Home » Public Forums » GMCnet » Gas Prices- At What Point Do You Park It?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gas Prices- At What Point Do You Park It? [message #116489 is a reply to message #116456] |
Fri, 25 February 2011 10:59   |
 |
gordh1
Messages: 332
Registered: February 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Craig,
Considering the 455 is a cast iron lump that hasn’t really changed in decades and relies on its displacement to do its work, it’s not difficult to find many other engines which have moved forward in leaps and bounds in their technology…after all, they have had decades to make these improvements. What’s a 455 – 7.5 liters correct? It seems a *really* good 455 is making 400 hp or 53 hp per liter. That’s a really good one; I doubt many out there come anywhere close.
Current “modern” engines are now easily exceeding 100 hp / liter, some designs (i.e. motorcycle engines) are doubling that @ 200 hp/liter and they’re still not using all the tricks in one package. Oh, don’t think I’m pondering a motorbike engine in a 12k# motorhome, but it’s just to say the technology is there and it works.
Craig, you seem to have some good savvy with engines (great!) so let’s look at the sum total increase of your percentages? Let’s not forget that those 0.1% increments have been occurring constantly for a couple of decades? Proper multiport fuel injection is known to be a 10% increase in horsepower *and* economy – that was proven when MPFI became commonplace for many engines in the 80s. They downsized the engine’s displacement, improved the economy, yet gave the consumer even more power than they had prior. Manufacturers ran 5 valves per cylinder for quite some time with great success too but that’s fallen back just the same way the V12 engine is now a dinosaur compared to a V10 – and the main reason for performance gain? Reduce the friction. Imagine, you spend millions developing 5 valve heads then realize that the friction caused by that 5th valve doesn’t equal the gain had you left it at 4 bigger valves. Ditto to twin-cam engines – many manufacturers still use DOHCs but others that are really working to get the most out of a given engine have gone back to a SOHC – main reason…friction.
The biggest area of advancement to my understanding has been with metallurgy, specifically in the design of pistons, piston rings and connecting rods, as this is where a lot of work has to be done, done well, and done for a long time between changes. Piston rings and pistons account for incredible amounts of power loss (friction) – so much so that that is why v12s are basically history…knock 2 cylinders off and the 10 remaining can actually make more total output.
100,000 mile intervals between tune-ups or even changing a sparkplug? We all know what the computer or in some cases *computers* have done in regards to maintaining optimal fuel / air mixture ratios, and then look specifically at fuel injection management and the incredible tasks which can now be performed regardless of vehicle location (altitude, barometric pressure, load…) and at an adjustment rate we can’t even imagine.
Compare this technology to a 4 barrel carburetor? That’s apples and oranges Craig – meaning, it’s really just not fair to compare.
Yes, these days the changes made to a modern engine design are becoming perhaps a little less – they’re on the top of the curve so to say, but they’re still being made and I bet there’s hundreds of engines on dynos right now getting the life kicked out of them to try to make things better.
Drag and resistance of the motorhome – well, that’s sort of a constant now isn’t it. I for one would be removing all sorts of ‘shhhtuff’ from my coach (if I had one!  ) because I would want to get that resistance down as much as I could. BTW (fyi) we tested a racing motorcycle at Brainerd Minnesota in the late 80’s and picked up 2 mph on their lengthy front straight by cleaning and waxing *all* the body work – an incredible gain for just a couple of hours of elbow grease. Imagine not only the frontal area of the motorhome, but *all the sides and roof*? Sure, air hits the front, but it then drags down the sides, top and no doubt, the undercarriage, so there’s a lot to think of in all those areas. 
Transmissions – well Craig, given closer ratios and multiple speeds, they can only make it easier for any engine / engine management system, to select the optimal ratio depending on the load. I’m sure you’ve been stuck behind an older 18 wheeler at a traffic light as the driver rows his way through the multitude of gears to get the thing to speed again? More ratio selection is better, especially as today these are now automatic or semi-automatic. A three speed automatic transmission regardless of the final drive ratio is (speaking honestly) an absolute has-been, sorry.
Ok so, maybe if and when I swap out the original power unit and replace it with something that is rated at 24 mpg in a big heavy European sedan, I’m not going to get 24 mpg, but I am certain it will be an improvement over the 10 mpg that the 455 delivers now. Will it be worth it? Yup. If I could gain a couple of miles per gallon, have the fun of making something interesting and unique, have something that is technologically current and at least making an effort to be environmentally responsible, I’d give it a go without a question.
Perhaps I’m missing the point of the GMC Motorhome and the group? If like certain old cars people want to have them remain “original” in so far as to say, their power plant, I guess I’m in the wrong place?
Thanks Craig!
Gord
p.s. If anyone tolerates motorbikes, here’s a little video which shows the extent some manufacturers (Yamaha in this case, and they develop / build engines for Ford BTW), are currently at so far as getting power from a drop of gasoline. This technology is going hand in hand with automotive engines albeit slowly. Hope you can envision the hours and millions of dollars which have gone in to the *design concepts*, not necessarily the motorbike itself . 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJKkvbsojWI
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Gas Prices- At What Point Do You Park It? [message #116506 is a reply to message #116489] |
Fri, 25 February 2011 12:52 |
 |
USAussie
Messages: 15912
Registered: July 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Karma: 6
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Gord,
Forget about the horsepower, look at the torque. A lot of th
Regards,
Rob M.
USAussie - Downunder
AUS '75 Avion - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
USA '75 Avion - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
-----Original Message-----
From: gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org
[mailto:gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org] On Behalf Of Gord Hubbell
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 3:59 AM
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Gas Prices- At What Point Do You Park It?
Hi Craig,
Considering the 455 is a cast iron lump that hasn’t really changed in
decades and relies on its displacement to do its work, it’s not
difficult to find many other engines which have moved forward in leaps and
bounds in their technology…after all, they have had decades to make
these improvements. What’s a 455 – 7.5 liters correct? It
seems a *really* good 455 is making 400 hp or 53 hp per liter. That’s
a really good one; I doubt many out there come anywhere close.
Current “modern” engines are now easily exceeding 100 hp /
liter, some designs (i.e. motorcycle engines) are doubling that @ 200
hp/liter and they’re still not using all the tricks in one package.
Oh, don’t think I’m pondering a motorbike engine in a 12k#
motorhome, but it’s just to say the technology is there and it works.
Craig, you seem to have some good savvy with engines (great!) so let’s
look at the sum total increase of your percentages? Let’s not forget
that those 0.1% increments have been occurring constantly for a couple of
decades? Proper multiport fuel injection is known to be a 10% increase in
horsepower *and* economy – that was proven when MPFI became
commonplace for many engines in the 80s. They downsized the engine’s
displacement, improved the economy, yet gave the consumer even more power
than they had prior. Manufacturers ran 5 valves per cylinder for quite some
time with great success too but that’s fallen back just the same way
the V12 engine is now a dinosaur compared to a V10 – and the main
reason for performance gain? Reduce the friction. Imagine, you spend
millions developing 5 valve heads then realize that the friction caused by
that 5th valve doesn’t equal the gain had you left it at 4 bigger
valves. Ditto to twin-cam engin
es – many manufacturers still use DOHCs but others that are really
working to get the most out of a given engine have gone back to a SOHC
– main reason…friction.
The biggest area of advancement to my understanding has been with
metallurgy, specifically in the design of pistons, piston rings and
connecting rods, as this is where a lot of work has to be done, done well,
and done for a long time between changes. Piston rings and pistons account
for incredible amounts of power loss (friction) – so much so that that
is why v12s are basically history…knock 2 cylinders off and the 10
remaining can actually make more total output.
100,000 mile intervals between tune-ups or even changing a sparkplug? We
all know what the computer or in some cases *computers* have done in regards
to maintaining optimal fuel / air mixture ratios, and then look specifically
at fuel injection management and the incredible tasks which can now be
performed regardless of vehicle location (altitude, barometric pressure,
load…) and at an adjustment rate we can’t even imagine.
Compare this technology to a 4 barrel carburetor? That’s apples and
oranges Craig – meaning, it’s really just not fair to compare.
Yes, these days the changes made to a modern engine design are becoming
perhaps a little less – they’re on the top of the curve so to
say, but they’re still being made and I bet there’s hundreds of
engines on dynos right now getting the life kicked out of them to try to
make things better.
Drag and resistance of the motorhome – well, that’s sort of a
constant now isn’t it. I for one would be removing all sorts of
‘shhhtuff’ from my coach (if I had one! :( ) because I would
want to get that resistance down as much as I could. BTW (fyi) we tested a
racing motorcycle at Brainerd Minnesota in the late 80’s and picked up
2 mph on their lengthy front straight by cleaning and waxing *all* the body
work – an incredible gain for just a couple of hours of elbow grease.
Imagine not only the frontal area of the motorhome, but *all the sides and
roof*? Sure, air hits the front, but it then drags down the sides, top and
no doubt, the undercarriage, so there’s a lot to think of in all those
areas. ;)
Transmissions – well Craig, given closer ratios and multiple speeds,
they can only make it easier for any engine / engine management system, to
select the optimal ratio depending on the load. I’m sure you’ve
been stuck behind an older 18 wheeler at a traffic light as the driver rows
his way through the multitude of gears to get the thing to speed again?
More ratio selection is better, especially as today these are now automatic
or semi-automatic. A three speed automatic transmission regardless of the
final drive ratio is (speaking honestly) an absolute has-been, sorry.
Ok so, maybe if and when I swap out the original power unit and replace it
with something that is rated at 24 mpg in a big heavy European sedan,
I’m not going to get 24 mpg, but I am certain it will be an
improvement over the 10 mpg that the 455 delivers now. Will it be worth it?
Yup. If I could gain a couple of miles per gallon, have the fun of making
something interesting and unique, have something that is technologically
current and at least making an effort to be environmentally responsible,
I’d give it a go without a question.
Perhaps I’m missing the point of the GMC Motorhome and the group? If
like certain old cars people want to have them remain “original”
in so far as to say, their power plant, I guess I’m in the wrong
place?
Thanks Craig!
Gord
p.s. If anyone tolerates motorbikes, here’s a little video which shows
the extent some manufacturers (Yamaha in this case, and they develop / build
engines for Ford BTW), are currently at so far as getting power from a drop
of gasoline. This technology is going hand in hand with automotive engines
albeit slowly. Hope you can envision the hours and millions of dollars which
have gone in to the *design concepts*, not necessarily the motorbike itself
. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJKkvbsojWI
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Regards,
Rob M. (USAussie)
The Pedantic Mechanic
Sydney, Australia
'75 Avion - AUS - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
'75 Avion - USA - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Gas Prices- At What Point Do You Park It? [message #116509 is a reply to message #116489] |
Fri, 25 February 2011 13:19 |
|
USAussie
Messages: 15912
Registered: July 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Karma: 6
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Gord,
Oops!
Forget about the horsepower, look at the torque. A lot of the motorcycle
engines you've cited don't produce torque until they're running at a
gazillion RPM.
What big European sedan were you thinking of, I checked and the VW V10TDI is
a diesel not gasoline.
Regards,
Rob M.
USAussie - Downunder
AUS '75 Avion - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
USA '75 Avion - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
-----Original Message-----
From: gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org
[mailto:gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org] On Behalf Of Gord Hubbell
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 3:59 AM
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Gas Prices- At What Point Do You Park It?
Hi Craig,
Considering the 455 is a cast iron lump that hasn’t really changed in
decades and relies on its displacement to do its work, it’s not
difficult to find many other engines which have moved forward in leaps and
bounds in their technology…after all, they have had decades to make
these improvements. What’s a 455 – 7.5 liters correct? It
seems a *really* good 455 is making 400 hp or 53 hp per liter. That’s
a really good one; I doubt many out there come anywhere close.
Current “modern” engines are now easily exceeding 100 hp /
liter, some designs (i.e. motorcycle engines) are doubling that @ 200
hp/liter and they’re still not using all the tricks in one package.
Oh, don’t think I’m pondering a motorbike engine in a 12k#
motorhome, but it’s just to say the technology is there and it works.
Craig, you seem to have some good savvy with engines (great!) so let’s
look at the sum total increase of your percentages? Let’s not forget
that those 0.1% increments have been occurring constantly for a couple of
decades? Proper multiport fuel injection is known to be a 10% increase in
horsepower *and* economy – that was proven when MPFI became
commonplace for many engines in the 80s. They downsized the engine’s
displacement, improved the economy, yet gave the consumer even more power
than they had prior. Manufacturers ran 5 valves per cylinder for quite some
time with great success too but that’s fallen back just the same way
the V12 engine is now a dinosaur compared to a V10 – and the main
reason for performance gain? Reduce the friction. Imagine, you spend
millions developing 5 valve heads then realize that the friction caused by
that 5th valve doesn’t equal the gain had you left it at 4 bigger
valves. Ditto to twin-cam engin
es – many manufacturers still use DOHCs but others that are really
working to get the most out of a given engine have gone back to a SOHC
– main reason…friction.
The biggest area of advancement to my understanding has been with
metallurgy, specifically in the design of pistons, piston rings and
connecting rods, as this is where a lot of work has to be done, done well,
and done for a long time between changes. Piston rings and pistons account
for incredible amounts of power loss (friction) – so much so that that
is why v12s are basically history…knock 2 cylinders off and the 10
remaining can actually make more total output.
100,000 mile intervals between tune-ups or even changing a sparkplug? We
all know what the computer or in some cases *computers* have done in regards
to maintaining optimal fuel / air mixture ratios, and then look specifically
at fuel injection management and the incredible tasks which can now be
performed regardless of vehicle location (altitude, barometric pressure,
load…) and at an adjustment rate we can’t even imagine.
Compare this technology to a 4 barrel carburetor? That’s apples and
oranges Craig – meaning, it’s really just not fair to compare.
Yes, these days the changes made to a modern engine design are becoming
perhaps a little less – they’re on the top of the curve so to
say, but they’re still being made and I bet there’s hundreds of
engines on dynos right now getting the life kicked out of them to try to
make things better.
Drag and resistance of the motorhome – well, that’s sort of a
constant now isn’t it. I for one would be removing all sorts of
‘shhhtuff’ from my coach (if I had one! :( ) because I would
want to get that resistance down as much as I could. BTW (fyi) we tested a
racing motorcycle at Brainerd Minnesota in the late 80’s and picked up
2 mph on their lengthy front straight by cleaning and waxing *all* the body
work – an incredible gain for just a couple of hours of elbow grease.
Imagine not only the frontal area of the motorhome, but *all the sides and
roof*? Sure, air hits the front, but it then drags down the sides, top and
no doubt, the undercarriage, so there’s a lot to think of in all those
areas. ;)
Transmissions – well Craig, given closer ratios and multiple speeds,
they can only make it easier for any engine / engine management system, to
select the optimal ratio depending on the load. I’m sure you’ve
been stuck behind an older 18 wheeler at a traffic light as the driver rows
his way through the multitude of gears to get the thing to speed again?
More ratio selection is better, especially as today these are now automatic
or semi-automatic. A three speed automatic transmission regardless of the
final drive ratio is (speaking honestly) an absolute has-been, sorry.
Ok so, maybe if and when I swap out the original power unit and replace it
with something that is rated at 24 mpg in a big heavy European sedan,
I’m not going to get 24 mpg, but I am certain it will be an
improvement over the 10 mpg that the 455 delivers now. Will it be worth it?
Yup. If I could gain a couple of miles per gallon, have the fun of making
something interesting and unique, have something that is technologically
current and at least making an effort to be environmentally responsible,
I’d give it a go without a question.
Perhaps I’m missing the point of the GMC Motorhome and the group? If
like certain old cars people want to have them remain “original”
in so far as to say, their power plant, I guess I’m in the wrong
place?
Thanks Craig!
Gord
p.s. If anyone tolerates motorbikes, here’s a little video which shows
the extent some manufacturers (Yamaha in this case, and they develop / build
engines for Ford BTW), are currently at so far as getting power from a drop
of gasoline. This technology is going hand in hand with automotive engines
albeit slowly. Hope you can envision the hours and millions of dollars which
have gone in to the *design concepts*, not necessarily the motorbike itself
. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJKkvbsojWI
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Regards,
Rob M. (USAussie)
The Pedantic Mechanic
Sydney, Australia
'75 Avion - AUS - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
'75 Avion - USA - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gas Prices- At What Point Do You Park It? [message #116512 is a reply to message #116338] |
Fri, 25 February 2011 13:36 |
Craig Lechowicz
Messages: 541
Registered: October 2006
Location: Waterford, MI
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Gord,
Didn't mean to imply that I was against change, but remember it wants to be change for the better. Not unlike suspensions, I'm no engine expert either, but between a little racing long ago, several years as a mechanic (still master certified) and a long time with a big 3 automaker, a little rubs off. Matt Colie is probably the most knowledgable person I know as far as dyno results, as he was involved in a lot of development programs in his career.
Rob got part of good comment in there about not confusing hp with torque. But on a more fundamental level, at the scale of a GMC, specific output (horsepower per litre) is almost always opposed to fuel economy (at the engine level called BSFC, brake specific fuel consumption, often measured in lbs. per hp/hour). The reason, as you allude is friction. You get lots of hp per litre by spinning smaller engines faster, and friction losses go up with the cube of the speed. Additionally, higher rpms require stiffer valve springs, which drives more friction. So, don't underestimate the ability of a big slow turning engine to generate good fuel economy. Cars can get good fuel economy with small engines run at high speeds as they are not required to run there very often, and at cruise, most of those engines are running 2,000 rpm or less, not much different than the GMC. The difference is, if you put the same engine in the GMC it would have to turn a lot faster to move it, and some of those small engine fuel economy improvements are lost. To make a long story short, there is a reason big over the road trucks typically are over 10 litres, and sometimes way over that.
Couple of trivia bits for you on fuel injection. As cars and trucks at GM moved from carbs to fuel injection the conventional wisdom was that port systems helped torque a lot (maybe 40 or 50 ft. lb on a midsize V8), and didn't do as much for either hp or fuel economy. (maybe 10 hp and 3%) Their biggest gain was in emissions control, which was and is a huge part of engine design. There may be some incremental improvements since then, but it's not night and day. Carburetors don't do well in transient conditions, cold starting and on coast where injection can be controlled much more precisely, but at steady speeds and loads, if tuned properly can be surprisingly good.
My next door neighbor retired from GM Powertrain, and he tells the story of the "Cross Fire Injection" which was a sort of dual TBI system used for only one year on 1982 Corvettes because a certain executive who's son is now the president of GM North America was in love with it. Powertrain struggled to get the expected hp with it on the dyno despite a lot of development. Just for yucks one day, they bolted what he described as a beat up 5+ year old Holley and aluminum manifold on it, and instantly got 40hp more power. Admittedly not the world's best fuel injection system, but some credit to archaic carburetor technology as well.
No question you can spend $20 or $30k on an engine swap and pick up 20% if you don't mind living with a development project and don't mind driving it 300,000 miles to achieve some payback.
Craig Lechowicz
'77 Kingsley, Waterford, MI
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Gas Prices- At What Point Do You Park It? [message #116522 is a reply to message #116356] |
Fri, 25 February 2011 14:46 |
Larry C
Messages: 1168
Registered: July 2004
Location: NE Illinois by the Illino...
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
don't we have a bunch of oil in Alaska? Great place to
take my Glacier - to visit it's namesake.
______________________________________________-
I have only hear say knowledge of the Alaska reserves, most untapped.
There are two reasons Alaska is not pumping oil for us. The first was cost, Shipping the crude and pumping down the pipeline is cheaper than drilling and cracking to fuels on our own.
The Second reason was the cracking facility. These are said to be the nastyest, smelliest megga poluting facilities in the world as well as very costly to build and operate. We simply did not want to put that additional polution on the long list we already have waiting for some way to solve.
After the BP fiasco by Louisinana, we may never open those wells in Alaska. Yes, electric GMC, the wheels on the bus go round and round and round............
Gatsbys' CRUISER  08-18-04
74 GLACIER X, 260/455-APC-4 Bagg'r
Remflex Manifold gaskets
CampGrounds needed, Add yours to "PLACES" />
http://www.gmceast.com/travel
_
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Gas Prices- At What Point Do You Park It? [message #116528 is a reply to message #116509] |
Fri, 25 February 2011 15:14 |
jhb1
Messages: 303
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Rob
It was me that mentioned the Volks V10TDI 310HP 550ft/lbs of torque more than enough for our needs. I have a friend that has one and averages 23 us mpg pulling a 9000 lbs Airstream triple axle trailer from Quebec to the Baja and back. So yes it is possible to increase the mileage but,again at what cost. IIRC someone made a spreadsheet of the payback times.
John H. Bell
77 Royale; QuadBag,Manny OneTon,Honda EV4010, FITech
Montreal Qc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Gas Prices- At What Point Do You Park It? [message #116531 is a reply to message #116528] |
Fri, 25 February 2011 15:34 |
Dennis S
Messages: 3046
Registered: November 2005
Karma: 2
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Gord Hubbell wrote...
Quote..
Perhaps I'm missing the point of the GMC Motorhome and the group? If like
certain old cars people want to have them remain “original” in so
far as to say, their power plant, I guess I’m in the wrong place?
Gord
End quote..
Gord,
Find your thoughts interesting and fun...
I think most of us enjoy discussions about increasing performance and fuel mileage. And the topic comes up quite often -- about as frequently as we get a new forum (GMCnet) member who wants to "wake up the old coach and has anybody considered a diesel, or a 350 or electric or blah blah blah"
For me -- I generally like to keep my coach original -- part of the pleasure is owning and experiencing a vehicle from an earlier time.
But I also have two coaches -- so the next one may be different.
Dennis
Dennis S
73 Painted Desert 230
Memphis TN Metro
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gas Prices- At What Point Do You Park It? [message #116540 is a reply to message #116338] |
Fri, 25 February 2011 16:08 |
Larry
Messages: 2875
Registered: January 2004
Location: Menomonie, WI
Karma: 10
|
Senior Member |
|
|
What we have found is that we spend less money per month when we are on the road than we do if we stay home. I know this because our CC bill drops significantly during the months we are gone with the MH. Why...well we are not making home improvements or doing other projects that cost money at home. Can't buy anything accept food, cuz we don't have a place to store it and don't want to carry it for the remainder of the 4 mo tour. Example...went to Chirichaua National monument for 3 days. Cost...$6.00/night camping. (National Parks senior pass) Stopped at Gila National Monument for 2 nights...Free camping...no fee to enter park. Stayed at Friends home for multiple days...cost dinner out. Stayed at Son's Golf Course...Free camping. Stayed in many small town RV parks...cost...free to $15/night. Finally in an RV park in Arrey NM tonight because of other troubles, and fee for full hookups is $15. Our biggest cost is fuel, and it does not come close to equaling the amount spent if we stay home. So, for me, I'm better off on the road, and lov'in every minute of it. JMHO
BTW...to help others, we are happy to host other GMC'rs at our home in Menomonie Wisconsin anytime we are in Menomonie. We live on a dead end street in the country, 10 miles off of the interstate and have water, 20amp, and access to dump. Free!! Just call ahead to make sure we are here.
Larry
78 Royale w/500 Caddy
Menomonie, WI.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Gas Prices- At What Point Do You Park It? [message #116542 is a reply to message #116540] |
Fri, 25 February 2011 16:16 |
|
USAussie
Messages: 15912
Registered: July 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Karma: 6
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Larry,
Good point! I never thought about it as noted below.
Helen and I can attest to the fact that you will find Larry and Lucy
gracious hosts, that's for sure!
Regards,
Rob M.
USAussie - Downunder
AUS '75 Avion - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
USA '75 Avion - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
-----Original Message-----
From: gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org
[mailto:gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org] On Behalf Of Larry
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 9:09 AM
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Gas Prices- At What Point Do You Park It?
What we have found is that we spend less money per month when we are on the
road than we do if we stay home. I know this because our CC bill drops
significantly during the months we are gone with the MH. Why...well we are
not making home improvements or doing other projects that cost money at
home. Can't buy anything accept food, cuz we don't have a place to store it
and don't want to carry it for the remainder of the 4 mo tour.
Example...went to Chirichaua National monument for 3 days.
Cost...$6.00/night camping. (National Parks senior pass) Stopped at Gila
National Monument for 2 nights...Free camping...no fee to enter park.
Stayed at Friends home for multiple days...cost dinner out. Stayed at Son's
Golf Course...Free camping. Stayed in many small town RV
parks...cost...free to $15/night. Finally in an RV park in Arrey NM tonight
because of other troubles, and fee for full hookups is $15. Our biggest
cost is fuel, and it does not come close to equaling the amount
spent if we stay home. So, for me, I'm better off on the road, and lov'in
every minute of it. JMHO
BTW...to help others, we are happy to host other GMC'rs at our home in
Menomonie Wisconsin anytime we are in Menomonie. We live on a dead end
street in the country, 10 miles off of the interstate and have water, 20amp,
and access to dump. Free!! Just call ahead to make sure we are here.
--
Larry :)
78 Royale w/500 Caddy
Menomonie, WI.
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Regards,
Rob M. (USAussie)
The Pedantic Mechanic
Sydney, Australia
'75 Avion - AUS - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
'75 Avion - USA - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Nov 10 12:28:56 CST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.04011 seconds
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
