| Author | Message | ||
| Hinson10 (65.134.229.131) Rating: |
I have an MC 8 and am looking to tow a tandem axle trailer to haul a suburban on. I have read warnings about tongue weight. What experience has anyone had with towing?What should I watch out for? | ||
| TWO DOGS (65.177.145.188) Rating: N/A |
tounge weight should be about two hunded pounds,that's about all I can lift...so,with the trailer loaded ,you should be abel to barely lift the tounge..............if it's too heavy...back the suburban a couple inches | ||
| ChuckMC9 (Chucks) (66.167.143.11)
Rating: N/A |
No wonder you snagged that blonde. Just throw an 8D under each arm and watch 'em swoon. I *knew* you had a secret and it couldn't have been the Eagle or the bobcat. | ||
| TWO DOGS (65.177.145.188) Rating: N/A |
I'm not talking about lifting the tounge up....just budgeing it ,barely moveing it...naaa I ain't strong...I'm an old man...white hair... | ||
| John that newguy (199.232.244.9) Rating: N/A |
(can he really lift 200 pounds with his tongue, Chuck?) | ||
| Robert Wood (Bobwoodsocal) (4.46.108.207)
Rating: N/A |
I am JUST QUOTING here- >No wonder you snagged that blonde. Couldn't resist! Bob | ||
| madbrit (67.136.123.77) Rating: N/A |
I normally have the tongue weight at around 500 lbs. Most important is to have the combo level, make sure the trailer brakes work and tie the vehicle securely to the trailer. I much prefer to trailer tow as one can always back up after some dick has boxed you in at the gas station. Also, less wear and tear on the vehicle. Dragging a towed with all 4 down can cause problems making tight turns or going over rough or steep entrances to truck parking areas, we had the steering on my Jeep CJ7 snap to full lock as it went over a pot hole in the dirt. It was not easy to get it straightened up without disconnecting and that was near impossible due to the strain on the towbar. Luckly I had a friend with me who pulled hard on the steering as I manouvered the motorhome until we got it all back in alignment. Peter. | ||
| Marc Bourget (209.142.38.81) Rating: N/A |
My father and I wired one of the original mfg facilities for "Trail-rite" trailers in'69-70 or so. During the work, Trail-rite was sued for negligent design. Some boat owner was towing his boat with all sorts of stuff stored in the back, in violation of Trail-rite's recommendation of 15% of total trailer weight, when loaded, on the tongue and got into a stability wiggle and crashed. I remember a figure of something like 700# uplift on the tongue. I don't know the basis of the 15% figure, but it was "seared" into my brain and has never done me wrong. I've towed lots of miles (approx 160K)with all sorts of Machinery and inventory since '95 and this has been personal tows with car haulers etc., up to 10,000# [which is as much as I'll admit too! LOL!!} (The scary stuff! I say LOL because no crashes while loaded!) Lots of incidents, lots of anecdotes. The 15%guideline has always served me well. I HAVE NEVER HAD A SWAY PROBLEM and I have never needed a "sway" device or system. "That's my story and I'm sticking too it" Your results may vary! FWIW. This 15% rule, with regard to a Suburban, will probably overstress any Bus Engine Cradle. My father towed a 3/4T chevy van [approx 7000#, more or less the same as the "Burb") for awhile behind his Prevost. Changed to a lighter tow'd when the hitch/trailer joint failed on I-5 between Santa Nella and Stockton. He was alerted by a passing car, the Van up to that point was towing in docile fashion but did get somewhat disturbed when he pulled over. It wasn't too much to fix. Onward and Upward Marc Bourget | ||
| Nick Morris (Nick3751) (65.117.139.135)
Rating: N/A |
Just build a dolly and have a triple!!!! Then you can put a little gas engine w/hydro pump and a drop wheel so you can "drive" you trailer around if your in a tight spot.  | ||
| Jim Shepherd (Rv_Safetyman) (66.82.9.59)
Rating: N/A |
I have been gathering a bunch of information and thoughts in order to write an article on this subject for George Myers’ publication (sorry George, I am still behind on my schedule). I have a very strong concern about towing big trailers behind our older buses. In this case, the trailer and Suburban will be at least 7,000 pounds. If we use the rule-of-thumb of 15% (good guideline) that would be a tongue load of over 1,000 pounds. With the lever arm involved, that is about like adding another engine to the engine cradle! Even with equalizer hitches, that still puts a pretty large bending moment into the engine cradle system. Our bus engine cradle system/rear frame structure were not designed to handle large vertical loads (not in the plan for over-the-road buses). Now, couple that with the fact that some of our buses are prone to frame weakening due to rust and/or fatigue and you have a real potential problem. I recently visited a project web site that showed a picture with the engine cradle being completely re-tubed because of huge rust problems (I can’t find that site right now, let me know if you have a link). If the engine compartment was not re-tubed correctly, or worse yet, the problem is not detected, you can imagine the consequences! I am putting a Series 60 in my Eagle, and because of the added weight plus the desire to be able to pull a big trailer at a later date, I am significantly reinforcing my engine cradle system. Having said all of this, there is at least on board contributor who has towed a large trailer back and forth to Alaska several times with no problem. Conversely, I have heard of several folks who have had frame cracking problems. Bottom line, I would not haul a large trailer without a tongue dolly (to be discussed in the article) or significant inspection/reinforcing of the engine cradle system. Jim Shepherd Evergreen, CO ’85 Eagle 10 http://rvsafetysystems.com Bus Project details: http://www.rvsafetysystems.com/busproject.htm (updated 8/7/04) | ||
| TWO DOGS (63.185.97.58) Rating: N/A |
I don't agree with the 15% guy either...that would be 1500 tounge weight for a 10,000 pound load...enough to raise the front wheels of a normal tow vehicle.. | ||
| DrivingMissLazy (66.168.175.51) Rating: N/A |
U-Haul instructions state that 60% of load in front of axle and 40% behind axle. Also states to measure drop of trailer hitch from no load to full load. Should be minimum of 1 inch. 200# tongue weight is good for approximately 2000# load. 1000# tongue weight minimum for 10,000# load. (10% of load is minimum, 15% is best. Otherwise trailer is subject to violent swaying above about 40-50 mph and I have seen a trailer with an auto load actually turn the trailer and load over. (destroyed a pristine Corvair that had been fully restored). Richard | ||
| TWO DOGS (65.179.200.154) Rating: N/A |
who would want to restore a corvair | ||
| RJ Long (Rjlong) (67.181.236.27)
Rating: N/A |
Richard - Bet they hadn't loaded the 'Vair on the trailer backwards. . . TD - There's over 6,000 members of the national Corvair club, that's who. Plus a whole bunch of regional clubs, too. Probably more of them out there that we busnuts w/ converted buses. And just to "hijack" this thread slightly, here's a pic of America's first domestic mini-van:  Enjoy! RJ PD4106-2784 Fresno CA | ||
| TWO DOGS (65.177.145.188) Rating: N/A |
I had a corvair when I lived in Hawaii...J.U.N.K. | ||
| RJ Long (Rjlong) (67.181.236.27)
Rating: N/A |
That's 'cause you were droolin' over the fancy-fendered Falcon's named after a horse and couldn't afford one. . . LOL | ||
| Gary McFarland (Gearheadgary) (68.252.9.119)
Rating: N/A |
I'd say the Market answered the Mustang Vs. Corvair question quite handily. Gary | ||
| TWO DOGS (65.177.145.188) Rating: N/A |
I won't even ride in a ford ! | ||
| Richard Bowyer (Drivingmisslazy) (66.168.168.57)
Rating: N/A |
RJ, you are correct. Since the engine and tranny were mounted in the rear, there was little or no tongue weight and a disaster happened. | ||
| Marc Bourget (209.142.38.81) Rating: N/A |
I had the distinct privilege of knowing someone who was in the Corvair "inner circle". The "Rest of the Story" is the Corvair was a good design. The major problem involved a dispute with the union and resulting poor QC if not sabotage. The original sales for the Corvair were ahead of the Mustang, IIRC, until the huge "warranty" problem threatened to make the Corvair GM's version of the Edsel. Onward & Upward Marc Bourget | ||
| FAST FRED (4.245.218.40) Rating: N/A |
"I'd say the Market answered the Mustang Vs. Corvair question quite handily." The mustangs were avilable with "Cobra " engines , the Corvair only with the 150hp turbo. The kids could pry a Cobra emblem off a car in the mall , and stick it on daddys 6 cylinder. The Corvair had NO such Big HP option , so lost the kiddy market. A real shame as the Corvair with handeling package would do better on the skid pad than big daddy Corvette. However the 150hp Corvair engines were GREAT as a repower for a Porsche 1500cc Normal. 1/4 mile trap speeds went from 67 mph tp 94 mph, street tires. Worked for me , in FASTER days, FAST FRED | ||
| DrivingMissLazy (66.168.175.51) Rating: N/A |
I built several sand rails, using Corvair engine and tranny, while living in California. We used to run them in the sand dunes at Glamis, CA. What a blast. Only built one with a turbo out of a Corvair Spyder, I believe. Really had trouble keeping the front wheels on the ground. LOL Richard | ||
| Gary McFarland (Gearheadgary) (68.250.174.11)
Rating: N/A |
I'm a big fan of american manufacturing, Most of all Automotive manufacturing. I follow the success of various models and although the model has had several changes, the Mustang model is truly a successful marque. The MGB is one of my favorites, taking 50s/60s technology with very little retooling and the associated cost from 1962 - 1980. Definitely not the most finely engineered vehicle, but unquestionably successfulr in the market. We all know the stories about the 'Vair and how compromises were made between the original engineering and actual production. High resistance to the new design on the shop floor etc... These are factors that contribute to the "Success" of a particular model Speaking of wild conversions, I remember a corvair-powered trike. Was completely insane. Gary | ||
| R Johnstone (Chilebrew) (67.235.101.49)
Rating: N/A |
Look at the Yenko Stinger for what the Corvair could have been. GM and some others like to blame Nader for its demise. Perhaps he helped, but mostly it was GM bean-counters at the top, no apreciation for engineering, who killed it. My swing axle Mercs and VWs were more developed, therefore civilized. (Used to get in trouble with my 356) | ||
| Gary McFarland (Gearheadgary) (68.250.174.11)
Rating: N/A |
I didn't even know Yenko did a 'vair (I'm a mopar guy). a couple of weekends ago was the woodward cruise here in motown, I saw a few Yenkos, mostly camaros. Very cool. Gary | ||
| CoryDane RTSII (66.155.188.82) Rating: N/A |
As long as we are talking about Loosers.... CADILLAC CIMMERON It has a bad history, but it was built fast and for a reason. Fuel costs went sky hi, Caddy had nothing for the "economical" market. They ran I am thinking 73 through 78 on the Cavalier chasis. Basically a Cavalier with a few emblems changed the first year, minor changes later. The last year of production the car was actually built up to a Cadallac standard and was fitted with a larger engine and better suspension. Too late to save though, everyone had already decided it was an "Imposter" in the Cadillac lineup. If you think about it though, the Cavaleir platform is a sound platform to build on. For the size and economy that GM was shooting for, this was a good choice. GM just never finished the job of outfitting the frame as a Cadillac buyer is used to. Another one was the Cadillac 4-6-8. Everyone is fast to shoot this car down siting engine troubles. In reality, it was a good, economical car. GM stabbed themselves in the leg AGAIN when they bought the chip for the 4-6-8 workings. THEY BOUGHT LOWEST BIDDER and the production chip did not hold up to the temperatures or vibration. Most people just pulled the malfunctioning chip and drove the car as an 8 cylinder. Then there was the first TORONADO built for the show links. It was not a OLDSMOBILE, it was a CHEVROLET convertible. It was built in the mid 60's I think. I did not strike up the fury that GM wanted so the project died. Back then was when cars looked different and personal. TODAY cars are carbon copies, they all have the same body with a nose and tail job to make the consumer think he is getting a car built with the quality of the name. You are getting a "PLACEBO" mix of all the cars with an emblem name on it but they are a GM car, no more, no less. The car models are the same between all the brands, Chevy, Olds, Pontiac, change the nose and the tail with minor interior enhancements and you fooled the public again. The only exception is the Cadillac that has it own developement and who can forget the new "coffin" body style. HELL IT LOOKS LIKE A COFFIN ON WHEELS! If I wanted a funny car, I would look at the tracks. On occasion I will look at the archive pics of the cars that ran around when I was in school with the defined body detailing. That was eye candy to behold on every car line. NONE had a similar body style until J cars or K cars. Now OLDSMOBILE is gone. Hmmm, I don't know, maybe I am not thinking right but is it right for a big conglomerat to buy an Auto company such as Oldsmobile, purely because they are high sellers in the market, then change them to GM specs, interiors, bodies, then suck the blood out of them til they can't hold the market then kill the production? It tells me that GM is getting tired, the cookie cutter bodies are boring and people are not buying like they used to. It was a shame to watch GM destroy Oldsmobile, but it is sader to watch them destroy the rest of the line too. cd | ||
| RJ Long (Rjlong) (67.181.236.27)
Rating: N/A |
Fast Fred made the comment "A real shame as the Corvair with handling package would do better on the skid pad than big daddy Corvette." This is very true, especially the second-generation models, built from 1965-1969. Major suspension change in 1965 "borrowed" the 1963 Sting Ray Corvette's double-u-jointed drive shafts, but used softer coil springs vs the stiff, transverse leaf spring of the 'Vette. Get a second-generation Corvair on a twisty, BUMPY mountain road with a driver who knows what he/she's doing, and it will mop the floor against anything else domestically-built during that same time period. (And I know the joke that the reason is because of the oil slick laid down by it's leaking engine. . . sorry, TD, one ahead of you on that one!. . . LOL) R Johnstone is also correct regarding the car's demise. It was more expensive to build than the Camaro, it's sales were flat, and the tighter emission standards were looming over the horizon. A directive was sent down from the top in late July of 1964 not to do anymore development work on the car, other than to meet safety regulations. This was several month's before Nader's book hit the market in November. Had "Unsafe at Any Speed" not been published and received all the media attention it generated, the Corvair probably would have been discontinued in 1967 with the Camaro's debut. Looking back w/ 20/20 hindsight, I don't think the Corvair was as much of a "loser" as the Caddy Cimarron Cory mentioned, or, for an even better example, the Chevy Vega. The Corvair was "different", and I don't think Chevy really figured out how to market the car properly. From an engineering point, even with the first generation's suspension compromises, it really was a departure from the norm. (The SAE, btw, LOVED that!) The Corvair was the first US-built car to mass-market four-wheel independent suspension, the first mass-market US-built car w/ a compact transaxle, and was really the car that prompted Lee Iacocca to develop the Mustang, after the inital success of the Corvair Monza in 1961. (Bucket seats and "four-on-the-floor") Not to mention it's biggest claim to fame, which may or may not be a blessing: Due to the publicity from Nader's book, the Federal gov't's development of motor vehicle safety standards. Ed Cole's unique little air-cooled wonder came along at an interesting period of American automotive history, and has it's own chapter based on both it's positives and it's negatives. Whew. . . this thread's really been HIJACKED!! Sorry, Mr Hinson if we've strayed far from your original question. But it's been fun!! Back to busin'. . . RJ PD4106-2784 Fresno CA | ||
| Gary McFarland (Gearheadgary) (68.250.174.11)
Rating: N/A |
I thought it was a damn shame about the olds. of course, being Mopar guy, I'm a little more bent about the brand that brought us the Duster, the roadrunner, the cuda, and of course the Fury that is my current project. That's the way it goes though, no sensce cryin' in yer beer. At least they didn't build the cimarron. Gary | ||
| ChuckMC9 (Chucks) (66.167.165.122)
Rating: N/A |
Guess who?  | ||
| RJ Long (Rjlong) (67.181.236.27)
Rating: N/A |
Ralph Nader??? RJ | ||
| BrianMCI96A3 (205.188.116.135) Rating: N/A |
Since the Olds Toronado was brought up I thought I'd add to this wayward thread. The 1966 Toronado was the first production front wheel drive US automobile since the 1930's Cord. The 66 Toronado was Motor Trend's car of the year. The Toronado was built, with some cosmetic changes, but the same basic form, from 1966 to 1971 I don't know exact production totals for those years but I'm pretty confident that over 125,000 Toronados were built. With either a 425 or 455 Olds engine developing either just under or just over 400 hp the Toronado was a true luxury muscle car In the seventies at least one company used the Toronado powertrain for it's stick and staple motorhomes. A man who owned a 60's Porsche 911, took a special Toronado engine (aluminum block/heads) with tranny and made a Porsche/Olds coversion. He turned the powertrain around and installed it with the engine in the back seat of the 911, then he covered the engine with old hard sided luggage that he hollowed out and attached one to another. Though the engine tranny combo was heavier than the original 911 powertrain, with the aluminum block and heads it was not prohibitive and because it was now a mid-engine car the front to rear weight balance was close to 50/50 and the horsepower to weight ratio was through the roof! What a blast... Brian | ||
| BrianMCI96A3 (205.188.116.135) Rating: N/A |
True story... It turns out there was a scandal involving Ralph Nader and his petition to get his name on the ballot in Oregon (I believe), it seems that a bunch of the names on the petition were fraudulent. Including one fellow, a Republican who owns his own business... a company that makes replica parts for...Corvairs! The man was quoted as saying "It is ridiculous to think that I would help Ralph Nader with a petition for anything, much less President of the United States!" | ||
| RJ Long (Rjlong) (67.181.236.27)
Rating: N/A |
Brian - You talking about Lon Wall?? I remember the first generation Toronados well. The parents of one of the guys I hung out with back then bought a new '67 model (the one with the flush-mounted headlamps) because it came with front wheel disc brakes which the original 66 didn't have. Had the 455 in it. . . How NOT to impress the locals in Santa Cruz, CA, on a Friday nite: Borrow Dad's new Toronado. Set the parking brake. Left foot on the service brake, right foot on the throttle, rev engine up against the torque converter stall speed. Release service brake. SMOKE front tires w/o moving for 10 seconds. Release parking brake (worked on rear wheels), continue smoking front tires for the next 100 yards. . . jump on Hiway 17 and "get outta Dodge" QUICK!! Ah, memories. . . RJ | ||
| Johnny (4.174.103.205) Rating: N/A |
"U-Haul instructions state that 60% of load in front of axle and 40% behind axle. Also states to measure drop of trailer hitch from no load to full load. Should be minimum of 1 inch." Well, that's not always a good plan--example: dropping the rear of my F-350 (9500lb GVWR) 1" with my car transporter (2-axle open trailer) would require essentially putting the car on the hitch tongue. Even a 4300lb car loaded as far forward as possible only dropped it about 1/2". A dually or an F-450 or F-550 would have even less drop. "Otherwise trailer is subject to violent swaying above about 40-50 mph and I have seen a trailer with an auto load actually turn the trailer and load over. (destroyed a pristine Corvair that had been fully restored). Richard" OK, I'm crying now.  I just drove my friend's Corvair Monza. | ||
| Johnny (4.174.103.205) Rating: N/A |
"The last year of production the car was actually built up to a Cadillac standard and was fitted with a larger engine and better suspension. Too late to save though, everyone had already decided it was an "Imposter" in the Cadillac lineup." OK, I can't ignore this. The Cimarron was the worst "Cadillac" ever built. The J-body platform wasn't very good to start with (and hasn't improved any with age), & no amount of tacky trim, craptastic engines (the 85HP Iron Duke/Tech 4 & the boat-anchor 2.8 V6), unreliable electronic junk, & chrome wheels can change that. "If you think about it though, the Cavaleir platform is a sound platform to build on. For the size and economy that GM was shooting for, this was a good choice. GM just never finished the job of outfitting the frame as a Cadillac buyer is used to." The Crapalier may be the worst platform GM has ever had. Oxcart ride, poor handling, unreliable, & cramped. "In the seventies at least one company used the Toronado powertrain for it's stick and staple motorhomes." AUUUUUGH! The RevCon is NOT a stick-and-staple! My friend has a 72 (455 Olds/TH-425) & it's built very solid. No experience with the FWD GMC's, but everything I've heard says they were also built pretty well. RJ: a 1967 Toro wouldn't have a 455. It would have a high-output version of the Olds 425. | ||
| Gary McFarland (Gearheadgary) (68.250.174.11)
Rating: N/A |
I was assigned a company car that was the buick version of the same car, what a piece of excrement that was. What gets me is what folks will pay for a "rebadged" vehicle. Add a few styling bits and a Suburban becomes an Escalade. the sheeple line up to have the priveledge of paying an extra 20 grand. I think it's like the process of natural selection though, some folks should be seperated from their cash, and GM can probably figure out how to use it. Gary | ||
| Johnny (4.174.103.205) Rating: N/A |
At least the Escalade has SOME differences: mainly, the Tahoe has the 5.3 engine, while the Escalade gets the 6.0 from the 2500 line. That Buick would be a Somerset, yes? With the wonderfully anemic, thrashy, gasket-popping 2.0 litre Quad-OHC engine, correct? | ||
| BrianMCI96A3 (205.188.116.135) Rating: N/A |
he Crapalier may be the worst platform GM has ever had. Oxcart ride, poor handling, unreliable, & cramped. Oh no, you didn't! The Cavalier may not have been the greatest GM platform built, and early on was a marginal car, but some of the later versions actually were surpisingly fun cars, and certainly it is hardly bad enough to warrant the title of worst GM platform. For my money, the Vega, Citation and Chevette are all wrestling for that title. Although, I will say that beyond a doubt, the Cimmoron is the worst Caddy of all time. Brian RJ, Lon Wall sounds familiar, it could well have been his car. | ||
| BrianMCI96A3 (205.188.116.135) Rating: N/A |
AUUGH yourself Johnny, I wouldn't know a RevCon if I saw one, but the motorhome I worked on in the early eighties had a Toronado drivetrain and was most certainly a sticks & staples. Like I said... In the seventies at LEAST one company used the Toronado powertrain for it's stick and staple motorhomes. Brian | ||
| Gary McFarland (Gearheadgary) (68.250.174.11)
Rating: N/A |
Hey Johnny, I can't remember the model of the car (That alone should say something) but it did die of a head failure. Brian, I saw a Shove-it yesterday while my wife and I were blasting up I696 on the hog. It had a big 'ol Velocity stack poking out of the hood. I think that's the only way you can have one on the road today as a transplant. When the vagrant came out my dad went to test-drive one. He got out of the car laughing his ass off, it was the worst car he ever drove. (This is a guy that drove a metro van for ten years or so) Gary | ||
| Johnny (4.174.103.205) Rating: N/A |
"The Cavalier may not have been the greatest GM platform built, and early on was a marginal car, but some of the later versions actually were surpisingly fun cars, and certainly it is hardly bad enough to warrant the title of worst GM platform. For my money, the Vega, Citation and Chevette are all wrestling for that title." The Vega was a SPECTACULAR handler (and even today, even with a 406 in the nose, it's pretty good). It was a good platform cursed with a bad engine. The Citation is the car the Crapalier is heavily based on. The Chevette was around 10 years before the Cavalier--and can actually handle well, with some tweaks. Just ask any mini-stock racer who has lost to one. Do a Google search, & you'll see the Chevette (especially the rare diesel) has a HUGE cult following. | ||
| Gary McFarland (Gearheadgary) (68.250.174.11)
Rating: N/A |
I think it was the "Handling" that cracked my dad up, but we did drive to the carlot in my MG. I knew of a guy that had a BigBlock in a Vagrant and every time he dropped the clutch, the windshiled popped out. Diesel shoveit. Stop it yer killin me. Gary | ||
| Gary McFarland (Gearheadgary) (68.250.174.11)
Rating: N/A |
Since we've gone so far off-track, I should mention my buddy that took a Gremlin and installed a 455 Olds, mid-engine. He grafted the front of a stingray on the front and chopped the top, six or eight inches. was crazy, looked wild and pretty darn good. Gary | ||
| Johnny (4.174.103.205) Rating: N/A |
I just drove a 500HP Vega today. It will dust a Viper (it's a good 1000lbs lighter with the same power), & corner with any new sports car. There are people who have swapped 3800 Buicks into Chevettes (Hooker actually has a swap kit), & also 2.8 V6's. http://www.angelfire.com/extreme3/v6chevette/ | ||
| Gary McFarland (Gearheadgary) (68.251.24.100)
Rating: N/A |
a 500HP vagrant that doesn't have the world's worst understeer is unimaginable, to me anyway. What was the engine? Gary | ||
| BrianMCI96A3 (198.81.26.45) Rating: N/A |
My own feeling about repowering any of those crummy GM cars is... My God, WHY???? My brother bought a brandie new Vagrant GT in 1970 for $2400, within a few years it had almost rotted in half (The drain for the rain catch under the windshield was plugged from the factory with paint). GM fought him tooth and nail until finally fixing it. Then the guy down the street bought a used one, and within a year it was burning a half a quart a day. The last straw for my brother was when he turned a corner, pressed on the throttle and the rpms went up but the car was slowing to a stop. As he coasted to the side of the road he could see the tire and axle sticking about a foot out of the axle tube. Sure, you can stick a 500hp drive train along with a Camaro or Mustang sub-frame under a pile of excrement and have a one heck of a fast piece of sh**! Brian | ||
| Johnny (4.174.103.205) Rating: N/A |
"a 500HP vagrant that doesn't have the world's worst understeer is unimaginable, to me anyway. What was the engine?" 2-bolt main 400 Chevy from a 1972 Monte Carlo bored .020" over, stock crank & rods, main bearing studs, 10:1 compression, iron Vortec fast-burn heads (worth an easy 45-50HP over the vaunted 327 "fuelies" they replaced last year), Edelbrock Performer RPM intake, 850 Speed Demon carb with 1.5" 4-hole spacer, Hooker headers, 3" exhaust with Flowmaster mufflers, Comp Cams Xtreme Energy cam, Pertronix breakerless ignition (HEI won't clear the Vega firewall). Trans is a TH-700-R4 with 2600RPM lockup converter, rear axle is 7.5" Monza 10-bolt with 2.73 gears. It understeers (a little), but there's more than enough power to bring the back around--it can light the tires at 50MPH. That 406 is STRONG. This car went together around 1985 with what started as a stock-rebuilt 400 with headers & a TH350. This is the third major engine configuration: around 1989, it got the fuelie heads, a 750 Holley on a Weiand intake, a hotter cam, full 2.5" exhaust, the Monza axle & torque arm, a complete chassis re-do with V8 Monza springs & spindles, & 14" Cragar wheels. It got the Vortecs, the OD trans, & new paint last year. It's been his daily driver from spring until November (parked at the first snowfall) since about 1987. "My own feeling about repowering any of those crummy GM cars is... My God, WHY????" 500HP. 2400lbs. 4.8lbs per HP--a better power to weight ratio than a Winston Cup car. Almost twice the power-to-weight of a ZO6 Corvette. Bluntly, plenty of people will soil themselves if they ever rode shotgun in this car during a full-throttle blast. He built a Vega because it's the smallest, lightest body (350 Chevettes notwithstanding) that can reasonably take a 400 Chevy. That's the same reason I plan to put a blower on the AMC 401 in my 1974 Gremlin X. | ||
| Gary McFarland (Gearheadgary) (68.251.24.100)
Rating: N/A |
I definitely like the idea better than a SB Chev in an Austin Healey, that's for sure. Gary | ||
| Johnny (4.174.103.141) Rating: N/A |
Hmm...sounds interesting. Well, except for the Lucas part. | ||
| Gary McFarland (Gearheadgary) (68.251.24.100)
Rating: N/A |
Lucas works jut fine if you just keep yer Yankee hands off it. Gary | ||
| Tony (64.215.196.162) Rating: N/A |
Humm I wonder what ever happend to the coach related message board that we used to have. | ||
| FAST FRED (4.245.212.58) Rating: N/A |
When GM was begged into building Coaches , with the vast supply and choice of engines /trannys avilable on their shelf ,, They chose Olds power for their new product. GM knows which engines/trannys work , and what's crap.(RAT STUFF) I have a '78 Caddy Seville with the MILAN modifications. Chop off and discard the roof , remove & discard the rear doors, Cut chasis to shorten so the rear of the front door closes at the rear door post. WEld it up , install a kit folding top & enjoy. Of course the orig Caddy engine sucked , so a '73 OLDS 455 with cam and manifold & TH 400 now provide motivation. AS the car was a diesel , the rear is only a 2.55 so no traction devices are needed , and at 60mph the engine is just above idle . OLDS power, if you don't like walking! Works for me! FAST FRED | ||
| madbrit (67.136.80.237) Rating: N/A |
Fred, Yep, sure works for you, what a piece of sh*t you just created. Nearly shorter than it is wide and with a 455 too, very clever!!!! Such a stable machine, would corner like it's on rails; nah, more like it would only corner if it was on rails. You also forget that you would have to combine the front and rear doors to fit the relevant pillars too. You actually refer to the rat motor as a piece of crap, well this proves you know absolutely nothing about motors. For a start, each motor is designed for a particular range of use. Also, each motor in that range is built specifically for an application. You don't see a Ford 2.0 powering a Caddy stretched limo do you? Just think before you actually write some of this crap will you.......... For goodness sake, back to buses........... Peter. | ||
| Johnny (4.174.103.240) Rating: N/A |
I've actually seen a Seville roadster conversion like Fred described. It wasn't shortened more than 12", & had the standard Seville EFI 350 Olds engine & TH350 trans. The only reason GM put the Olds engine in the FWD motorhomes was because it was already designed to mate with the FWD TH-425 transaxles. The BB Chevy wad used (extensively, in 366, 427, & 454ci versions) in large class 7 trucks. They held up just fine. | ||
| FAST FRED (4.245.188.247) Rating: N/A |
The wheelbase /track of a Seville- Milan are almost identical to the much later 2 seater Caddy built. So I guess GM got it wrong again? Rat motors are for kids that love to fix stuff,and make loads of noise Sorta , like Harleys with 4 wheels, comaraderie of the Tow Chain Olds were installed in their GM Motorhomes because the engine was stronger than the also bolting up (TH425)Caddy., or any of the other engines GM then built. Works for GM, Works for me, FAST FRED | ||
| Johnny (4.174.106.219) Rating: N/A |
Gee, I guess that's why GM but so many 455 Olds motors in class 7 trucks...hey, wait a minute, that's right, they didn't! The engine of choice for the class 7's was the big-block Chevy. |
