speed…. The Diesel and its manual 5 speed were supplied from Isuzu Japan..
I’m diggin’ the orange Scirocco.
Me too (well, maybe not so much the orange color, but Mark 1 Sciroccos are so rare these days that whenever I see even part of one, I smile)….though I’d probably do the same thing again, I still regret selling my ’78 Scirocco (even after I bought my ’86 GTI, which I also liked a lot)…but the Scirocco was my first and favorite VW…I’m only on number 3 after 32 years.
I think the engine situation was that Vauxhall built a new slant four sohc motor for the Victor , which was pretty special for the time. You could adjust the tappets without removing the cam and adding shims – “Jaguar style” – which was a big step forward. Hydraulic tappets were only found on US engines at that time. Lotus wanted to build a new engine of their own, and realised they could save money and time by designing it around the architecture of the Vauxhall engine ( with Vauxhalls’ agreement ).
Someone at Vauxhall thought the Lotus engine might work well in a Firenza, and it did. The rare dohc “Droop-Snoot” Firenza never made it into mass production ( I saw one once ) but was usurped by the Chevette HS. Vauxhall couldn’t have used the Lotus head on their engine in the Chevette because it would not have met Rally regulations, soo they built a rough copy of the Lotus head, with slightly compromised valve angles to give more clearence between the suspension struts. So it was a Vauxhall engine, with Lotus influence. Somehow the Lotus engine ended up a few years later in the Chrysler Sunbeam hot hatch that won the Rally Championship. By that time the Lotus engine was in full production and was sold to Chrysler in usefull numbers, so not falling foul of Rally regs.
The Lotus/Vauxhall 16V engine also powered the Jensen-Healey and Jensen GT.
I see many may have some confusion surrounding the Chevette HS and HSR homologation specials, but if you understand the full scope of their competition history, everything blends into a cohesive whole, so to speak.
Bill Blydenstein took control of DTV (dealer team vauxhall) starting with the 1976 season, and one of his recommendations was to transplant Vauxhall’s 2.3 four with Lotus-designed 16-valve head into the new Chevette to better compete with the Escorts in Rally competition. Somehow, without any prepared race or production model yet completed, the car was homologated by CSI inspectors just in time to compete in the RAC Rally late that year. Here it was discovered the torque-tube rear taken from the Opel Kadett GT-E was unsuitable when coupled to the powerful engine, and as a result, upper and lower trailing arms replaced the previous torque-tube setup in the Group 4 DTV cars.
The car was very successful during the ’77 season, and this is what began to attract negative attention. The fall of 1977 is when the first customer deliveries began, and not until April 1978 did the press first get their hands on road-going cars. It was at this time it was discovered, while Group 4 cars ran with Lotus 16-valve heads, a ZF 5 speed, and trailing arms, the road cars were using the Vauxhall-designed 16-valve, a Getrag gearbox, and the torque-tube setup. CSI caught wind, and the cars had homologation withdrew just before the start of Rally Portugal (as seen in the photo below). Once homologation was again cleared, the Lotus head was banished, but the four-link rear suspension, as well as the ZF ‘box (now with a single-plate), were allowed to stay. Cut down to size, the car became merely average, and an evolution, in the form of the HSR, was in order.
Thank you for this insight. I had very little to go on.
Vauxhall’s plan of action was the HSR, which after 50 were produced, was homologated in April 1980. Remaining HS Chevettes were converted to HSR spec including the use of a glassfibre hood, hatch, and flared bodywork pieces. Also included in the evolution was the return of the lighter Getrag gearbox with twin-plate clutch, and the torque-tube paired with four trailing arms and a Panhard rod. Results weren’t earth shattering, and by the time Group B came about and the car was transferred into that class, DTV had been dissolved and GM Dealer Sport took control of the program. Priority was racing the Opel Ascona during this period, and one of the last large scale appearances of the car was the 1983 RAC Rally as seen below (note the rarely seen GM Dealer Sport markings on the air dam). On a side note, the Talbot Sunbeam Lotus does not use the same engine as in these cars. The Sunbeam uses the 2.2 Lotus “911” 16-valve, not the Vauxhall 2.3 with Lotus-developed 16-valve head.
Yes the Rally version competed in NZ and was doing well untill it met water entering Bay Park Raceway it drowned in a deep puddle and could not be revived, Just as an aside I have a set of Vauxhall cufflinks that arrived on my fathers desk along with some Chevettes must shoot them for the cohort.