Your'e right Steve. This looks like a replica alright or alternatively the car which John Bowe drove once Volvo funded the team in '86. However my thread above was just to elaborate a little more on the car that shook the southern hemisphere motorsport fraternity especially Dick Johnson. At one stage I thought we were going to have a similar repeat scenario of KZ7 and Dennis Connor!!!!!Originally Posted by Steve Holmes
Yeah sorry, I was referring to the car posted by Neale, as its obviously running the 1985 Petch livery, but is right hand drive, so confused me.
But you're right about the Volvo, it was a sensation, and the most unlikely race car, but it was so successful all around the world. Its success must have done wonders for Volvo's image at the time.
It was sensational - have never forgotten the Wellington debut. But for real promotional impact perhaps the BTCC Volvo wagons (estates) take the prize
Sorry Frosty, the car pictured is NOT the Petch car. I posted the verified history of the Petch car and current whereabouts. There is a 240T being raced in Oz, if you go to http://people.physics.anu.edu.au/~am...olvo_specs.htm this will give links to this recent reconstruction.
Hey Frosty were you still with the team in 1986 when Francevic won the ATCC? Why did the team disband at the end of '86? Did Volvo Australia choose to quit racing, or was it Volvo in Sweden?
Yeah those wagons were definitely a clever marketing choice, and are still well remembered today. But I reckon the '80s Group A cars must have been a real turnaround for Volvo in terms of brand imaging, as prior to them racing the 240T, their products were considered pretty bland and stodgy, with almost total emphasis on safety at a time most other manufacturers didn't give that much thought. To be fair, it would take much more than winning some Group A races to turnaround that image, but that surely must have gone a long way. By the time of the Super Touring Estates, Volvo's image had changed quite a lot, and they'd become much more trendy.
Steve, yes I was, however Petch sold his interest in the LHD car I think after the 2nd round of the '86 ATCC and John Sheppard assumed control of the team known as Volvo Dealer Team. He obviously brought in some of his own troops but the majority of the guys left. With the withdrawal of Volvo support the rest of the team went their own ways. In retrospect while a a good team manager it was his way or the highway and there are numerous references to the difficulties Robbie had with him. Petch then had the ex Rouse Sierra and while it performed reasonably well here in NZ it was not up with the play at Bathurst in '86. Then came the CeeBeeEmm M3 followed by an ex Wolf Racing Sierra known as the Whittakers Peanut Slab Sierra. Volvo Sweden as I understand it pulled out of GrpA and ordered the cars back to Sweden. The spanner man I was trying to recall in a previous thread was Guy Trigaux and the Petch Volvo was a GTM built car in Belgium raced by Michelle Delcourt
Thanks for that, fantastic info! I guess Volvo in Sweden really needed to further invest to keep the model competitive beyond 1986, but possibly felt they'd got what they needed from racing in terms of marleting. After Eggenberger ditched Volvo for Ford in 1986, the Volvo factory team was run by RAS Sport, who still won several races in the ETCC, but it was obvious the competition was getting much stronger. In the ATCC, Francevic got a really good jump on the competition by winning three times and finished second twice and third once in the first six races, so by the time the new turbo Nissan Slylines were really getting up to speed in the second half of the season, Francevic was really too far ahead to catch.
To my mind this was really the last great year of Group A around the world. So many different manufacturers, and the racing was close and exciting.
Just to clear it up. I probably should have worded my post better, but the car in the picture that I posted is a replica of the car that was mentioned in the original post.
No problem Neale, I should have looked a little more closely myself. Age and eyes ain't what they used to be. But it sure was a ripper of a car and I still have an affection for it
Great Thread, Group A was IMHO a far better (but flawed) formula than the current formula yawn sillouettes (V8 Supercars and the like) but here are a couple of points to ponder
This was correct for Group A rally cars, but for Group A touring cars it was as follows:Group A rules required 25,000 units be built in a single year, from which a minimum 2,500 of the competing model must be produced (unless Australian made, then the number was just 1,000). Additionally, a homologation special could then be released, of which only 500 cars were required.
Group A rules required 5000 units ("base models") be built in a single year, (unless Australian made, then the number was just 1,000, but the cars could only race in the Asia-Pacific region, for International racing, read Europe, Australian manufacturers still had to build 5000 base models). The "base model" had to have the same capacity/configuration. ie you couldnt build 5000 cars, 4000 of them hard tops and 1000 of them soft tops and count them as the same for the 5000, also the engine had to be the same configuration, ie if 4000 were a straight six and 1000 were a v8 then they were not considered 5000 base models, eg BMW had to build 5000 six cylinder 3.5 635s in the space of one year, Holden had to build 1000 5.0 V8 commodores in the space of one year to race in Asia-Pacific or 5000 in the space of one year to race Internationally. Additionally, a homologation special could then be released, of which a minimum of 500 cars were required (but didnt have to be actually "sold", more of which later).
Partially correct. The previous porkydore was homologated based on the 1000 build rule, using the Commodore 5.0 SS with large valve heads (but no roller valve train, aero package etc etc) as the base car. The destroked more competitive 4.9 SS commodore was a new 1000 minimum build homologation, and definately not a "sporting evolution". Unfortunately being a base car it was homologated with small valve heads, no roller valve train, aero package etc etc. On the one hand the 5.0 SS had the big valve heads and hence more HP, but it had to weigh 75KG more. The 5.0 SS was also homologated with a four speed gearbox. Gearboxes were technically "free" ie unlike the engine they did not have to be the same unit fitted to the road car, but they had to be the same configuration and actuation, ie if the road car had a H pattern floor shift then so must be the race box, and hence not a sequential, or a paddle shift, and the gear ratios had to homolgated for approval also. The 4.9 SS was homologated with the Getrag 5 speed and a wider range of ratios, so on the other hand it was lighter, but less powerfull, but had a better range of gear ratios available. Most Australian teams opted for the 4.9 SS as soon as it was available, but most had trouble getting the Getrag because they had to go through Brock to get one, Brock had made a "group buy" deal with Getrag to get the best deal for the Australian teams but the German manufacturer was slow on delivery, and naturally he kept the first couple that arrived for his team, as most people would I guess, but the way it was handled did piss off a lot of the teamsFrom early 1985, the Holden Commodore was forced to run a minimum weight of a porky 1,400kg, but with the release of the partially approved Group A evolution model, featuring a very slight engine destroke from 5044cc to 4,987cc, the Commodore teams could now race to a much more competitive 1,325kg
The 4.9 SS Group A, a 500 build sporting evolution, was planned for homologation in the first week of september 1985, but it did not eventuate until Dec 1985, mainly due to Victorian wharfie industrial disputes preventing the HDT getting the evolution parts needed to build the 500 cars, these parts being mostly valve train components imported from the USA. One week before the September FIA homologation date deadline the HDT had only built just over 300 cars, and an appeal for a special consideration for "Australia only" homolgation was made to CAMS to allow the sporting evolution to run at Sandown and Bathurst, but this sort of thing was exactly why CAMS went to Group A in the first place and wanted to be rid of, so it was rejected. Hence the rocker saga that plagued the commodores at Sandown and the timing chain failures at Bathurst. Something you may not be aware of, Walkinshaw on learning that the HDT had approached CAMS for special consideration publicly stated:which was hypocritical (more of which later) and was probably another reason why CAMS didnt cave it to the HDT's request.If they allow those "Hot Rods" to race at Bathurst then we wont be coming
The Holden Commodore 4.9 SS "base model" was also homolgated under the 5000 build rule in Dec 1985 hence also making the "sporting evolution" eligble to race anywhere in the world, clearing the way for Brocky and Gricey to take on the Europeans on their home turf.
Volvo pulled a swifty on the homologation of the sporting evolution. The rules made no mention of a need for the cars to be sold to the public. On inspection of the 500 cars in the USA the front row of cars were all assembled with the good bits, further back in the rows the cars had the sporting evolution parts sitting on the back seat and in the trunk! For reasons only known to the FIA inspectors this was deemed as ok, but once the competing manufacturers found out the shit started to hit the fan, remember that up until then, not many manufacturers had built a full on sporting evolution, most cars racing were "5000 build base models" and they saw this as playing unfair. It finally came to head when FIA learnt that Volvo had returned most of the cars to standard and sold them standard. FIA requested proof from Volvo of a list of registered owners of the cars. When no registered examples in the USA could be found (two road registered sporting evolutions in Sweden belonging to Volvo exectutives were "found") FIA ordered the car's sporting evolution was "not in the spirit of the regulations" and were hencefore illegal, but Volvo protested the fact under technicalities of the wording of the regulations and won (when it comes down to it, Volvo saw a weakness they could exploit and they played it, but they did nothing illegal).The Volvo 240T model had raced in both Europe, Great Britain, and Australia under a cloud of controversy, after Volvo built the required 500 homologation specials with rear spoiler, larger turbo, intercooler and water injection, to qualify for Group A, then promptly converted 477 of them back to standard 240 spec once approved.
The Volvos configuration was ideal for the formula, despite their boxy unaerodynamic appearance they had a good chassis/suspension and a strong reliable engine package. (If anyone doubts their chasis, then consider this, in the 1986 James Hardie shoot out, the volvo was 19kmh slower down conrod than the Grice Commodore, 12 kmh slower going up mountain straight but still managed a 2.19.5! Most of the time was gained over the top)
With the inadequate 1.4 weight factor for turbo cars the Volvos (and later the Nissans) had a clear power to weight/tyre size advantage. There was a lot of ridiculous accusations and pit talk in Australia of them cheating in 1985 when they blowing everyone away down any sort of straight (including a bedazzled Dick Johnson in his V8 Mustang) and with them staying with the best cars on the twisty bits, there were even absurd rumours of hidden NO2 tanks in the roll cage, but the fact was the Volvos could be built to the minimum weight, and the capacity/weight/tyre width rules gave them their advantage. Volvo knew that that would end in 87 when the weight factor was changed to 1.7 so they pulled the plug whilst still successful. smart move by them.
(speaking of weight, who remembers the sporting evolution light alloy trailing arms failing in the 1986 Bathurst race, and John Bowe quipping that a standard steel Volvo part would never had failed)
I can't quite be sure on this as it was a long time ago, maybe Frosty5 can confirm it or not but I seem to recall Mark Petch initially contract Les Small of Roadways to manage and run the 1986 car, and it won on it's first outing at Symmons Plains. It was either after that success or the following round that the team was sold and Les Small went back to building customer Commodores. There was quite a bit of disharmony in the Volvo Dealer Team that eventuated when Sheppard took overSteve, yes I was, however Petch sold his interest in the LHD car I think after the 2nd round of the '86 ATCC and John Sheppard assumed control of the team known as Volvo Dealer Team. He obviously brought in some of his own troops but the majority of the guys left.
Had to do this reply in two parts due to a forum text length restriction
Make no mistake about it, the Jaguars were very good naturally aspirated touring cars. Most people would assume with the 1400KG weight penalty they had to run due to being in the 5-6L class that they would never be dominant, and possibly struggle to be competitive, but in the end they were very successful. But in fact, they should not have been as good as they were. When Walkinshaw homologated the big cats in 1982 the V12 had just over 370 HP. The lighter 280HP BMW 635s could run with them, especially on the twistier tracks. By the end of 1983 after a lot of engine development the cats had 390 HP, but the BMWs were giving them a very hard time. In the first round of the 1984 ETC, the cats all of sudden had 450HP on tap. Why? The restricting factor for the pre84 engines was the "may type" heads. These heads were developed for the road to give better fuel consumption and driveability, but ran out of puff approaching 7000RPM. Walkinshaw turned up in 84 with the pre "may type" heads, which were better suited to racing, developing power right up to 7500RPM. Now the Europeans had a different attitude to rules and cheating to us here in the pacific (or rule interpretation as they prefered to call it), and they had a lot of "if you dont protest us doing X we wont protest you doing Y" gentlemen agreements between the major players, and most of the time it all evened itself out. But FIA was not impressed as these clearly were not the heads homologated on the road cars. When told, Walkinshaw threatened to pull all his cars out from every championship. FIA caved in, and gave the heads a tick of approval. This except for the M3 non standard air box in 1987 was the only example I know of when FIA approved a regulated part that was supposed to be fitted to the road cars but wasnt, (ignoring Eggenbergers blatant wheel arch modifications on the 87 Sierras, in that case they didnt give it a tick, they just turned a blind eye to it). At least FIA fixed the M3 air box fiasco in 1988. My point? How well would the big cats have gone if they turned up at bathurst with the "May type" heads and "only" 390HP instead of 450HP? I suspect they would have still been on the front two rows of the grid, but the faster cars, especially the Volvo, would have given them a very hard time.What also surprised some was Walkinshaws decision to bring with him a team of Jaguars. Indeed, TWR had won the ETCC drivers championship in 1984 with a team of the big cats, but Jaguar then promptly withdrew from touring car racing to focus on Group C sports car racing, while Walkinshaw switched to running a Rover Vitesse factory team, and won 6 of the 14 ETCC rounds in 1985. So the choice to switch back to the Jaguar, which hadn’t been raced since 1984, was curious, but Walkinshaw obviously felt the howling V12 machines would have an edge on the long Bathurst straights.
The two Zakspeed cars were built to run in the 1984 DTM. The first car to be finished was raced by Klaus Ludwig, I remember he qualified well and finished second or third? I dont know who the second car was built for but after that one race both cars were shelved, never to race again in the DTM for reasons only known to Zakspeed, most probably relevent marketing and hence sponsorship reasons.By the way, I should clarify, the two cars Dick Johnson purchased from Zakspeed in late 1984, were not built by Zakspeed specifically for Johnson. They were existing race cars by my understanding. However, I don't know if they were cars Zakspeed had been racing themselves, or cars Zakspeed had built for a customer in Europe.
I concur. What killed Group A was the inadequate weight factoring for turbo cars, which the volvo and nissan took advantage of and later the Sierra and Godzilla made a mockery of. When FIA drew up the rules the current turbo cars werent the potential weapons they became a mere five years later. Poor hindsight we can say now, but back then look at what was on the market, eg the Ford Escort turbo, hardly world beating stuff.To my mind this was really the last great year of Group A around the world. So many different manufacturers, and the racing was close and exciting.
Now further on the point of the rules, it was amazing that the Holden Commodore and the big Cat was as succesfull as they were. FIAs rules were specifically made to keep those pesky yanks with their big low tech V8s from being competetive, the last thing they wanted was for the yanks to come and spoil the party, hence the rules were drawn up to favour small capacity cars like mostly sold in Europe and a 6L limit to keep out those big blocks or woe forbid turbocharged/supercharged V8s! But with the power that was potentially available to the small block larger V8s, they had to make them uncompetetive as well, (at the time I dont think FIA had any inkling anyone would want to homolgate the Jags, indeed there is still doubt to this day whether 5000 XJS's were made in the homologation year) so they hit the top two capacity classes with two hammers, extra large weight (which as you know not only affects speed but has an effect on tyre wear) and not much bigger tyres than the smaller cars were allowed to run. For example, 4,501 cc to 4,999 cc - 1,325 kg, over 5,000 cc cars - 1,400 kg, yet a typical sporting touring car sold in europe, 3,001 to 3,500 cc – 1,110 kg, was allowed to be nearly 300KG lighter than the expected capacity class most V8s would be in!
And the most common type of touring car sold in Europe, ie 2L cars, 2,001 to 2,500 cc - 960kg a whopping 440KG lighter! Under this formula a 2L turbo that had a potential of say 360 HP only had to weigh only 1035KG! (2,501 to 3,000 cc – 1,035 kg) A potential rocket ship compared to a 370HP V8 weighing 1325KG or 390HP V12 that had to weight 1400KG! Even with the 1987 turbo factor of 1.7, a 2L turbo such as the Sierra Cosworth only had to weigh 1100KG, and the RS500 had a potential of over 500HP! (3,001 to 3,500 cc – 1,100 kg in 1988) yes that's right, FIA LOWERED the weight limit for this class but raised the weight for the 4.5-5 and 5-6 classes! The poor old commodore got a weight INCREASE in 1987 (4,501 cc to 4,999 cc - 1,340 kg in 1987) and as a double whammy 1" smaller width tyres. And you wonder why with this sort of shenanigans with the rules Group A was dominated by turbos? And then came the 600+HP 4WD Skyline to make a complete mockery of the formula. Enormous power, medium weight, big tyres.
And now a hypothetical question. What would have Group A racing been in Europe if Brock had the hindsight to homologate a sporting evolution VH Commodore to compete in the 1983 ETC? Assuming the follow on model VK was also homolated in 1984, how would this have affected the 1985 Nissan Sport series at Wellington & Pukekohe in late January 1985, and the ATTC in 1985? One can only wonder what if. geeze I wish I had a time machine
Last edited by jimdigris; 03-03-2013 at 05:07 AM. Reason: error in date
Interesting analysis there, Jim.
Definatly Left Steer.
"Group A rules required 5000 units ("base models") be built in a single year etc.etc."
This was the requirement for both race and rally, there were only one set of rules and one set of homologation numbers and papers per make/model and numerous extension papers that were approved on a regular basis
true for International racing, however, CAMS decided on the "Australian Manufacturer 1000 build rule" for base models for local racing, this was purely for the region what CAMS deemed "Asia-Pacific" which in reality was Aust-NZ, (I cant recall if Japan had agreed, but it doesnt matter as no commodore raced there until 1986). CAMS local rules had no revelevence or standing in Europe. If Holdens hadnt also homolgated the VK and further models under the 5000 build rule then they would not have been allowed to race in the ETC, the WTCC, SPA 24 hours etc.
A couple of cars are still under question as to whether 5000 were built in a calender year, one being (as I previously mentioned) the Jaguar XJS, the other was the Masserati that we briefly saw in the WTCC, anyone remember it?
I thought evolution models weren't permitted for rallying, ie no Sierra RS500s, or was that just a quirk of the World Rally Championship at that time?
Wow, thanks Jim, this is a really great and well thought out response.Had to do this reply in two parts due to a forum text length restriction
Make no mistake about it, the Jaguars were very good naturally aspirated touring cars. Most people would assume with the 1400KG weight penalty they had to run due to being in the 5-6L class that they would never be dominant, and possibly struggle to be competitive, but in the end they were very successful. But in fact, they should not have been as good as they were. When Walkinshaw homologated the big cats in 1982 the V12 had just over 370 HP. The lighter 280HP BMW 635s could run with them, especially on the twistier tracks. By the end of 1983 after a lot of engine development the cats had 390 HP, but the BMWs were giving them a very hard time. In the first round of the 1984 ETC, the cats all of sudden had 450HP on tap. Why? The restricting factor for the pre84 engines was the "may type" heads. These heads were developed for the road to give better fuel consumption and driveability, but ran out of puff approaching 7000RPM. Walkinshaw turned up in 84 with the pre "may type" heads, which were better suited to racing, developing power right up to 7500RPM. Now the Europeans had a different attitude to rules and cheating to us here in the pacific (or rule interpretation as they prefered to call it), and they had a lot of "if you dont protest us doing X we wont protest you doing Y" gentlemen agreements between the major players, and most of the time it all evened itself out. But FIA was not impressed as these clearly were not the heads homologated on the road cars. When told, Walkinshaw threatened to pull all his cars out from every championship. FIA caved in, and gave the heads a tick of approval. This except for the M3 non standard air box in 1987 was the only example I know of when FIA approved a regulated part that was supposed to be fitted to the road cars but wasnt, (ignoring Eggenbergers blatant wheel arch modifications on the 87 Sierras, in that case they didnt give it a tick, they just turned a blind eye to it). At least FIA fixed the M3 air box fiasco in 1988. My point? How well would the big cats have gone if they turned up at bathurst with the "May type" heads and "only" 390HP instead of 450HP? I suspect they would have still been on the front two rows of the grid, but the faster cars, especially the Volvo, would have given them a very hard time.
The two Zakspeed cars were built to run in the 1984 DTM. The first car to be finished was raced by Klaus Ludwig, I remember he qualified well and finished second or third? I dont know who the second car was built for but after that one race both cars were shelved, never to race again in the DTM for reasons only known to Zakspeed, most probably relevent marketing and hence sponsorship reasons.
I concur. What killed Group A was the inadequate weight factoring for turbo cars, which the volvo and nissan took advantage of and later the Sierra and Godzilla made a mockery of. When FIA drew up the rules the current turbo cars werent the potential weapons they became a mere five years later. Poor hindsight we can say now, but back then look at what was on the market, eg the Ford Escort turbo, hardly world beating stuff.
Now further on the point of the rules, it was amazing that the Holden Commodore and the big Cat was as succesfull as they were. FIAs rules were specifically made to keep those pesky yanks with their big low tech V8s from being competetive, the last thing they wanted was for the yanks to come and spoil the party, hence the rules were drawn up to favour small capacity cars like mostly sold in Europe and a 6L limit to keep out those big blocks or woe forbid turbocharged/supercharged V8s! But with the power that was potentially available to the small block larger V8s, they had to make them uncompetetive as well, (at the time I dont think FIA had any inkling anyone would want to homolgate the Jags, indeed there is still doubt to this day whether 5000 XJS's were made in the homologation year) so they hit the top two capacity classes with two hammers, extra large weight (which as you know not only affects speed but has an effect on tyre wear) and not much bigger tyres than the smaller cars were allowed to run. For example, 4,501 cc to 4,999 cc - 1,325 kg, over 5,000 cc cars - 1,400 kg, yet a typical sporting touring car sold in europe, 3,001 to 3,500 cc – 1,110 kg, was allowed to be nearly 300KG lighter than the expected capacity class most V8s would be in!
And the most common type of touring car sold in Europe, ie 2L cars, 2,001 to 2,500 cc - 960kg a whopping 440KG lighter! Under this formula a 2L turbo that had a potential of say 360 HP only had to weigh only 1035KG! (2,501 to 3,000 cc – 1,035 kg) A potential rocket ship compared to a 370HP V8 weighing 1325KG or 390HP V12 that had to weight 1400KG! Even with the 1987 turbo factor of 1.7, a 2L turbo such as the Sierra Cosworth only had to weigh 1100KG, and the RS500 had a potential of over 500HP! (3,001 to 3,500 cc – 1,100 kg in 1988) yes that's right, FIA LOWERED the weight limit for this class but raised the weight for the 4.5-5 and 5-6 classes! The poor old commodore got a weight INCREASE in 1987 (4,501 cc to 4,999 cc - 1,340 kg in 1987) and as a double whammy 1" smaller width tyres. And you wonder why with this sort of shenanigans with the rules Group A was dominated by turbos? And then came the 600+HP 4WD Skyline to make a complete mockery of the formula. Enormous power, medium weight, big tyres.
And now a hypothetical question. What would have Group A racing been in Europe if Brock had the hindsight to homologate a sporting evolution VH Commodore to compete in the 1983 ETC? Assuming the follow on model VK was also homolated in 1984, how would this have affected the 1985 Nissan Sport series at Wellington & Pukekohe in late January 1985, and the ATTC in 1985? One can only wonder what if. geeze I wish I had a time machine
This is a great hypothetical question. Indeed, the VK Group A was competitive in Europe when it raced there in 1986, and that was really from just a single year racing the Commodore in Group A, and the new-found problems having parts homologated for Group A. The Commodore always seemed to be about 12 months behind where it really needed to be at most times, ie, the Group A VK that first appeared in 1986, needed to have been racing in 1985 etc, as that package would have been competitive in 1985. But it was quite impressive what was achieved in the time-frame. To my mind, 1987 and beyond was a no-win situation for any V8, as European manufacturers began ramping up their efforts with their homologation specials to take full advantage of the rules which favoured small capacity cars. But the Commodore could have stamped its mark on Group A up to 1986 much greater than it did had it been given a larger head-start than it had.
And now a hypothetical question. What would have Group A racing been in Europe if Brock had the hindsight to homologate a sporting evolution VH Commodore to compete in the 1983 ETC? Assuming the follow on model VK was also homolated in 1984, how would this have affected the 1985 Nissan Sport series at Wellington & Pukekohe in late January 1985, and the ATTC in 1985? One can only wonder what if. geeze I wish I had a time machine
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote