Home » Public Forums » GMCnet » [GMCnet] Why was GMC setup to ride low in the rear?
[GMCnet] Why was GMC setup to ride low in the rear? [message #139749] |
Thu, 18 August 2011 00:19 data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0847f/0847fa805811196e4e3f22f63b8fe680cbe1d282" alt="Go to next message Go to next message" |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ca97e/ca97ea03edf3005de83104ce4554e59940c53728" alt="" |
USAussie
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/25aac/25aac2ec55facca6bdf06b75e21ea956b649c662" alt="United States United States" Messages: 15912 Registered: July 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia
Karma: 6
|
Senior Member |
|
|
G'day,
I'm still trying to figure out why the GMC was setup with the rear end lower
than the front. Why didn't they set it up level?
It has been suggested that:
1) To get more caster
Comment: GMC could have located the mounting tabs for the upper and lower
control arms wherever they wanted to position the upper and lower ball
joints to get whatever caster they wanted; why would the locate them to
require running with the rear lower?
2) To make the fuel run into the rear tank
Comment: Quite possibly
3) Front to rear weight balance
Comment: GAWR = 4,500 lbs Front Wheels
GAWR = 8,000 lbs Rear Wheels
Comment: Running the GMC with the rear lower than the front would increase
the weight carried on the rear would it not? Why not run the GMC level?
4) Angle of attack (AoA)
Comment: I wonder how much having the rear end lower by 1 7/16" as measured
at the height measurement slots would affect AoA.
I took some more measurements the other day when I was at the workshop.
Here's a summary of all I have:
1) 13 1/8" = front ride height setting at 0" tolerance
2) 11 11/16" = rear ride height setting at 0" tolerance
3) 1 7/16" = front to rear drop at center of slots at 0" tolerance
4) 24 3/8" = center of front height adjustment slot to front axle center
5) 160" = center of the front axle to the center of the two rear wheels
(wheelbase)
6) 56 3/8" = center of rear height adjustment slot to the center of the two
rear wheels
7) 240 3/4" distance between center of front and rear adjustment slots (24
3/8" + 160" + 56 3/8")
8) 274" = end to end length of chrome trim piece on 1975 GMC Avion
9) 46 1/2" = distance from the center of the front ride height slot to the
front end of the beltline chrome trim piece
10) 34" = distance from the center of the rear ride height slot to the rear
end of the beltline chrome trim piece
I can take the measurements but my math skills are not good enough anymore
to figger the following out:
A) Using the measurements above what is the angle of the drop front to rear?
B) Using the measurements above what is the measurement of the drop at the
ends of the chrome trim piece?
It has been noted that with the front and rear ride height set as above the
front axles are straight and level with the ground with 225/75-16R tires
fitted.
I'm not sure but I think it has also been noted here that with the front and
rear ride height set correctly you can draw a straight line through the
center of the middle axle - front bogie pivot point - rear bogie pivot point
- rear axle; is that correct? I can't check it myself as The Blue Streak is
up on jack stands.
If anything I have stated is incorrect, illogical or my math incorrect
PLEASE correct it!
Regards,
Rob M.
_______________________________________________
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] Why was GMC setup to ride low in the rear? [message #139779 is a reply to message #139749] |
Thu, 18 August 2011 08:31 data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/20447/20447c0f0c6b1ce1bc93b1f96abfdbc61455764f" alt="Go to previous message Go to previous message" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0847f/0847fa805811196e4e3f22f63b8fe680cbe1d282" alt="Go to next message Go to next message" |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7a903/7a9039a9bb103f65965468cd6d8abcfd1973657b" alt="" |
RF_Burns
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/99a76/99a76c8476b67955f63ec6a929139d0f1721aa98" alt="Canada Canada" Messages: 2277 Registered: June 2008 Location: S. Ontario, Canada
Karma: 3
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Rob,
I've ponder this before as well.
- I also don't think it has anything to do with caster. Thanks for measuring the distance from the center of the bogie to the rear height adjust. That means the radius from the front axle is actually 160+56 = 216" so ~ 1/4° per inch of ride height adjustment.
- Gas tank... The gas tanks sit side by side so the 1 7/16" difference over 216" isn't going to amount to much over the say 48" between the tanks (3/10") inch.
- Weight radio... Again 1 7/16" difference isn't going to shift any meaning amount of weight.
- Angle of attack?? I know AoA as it applies to airplanes but I don't see where this would make any difference on the GMC.
One thing I was wondering about was the position of the rear bogie arms with relationship to the bogie arm pivot point. Raising the rear would put the pivot point above the bogie arm axle. The forces on the front bogie arm would cause it to tend to lift the back just as in braking? especially going over potholes... Maybe.. maybe not...
Or maybe they thought it looked cool...
or maybe someone made an error in the specs and no one questioned it!
Bruce Hislop
ON Canada
77PB, 455 Dick P. rebuilt, DynamicEFI EBL EFI & ESC. 1 ton front end
http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/showphoto.php?photo=29001
My Staff says I never listen to them, or something like that
[Updated on: Thu, 18 August 2011 08:32] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Re: [GMCnet] Why was GMC setup to ride low in the rear? [message #139786 is a reply to message #139769] |
Thu, 18 August 2011 09:15 data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/20447/20447c0f0c6b1ce1bc93b1f96abfdbc61455764f" alt="Go to previous message Go to previous message" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0847f/0847fa805811196e4e3f22f63b8fe680cbe1d282" alt="Go to next message Go to next message" |
Ray Erspamer
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/25aac/25aac2ec55facca6bdf06b75e21ea956b649c662" alt="United States United States" Messages: 1707 Registered: May 2007 Location: Milwaukee Wisconsin
Karma: -3
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I recently adjusted my ride height to the factory specs, both front and back.
The rear air system always adjusts the rear height based on load weight and it
sets it dead nuts to spec.
The rear is a tad lower, but not much in my opinion. I know it was designed
that way for handling and steering, but I think the rear being a little lower
gives the coach a nice good soft look too.
Pix link attached.
http://tinyurl.com/3rwm3oe
Ray
Ray & Lisa Erspamer
78 Royale "Great Lakes Eagle"
Center Kitchen TZE368V101144
Wauwatosa, Wisconsin 53226
Email: 78GMC-Royale@att.net
414-745-3188
Web Site: http://ray-lisa.page.tl/
----- Original Message ----
From: Andrew <reynhout@quesera.com>
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Sent: Thu, August 18, 2011 7:48:19 AM
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Why was GMC setup to ride low in the rear?
By my math,
A is 0.3421 degrees
B is 1.636 inches
Because, arctan(1.4375/240.75) = 0.3421 deg
And, tan(x/274) = 0.3421 deg, x = 1.636 in
--
1973 Sequoia 260 (since 2011)
In-transit, westward
_______________________________________________
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
Ray Erspamer
78 GMC Royale Center Kitchen
403, 3.70 Final Drive
Holley Sniper Quadrajet EFI System,
Holley Hyperspark Ignition System
414-484-9431
|
|
|
|
|
Re: [GMCnet] Why was GMC setup to ride low in the rear? [message #139800 is a reply to message #139786] |
Thu, 18 August 2011 10:05 data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/20447/20447c0f0c6b1ce1bc93b1f96abfdbc61455764f" alt="Go to previous message Go to previous message" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0847f/0847fa805811196e4e3f22f63b8fe680cbe1d282" alt="Go to next message Go to next message" |
sgltrac
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/25aac/25aac2ec55facca6bdf06b75e21ea956b649c662" alt="United States United States" Messages: 2797 Registered: April 2011
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Its low in the back so all the water that leaks in through the roof runs out the back. :)
Sully
77 royale
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Erspamer <78gmc-royale@att.net>
Sender: gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 07:15:10
To: <gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org>
Reply-To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Why was GMC setup to ride low in the rear?
I recently adjusted my ride height to the factory specs, both front and back.
The rear air system always adjusts the rear height based on load weight and it
sets it dead nuts to spec.
The rear is a tad lower, but not much in my opinion. I know it was designed
that way for handling and steering, but I think the rear being a little lower
gives the coach a nice good soft look too.
Pix link attached.
http://tinyurl.com/3rwm3oe
Ray
Ray & Lisa Erspamer
78 Royale "Great Lakes Eagle"
Center Kitchen TZE368V101144
Wauwatosa, Wisconsin 53226
Email: 78GMC-Royale@att.net
414-745-3188
Web Site: http://ray-lisa.page.tl/
----- Original Message ----
From: Andrew <reynhout@quesera.com>
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Sent: Thu, August 18, 2011 7:48:19 AM
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Why was GMC setup to ride low in the rear?
By my math,
A is 0.3421 degrees
B is 1.636 inches
Because, arctan(1.4375/240.75) = 0.3421 deg
And, tan(x/274) = 0.3421 deg, x = 1.636 in
--
1973 Sequoia 260 (since 2011)
In-transit, westward
_______________________________________________
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] Why was GMC setup to ride low in the rear? [message #139809 is a reply to message #139803] |
Thu, 18 August 2011 10:50 data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/20447/20447c0f0c6b1ce1bc93b1f96abfdbc61455764f" alt="Go to previous message Go to previous message" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0847f/0847fa805811196e4e3f22f63b8fe680cbe1d282" alt="Go to next message Go to next message" |
Ray Erspamer
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/25aac/25aac2ec55facca6bdf06b75e21ea956b649c662" alt="United States United States" Messages: 1707 Registered: May 2007 Location: Milwaukee Wisconsin
Karma: -3
|
Senior Member |
|
|
The way I check or adjust my ride height is this....
The first time I had the coach in the position per X-7525 Page 3A-20 Fig. 31, I
then cut some 2"x2" hard maple blocks that fit between the road and the bottom
of the frame at a defined location. Then whenever I want to check it or make
adjustments, I can do it very easily and quick by sliding the block under the
frame. No messing with a tape measure, etc.
Ray
Ray & Lisa Erspamer
78 Royale "Great Lakes Eagle"
Center Kitchen TZE368V101144
Wauwatosa, Wisconsin 53226
Email: 78GMC-Royale@att.net
414-745-3188
Web Site: http://ray-lisa.page.tl/
----- Original Message ----
From: Rob Mueller <robmueller@iinet.net.au>
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Sent: Thu, August 18, 2011 10:37:22 AM
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Why was GMC setup to ride low in the rear?
Bruce,
I just looked at MM X-7525 Page 3A-20 Fig. 31 - Vehicle Ride Height and
you're right, I Screwed it up!
I figger'd I would that's why I asked to be corrected!
THANKS!
Rob M.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Hislop
I think Item 7 should be 160 + 56 3/8 - 24 3/8 = 192"
Just cause we are getting so exact here!
Bruce
_______________________________________________
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
Ray Erspamer
78 GMC Royale Center Kitchen
403, 3.70 Final Drive
Holley Sniper Quadrajet EFI System,
Holley Hyperspark Ignition System
414-484-9431
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: [GMCnet] Why was GMC setup to ride low in the rear? [message #139816 is a reply to message #139749] |
Thu, 18 August 2011 11:33 data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/20447/20447c0f0c6b1ce1bc93b1f96abfdbc61455764f" alt="Go to previous message Go to previous message" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0847f/0847fa805811196e4e3f22f63b8fe680cbe1d282" alt="Go to next message Go to next message" |
Mike Teets
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/25aac/25aac2ec55facca6bdf06b75e21ea956b649c662" alt="United States United States" Messages: 299 Registered: January 2004 Location: Dublin, OH
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Another consideration... it was just style, combined with after the fact
engineering to improve steering. Style of 1977 was low in the rear...
All brochures from the time even were taken to exaggerate the high in the
front stance.
http://oldcarbrochures.org/index.php/NA/Chevrolet_Corvette/1977_Chevrolet_Corvette/1977_Corvette_Brochure/1977-Chevrolet-Corvette-02-03
http://www.heatercorereplacement.com/index.php/models/chevrolet/chevrolet-camaro-1977/
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 1:19 AM, Rob Mueller <robmueller@iinet.net.au>wrote:
> G'day,
>
> I'm still trying to figure out why the GMC was setup with the rear end
> lower
> than the front. Why didn't they set it up level?
>
> It has been suggested that:
>
> 1) To get more caster
>
> Comment: GMC could have located the mounting tabs for the upper and lower
> control arms wherever they wanted to position the upper and lower ball
> joints to get whatever caster they wanted; why would the locate them to
> require running with the rear lower?
>
> 2) To make the fuel run into the rear tank
>
> Comment: Quite possibly
>
> 3) Front to rear weight balance
>
> Comment: GAWR = 4,500 lbs Front Wheels
> GAWR = 8,000 lbs Rear Wheels
>
> Comment: Running the GMC with the rear lower than the front would increase
> the weight carried on the rear would it not? Why not run the GMC level?
>
> 4) Angle of attack (AoA)
>
> Comment: I wonder how much having the rear end lower by 1 7/16" as measured
> at the height measurement slots would affect AoA.
>
> I took some more measurements the other day when I was at the workshop.
> Here's a summary of all I have:
>
> 1) 13 1/8" = front ride height setting at 0" tolerance
>
> 2) 11 11/16" = rear ride height setting at 0" tolerance
>
> 3) 1 7/16" = front to rear drop at center of slots at 0" tolerance
>
> 4) 24 3/8" = center of front height adjustment slot to front axle center
>
> 5) 160" = center of the front axle to the center of the two rear wheels
> (wheelbase)
>
> 6) 56 3/8" = center of rear height adjustment slot to the center of the two
> rear wheels
>
> 7) 240 3/4" distance between center of front and rear adjustment slots (24
> 3/8" + 160" + 56 3/8")
>
> 8) 274" = end to end length of chrome trim piece on 1975 GMC Avion
>
> 9) 46 1/2" = distance from the center of the front ride height slot to the
> front end of the beltline chrome trim piece
>
> 10) 34" = distance from the center of the rear ride height slot to the rear
> end of the beltline chrome trim piece
>
> I can take the measurements but my math skills are not good enough anymore
> to figger the following out:
>
> A) Using the measurements above what is the angle of the drop front to
> rear?
>
> B) Using the measurements above what is the measurement of the drop at the
> ends of the chrome trim piece?
>
> It has been noted that with the front and rear ride height set as above the
> front axles are straight and level with the ground with 225/75-16R tires
> fitted.
>
> I'm not sure but I think it has also been noted here that with the front
> and
> rear ride height set correctly you can draw a straight line through the
> center of the middle axle - front bogie pivot point - rear bogie pivot
> point
> - rear axle; is that correct? I can't check it myself as The Blue Streak is
> up on jack stands.
>
> If anything I have stated is incorrect, illogical or my math incorrect
> PLEASE correct it!
>
> Regards,
> Rob M.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Mike, GMCing since 2002
77 Palm Beach, 260, 403
Dublin, OH
http://teamteets.com/gmc/
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Feb 25 17:01:01 CST 2025
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02014 seconds
|