 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
1938 model
edit
.jpg)
"The design was penned for a 1938 model"! Make that 1948 - look at any 1948 Chev. Eddaido (talk) 10:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Performance
editI don't know about you, but I'd be extremely disappointed in a 28-second 0-100k time for a car with 60hp that weighs just under a tonne, even if it does only have a 3-speed transmission (presumably less of a problem with a 2.1L that only makes 60hp, as there'll hopefully be a very wide torque band?) and poor aero. Last time I had something of that rough power-to-weight, it managed about 14 seconds through the gears (OK, a more modern car, but actually an economy model rather than sports, using the 1990s idea of a larger but detuned engine and long gearing, and it was still in 3rd as it passed 100). Heck, I had a late 80s one with very bad aero that was lighter, but also less powerful, probably 50hp/tonne, and it still did the sprint in 20 seconds. Both of them could probably easily manage it in under 28 seconds starting from 2nd gear.
Indeed, the only thing I've driven which takes that long to get moving is a loaner turbodiesel... with a blown turbo and very long gears. Given its top speed (about 140k after a considerable run-up), slippery profile and considerable weight, I wouldn't be surprised if it had less than 2/3rds of the Holden's PWR. It's a very stodgy car to drive, you have your foot flat to the deck pretty much all the time unless you're in a stream of traffic cruising at less than maybe 90k, almost always have to redline it in 1st from a standing start, and even in the late 40s its performance would probably have been deemed at least "disappointing" for the class (in the modern age, it's edging into "dangerously slow").
Thus I figure the 18-19 second estimate is the more accurate of the two... but it'd be nice if an actual owner could at least time their car on a sprint, or far better (as it's then citeable) provide an owner's manual that happens to quote the figure... 193.63.174.211 (talk) 08:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
50-2106???
editDoes anyone know why the ute was called 50-2106? 2106 sounds a bit like one of GM's bodystyle codes, and I assume '50 is the year it was meant to be introduced. All conjecture, though, does anyone know? Mr.choppers | ✎ 00:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have a proper explanation but search for 2106 at https://www.ehholden.com.au/id-code-explained/ for a typical list of model codes that is pretty consistent up to early 1960s. Seems to be 4 digits for commercials.
- This ref is also useful for explaining where FJ, EK, EH, etc codes come from: https://www.uniquecarsandparts.com.au/car_info_holden_fj . Stepho talk 02:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks - the EH page even spells out that "2106" means coupe-utility. I will add it to the article. Mr.choppers | ✎ 03:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)