Home » Public Forums » GMCnet » [GMCnet] Autolevel/Level/Newbie question
| [GMCnet] Autolevel/Level/Newbie question [message #138371] |
Wed, 10 August 2011 22:58  |
Dolph Santorine
Messages: 1236
Registered: April 2011
Location: Wheeling, WV
Karma: -41
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Folks:
I've read the rebuilding instructions. I've read the manual from 1977. I don't think I quite follow the ride height discussion here (but give me some time).
So. Should the coach be level when driving? If the rear is down, I know it will have an adverse effect on the front suspension geometry.
Level surface and level coach?
Dolph
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Autolevel/Level/Newbie question [message #138373 is a reply to message #138371] |
Wed, 10 August 2011 23:17  |
James Hupy
Messages: 6806
Registered: May 2010
Karma: -62
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dolph, the rear of the coach, by factory specs, is supposed to be lower than
the front. Some GMC owners dislike the appearance enough that they invent
all manner of reasons why the coach should be level. The front ride height
is critical. It should be as close to the specs in the MM as possible. The
rear is subject to discussion. I believe that if the factory wanted the
coach to be level, they would have specified that in their dimensions. If
the rear is too high, the coach is affected more by cornering issues and
wind steer, as well as push from 18 wheelers. You may well get all manner of
conflicting opinions on this subject. I repair these coaches for others, and
I always set them as close to factory specs as I can. Then, the factory can
take the blame for handling issues, not me. Same on brakes.
Jim Hupy
Salem, OR
78 GMC Royale 403
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Dolph Santorine
<dolph@dolphsantorine.com>wrote:
> Folks:
>
> I've read the rebuilding instructions. I've read the manual from 1977. I
> don't think I quite follow the ride height discussion here (but give me some
> time).
>
> So. Should the coach be level when driving? If the rear is down, I know it
> will have an adverse effect on the front suspension geometry.
>
> Level surface and level coach?
>
> Dolph
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Autolevel/Level/Newbie question [message #138376 is a reply to message #138373] |
Wed, 10 August 2011 23:37 |
Dolph Santorine
Messages: 1236
Registered: April 2011
Location: Wheeling, WV
Karma: -41
|
Senior Member |
|
|
MM?
On Aug 11, 2011, at 12:17 AM, James Hupy wrote:
> Dolph, the rear of the coach, by factory specs, is supposed to be lower than
> the front. Some GMC owners dislike the appearance enough that they invent
> all manner of reasons why the coach should be level. The front ride height
> is critical. It should be as close to the specs in the MM as possible. The
> rear is subject to discussion. I believe that if the factory wanted the
> coach to be level, they would have specified that in their dimensions. If
> the rear is too high, the coach is affected more by cornering issues and
> wind steer, as well as push from 18 wheelers. You may well get all manner of
> conflicting opinions on this subject. I repair these coaches for others, and
> I always set them as close to factory specs as I can. Then, the factory can
> take the blame for handling issues, not me. Same on brakes.
> Jim Hupy
> Salem, OR
> 78 GMC Royale 403
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Dolph Santorine
> <dolph@dolphsantorine.com>wrote:
>
>> Folks:
>>
>> I've read the rebuilding instructions. I've read the manual from 1977. I
>> don't think I quite follow the ride height discussion here (but give me some
>> time).
>>
>> So. Should the coach be level when driving? If the rear is down, I know it
>> will have an adverse effect on the front suspension geometry.
>>
>> Level surface and level coach?
>>
>> Dolph
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Autolevel/Level/Newbie question [message #138383 is a reply to message #138376] |
Thu, 11 August 2011 00:01 |
sgltrac
Messages: 2797
Registered: April 2011
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
maintenance manual
I asked the same thng a week ago :)
sully
77 royale
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Dolph Santorine
<dolph@dolphsantorine.com>wrote:
> MM?
>
>
> On Aug 11, 2011, at 12:17 AM, James Hupy wrote:
>
> > Dolph, the rear of the coach, by factory specs, is supposed to be lower
> than
> > the front. Some GMC owners dislike the appearance enough that they invent
> > all manner of reasons why the coach should be level. The front ride
> height
> > is critical. It should be as close to the specs in the MM as possible.
> The
> > rear is subject to discussion. I believe that if the factory wanted the
> > coach to be level, they would have specified that in their dimensions. If
> > the rear is too high, the coach is affected more by cornering issues and
> > wind steer, as well as push from 18 wheelers. You may well get all manner
> of
> > conflicting opinions on this subject. I repair these coaches for others,
> and
> > I always set them as close to factory specs as I can. Then, the factory
> can
> > take the blame for handling issues, not me. Same on brakes.
> > Jim Hupy
> > Salem, OR
> > 78 GMC Royale 403
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Dolph Santorine
> > <dolph@dolphsantorine.com>wrote:
> >
> >> Folks:
> >>
> >> I've read the rebuilding instructions. I've read the manual from 1977. I
> >> don't think I quite follow the ride height discussion here (but give me
> some
> >> time).
> >>
> >> So. Should the coach be level when driving? If the rear is down, I know
> it
> >> will have an adverse effect on the front suspension geometry.
> >>
> >> Level surface and level coach?
> >>
> >> Dolph
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Sully
77 Royale basket case.
Future motorhome land speed record holder(bucket list)
Seattle, Wa.
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Autolevel/Level/Newbie question [message #138384 is a reply to message #138371] |
Thu, 11 August 2011 00:17 |
 |
mike miller
Messages: 3576
Registered: February 2004
Location: Hillsboro, Oregon
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| Dolph Santorine wrote on Wed, 10 August 2011 20:58 |
... So. Should the coach be level when driving? If the rear is down, I know it will have an adverse effect on the front suspension geometry.
Level surface and level coach?
|
Dolph,
Slight terminology difference... the GMC motorhome did NOT come with "Autolevel." It was equipped with an automatic "RIDE HEIGHT" system. (NOT the same thing.)
The early coaches had a OPTION (that MOST coaches came equipped with) for dash mounted controls, called Power-Level, that allowed the operator to level the coach MANUALLY at the "campsite." I THINK these controls became "standard equipment" on later coaches. The later coaches had "Electro-Level" and "Electro-Level 2" systems.
The 3 systems work a little differently, but if working properly, you should be able to put it in TRAVEL and it will set you coach to the correct ride height. After it settles, some say to leave it in travel, others say to put on "hold." (I say it depends on how well your system works.)
JimB just posted his thoughts about when to have the coach at ride height or raised a bit... you might want to read his post. (I agree with him.... pretty much.)
OBTW: MM = Maintenance Manual
Mike Miller -- Hillsboro, OR -- on the Black list
(#2)`78 23' Birchaven Rear Bath -- (#3)`77 23' Birchaven Side Bath
More Sidekicks than GMC's and a late model Malibu called 'Boo'
http://m000035.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Autolevel/Level/Newbie question [message #138415 is a reply to message #138384] |
Thu, 11 August 2011 08:01 |
Dolph Santorine
Messages: 1236
Registered: April 2011
Location: Wheeling, WV
Karma: -41
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I should have typed "electro-level"
Which I'm sure was completely "with it" in the 70's.
Dolph
On Aug 11, 2011, at 1:17 AM, Mike Miller wrote:
>
>
> Dolph Santorine wrote on Wed, 10 August 2011 20:58
>> ... So. Should the coach be level when driving? If the rear is down, I know it will have an adverse effect on the front suspension geometry.
>>
>> Level surface and level coach?
>
>
> Dolph,
>
> Slight terminology difference... the GMC motorhome did NOT come with "Autolevel." It was equipped with an automatic "RIDE HEIGHT" system. (NOT the same thing.)
>
> The early coaches had a OPTION (that MOST coaches came equipped with) for dash mounted controls, called Power-Level, that allowed the operator to level the coach MANUALLY at the "campsite." I THINK these controls became "standard equipment" on later coaches. The later coaches had "Electro-Level" and "Electro-Level 2" systems.
>
> The 3 systems work a little differently, but if working properly, you should be able to put it in TRAVEL and it will set you coach to the correct ride height. After it settles, some say to leave it in travel, others say to put on "hold." (I say it depends on how well your system works.)
>
> JimB just posted his thoughts about when to have the coach at ride height or raised a bit... you might want to read his post. (I agree with him.... pretty much.)
>
> OBTW: MM = Maintenance Manual
> --
> Mike Miller -- Hillsboro, OR -- on the Black list
> (#1)'73 26' exPainted D. -- (#2)`78 23' Birchaven Rear Bath -- (#3)`77 23' Birchaven Side Bath
> http://m000035.blogspot.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Autolevel/Level/Newbie question [message #138429 is a reply to message #138373] |
Thu, 11 August 2011 10:13 |
 |
USAussie
Messages: 15912
Registered: July 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Karma: 6
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jim,
The factory specs say to set the front ride height at 13 1/8 inches, the
rear 11 11/16 inches. That's 1 7/16 inches lower in the back. As a
guesstimate the front slot is about 4 feet rearward from the very front of
the GMC and the rear slot about the same distance forward from the very
back. That would make the height difference at the belt line would be a bit
higher at the front and a bit lower at the rear assuming the belt line trim
is parallel to the frame. I wonder what the measurements would be at the
beltline trim if you measured just behind the front side clearance (marker)
light and just in front of the rear side clearance (marker) light.
This discussion has me intrigued and next time I get back to the USA I will
set Double Trouble's ride height dead level front to rear as measured at the
belt line and then have it aligned to 0° Camber, 5° Caster, and 0 toe
in/out. Hopefully Dave Lenzi's offset control arms will let me get that much
caster. If Double Trouble drives as well as it does now I'll leave it, if
not I'll drop the ride height to the manual specs and have it re-aligned.
Regards,
Rob M.
Sydney, Australia
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 James Hupy
Sent: Thursday, 11 August 2011 2:18 PM
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Autolevel/Level/Newbie question
Dolph, the rear of the coach, by factory specs, is supposed to be lower than
the front. Some GMC owners dislike the appearance enough that they invent
all manner of reasons why the coach should be level. The front ride height
is critical. It should be as close to the specs in the MM as possible. The
rear is subject to discussion. I believe that if the factory wanted the
coach to be level, they would have specified that in their dimensions. If
the rear is too high, the coach is affected more by cornering issues and
wind steer, as well as push from 18 wheelers. You may well get all manner of
conflicting opinions on this subject. I repair these coaches for others, and
I always set them as close to factory specs as I can. Then, the factory can
take the blame for handling issues, not me. Same on brakes.
Jim Hupy
Salem, OR
78 GMC Royale 403
_______________________________________________
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] Autolevel/Level/Newbie question [message #138440 is a reply to message #138429] |
Thu, 11 August 2011 10:49 |
James Hupy
Messages: 6806
Registered: May 2010
Karma: -62
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Rob, due to the cushioned pads between the frame and the body, some are
thick, some are thin, and the differences in shape and the way that the
plastic and metal parts are assembled on the GMC, the factory elected to
take all height measurements from the hypothetical level ground to the oval
slots in the frame. As far as I am familiar with and all the cars that I
have repaired and restored, ride height specs are always been described in
this manner. If the visual appearance is disconcerting to some, I suppose
the visual appearance could be altered by placing thicker body to frame
isolators in the rear of the coach, or by changing the position of the
beltline strip. It just is visual after all that is the objections most are
complaining about. We used to have a saying in racing, "If it won't go quick
and fast, chrome and paint it and make a show car out of it. I subscribe to
the Function first, Form second school myself. The cosmetic things are on
the very bottom of my list when it comes to working on my coach. I have had
several extremely detailed and over restored show cars in my life, the last
one being a 1961 Cadillac Coupe DeVille small roof. I spent 2 months wet
sanding that car, and you could see yourself in any portion of the car that
you chose to look at. Metallic Pearl over Dupont Negro Base coat with 7
coats of Dupont Clearcoat on top. I was almost afraid to take that thing to
car shows because I was afraid that it would get scratched. I was at Hot
August Nights in Reno at a night time show and shine parked in front of the
downtown Hard Rock Cafe. I had stepped away from the car for a couple of
minutes to BS with another car guy and when I came back to the car, two
dancers from one of the casino revues were perched on the front fender of
the car while their escorts were shooting promotional photos of them. I
about had a stroke, and told them that the only way they could sit on my car
was if they had no clothing on. They laughed at each other and for a minute
I thought they were going to comply with my request. They gave me some comp
tickets to the revue and left. Took me a few minutes to calm down.
Fortunately the rivets in their jeans did not contact the paint. Any future
hot rods I build will not be with a paint finish that makes me so nervous.
Same with GMCs.
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Rob Mueller <robmueller@iinet.net.au>wrote:
> Jim,
>
> The factory specs say to set the front ride height at 13 1/8 inches, the
> rear 11 11/16 inches. That's 1 7/16 inches lower in the back. As a
> guesstimate the front slot is about 4 feet rearward from the very front of
> the GMC and the rear slot about the same distance forward from the very
> back. That would make the height difference at the belt line would be a bit
> higher at the front and a bit lower at the rear assuming the belt line trim
> is parallel to the frame. I wonder what the measurements would be at the
> beltline trim if you measured just behind the front side clearance (marker)
> light and just in front of the rear side clearance (marker) light.
>
> This discussion has me intrigued and next time I get back to the USA I will
> set Double Trouble's ride height dead level front to rear as measured at
> the
> belt line and then have it aligned to 0° Camber, 5° Caster, and 0 toe
> in/out. Hopefully Dave Lenzi's offset control arms will let me get that
> much
> caster. If Double Trouble drives as well as it does now I'll leave it, if
> not I'll drop the ride height to the manual specs and have it re-aligned.
>
> Regards,
> Rob M.
> Sydney, Australia
> 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 James Hupy
> Sent: Thursday, 11 August 2011 2:18 PM
> To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Autolevel/Level/Newbie question
>
> Dolph, the rear of the coach, by factory specs, is supposed to be lower
> than
> the front. Some GMC owners dislike the appearance enough that they invent
> all manner of reasons why the coach should be level. The front ride height
> is critical. It should be as close to the specs in the MM as possible. The
> rear is subject to discussion. I believe that if the factory wanted the
> coach to be level, they would have specified that in their dimensions. If
> the rear is too high, the coach is affected more by cornering issues and
> wind steer, as well as push from 18 wheelers. You may well get all manner
> of
> conflicting opinions on this subject. I repair these coaches for others,
> and
> I always set them as close to factory specs as I can. Then, the factory can
> take the blame for handling issues, not me. Same on brakes.
> Jim Hupy
> Salem, OR
> 78 GMC Royale 403
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Autolevel/Level/Newbie question [message #138450 is a reply to message #138440] |
Thu, 11 August 2011 11:20 |
sgltrac
Messages: 2797
Registered: April 2011
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
You cannot remove the belt mld aluminum strip as it is the structural joint between the upper aluminum and lower composite bodyside panels. At least on my 77 royale.
Sully
77 royale
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: James Hupy <jamesh1296@gmail.com>
Sender: gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 08:49:38
To: <gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org>
Reply-To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Autolevel/Level/Newbie question
Rob, due to the cushioned pads between the frame and the body, some are
thick, some are thin, and the differences in shape and the way that the
plastic and metal parts are assembled on the GMC, the factory elected to
take all height measurements from the hypothetical level ground to the oval
slots in the frame. As far as I am familiar with and all the cars that I
have repaired and restored, ride height specs are always been described in
this manner. If the visual appearance is disconcerting to some, I suppose
the visual appearance could be altered by placing thicker body to frame
isolators in the rear of the coach, or by changing the position of the
beltline strip. It just is visual after all that is the objections most are
complaining about. We used to have a saying in racing, "If it won't go quick
and fast, chrome and paint it and make a show car out of it. I subscribe to
the Function first, Form second school myself. The cosmetic things are on
the very bottom of my list when it comes to working on my coach. I have had
several extremely detailed and over restored show cars in my life, the last
one being a 1961 Cadillac Coupe DeVille small roof. I spent 2 months wet
sanding that car, and you could see yourself in any portion of the car that
you chose to look at. Metallic Pearl over Dupont Negro Base coat with 7
coats of Dupont Clearcoat on top. I was almost afraid to take that thing to
car shows because I was afraid that it would get scratched. I was at Hot
August Nights in Reno at a night time show and shine parked in front of the
downtown Hard Rock Cafe. I had stepped away from the car for a couple of
minutes to BS with another car guy and when I came back to the car, two
dancers from one of the casino revues were perched on the front fender of
the car while their escorts were shooting promotional photos of them. I
about had a stroke, and told them that the only way they could sit on my car
was if they had no clothing on. They laughed at each other and for a minute
I thought they were going to comply with my request. They gave me some comp
tickets to the revue and left. Took me a few minutes to calm down.
Fortunately the rivets in their jeans did not contact the paint. Any future
hot rods I build will not be with a paint finish that makes me so nervous.
Same with GMCs.
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Rob Mueller <robmueller@iinet.net.au>wrote:
> Jim,
>
> The factory specs say to set the front ride height at 13 1/8 inches, the
> rear 11 11/16 inches. That's 1 7/16 inches lower in the back. As a
> guesstimate the front slot is about 4 feet rearward from the very front of
> the GMC and the rear slot about the same distance forward from the very
> back. That would make the height difference at the belt line would be a bit
> higher at the front and a bit lower at the rear assuming the belt line trim
> is parallel to the frame. I wonder what the measurements would be at the
> beltline trim if you measured just behind the front side clearance (marker)
> light and just in front of the rear side clearance (marker) light.
>
> This discussion has me intrigued and next time I get back to the USA I will
> set Double Trouble's ride height dead level front to rear as measured at
> the
> belt line and then have it aligned to 0° Camber, 5° Caster, and 0 toe
> in/out. Hopefully Dave Lenzi's offset control arms will let me get that
> much
> caster. If Double Trouble drives as well as it does now I'll leave it, if
> not I'll drop the ride height to the manual specs and have it re-aligned.
>
> Regards,
> Rob M.
> Sydney, Australia
> 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 James Hupy
> Sent: Thursday, 11 August 2011 2:18 PM
> To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Autolevel/Level/Newbie question
>
> Dolph, the rear of the coach, by factory specs, is supposed to be lower
> than
> the front. Some GMC owners dislike the appearance enough that they invent
> all manner of reasons why the coach should be level. The front ride height
> is critical. It should be as close to the specs in the MM as possible. The
> rear is subject to discussion. I believe that if the factory wanted the
> coach to be level, they would have specified that in their dimensions. If
> the rear is too high, the coach is affected more by cornering issues and
> wind steer, as well as push from 18 wheelers. You may well get all manner
> of
> conflicting opinions on this subject. I repair these coaches for others,
> and
> I always set them as close to factory specs as I can. Then, the factory can
> take the blame for handling issues, not me. Same on brakes.
> Jim Hupy
> Salem, OR
> 78 GMC Royale 403
>
>
>_______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Sully
77 Royale basket case.
Future motorhome land speed record holder(bucket list)
Seattle, Wa.
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Autolevel/Level/Newbie question [message #138471 is a reply to message #138450] |
Thu, 11 August 2011 13:28 |
James Hupy
Messages: 6806
Registered: May 2010
Karma: -62
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Sully, I know that. I was just pointing out what I believe to be absurd, the
lengths some will go to in affecting the visual image of what they feel is
"right" or correct". One is visual without regards to function, and the
other ignores visual to have the mechanical or technical aspects exactly
correct. The age old friction between designer/dreamer and
engineer/technician. They ain't never going to agree totally. <grin>
Jim Hupy
Salem, OR
78 GMC Royale 403
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 9:20 AM, <sgltrac@gmail.com> wrote:
> You cannot remove the belt mld aluminum strip as it is the structural joint
> between the upper aluminum and lower composite bodyside panels. At least on
> my 77 royale.
>
> Sully
> 77 royale
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Hupy <jamesh1296@gmail.com>
> Sender: gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org
> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 08:49:38
> To: <gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org>
> Reply-To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Autolevel/Level/Newbie question
>
> Rob, due to the cushioned pads between the frame and the body, some are
> thick, some are thin, and the differences in shape and the way that the
> plastic and metal parts are assembled on the GMC, the factory elected to
> take all height measurements from the hypothetical level ground to the oval
> slots in the frame. As far as I am familiar with and all the cars that I
> have repaired and restored, ride height specs are always been described in
> this manner. If the visual appearance is disconcerting to some, I suppose
> the visual appearance could be altered by placing thicker body to frame
> isolators in the rear of the coach, or by changing the position of the
> beltline strip. It just is visual after all that is the objections most are
> complaining about. We used to have a saying in racing, "If it won't go
> quick
> and fast, chrome and paint it and make a show car out of it. I subscribe to
> the Function first, Form second school myself. The cosmetic things are on
> the very bottom of my list when it comes to working on my coach. I have had
> several extremely detailed and over restored show cars in my life, the last
> one being a 1961 Cadillac Coupe DeVille small roof. I spent 2 months wet
> sanding that car, and you could see yourself in any portion of the car that
> you chose to look at. Metallic Pearl over Dupont Negro Base coat with 7
> coats of Dupont Clearcoat on top. I was almost afraid to take that thing to
> car shows because I was afraid that it would get scratched. I was at Hot
> August Nights in Reno at a night time show and shine parked in front of the
> downtown Hard Rock Cafe. I had stepped away from the car for a couple of
> minutes to BS with another car guy and when I came back to the car, two
> dancers from one of the casino revues were perched on the front fender of
> the car while their escorts were shooting promotional photos of them. I
> about had a stroke, and told them that the only way they could sit on my
> car
> was if they had no clothing on. They laughed at each other and for a minute
> I thought they were going to comply with my request. They gave me some comp
> tickets to the revue and left. Took me a few minutes to calm down.
> Fortunately the rivets in their jeans did not contact the paint. Any future
> hot rods I build will not be with a paint finish that makes me so nervous.
> Same with GMCs.
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Rob Mueller <robmueller@iinet.net.au
> >wrote:
>
> > Jim,
> >
> > The factory specs say to set the front ride height at 13 1/8 inches, the
> > rear 11 11/16 inches. That's 1 7/16 inches lower in the back. As a
> > guesstimate the front slot is about 4 feet rearward from the very front
> of
> > the GMC and the rear slot about the same distance forward from the very
> > back. That would make the height difference at the belt line would be a
> bit
> > higher at the front and a bit lower at the rear assuming the belt line
> trim
> > is parallel to the frame. I wonder what the measurements would be at the
> > beltline trim if you measured just behind the front side clearance
> (marker)
> > light and just in front of the rear side clearance (marker) light.
> >
> > This discussion has me intrigued and next time I get back to the USA I
> will
> > set Double Trouble's ride height dead level front to rear as measured at
> > the
> > belt line and then have it aligned to 0° Camber, 5° Caster, and 0 toe
> > in/out. Hopefully Dave Lenzi's offset control arms will let me get that
> > much
> > caster. If Double Trouble drives as well as it does now I'll leave it, if
> > not I'll drop the ride height to the manual specs and have it re-aligned.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Rob M.
> > Sydney, Australia
> > 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 James Hupy
> > Sent: Thursday, 11 August 2011 2:18 PM
> > To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> > Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Autolevel/Level/Newbie question
> >
> > Dolph, the rear of the coach, by factory specs, is supposed to be lower
> > than
> > the front. Some GMC owners dislike the appearance enough that they invent
> > all manner of reasons why the coach should be level. The front ride
> height
> > is critical. It should be as close to the specs in the MM as possible.
> The
> > rear is subject to discussion. I believe that if the factory wanted the
> > coach to be level, they would have specified that in their dimensions. If
> > the rear is too high, the coach is affected more by cornering issues and
> > wind steer, as well as push from 18 wheelers. You may well get all manner
> > of
> > conflicting opinions on this subject. I repair these coaches for others,
> > and
> > I always set them as close to factory specs as I can. Then, the factory
> can
> > take the blame for handling issues, not me. Same on brakes.
> > Jim Hupy
> > Salem, OR
> > 78 GMC Royale 403
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Autolevel/Level/Newbie question [message #138485 is a reply to message #138471] |
Thu, 11 August 2011 15:12 |
sgltrac
Messages: 2797
Registered: April 2011
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I wonder if its possible to obtain optimal suspension specs without the full diaper/trunk full of moonshine look. I find it hard to believe that the rear hanging low is necessary outside of maintaining proper suspension geometry. Almost everything on the road these days rides level or nose low (my 3/4 ton 08 suburban for example).
Sully
77 royale (diaper still full)
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: James Hupy <jamesh1296@gmail.com>
Sender: gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:28:11
To: <gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org>
Reply-To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Autolevel/Level/Newbie question
Sully, I know that. I was just pointing out what I believe to be absurd, the
lengths some will go to in affecting the visual image of what they feel is
"right" or correct". One is visual without regards to function, and the
other ignores visual to have the mechanical or technical aspects exactly
correct. The age old friction between designer/dreamer and
engineer/technician. They ain't never going to agree totally. <grin>
Jim Hupy
Salem, OR
78 GMC Royale 403
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 9:20 AM, <sgltrac@gmail.com> wrote:
> You cannot remove the belt mld aluminum strip as it is the structural joint
> between the upper aluminum and lower composite bodyside panels. At least on
> my 77 royale.
>
> Sully
> 77 royale
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Hupy <jamesh1296@gmail.com>
> Sender: gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org
> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 08:49:38
> To: <gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org>
> Reply-To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Autolevel/Level/Newbie question
>
> Rob, due to the cushioned pads between the frame and the body, some are
> thick, some are thin, and the differences in shape and the way that the
> plastic and metal parts are assembled on the GMC, the factory elected to
> take all height measurements from the hypothetical level ground to the oval
> slots in the frame. As far as I am familiar with and all the cars that I
> have repaired and restored, ride height specs are always been described in
> this manner. If the visual appearance is disconcerting to some, I suppose
> the visual appearance could be altered by placing thicker body to frame
> isolators in the rear of the coach, or by changing the position of the
> beltline strip. It just is visual after all that is the objections most are
> complaining about. We used to have a saying in racing, "If it won't go
> quick
> and fast, chrome and paint it and make a show car out of it. I subscribe to
> the Function first, Form second school myself. The cosmetic things are on
> the very bottom of my list when it comes to working on my coach. I have had
> several extremely detailed and over restored show cars in my life, the last
> one being a 1961 Cadillac Coupe DeVille small roof. I spent 2 months wet
> sanding that car, and you could see yourself in any portion of the car that
> you chose to look at. Metallic Pearl over Dupont Negro Base coat with 7
> coats of Dupont Clearcoat on top. I was almost afraid to take that thing to
> car shows because I was afraid that it would get scratched. I was at Hot
> August Nights in Reno at a night time show and shine parked in front of the
> downtown Hard Rock Cafe. I had stepped away from the car for a couple of
> minutes to BS with another car guy and when I came back to the car, two
> dancers from one of the casino revues were perched on the front fender of
> the car while their escorts were shooting promotional photos of them. I
> about had a stroke, and told them that the only way they could sit on my
> car
> was if they had no clothing on. They laughed at each other and for a minute
> I thought they were going to comply with my request. They gave me some comp
> tickets to the revue and left. Took me a few minutes to calm down.
> Fortunately the rivets in their jeans did not contact the paint. Any future
> hot rods I build will not be with a paint finish that makes me so nervous.
> Same with GMCs.
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Rob Mueller <robmueller@iinet.net.au
> >wrote:
>
> > Jim,
> >
> > The factory specs say to set the front ride height at 13 1/8 inches, the
> > rear 11 11/16 inches. That's 1 7/16 inches lower in the back. As a
> > guesstimate the front slot is about 4 feet rearward from the very front
> of
> > the GMC and the rear slot about the same distance forward from the very
> > back. That would make the height difference at the belt line would be a
> bit
> > higher at the front and a bit lower at the rear assuming the belt line
> trim
> > is parallel to the frame. I wonder what the measurements would be at the
> > beltline trim if you measured just behind the front side clearance
> (marker)
> > light and just in front of the rear side clearance (marker) light.
> >
> > This discussion has me intrigued and next time I get back to the USA I
> will
> > set Double Trouble's ride height dead level front to rear as measured at
> > the
> > belt line and then have it aligned to 0° Camber, 5° Caster, and 0 toe
> > in/out. Hopefully Dave Lenzi's offset control arms will let me get that
> > much
> > caster. If Double Trouble drives as well as it does now I'll leave it, if
> > not I'll drop the ride height to the manual specs and have it re-aligned.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Rob M.
> > Sydney, Australia
> > 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 James Hupy
> > Sent: Thursday, 11 August 2011 2:18 PM
> > To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> > Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Autolevel/Level/Newbie question
> >
> > Dolph, the rear of the coach, by factory specs, is supposed to be lower
> > than
> > the front. Some GMC owners dislike the appearance enough that they invent
> > all manner of reasons why the coach should be level. The front ride
> height
> > is critical. It should be as close to the specs in the MM as possible.
> The
> > rear is subject to discussion. I believe that if the factory wanted the
> > coach to be level, they would have specified that in their dimensions. If
> > the rear is too high, the coach is affected more by cornering issues and
> > wind steer, as well as push from 18 wheelers. You may well get all manner
> > of
> > conflicting opinions on this subject. I repair these coaches for others,
> > and
> > I always set them as close to factory specs as I can. Then, the factory
> can
> > take the blame for handling issues, not me. Same on brakes.
> > Jim Hupy
> > Salem, OR
> > 78 GMC Royale 403
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> > 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
>_______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Sully
77 Royale basket case.
Future motorhome land speed record holder(bucket list)
Seattle, Wa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Autolevel/Level/Newbie question [message #138506 is a reply to message #138493] |
Thu, 11 August 2011 16:04 |
sgltrac
Messages: 2797
Registered: April 2011
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I was thinking more about raising the rear to match front once front ride height and caster are optimal.
Sully
77 royale
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: Emery Stora <emerystora@mac.com>
Sender: gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 14:30:47
To: <gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org>
Reply-To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Autolevel/Level/Newbie question
On Aug 11, 2011, at 2:12 PM, sgltrac@gmail.com wrote:
> I wonder if its possible to obtain optimal suspension specs without the full diaper/trunk full of moonshine look. I find it hard to believe that the rear hanging low is necessary outside of maintaining proper suspension geometry. Almost everything on the road these days rides level or nose low (my 3/4 ton 08 suburban for example).
>
> Sully
> 77 royale (diaper still full)
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
Not unless you raise the body on the frame. When the frame is leveled according to the GMC specs the nose will be high. If you lower the front then the axles will be constantly wobbling in the CV joints. You want the axle to be about level with the ground -- that is the inner axle and the outer axle in approximately a straight line.
Emery Stora
77 Kingsley
Santa Fe, NM
_______________________________________________
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
Sully
77 Royale basket case.
Future motorhome land speed record holder(bucket list)
Seattle, Wa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Autolevel/Level/Newbie question [message #138577 is a reply to message #138415] |
Thu, 11 August 2011 20:27 |
|
mike miller
Messages: 3576
Registered: February 2004
Location: Hillsboro, Oregon
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| Dolph Santorine wrote on Thu, 11 August 2011 06:01 |
I should have typed "electro-level" ...
|
Like I said:
"Slight terminology difference..."
Mike Miller -- Hillsboro, OR -- on the Black list
(#2)`78 23' Birchaven Rear Bath -- (#3)`77 23' Birchaven Side Bath
More Sidekicks than GMC's and a late model Malibu called 'Boo'
http://m000035.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Autolevel/Level/Newbie question [message #138613 is a reply to message #138371] |
Thu, 11 August 2011 22:46 |
Jim Bounds
Messages: 842
Registered: January 2004
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
What????!!!!
I was not there when the coach was designed, was probably out surfing, but in the 17 years I have been dealing with the aftermath that years have done to the GMC. There is nothing that accurate between the body and frame. I have seen crushed, falling out and missing body pads. I have found fuel, brake, air and LP hoses and lines crushed. I have seen body and frame condition from deterioration, damage and just falling apart. I want a good 1/2" for all that stuff to pass throught the body and frame, I don't want it to crush the body pad from front to back.
BTW, the 1973,4,5 & early 76 models do not use the "H" mold body streamer, there was a production change of the basic body structure, I know that.
I subscribe to the KISS system, making things complicated to the point every head is swimming does no good anf may damage the fun many are hoping to have with their coach. The GMC was built to use not to stare at, we fix them up to hit the road. I align then to track well, to have a soft feel and have good steer ahead and it works. I don't theorize it or get my experiences from discussions, I have a computer 6 wheel alignment machine and I have aligned machine coaches. Toe it out at all and you will be all over the road, I know that too.
I know what works and I know what I like visually. It'a all about that anyway-- what you want and what you like. The coach had designed in technology, we all know that but it also had style. There would not be so many interested in the GMC and it would not still be around if it looked bad. You cannot block this out in favor of a technical purist view of this machine, it has much more than that. If the emperor was parading around with no cloths on I would tell him.
At this point in their lives, it's past time to re refurd the GMC for use from the next generation-- as well as our use. There's no need to leave an 8 track in the dash-- therer are no tapes! Actually, I use the cassette slot for the mount of my Tom Tom. Now that is gone in favor of my smart phone! The coach is useful now as much as in the past.
There are more than technical aspests of the coach and it looks better to many when the rocker panel is level to the ground. With the push of a button I can drop the rear and make the coach handle better, a push of the button again and I can make it turn tighter-- I think thats cool hey and when I'm driving I can't see what it looks like so let the butt hang!
Relax, the coach can do a great job for many people for many reasons and yea, that too was designed in.
Jim Bounds
--------------------
--- On Thu, 8/11/11, James Hupy <jamesh1296@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: James Hupy <jamesh1296@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Autolevel/Level/Newbie question
> To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011, 2:28 PM
> Sully, I know that. I was just
> pointing out what I believe to be absurd, the
> lengths some will go to in affecting the visual image of
> what they feel is
> "right" or correct". One is visual without regards to
> function, and the
> other ignores visual to have the mechanical or technical
> aspects exactly
> correct. The age old friction between designer/dreamer and
> engineer/technician. They ain't never going to agree
> totally. <grin>
> Jim Hupy
> Salem, OR
> 78 GMC Royale 403
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 9:20 AM, <sgltrac@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > You cannot remove the belt mld aluminum strip as it is
> the structural joint
> > between the upper aluminum and lower composite
> bodyside panels. At least on
> > my 77 royale.
> >
> > Sully
> > 77 royale
> > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: James Hupy <jamesh1296@gmail.com>
> > Sender: gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org
> > Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 08:49:38
> > To: <gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org>
> > Reply-To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> > Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Autolevel/Level/Newbie
> question
> >
> > Rob, due to the cushioned pads between the frame and
> the body, some are
> > thick, some are thin, and the differences in shape and
> the way that the
> > plastic and metal parts are assembled on the GMC, the
> factory elected to
> > take all height measurements from the hypothetical
> level ground to the oval
> > slots in the frame. As far as I am familiar with and
> all the cars that I
> > have repaired and restored, ride height specs are
> always been described in
> > this manner. If the visual appearance is disconcerting
> to some, I suppose
> > the visual appearance could be altered by placing
> thicker body to frame
> > isolators in the rear of the coach, or by changing the
> position of the
> > beltline strip. It just is visual after all that is
> the objections most are
> > complaining about. We used to have a saying in racing,
> "If it won't go
> > quick
> > and fast, chrome and paint it and make a show car out
> of it. I subscribe to
> > the Function first, Form second school myself. The
> cosmetic things are on
> > the very bottom of my list when it comes to working on
> my coach. I have had
> > several extremely detailed and over restored show cars
> in my life, the last
> > one being a 1961 Cadillac Coupe DeVille small roof. I
> spent 2 months wet
> > sanding that car, and you could see yourself in any
> portion of the car that
> > you chose to look at. Metallic Pearl over Dupont Negro
> Base coat with 7
> > coats of Dupont Clearcoat on top. I was almost afraid
> to take that thing to
> > car shows because I was afraid that it would get
> scratched. I was at Hot
> > August Nights in Reno at a night time show and shine
> parked in front of the
> > downtown Hard Rock Cafe. I had stepped away from the
> car for a couple of
> > minutes to BS with another car guy and when I came
> back to the car, two
> > dancers from one of the casino revues were perched on
> the front fender of
> > the car while their escorts were shooting promotional
> photos of them. I
> > about had a stroke, and told them that the only way
> they could sit on my
> > car
> > was if they had no clothing on. They laughed at each
> other and for a minute
> > I thought they were going to comply with my request.
> They gave me some comp
> > tickets to the revue and left. Took me a few minutes
> to calm down.
> > Fortunately the rivets in their jeans did not contact
> the paint. Any future
> > hot rods I build will not be with a paint finish that
> makes me so nervous.
> > Same with GMCs.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Rob Mueller <robmueller@iinet.net.au
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Jim,
> > >
> > > The factory specs say to set the front ride
> height at 13 1/8 inches, the
> > > rear 11 11/16 inches. That's 1 7/16 inches lower
> in the back. As a
> > > guesstimate the front slot is about 4 feet
> rearward from the very front
> > of
> > > the GMC and the rear slot about the same distance
> forward from the very
> > > back. That would make the height difference at
> the belt line would be a
> > bit
> > > higher at the front and a bit lower at the rear
> assuming the belt line
> > trim
> > > is parallel to the frame. I wonder what the
> measurements would be at the
> > > beltline trim if you measured just behind the
> front side clearance
> > (marker)
> > > light and just in front of the rear side
> clearance (marker) light.
> > >
> > > This discussion has me intrigued and next time I
> get back to the USA I
> > will
> > > set Double Trouble's ride height dead level front
> to rear as measured at
> > > the
> > > belt line and then have it aligned to 0° Camber,
> 5° Caster, and 0 toe
> > > in/out. Hopefully Dave Lenzi's offset control
> arms will let me get that
> > > much
> > > caster. If Double Trouble drives as well as it
> does now I'll leave it, if
> > > not I'll drop the ride height to the manual specs
> and have it re-aligned.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Rob M.
> > > Sydney, Australia
> > > 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 James Hupy
> > > Sent: Thursday, 11 August 2011 2:18 PM
> > > To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> > > Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Autolevel/Level/Newbie
> question
> > >
> > > Dolph, the rear of the coach, by factory specs,
> is supposed to be lower
> > > than
> > > the front. Some GMC owners dislike the appearance
> enough that they invent
> > > all manner of reasons why the coach should be
> level. The front ride
> > height
> > > is critical. It should be as close to the specs
> in the MM as possible.
> > The
> > > rear is subject to discussion. I believe that if
> the factory wanted the
> > > coach to be level, they would have specified that
> in their dimensions. If
> > > the rear is too high, the coach is affected more
> by cornering issues and
> > > wind steer, as well as push from 18 wheelers. You
> may well get all manner
> > > of
> > > conflicting opinions on this subject. I repair
> these coaches for others,
> > > and
> > > I always set them as close to factory specs as I
> can. Then, the factory
> > can
> > > take the blame for handling issues, not me. Same
> on brakes.
> > > Jim Hupy
> > > Salem, OR
> > > 78 GMC Royale 403
> > >
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Autolevel/Level/Newbie question [message #138631 is a reply to message #138613] |
Fri, 12 August 2011 00:16 |
sgltrac
Messages: 2797
Registered: April 2011
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
That's a good rant!!
Sully
77 royale
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Bounds <gmccoop@yahoo.com>
Sender: gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 20:46:50
To: <gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org>
Reply-To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Autolevel/Level/Newbie question
What????!!!!
I was not there when the coach was designed, was probably out surfing, but in the 17 years I have been dealing with the aftermath that years have done to the GMC. There is nothing that accurate between the body and frame. I have seen crushed, falling out and missing body pads. I have found fuel, brake, air and LP hoses and lines crushed. I have seen body and frame condition from deterioration, damage and just falling apart. I want a good 1/2" for all that stuff to pass throught the body and frame, I don't want it to crush the body pad from front to back.
BTW, the 1973,4,5 & early 76 models do not use the "H" mold body streamer, there was a production change of the basic body structure, I know that.
I subscribe to the KISS system, making things complicated to the point every head is swimming does no good anf may damage the fun many are hoping to have with their coach. The GMC was built to use not to stare at, we fix them up to hit the road. I align then to track well, to have a soft feel and have good steer ahead and it works. I don't theorize it or get my experiences from discussions, I have a computer 6 wheel alignment machine and I have aligned machine coaches. Toe it out at all and you will be all over the road, I know that too.
I know what works and I know what I like visually. It'a all about that anyway-- what you want and what you like. The coach had designed in technology, we all know that but it also had style. There would not be so many interested in the GMC and it would not still be around if it looked bad. You cannot block this out in favor of a technical purist view of this machine, it has much more than that. If the emperor was parading around with no cloths on I would tell him.
At this point in their lives, it's past time to re refurd the GMC for use from the next generation-- as well as our use. There's no need to leave an 8 track in the dash-- therer are no tapes! Actually, I use the cassette slot for the mount of my Tom Tom. Now that is gone in favor of my smart phone! The coach is useful now as much as in the past.
There are more than technical aspests of the coach and it looks better to many when the rocker panel is level to the ground. With the push of a button I can drop the rear and make the coach handle better, a push of the button again and I can make it turn tighter-- I think thats cool hey and when I'm driving I can't see what it looks like so let the butt hang!
Relax, the coach can do a great job for many people for many reasons and yea, that too was designed in.
Jim Bounds
--------------------
--- On Thu, 8/11/11, James Hupy <jamesh1296@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: James Hupy <jamesh1296@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Autolevel/Level/Newbie question
> To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011, 2:28 PM
> Sully, I know that. I was just
> pointing out what I believe to be absurd, the
> lengths some will go to in affecting the visual image of
> what they feel is
> "right" or correct". One is visual without regards to
> function, and the
> other ignores visual to have the mechanical or technical
> aspects exactly
> correct. The age old friction between designer/dreamer and
> engineer/technician. They ain't never going to agree
> totally. <grin>
> Jim Hupy
> Salem, OR
> 78 GMC Royale 403
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 9:20 AM, <sgltrac@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > You cannot remove the belt mld aluminum strip as it is
> the structural joint
> > between the upper aluminum and lower composite
> bodyside panels. At least on
> > my 77 royale.
> >
> > Sully
> > 77 royale
> > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: James Hupy <jamesh1296@gmail.com>
> > Sender: gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org
> > Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 08:49:38
> > To: <gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org>
> > Reply-To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> > Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Autolevel/Level/Newbie
> question
> >
> > Rob, due to the cushioned pads between the frame and
> the body, some are
> > thick, some are thin, and the differences in shape and
> the way that the
> > plastic and metal parts are assembled on the GMC, the
> factory elected to
> > take all height measurements from the hypothetical
> level ground to the oval
> > slots in the frame. As far as I am familiar with and
> all the cars that I
> > have repaired and restored, ride height specs are
> always been described in
> > this manner. If the visual appearance is disconcerting
> to some, I suppose
> > the visual appearance could be altered by placing
> thicker body to frame
> > isolators in the rear of the coach, or by changing the
> position of the
> > beltline strip. It just is visual after all that is
> the objections most are
> > complaining about. We used to have a saying in racing,
> "If it won't go
> > quick
> > and fast, chrome and paint it and make a show car out
> of it. I subscribe to
> > the Function first, Form second school myself. The
> cosmetic things are on
> > the very bottom of my list when it comes to working on
> my coach. I have had
> > several extremely detailed and over restored show cars
> in my life, the last
> > one being a 1961 Cadillac Coupe DeVille small roof. I
> spent 2 months wet
> > sanding that car, and you could see yourself in any
> portion of the car that
> > you chose to look at. Metallic Pearl over Dupont Negro
> Base coat with 7
> > coats of Dupont Clearcoat on top. I was almost afraid
> to take that thing to
> > car shows because I was afraid that it would get
> scratched. I was at Hot
> > August Nights in Reno at a night time show and shine
> parked in front of the
> > downtown Hard Rock Cafe. I had stepped away from the
> car for a couple of
> > minutes to BS with another car guy and when I came
> back to the car, two
> > dancers from one of the casino revues were perched on
> the front fender of
> > the car while their escorts were shooting promotional
> photos of them. I
> > about had a stroke, and told them that the only way
> they could sit on my
> > car
> > was if they had no clothing on. They laughed at each
> other and for a minute
> > I thought they were going to comply with my request.
> They gave me some comp
> > tickets to the revue and left. Took me a few minutes
> to calm down.
> > Fortunately the rivets in their jeans did not contact
> the paint. Any future
> > hot rods I build will not be with a paint finish that
> makes me so nervous.
> > Same with GMCs.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Rob Mueller <robmueller@iinet.net.au
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Jim,
> > >
> > > The factory specs say to set the front ride
> height at 13 1/8 inches, the
> > > rear 11 11/16 inches. That's 1 7/16 inches lower
> in the back. As a
> > > guesstimate the front slot is about 4 feet
> rearward from the very front
> > of
> > > the GMC and the rear slot about the same distance
> forward from the very
> > > back. That would make the height difference at
> the belt line would be a
> > bit
> > > higher at the front and a bit lower at the rear
> assuming the belt line
> > trim
> > > is parallel to the frame. I wonder what the
> measurements would be at the
> > > beltline trim if you measured just behind the
> front side clearance
> > (marker)
> > > light and just in front of the rear side
> clearance (marker) light.
> > >
> > > This discussion has me intrigued and next time I
> get back to the USA I
> > will
> > > set Double Trouble's ride height dead level front
> to rear as measured at
> > > the
> > > belt line and then have it aligned to 0° Camber,
> 5° Caster, and 0 toe
> > > in/out. Hopefully Dave Lenzi's offset control
> arms will let me get that
> > > much
> > > caster. If Double Trouble drives as well as it
> does now I'll leave it, if
> > > not I'll drop the ride height to the manual specs
> and have it re-aligned.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Rob M.
> > > Sydney, Australia
> > > 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 James Hupy
> > > Sent: Thursday, 11 August 2011 2:18 PM
> > > To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> > > Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Autolevel/Level/Newbie
> question
> > >
> > > Dolph, the rear of the coach, by factory specs,
> is supposed to be lower
> > > than
> > > the front. Some GMC owners dislike the appearance
> enough that they invent
> > > all manner of reasons why the coach should be
> level. The front ride
> > height
> > > is critical. It should be as close to the specs
> in the MM as possible.
> > The
> > > rear is subject to discussion. I believe that if
> the factory wanted the
> > > coach to be level, they would have specified that
> in their dimensions. If
> > > the rear is too high, the coach is affected more
> by cornering issues and
> > > wind steer, as well as push from 18 wheelers. You
> may well get all manner
> > > of
> > > conflicting opinions on this subject. I repair
> these coaches for others,
> > > and
> > > I always set them as close to factory specs as I
> can. Then, the factory
> > can
> > > take the blame for handling issues, not me. Same
> on brakes.
> > > Jim Hupy
> > > Salem, OR
> > > 78 GMC Royale 403
> > >
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >_______________________________________________
> > 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
>
_______________________________________________
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
Sully
77 Royale basket case.
Future motorhome land speed record holder(bucket list)
Seattle, Wa.
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Autolevel/Level/Newbie question [message #138793 is a reply to message #138371] |
Fri, 12 August 2011 23:20 |
Bob de Kruyff
Messages: 4260
Registered: January 2004
Location: Chandler, AZ
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| Dolph Santorine wrote on Wed, 10 August 2011 21:58 |
Folks:
I've read the rebuilding instructions. I've read the manual from 1977. I don't think I quite follow the ride height discussion here (but give me some time).
So. Should the coach be level when driving? If the rear is down, I know it will have an adverse effect on the front suspension geometry.
Level surface and level coach?
Dolph
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
Set the coach to the heights mentioned in the shop manual per the slots in the frame. This is not to be taken lightly since it affects the roll center height, the weight distribution, the airbag pressures, front joint angles, brake balance, and so on. Do you think GM just pulled these numbers out of their ..s?
Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Oct 06 20:21:19 CDT 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01397 seconds
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
