Welcome to the all new DJR Club 17 website. We've brought a fresh new design and some great new software together on this site to help make it the one stop shop for everything DJR.
Please visit the forums, join our facebook group and share your favourite DJR photos and videos in the media gallery.
Don't forget to become a member of DJR Team Mates!
Pete Geoghegan
- Thread starter Rob 18
- Start date
- Home >
- Forums >
- Discussion >
- Trivia >
-
1. "Your knowledge and input is always welcome but please respect the team, the drivers and other members. Abuse or harsh criticisms will not be tolerated".
2. "This forum is designated 'Family Friendly' - (ie. we have young & impressionable readers - even if they're not Members/Posters) - therefore language must be moderated! - (how would YOU feel about YOUR 9 year old reading it?)
3. "Use of characters (eg. #$*@!) that only 'partially' disguise an intended vulgar/offensive word(s) is unacceptable!
If you MUST express yourself in such a manner... use ***** and let the reader's imagination 'fill in the blanks'."
Thank you for your cooperation.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
. 4 of these titles were a single race ATCC & one was as a series. Can anybody tell me in his first 4 titles- (The single race ATCC's)Big Pete won in 64 in a Cortina GT.
He won 66, 67 68 all in Mustangs the 67 car being a GTA
Plus of course he won it 69 in a Trans AM Mustang as well
I have no idea where he won in 64 but in 66 it was Bathurst 67 Lakeside 68 Warwick Farm and 69 was the series.
His first Mussy is still in the Guiness Book Of Records for the most wins from starts 68 wins from 74 starts.
He won 66, 67 68 all in Mustangs the 67 car being a GTA
Plus of course he won it 69 in a Trans AM Mustang as well
I have no idea where he won in 64 but in 66 it was Bathurst 67 Lakeside 68 Warwick Farm and 69 was the series.
His first Mussy is still in the Guiness Book Of Records for the most wins from starts 68 wins from 74 starts.
That's the one Henry, Geoghegan was awarded the win driving Bob Janes A9X after Moffat was excluded for running roller rockers in the race after ironically,qualifying without them. It's hard to believe in this day and age, even as far back as 1978 that the Ford weren't allowed to run Roller rockers.
On a side note the Brock HDT Torana was excluded from the same meet for bodywork modifications made to fit special suspension components.. Moffat got 6 weeks suspension, Brock 4 weeks..Figure that out..
On a side note the Brock HDT Torana was excluded from the same meet for bodywork modifications made to fit special suspension components.. Moffat got 6 weeks suspension, Brock 4 weeks..Figure that out..
Rob 18, much as I hate to side with Holden, Ford weren't allowed to run roller rockers because they didn't build road cars with them. The rules stated that valve train type had to be standard, as homologated. Holden introduced roller rockers, I'm pretty sure back with the L34. But with a fragile drive train, they never could use them to full capability until the A9X. The plain bearing rockers on the Fords were always suspect and there are a couple of stories, one in Street Machine, of Bathurst '77 with the Moffat Ford Dealers crew headed by Peter Molloy staying up until the early hours of the race morning hand-lapping special plain bearing assemblies. Apparently in the after-race party Molloy who hadn't slept for days and was drunk-as, went up to Ford boss Max Grandsen, saying "your engines are s&*t!".
In '78 after blowing so many engines, Moffat made his point to CAMS, saying that touring cars will die if you don't give us a break. CAMS relented granting non-production based homologation. I'm not 100% certain if that's the first time that happened, but certainly other teams went to CAMS and said "you've got to give us this because you gave Moff roller rockers".
As for the HDT suspension, it was a pretty minor bracket issue, compared to the fitment of roller rockers. There were lots of minor infringements like that bracket that the scrutineers used to ignore until things got a bit heated in 1978.
In '78 after blowing so many engines, Moffat made his point to CAMS, saying that touring cars will die if you don't give us a break. CAMS relented granting non-production based homologation. I'm not 100% certain if that's the first time that happened, but certainly other teams went to CAMS and said "you've got to give us this because you gave Moff roller rockers".
As for the HDT suspension, it was a pretty minor bracket issue, compared to the fitment of roller rockers. There were lots of minor infringements like that bracket that the scrutineers used to ignore until things got a bit heated in 1978.
Cheers for that Beejay, you answered my next question as well about the the Holdens running roller rockers which I wasn't sure of. Probably another case of the Ford Motor Company not giving a rats about motorsport in this country through the late 70's, 80's & most of the 90's.. How the Moffat's & Johnson's achieved so much success through that period is totally amazing when you consider what they were up against in terms of Holden & the lack of support from the Ford Motor Company..
While were on homologation Beejay, did the XB GT run roller rockers or were they running the standard setup?? And how different was the XB GT motor he ran in 76-77 ATCC compared to the motor he ran in the XC's in late 77,78 & 79?? If there was a difference, as surely the XB GT would have been homologated with more goodies than the standard XC 351 V8.
While were on homologation Beejay, did the XB GT run roller rockers or were they running the standard setup?? And how different was the XB GT motor he ran in 76-77 ATCC compared to the motor he ran in the XC's in late 77,78 & 79?? If there was a difference, as surely the XB GT would have been homologated with more goodies than the standard XC 351 V8.
Holden weren't perfect either. If you read the AMC article on the L34, Harry Firth was furious with the package put togther for the L34. He knew the driveline weaknesses, but Holden tried to fudge it. Only when they did the A9X did they eliminate enough of the problem areas to make Ford fans' lives a misery.
The Hardtop Falcon remained pretty much the same package apart from some minor changes that Moffat, Goss and Carter managed to get approved. That's why I say the '78 HDT issue was minor. Some non original parts got overlooked. Some fudging went on, especially in the rear wheel arches of the Falcons. Apart from that, there wasn't much change from the factory XAs to the last days of the XBs. Which kind of makes you wonder, if you took the same package which obliterated the L34s in 1977, why shouldn't it have done the same from '74 to '76?
In '78 the Ford teams spent a fortune on special rockers which to me looked like it had a semi circle bearing cup assembly. I think the Ford teams pointed out it was kind of ridiculous, to do this to comply with the rules, so they were given the roller rockers eventually.
The same scenario occured in 1979, when oil surge just go so bad that more engines were blown. This time the Fords were suffering because of the location of the sump well was worse than the Holdens. It was no problem for road driving but the track made it impossible as grip and handling development made cornering forces worse.
As Col said, Bowdens are pretty sure they have the Bond car from '77. The one in the museum is SUPPOSED to be the Moffat car from '77. Some people have reason to doubt that it is genuine. I can only assume it is the real thing.
The Hardtop Falcon remained pretty much the same package apart from some minor changes that Moffat, Goss and Carter managed to get approved. That's why I say the '78 HDT issue was minor. Some non original parts got overlooked. Some fudging went on, especially in the rear wheel arches of the Falcons. Apart from that, there wasn't much change from the factory XAs to the last days of the XBs. Which kind of makes you wonder, if you took the same package which obliterated the L34s in 1977, why shouldn't it have done the same from '74 to '76?
In '78 the Ford teams spent a fortune on special rockers which to me looked like it had a semi circle bearing cup assembly. I think the Ford teams pointed out it was kind of ridiculous, to do this to comply with the rules, so they were given the roller rockers eventually.
The same scenario occured in 1979, when oil surge just go so bad that more engines were blown. This time the Fords were suffering because of the location of the sump well was worse than the Holdens. It was no problem for road driving but the track made it impossible as grip and handling development made cornering forces worse.
As Col said, Bowdens are pretty sure they have the Bond car from '77. The one in the museum is SUPPOSED to be the Moffat car from '77. Some people have reason to doubt that it is genuine. I can only assume it is the real thing.
Thanx for the Beejay, when you look back at that era of Australian touring car racing, maybe if Ford had been more committed to helping the Moffat's, Goss's, Carter' etc we would have seen many more Ford victories both in the ATCC & Bathurst because, as you said, from the XA through to the XC the hardtop didn't change a great deal, yet in 77, the XC was so dominant.
Another thing I understand, especially back in the XW days, that the 351 Cleveland was no where near as reliable as the old 351 Windor. Would anybody agree with this???
Another thing I understand, especially back in the XW days, that the 351 Cleveland was no where near as reliable as the old 351 Windor. Would anybody agree with this???
Thats correct the Windsor was more reliable but a decision was made to run the Cleveland.quote:Originally posted by Rob 18
Another thing I understand, especially back in the XW days, that the 351 Cleveland was no where near as reliable as the old 351 Windor. Would anybody agree with this???
The 69 HO's had the Windsor but they ran out early in 1970 and changed to the Cleveland.This is where the Phase 1 1/2 came from.It was virtually a Windsor HO with a Cleveland engine.
The main reason for the switch was mainly due to the fact that the Cleveland at that time was easier to get the HP from.
Mainly due to the huge inlet and exhaust ports in the heads.These motors were great at Bathurst were you didn't have to worry to much about low down torque.The problem with these engines was their reliability.However the Phase 3 fixed all the reliabilty problems a bit like the A9X fixed the L34's problems.Australia was the first to start racing Clevelands so this is where some of the problems came from. Due to the fact that the motor was a new design and no one had raced them before .So Ford Australia were the pioneers for the development of the Cleveland engine
Yeah, what he said. Here's some more detail on Series Production racing, for example the Hardie Ferodo 500.
The 351 Windsor GTHO debuted on the race track at the 1969 Sandown Three Hour. Moffat and French won and there is not much mention of engine problems. However Street Machine mentions that engineer Ian Stockings had to do some work prior to Bathurst that year to get things right. As we know, the GTHO probably should have won Bathurst if not for the tyre issue, but the engines seemed fine. Several privateer GTHOs took on the HDT Monaros at the Surfers 12-Hour race and ran reliably, almost beating Colin Bond. Moffat and Gibson ran them in sprint races in the early part of 1970 often winning and without many engine problems it would seem.
However the Monaro was giving them a run for their money and the new Cleveland was in the wings with reports of better power and more revs. Whereas the Windsor with its small-breathing heads and hydraulic lifters would start to run out of breath at 5500rpm, Al Turner was telling everybody the Cleveland would go to 7-7500.
So before the 1970 Sandown 250, Ford introduced the Phase II with the new motor. Sandown almost turned into a disaster. Clevelands blew left, right and centre and they had to set a rev limit of around 6000, just to make the engines last through the race. Moffat won but there were plenty of others that DNF. Ian Stockings went back to the engine room at Ford to sort out the detonation problems and they managed to get things together for Bathurst. The works GTHOs of Moffat and McPhee managed to out last the opposition, but there were plenty more busted Clevelands and the works cars were in conservation mode for the last part of the race.
The Phase IIs ran for the first part of 1971 and ran reliably apart form oil surge related blow-ups, especially at Warwick Farm where the cars never seemed to be in a straightline for very long.
For the 1971 Sandown 250, the Phase III was introduced with revised oil galleries and bearings amongst other things. However, neither of the works GTHOs finished, and many other Ford teams had engine dramas. The Ford team went back to the engine room again and found assembly related problems. Al Turner's replacement, the late Howard Marsden offered Ford runners special QC engines for a mere $250 each which had been carefully assembled by the works team. Hey presto! The GTHOs were super reliable at Bathurst that year and it would seem from then on there were only occasional problems.
According to John Wynne, who was foreman of Ford Special Vehicles at the time: ?We had all sorts of problems with the crankshaft in the Cleveland. We didn?t know anything about them when they first arrived, and I don?t think the Americans knew much either and they were the ones who developed the engine in the first place. We found that under high stress there were fine grit-like particles that would tear the bearings apart, the engine would then lock up and it would spit a rod out through the side of the block. Once we found the cause we started linishing the cranks until the surface was perfect, they were then fine and we started to get good horsepower from them.?
And after that tyres became the GTHOs Achilles heel, until the new Globe wheels were introduced.
So yes, the Windsor was probably more reliable.
The 351 Windsor GTHO debuted on the race track at the 1969 Sandown Three Hour. Moffat and French won and there is not much mention of engine problems. However Street Machine mentions that engineer Ian Stockings had to do some work prior to Bathurst that year to get things right. As we know, the GTHO probably should have won Bathurst if not for the tyre issue, but the engines seemed fine. Several privateer GTHOs took on the HDT Monaros at the Surfers 12-Hour race and ran reliably, almost beating Colin Bond. Moffat and Gibson ran them in sprint races in the early part of 1970 often winning and without many engine problems it would seem.
However the Monaro was giving them a run for their money and the new Cleveland was in the wings with reports of better power and more revs. Whereas the Windsor with its small-breathing heads and hydraulic lifters would start to run out of breath at 5500rpm, Al Turner was telling everybody the Cleveland would go to 7-7500.
So before the 1970 Sandown 250, Ford introduced the Phase II with the new motor. Sandown almost turned into a disaster. Clevelands blew left, right and centre and they had to set a rev limit of around 6000, just to make the engines last through the race. Moffat won but there were plenty of others that DNF. Ian Stockings went back to the engine room at Ford to sort out the detonation problems and they managed to get things together for Bathurst. The works GTHOs of Moffat and McPhee managed to out last the opposition, but there were plenty more busted Clevelands and the works cars were in conservation mode for the last part of the race.
The Phase IIs ran for the first part of 1971 and ran reliably apart form oil surge related blow-ups, especially at Warwick Farm where the cars never seemed to be in a straightline for very long.
For the 1971 Sandown 250, the Phase III was introduced with revised oil galleries and bearings amongst other things. However, neither of the works GTHOs finished, and many other Ford teams had engine dramas. The Ford team went back to the engine room again and found assembly related problems. Al Turner's replacement, the late Howard Marsden offered Ford runners special QC engines for a mere $250 each which had been carefully assembled by the works team. Hey presto! The GTHOs were super reliable at Bathurst that year and it would seem from then on there were only occasional problems.
According to John Wynne, who was foreman of Ford Special Vehicles at the time: ?We had all sorts of problems with the crankshaft in the Cleveland. We didn?t know anything about them when they first arrived, and I don?t think the Americans knew much either and they were the ones who developed the engine in the first place. We found that under high stress there were fine grit-like particles that would tear the bearings apart, the engine would then lock up and it would spit a rod out through the side of the block. Once we found the cause we started linishing the cranks until the surface was perfect, they were then fine and we started to get good horsepower from them.?
And after that tyres became the GTHOs Achilles heel, until the new Globe wheels were introduced.
So yes, the Windsor was probably more reliable.
Geoghean had plenty of problems with his HO as well IIRC, although he (& Mick Webb) were pushing plenty of horses out of the Ford V8, a reputed 623 HP. I think I read somewhere lately that they had that many bearing troubles with the 351 that, in the end they went back to a 302 because it had the right piston speed or something like that..
IIRC, the old 5-slot steel wheels caused overheating problems for the brakes, and as tyres got grippier, the wheels would distort under cornering loads and the tyre would deflate... apparently an instance such as this contributed to the demise of Moffat's Bathurst-winning Phase III
Yes the tyres did deflate, but it was usually preceeded by smoke of the tyres distorting and rubbing on the leaf spring. It smoked until the sidewall wore through. The race tyres had such a big bag on a 14x6 rim that was cured when they went to the 15x7 Globe.
Therein came another problem. It was known that the Hardie Ferodo pad with a DP1103 compound was designed to work at its best the HOTTER it got. Everybody was boasting that the Globe wheel was so good it droppped brake temps from 800 to 450 deg C. At Bathurst '72 the GTHOs were good enough to win but the braked pads actually wore out. With hindsight they reckon that the wet weather and new Globes dropped brake temps so much that they never got to their proper operating temps.
Therein came another problem. It was known that the Hardie Ferodo pad with a DP1103 compound was designed to work at its best the HOTTER it got. Everybody was boasting that the Globe wheel was so good it droppped brake temps from 800 to 450 deg C. At Bathurst '72 the GTHOs were good enough to win but the braked pads actually wore out. With hindsight they reckon that the wet weather and new Globes dropped brake temps so much that they never got to their proper operating temps.
With Goeghegan once he decided to run the super Falcon( i gather thats what you were reffering to Rob)he kept it in it's original guise running the fuel injected 351 clevo.Moffat ran the 351 fron his super Falcon at a couple of races but found with the extra weight of the clevo that the Mustangs sweet handling was lost so went back to the Boss 302 engine