Home » Public Forums » GMCnet » [GMCnet] "Bench Racing" the GMC - Modern propulsion
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] "Bench Racing" the GMC - Modern propulsion [message #224718 is a reply to message #224712] |
Sun, 06 October 2013 14:46   |
jhbridges
Messages: 8412
Registered: May 2011
Location: Braselton ga
Karma: -74
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Yeah - excepting a couple of expereinced GMCers and mechanics have more than their share or problems with them.
--johnny
'76 23' transmode norris
--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 10/6/13, anthony ezzo <ezzo@earthlink.net> wrote:
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] "Bench Racing" the GMC - Modern propulsion
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Date: Sunday, October 6, 2013, 7:13 PM
I have said it before,THE only wise choice for more/better
is a proper CAD!!
www.cad500parts.com
--
77 455 Elaganza II and 67 Animal, Built 500 Powered Eldo
_______________________________________________
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
Foolish Carriage, 76 26' Eleganza(?) with beaucoup mods and add - ons.
Braselton, Ga.
I forgive them all, save those who hurt the dogs. They must answer to me in hell
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] "Bench Racing" the GMC - Modern propulsion [message #224745 is a reply to message #224596] |
Sun, 06 October 2013 23:45 |
 |
USAussie
Messages: 15912
Registered: July 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Karma: 6
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Matt,
The response demonstrates that providing a response to this kind of bullshit is a waste of your time and experience.
Regards,
Rob M.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sigmund Frankenfelter
Matt Colie wrote on Fri, 04 October 2013 17:33
> There is this small ELEPHANT that everybody that proposes these things has missed.
>
> Until the mid-80s when the computer power needed became available, everything was over designed so there would not be warranty
issues. That day in 1982, everything changed. Now, everything could be designed to be just good enough to get to the end of
warranty. That is why there was enough reserve in even a 403 driveline to drag a 14.000# coach. They don't make that mistake any
more and have not for a long time.
>
> When Chrysler looked at building the original minivans, they hashed about for a very long time before the put the driveline that
they had in that heavy a vehicle.
>
> Matt
I am not sure about your premise - pre 80s overbuilding - but assuming it's true, if I am a billionaire and the thing explodes,
I will just laugh it off at the party at the castle.
_______________________________________________
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] "Bench Racing" the GMC - Modern propulsion [message #224746 is a reply to message #224571] |
Mon, 07 October 2013 00:14 |
Ronald Pottol
Messages: 505
Registered: September 2012
Location: Redwood City, California
Karma: -2
|
Senior Member |
|
|
And in case anyone forgot how that worked out, those minivans were known to
eat transmissions.
Plato seems wrong to me today.
On Oct 4, 2013 5:34 PM, "Matt Colie" <matt7323tze@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> There is this small ELEPHANT that everybody that proposes these things has
> missed.
>
> Until the mid-80s when the computer power needed became available,
> everything was over designed so there would not be warranty issues. That
> day in 1982, everything changed. Now, everything could be designed to be
> just good enough to get to the end of warranty. That is why there was
> enough reserve in even a 403 driveline to drag a 14.000# coach. They don't
> make that mistake any more and have not for a long time.
>
> When Chrysler looked at building the original minivans, they hashed about
> for a very long time before the put the driveline that they had in that
> heavy a vehicle.
>
> Matt
> --
> Matt & Mary Colie
> '73 Glacier 23 Chaumière (say show-me-air)
> Now with 4 working Rear Brakes
> SE Michigan - Twixt A2 and Detroit
> _______________________________________________
> 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
1973 26' GM outfitted
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] "Bench Racing" the GMC - Modern propulsion [message #224747 is a reply to message #223666] |
Sun, 06 October 2013 23:43 |
 |
hnielsen2
Messages: 1434
Registered: February 2004
Location: Alpine CA
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Yes and Yes
Howard
74 Canyon Lands
455 not quite stock
Roller Rockers, Jim B's, double roller timing chain, Howell TBI FI, Patterson ignition.
All is well with my Lord
> On Oct 6, 2013, at 12:13, anthony ezzo <ezzo@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> I have said it before,THE only wise choice for more/better is a proper CAD!!
> www.cad500parts.com
> --
> 77 455 Elaganza II and 67 Animal, Built 500 Powered Eldo
> _______________________________________________
> 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
All is well with my Lord
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] "Bench Racing" the GMC - Modern propulsion [message #224748 is a reply to message #223666] |
Mon, 07 October 2013 00:49 |
|
hnielsen2
Messages: 1434
Registered: February 2004
Location: Alpine CA
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
How do I agree
Howard
All is well with my Lord
> On Oct 6, 2013, at 21:45, "Rob Mueller" <robmueller@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> Matt,
>
> The response demonstrates that providing a response to this kind of bullshit is a waste of your time and experience.
>
> Regards,
> Rob M.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sigmund Frankenfelter
>
> Matt Colie wrote on Fri, 04 October 2013 17:33
>> There is this small ELEPHANT that everybody that proposes these things has missed.
>>
>> Until the mid-80s when the computer power needed became available, everything was over designed so there would not be warranty
> issues. That day in 1982, everything changed. Now, everything could be designed to be just good enough to get to the end of
> warranty. That is why there was enough reserve in even a 403 driveline to drag a 14.000# coach. They don't make that mistake any
> more and have not for a long time.
>>
>> When Chrysler looked at building the original minivans, they hashed about for a very long time before the put the driveline that
> they had in that heavy a vehicle.
>>
>> Matt
>
> I am not sure about your premise - pre 80s overbuilding - but assuming it's true, if I am a billionaire and the thing explodes,
> I will just laugh it off at the party at the castle.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
All is well with my Lord
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] "Bench Racing" the GMC - Modern propulsion [message #224751 is a reply to message #224745] |
Mon, 07 October 2013 07:29 |
Francois
Messages: 161
Registered: October 2012
Location: Southern California
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
The further response may illustrate what happens in life when one rarely laughs
| Robert Mueller wrote on Sun, 06 October 2013 21:45 |
Matt,,
The response demonstrates that providing a response to this kind of bullshit is a waste of your time and experience.
Regards,
Rob M.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sigmund Frankenfelter
Matt Colie wrote on Fri, 04 October 2013 17:33
> There is this small ELEPHANT that everybody that proposes these things has missed.
>
> Until the mid-80s when the computer power needed became available, everything was over designed so there would not be warranty
issues. That day in 1982, everything changed. Now, everything could be designed to be just good enough to get to the end of
warranty. That is why there was enough reserve in even a 403 driveline to drag a 14.000# coach. They don't make that mistake any
more and have not for a long time.
>
> When Chrysler looked at building the original minivans, they hashed about for a very long time before the put the driveline that
they had in that heavy a vehicle.
>
> Matt
I am not sure about your premise - pre 80s overbuilding - but assuming it's true, if I am a billionaire and the thing explodes,
I will just laugh it off at the party at the castle.
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] "Bench Racing" the GMC - Modern propulsion [message #224752 is a reply to message #224530] |
Mon, 07 October 2013 07:37 |
Steven Ferguson
Messages: 3447
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I'd say forget the 5.3. The only reason that mouse motor is even able to
tow in the half ton pickup chassis is that 6 speed trans. It is constantly
shifting even with a small trailer behind it. Extremely lacking in loaded
power. Mileage is in the toilet under any kind of load. I own a 2013 and
have towed a single axle Wells Cargo Tote Wagon with my 1,000 lb motorcycle
in it, and a car trailer with my 3,400 lb car on it. Great, once in a
while, worthless for any serious load.
Steve F.
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Sigmund Frankenfelter <
ziggy.frankenf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I am still intrigued by the 5.3 liter (325 cu inch) Chevrolet FWD Impala
> engine - year 2006. It has over 300 hp, which is as much or more than the
> 403 Olds
>
> It's all aluminum with a 4 speed automatic. It's fuel injected of course
> and has variable valve timing and can shut off four of its cylinders for
> mileage. The axles attach at the rear of the engine, which means, if the
> engine were mounted in the compartment (looks like there's room) it would
> be forward of where our current engines are. Could make repair or
> maintenance more difficult.
>
> I am just thinking out loud but I think the first gear and maybe the
> second would have to be lowered to accommodate the greater weight and the
> larger diameter tires on our coaches.
>
> If my plan to become a billionaire in the next five years succeeds, I'll
> probably try it on a 23 footer.
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
--
Take care,
Steve
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] "Bench Racing" the GMC - Modern propulsion [message #224763 is a reply to message #224746] |
Mon, 07 October 2013 09:45 |
jhbridges
Messages: 8412
Registered: May 2011
Location: Braselton ga
Karma: -74
|
Senior Member |
|
|
We're getting away from GMC - but the trans problem was quickly cured. And easily cured on the original UltraDrives. First, run them on Mopar synthetic fluid. Second, at rebuild drill the mainshaft at the back (away from the inoput) large than the original hole, then crossdrill it a bit from the end. Put the newest solenoid pak on it. I average 190 - 225K miles on these toys. Haven't busted a terans since the first T&C I had at 140K.
--johnny
'76 23' transmode norris
'76 palm beach
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 10/7/13, Ronald Pottol <ronaldpottol@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] "Bench Racing" the GMC - Modern propulsion
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Date: Monday, October 7, 2013, 5:14 AM
And in case anyone forgot how that
worked out, those minivans were known to
eat transmissions.
Plato seems wrong to me today.
On Oct 4, 2013 5:34 PM, "Matt Colie" <matt7323tze@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> There is this small ELEPHANT that everybody that
proposes these things has
> missed.
>
> Until the mid-80s when the computer power needed became
available,
> everything was over designed so there would not be
warranty issues. That
> day in 1982, everything changed. Now, everything
could be designed to be
> just good enough to get to the end of warranty.
That is why there was
> enough reserve in even a 403 driveline to drag a
14.000# coach. They don't
> make that mistake any more and have not for a long
time.
>
> When Chrysler looked at building the original minivans,
they hashed about
> for a very long time before the put the driveline that
they had in that
> heavy a vehicle.
>
> Matt
> --
> Matt & Mary Colie
> '73 Glacier 23 Chaumière (say show-me-air)
> Now with 4 working Rear Brakes
> SE Michigan - Twixt A2 and Detroit
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Foolish Carriage, 76 26' Eleganza(?) with beaucoup mods and add - ons.
Braselton, Ga.
I forgive them all, save those who hurt the dogs. They must answer to me in hell
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] "Bench Racing" the GMC - Modern propulsion [message #224768 is a reply to message #224745] |
Mon, 07 October 2013 09:57 |
Keith V
Messages: 2337
Registered: March 2008
Location: Mounds View,MN
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| Robert Mueller wrote on Sun, 06 October 2013 23:45 |
Matt,
The response demonstrates that providing a response to this kind of bullshit is a waste of your time and experience.
Regards,
Rob M.
|
Hey!
remember the other 99% of us that Listen and learn!
Not a waste at all
Keith Vasilakes
Mounds View. MN
75 ex Royale GMC
ask me about MicroLevel
Cell, 763-732-3419
My427v8@hotmail.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] "Bench Racing" the GMC - Modern propulsion [message #224792 is a reply to message #224790] |
Mon, 07 October 2013 13:56 |
Ronald Pottol
Messages: 505
Registered: September 2012
Location: Redwood City, California
Karma: -2
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Granted, my Fiat was built before any of the GMCs, but it always felt like
it was built to be worked on, unlike, say, a 1976 Ford Pinto, which was
designed to be made cheap, and no regard to future work. On a Volvo list
I'm on, people do like the Fiat 500 (well, the fast versions anyways).
--
Plato seems wrong to me today.
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
1973 26' GM outfitted
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] "Bench Racing" the GMC - Modern propulsion [message #224794 is a reply to message #224790] |
Mon, 07 October 2013 14:22 |
jknezek
Messages: 1057
Registered: December 2007
Karma: 5
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| JimGunther wrote on Mon, 07 October 2013 14:32 |
FWIW: The specs show 9350 GVW (Not that I know what that means)
Seems that gets "closer" to GMC neighborhood.
If you replaced the "front works" of the GMC, you might save some pounds, no?
For that matter, maybe someone could use the Mopar chassis ? add another axle and (McGiver?) leaf spring behind it.
Frankly, the thing I worry about: FIAT heritage!
http://www.ramtrucks.com/model-compare/quick-chart/?modelYearCode=CUT201402#&variation=0,2
|
I always look at these types of threads out of curiousity but this is the first idea that kind of piqued my intellectual interest. It's a heavy vehicle setup, front wheel drive, with a short cab design. That might meet the requirements if you had a ton of money to work it through. I'd feel better if it was GVW of 15,000 lbs, but for a 23' you'd probably be in the ballpark.
I can't imagine what it would cost, and it would never be economically wise, but it is the most interesting idea to me since a boatload of money was dumped into the Duramax monsters. I just don't think you can use a simple car engine and tranny, regardless of the HP specs.
For what it is worth, I think I saw a Mitsubishi vehicle that was similar in a cab over design. It was "primarily" front wheel drive with an option for 4wd. That seemed to be an extra complication this vehicle would not have.
Thanks,
Jeremy Knezek
1976 Glenbrook
Birmingham, AL
[Updated on: Mon, 07 October 2013 14:24] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] "Bench Racing" the GMC - Modern propulsion [message #224798 is a reply to message #224794] |
Mon, 07 October 2013 15:38 |
Jeff Marten
Messages: 199
Registered: August 2013
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
A gentleman in the Denver area posted a final drive on craigslist (too bad it's the stock ratio). Chatting with him, he will be selling his coach soon. He swapped the gasser for a '98-01 6.5L diesel. He didn't give much detail, but I could inquire if there's any interest. He sent me his costing spreadsheet, $5800 for the rebuilt diesel, $3500 for the installation parts and labor.
I'm not sure if that is the same diesel that was an option for the Suburbans, but I've been told the Suburban diesels have less pulling power than the 454 Suburbans, so it may or may not be a great option.
When it's time to rebuild the GMC's 403 powerplant, I think I'm going to follow the same route I'm taking with my jetboat's current engine rebuild.
Most power gains are made in the heads. The Ford 429 in my jetboat will gain 60+ hp on head work alone. It'll be 475-500hp, close to 600 lbs/ft torque and rock solid reliable when I'm done with it. Porting and gasket matching the intake ports; blending and polishing the bowls; porting, polishing and gasket matching the exhaust ports; install larger intake and exhaust valves. Inexpensive aluminum heads for the GMC application would really be a waste of money as they need lots of work to flow as well as worked iron heads; expensive aluminum heads like Edelbrocks or TFS will perform very well out of the box, but you can virtually rebuild the complete engine including working the iron heads for the cost of a pair. The only real gain to aluminum heads is weight savings, and saving 60lbs doesn't amount to much on a 10k lb vehicle. Once the air pump (engine) is able to intake and discharge larger volumes of air, a custom-ground cam designed to make max torque in the 2800-3500r
pm range along with a high flow, gasket matched intake manifold will compliment it nicely. I bet you could easily see the 403 increase to 275hp/480tq (50% increase).
Jeff Marten
Colorado Springs, Co
1978 Royale
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
1985 Gulf Stream 34' Sun Stream
1964 Falcon 'Vert
1980 Bradley GTE
1999 Chevy Tahoe
2005 Saab 93 Aero
1987 Suzuki Intruder 1400
1978 Glastron/Carlson CV23
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] "Bench Racing" the GMC - Modern propulsion [message #224800 is a reply to message #224792] |
Mon, 07 October 2013 15:41 |
k2gkk
Messages: 4452
Registered: November 2009
Karma: -8
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I really wish Fiat would come back with a modern incarnation of my '68 124 Spider I had in Germany! With just 1438 cc of displacement, no speed demon, but lots of fun.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ D C "Mac" Macdonald ~ ~~
~ ~ Amateur Radio - K2GKK ~ ~
~ ~ USAF and FAA, Retired ~ ~
~ ~ ~ Oklahoma City, OK ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ "The Money Pit" ~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~ TZE166V101966 ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ '76 ex-Palm Beach ~ ~ ~
~~ k2gkk + hotmail dot com ~~
~ www.gmcmhphotos.com/okclb ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
______________
*[ ]~~~[][ ][|\
*--OO--[]---O-*
> Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 11:56:01 -0700
> From: ronaldpottol@gmail.com
> To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] "Bench Racing" the GMC - Modern propulsion
>
> Granted, my Fiat was built before any of the GMCs, but it always felt like
> it was built to be worked on, unlike, say, a 1976 Ford Pinto, which was
> designed to be made cheap, and no regard to future work. On a Volvo list
> I'm on, people do like the Fiat 500 (well, the fast versions anyways).
>
>
> --
> Plato seems wrong to me today.
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] "Bench Racing" the GMC - Modern propulsion [message #224807 is a reply to message #224752] |
Mon, 07 October 2013 17:55 |
Francois
Messages: 161
Registered: October 2012
Location: Southern California
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I had a few reasons for proposing the 5.3 as a possible platform. First of all, nowadays it's pretty hard to find a big V8 front wheel drive. They are few and far between. Secondly it's a GM product. There is a real sense that I get that a lot of the owners have a high preference for GM stuff.
Thirdly, the transverse engine, which should theoretically have better mileage than an equal engine with our longitudinal format, has the issue of torque steer. the 5.3 is apparently about as big as you can go, keeping the torque steer manageable.
There have been more than a few guys who simply do not want to convert to diesel. You see comments like "I don't want that clacking, smelly thing next to me", and "Gasoline is available everywhere. Diesel isn't "
Yes, you are going to have imperfect choices, but our own engines and the Cad engines and the diesel engines all are imperfect. Our 455s and 403s seem to get more imperfect by the day.
Sure, it would be ideal if GM were to design and sell a modern powerplant and transmission for our motorhomes with features like overdrive, fuel injection, optimal gearing, computer control of everything - - - but I don't think they will with only a potential market of about 5000 buyers.
I proposed looking at the 5.3 to contribute to the conversation.
| Steven Ferguson wrote on Mon, 07 October 2013 05:37 |
I'd say forget the 5.3........ Great, once in a
while, worthless for any serious load.
Steve F.
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Sigmund Frankenfelter <
ziggy.frankenf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I am still intrigued by the 5.3 liter (325 cu inch) Chevrolet FWD Impala
> engine - year 2006. It has over 300 hp, which is as much or more than the
> 403 Olds
>
> It's all aluminum with a 4 speed automatic. It's fuel injected of course
> and has variable valve timing and can shut off four of its cylinders for
> mileage. The axles attach at the rear of the engine, which means, if the
> engine were mounted in the compartment (looks like there's room) it would
> be forward of where our current engines are. Could make repair or
> maintenance more difficult.
>
> I am just thinking out loud but I think the first gear and maybe the
> second would have to be lowered to accommodate the greater weight and the
> larger diameter tires on our coaches.
>
> If my plan to become a billionaire in the next five years succeeds, I'll
> probably try it on a 23 footer.
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
--
Take care,
Steve
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] "Bench Racing" the GMC - Modern propulsion [message #224811 is a reply to message #224807] |
Mon, 07 October 2013 19:11 |
k2gkk
Messages: 4452
Registered: November 2009
Karma: -8
|
Senior Member |
|
|
The 6.0 liter block introduced in 1999 (IIRC) may bea suitable candidate.
Mac in OKC
Money Pit
Sent from my eiPhone
On Oct 7, 2013, at 17:55, "Sigmund Frankenfelter" <ziggy.frankenf@gmail.com> wrote:
I had a few reasons for proposing the 5.3 as a possible platform. First of all, nowadays it's pretty hard to find a big V8 front wheel drive. They are few and far between. Secondly it's a GM product. There is a real sense that I get that a lot of the owners have a high preference for GM stuff.
Thirdly, the transverse engine, which should theoretically have better mileage than an equal engine with our longitudinal format, has the issue of torque steer. the 5.3 is apparently about as big as you can go, keeping the torque steer manageable.
There have been more than a few guys who simply do not want to convert to diesel. You see comments like "I don't want that clacking, smelly thing next to me", and "Gasoline is available everywhere. Diesel isn't "
Yes, you are going to have imperfect choices, but our own engines and the Cad engines and the diesel engines all are imperfect. Our 455s and 403s seem to get more imperfect by the day.
Sure, it would be ideal if GM were to design and sell a modern powerplant and transmission for our motorhomes with features like overdrive, fuel injection, optimal gearing, computer control of everything - - - but I don't think they will with only a potential market of about 5000 buyers.
I proposed looking at the 5.3 to contribute to the conversation.
Steven Ferguson wrote on Mon, 07 October 2013 05:37
> I'd say forget the 5.3........ Great, once in a
> while, worthless for any serious load.
> Steve F.
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Sigmund Frankenfelter <
> ziggy.frankenf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I am still intrigued by the 5.3 liter (325 cu inch) Chevrolet FWD Impala
>> engine - year 2006. It has over 300 hp, which is as much or more than the
>> 403 Olds
>>
>> It's all aluminum with a 4 speed automatic. It's fuel injected of course
>> and has variable valve timing and can shut off four of its cylinders for
>> mileage. The axles attach at the rear of the engine, which means, if the
>> engine were mounted in the compartment (looks like there's room) it would
>> be forward of where our current engines are. Could make repair or
>> maintenance more difficult.
>>
>> I am just thinking out loud but I think the first gear and maybe the
>> second would have to be lowered to accommodate the greater weight and the
>> larger diameter tires on our coaches.
>>
>> If my plan to become a billionaire in the next five years succeeds, I'll
>> probably try it on a 23 footer.
>> _______________________________________________
>> GMCnet mailing list
>> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
>> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
>
>
> --
> Take care,
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> 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] "Bench Racing" the GMC - Modern propulsion [message #224813 is a reply to message #224800] |
Mon, 07 October 2013 19:19 |
jhbridges
Messages: 8412
Registered: May 2011
Location: Braselton ga
Karma: -74
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I put a squillion miles on a '76 128 sedan. Perfectly good little car, cheeeep to buy and to run.
--johnny
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 10/7/13, D C _Mac_ Macdonald <k2gkk@hotmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] "Bench Racing" the GMC - Modern propulsion
To: "GMC Mail List" <gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org>
Date: Monday, October 7, 2013, 8:41 PM
I really wish Fiat would come back
with a modern incarnation of my '68 124 Spider I had in
Germany! With just 1438 cc of displacement, no speed demon,
but lots of fun.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ D C "Mac" Macdonald ~ ~~
~ ~ Amateur Radio - K2GKK ~ ~
~ ~ USAF and FAA, Retired ~ ~
~ ~ ~ Oklahoma City, OK ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ "The Money Pit" ~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~ TZE166V101966 ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ '76 ex-Palm Beach ~ ~ ~
~~ k2gkk + hotmail dot com ~~
~ www.gmcmhphotos.com/okclb ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
______________
*[ ]~~~[][ ][|\
*--OO--[]---O-*
> Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 11:56:01 -0700
> From: ronaldpottol@gmail.com
> To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] "Bench Racing" the GMC - Modern
propulsion
>
> Granted, my Fiat was built before any of the GMCs, but
it always felt like
> it was built to be worked on, unlike, say, a 1976 Ford
Pinto, which was
> designed to be made cheap, and no regard to future
work. On a Volvo list
> I'm on, people do like the Fiat 500 (well, the fast
versions anyways).
>
>
> --
> Plato seems wrong to me today.
_______________________________________________
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
Foolish Carriage, 76 26' Eleganza(?) with beaucoup mods and add - ons.
Braselton, Ga.
I forgive them all, save those who hurt the dogs. They must answer to me in hell
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] "Bench Racing" the GMC - Modern propulsion [message #224814 is a reply to message #223666] |
Mon, 07 October 2013 19:34 |
|
hnielsen2
Messages: 1434
Registered: February 2004
Location: Alpine CA
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ziggy
How many 403, 455 Olds or 500 Cads are you looking for ?
I can dig up some more around the south west.
I just gave away a 500 Cad with a 425 trans.
Please read what Steve stated.
The only other way to go is Diesel.
Detroit is and will no longer be turning out large displacement engines.
The 5.3 is a fine hot rod engine.
With 500 HP and 24 MPG if you work it a little.
More if you like and can afford to blow and rebuild engines.
It's not torque engine.
I appreciate you trying to come up with a better idea.
My thinking is this the next generation of owners will not be concerned at a Diesel.
That's where the market will go when you can no longer find good blocks.
We will all be gone by the.
I'll give you a quick story.
My good neighbor friend is the owner of three Model T's.
He is still running the stock 100 year old engines blocks.
Another neighbor is into Model A's same story just a few years newer.
Thanks
Howard
Alpine Ca
74 Canyon Lands not quite stock
Running a strong 455 with the stock block.
Roller Rockers, Jim B cam., Roller Chain, Patterson ignition, Howell TBI.
PS Toque steering?
Only if I'm pulling out and turning on wet grass.
All is well with my Lord
> On Oct 7, 2013, at 15:55, Sigmund Frankenfelter <ziggy.frankenf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> I had a few reasons for proposing the 5.3 as a possible platform. First of all, nowadays it's pretty hard to find a big V8 front wheel drive. They are few and far between. Secondly it's a GM product. There is a real sense that I get that a lot of the owners have a high preference for GM stuff.
>
> Thirdly, the transverse engine, which should theoretically have better mileage than an equal engine with our longitudinal format, has the issue of torque steer. the 5.3 is apparently about as big as you can go, keeping the torque steer manageable.
>
> There have been more than a few guys who simply do not want to convert to diesel. You see comments like "I don't want that clacking, smelly thing next to me", and "Gasoline is available everywhere. Diesel isn't "
>
> Yes, you are going to have imperfect choices, but our own engines and the Cad engines and the diesel engines all are imperfect. Our 455s and 403s seem to get more imperfect by the day.
>
> Sure, it would be ideal if GM were to design and sell a modern powerplant and transmission for our motorhomes with features like overdrive, fuel injection, optimal gearing, computer control of everything - - - but I don't think they will with only a potential market of about 5000 buyers.
>
> I proposed looking at the 5.3 to contribute to the conversation.
>
>
>
> Steven Ferguson wrote on Mon, 07 October 2013 05:37
>> I'd say forget the 5.3........ Great, once in a
>> while, worthless for any serious load.
>> Steve F.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Sigmund Frankenfelter <
>> ziggy.frankenf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am still intrigued by the 5.3 liter (325 cu inch) Chevrolet FWD Impala
>>> engine - year 2006. It has over 300 hp, which is as much or more than the
>>> 403 Olds
>>>
>>> It's all aluminum with a 4 speed automatic. It's fuel injected of course
>>> and has variable valve timing and can shut off four of its cylinders for
>>> mileage. The axles attach at the rear of the engine, which means, if the
>>> engine were mounted in the compartment (looks like there's room) it would
>>> be forward of where our current engines are. Could make repair or
>>> maintenance more difficult.
>>>
>>> I am just thinking out loud but I think the first gear and maybe the
>>> second would have to be lowered to accommodate the greater weight and the
>>> larger diameter tires on our coaches.
>>>
>>> If my plan to become a billionaire in the next five years succeeds, I'll
>>> probably try it on a 23 footer.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GMCnet mailing list
>>> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
>>> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Take care,
>> Steve
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
All is well with my Lord
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] "Bench Racing" the GMC - Modern propulsion [message #224819 is a reply to message #223666] |
Mon, 07 October 2013 20:33 |
|
hnielsen2
Messages: 1434
Registered: February 2004
Location: Alpine CA
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
As I said no big blocks up next Diesels
Howard
All is well with my Lord
> On Oct 7, 2013, at 13:38, Jeff Marten <jtmarten@msn.com> wrote:
>
> A gentleman in the Denver area posted a final drive on craigslist (too bad it's the stock ratio). Chatting with him, he will be selling his coach soon. He swapped the gasser for a '98-01 6.5L diesel. He didn't give much detail, but I could inquire if there's any interest. He sent me his costing spreadsheet, $5800 for the rebuilt diesel, $3500 for the installation parts and labor.
>
> I'm not sure if that is the same diesel that was an option for the Suburbans, but I've been told the Suburban diesels have less pulling power than the 454 Suburbans, so it may or may not be a great option.
>
>
>
>
>
> When it's time to rebuild the GMC's 403 powerplant, I think I'm going to follow the same route I'm taking with my jetboat's current engine rebuild.
>
> Most power gains are made in the heads. The Ford 429 in my jetboat will gain 60+ hp on head work alone. It'll be 475-500hp, close to 600 lbs/ft torque and rock solid reliable when I'm done with it. Porting and gasket matching the intake ports; blending and polishing the bowls; porting, polishing and gasket matching the exhaust ports; install larger intake and exhaust valves. Inexpensive aluminum heads for the GMC application would really be a waste of money as they need lots of work to flow as well as worked iron heads; expensive aluminum heads like Edelbrocks or TFS will perform very well out of the box, but you can virtually rebuild the complete engine including working the iron heads for the cost of a pair. The only real gain to aluminum heads is weight savings, and saving 60lbs doesn't amount to much on a 10k lb vehicle. Once the air pump (engine) is able to intake and discharge larger volumes of air, a custom-ground cam designed to make max torque in the 2800-350
0r
> pm range along with a high flow, gasket matched intake manifold will compliment it nicely. I bet you could easily see the 403 increase to 275hp/480tq (50% increase).
>
>
>
> Jeff Marten
>
> Colorado Springs, Co
>
> 1978 Royale
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
All is well with my Lord
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed Aug 28 11:11:31 CDT 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03010 seconds
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
