|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Stone Stock GMC s [message #97387 is a reply to message #97373] |
Thu, 26 August 2010 19:19   |
David L Greenberg
Messages: 899
Registered: January 2004
Location: Port St Lucie, FL
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:00:10 -0700 "Mr.erf ERFisher"
<mr.erfisher@gmail.com> writes:
> Hey Dave (pops) Greenberg
>
> How many miles did you get on each of your various GMCs, which I
> believe
> were stone stock?
>
> gene
>
>
70k on the one I bought new in '75 while I was still working and
travelling all the time. (30k of that was during the 1 year sabattical
from Big Blue.
200k on the '77 model I bought in '93 Averaged about 12-13k per year
thanks to early retirement.
(Coach had 640k when I sold it) Both were very stock.
If you win a bet with this info we go halfies, right?
David Lee Greenberg
Port St Lucie, FL skype: david.lee.greenberg
Dedicated to the Preservation of the Classic GMC Motorhome
http://GMCmhRegistry.com
http://www.picturetrail.com/gmcregistry
____________________________________________________________
$350,000 Life Insurance
Coverage as low as $13.04/month. Free, No Obligation Quotes.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4c770f13792faf35f9m02duc
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
List Information and Subscription Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Dave Greenberg
Dedicated to the Preservation of the GMC Clasic
http:GMCmhRegistry.com
davegreenberg1@juno.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Stone Stock GMC s [message #97399 is a reply to message #97373] |
Thu, 26 August 2010 21:53 |
Chr$
Messages: 2690
Registered: January 2004
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Big Blue... Reminds me of my days in Burlington Vt.
-Chr$: Perpetual SmartAss
Scottsdale, AZ
77 Ex-Kingsley 455 SOLD!
2010 Nomad 24 Ft TT 390W PV W/MPPT, EV4010 and custom cargo door.
Photosite: Chrisc GMC:"It has Begun" TT: "The Other Woman"
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Stone Stock GMC s [message #97421 is a reply to message #97387] |
Fri, 27 August 2010 04:27 |
Mr ERFisher
Messages: 7117
Registered: August 2005
Karma: 2
|
Senior Member |
|
|
> >
> 70k on the one I bought new in '75 while I was still working and
> travelling all the time. (30k of that was during the 1 year sabattical
> from Big Blue.
>
> 200k on the '77 model I bought in '93 Averaged about 12-13k per year
> thanks to early retirement.
> (Coach had 640k when I sold it) Both were very stock.
>
> If you win a bet with this info we go halfies, right?
>
> --
nope no bet
just keep thinking the (non-stock) mods we are making in :
cooling, engines, brakes,electrical, etc
might be doing more harm than good.
and I want to give hope to those new owners, that just want to drive, and
drive, and drive.
(640k miles - aint bad ;>)
thanks
gene
Gene Fisher -- 74-23,77PB/ore/ca
“Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today --- give him a URL and
-------
http://gmcmotorhome.info/
Alternator Protection Cable
http://gmcmotorhome.info/APC.html
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
List Information and Subscription Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Stone Stock GMC s [message #97459 is a reply to message #97421] |
Fri, 27 August 2010 08:50 |
Bob de Kruyff
Messages: 4260
Registered: January 2004
Location: Chandler, AZ
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
""just keep thinking the (non-stock) mods we are making in :
cooling, engines, brakes,electrical, etc
might be doing more harm than good.
and I want to give hope to those new owners, that just want to drive, and
drive, and drive.
""
Gene--that's an ongoing question for many of us. I'm not sure there is a right or wrong on that. I prefer to keep mine original (mechanically at least). I think many folks modify coaches to fit their personal preferences, some do it to have fun and experiment, some do it to work around unknown deficiencies.
Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Stone Stock GMC s [message #97553 is a reply to message #97373] |
Fri, 27 August 2010 19:21 |
jknezek
Messages: 1057
Registered: December 2007
Karma: 5
|
Senior Member |
|
|
There is no doubt that GM extensively tested the GMC components to make sure they were capable for the purpose they were built with the materials at hand in the late 60s and through the 70s. From that perspective, I think a stock GMC is a very capable vehicle as a motorhome and requires little modification.
However, there are some known compromises that were made in the 1970s. The front end is certainly a weakness I would point to as a good example. The toro front end is just barely strong enough to serve the stock GMC purpose and I'm pretty sure GM was aware of it. The point is, it was good enough... just. Improvements are now possible in this area for maintenance, durability, and drive-ability that just weren't worth either the cost or the technology at the time.
I believe there are other deficiencies in the stock coaches that are only deficiencies because we are used to so much better these days. I'd point to the brakes as a prime example. The GMC stops tolerably well for a heavy duty, 1970s vintage, vehicle. Versus 2010 technology, our faster highway speeds and more crowded roads, the stock brakes are considered barely adequate.
I think other "modifications" are purpose driven. The big example is the final drive. The stock 3.07 will take you over the Rockies, slowly and if you have the patience. However, to tow a now common 3000lb car, a 3.55 or 3.70 is a substantial improvement. I don't think a 3000lb toad was a serious concern of GMC when they originally designed the coach.
As for some of the other mods, I agree with Bob that people like to tinker and try and invent a better mousetrap, even when the current mousetrap is working. A great example is the cooling system. Mine was basically stock when I got the coach. The only change has been a new fan clutch. Driving in the hot and muggy southeast my properly maintained stock cooling system has never caused the slightest problem. I'm sure we could run cooler, and it is a bit annoying to drop horsepower when the fan comes on, but I'm not really sure of the point since we don't ever approach a danger zone according to my digipanel.
There are dozens of examples of each of these categories but I would have no problem owning and driving a stock vehicle so long as I remember GM's thoughts and constraints when the vehicle was designed. That being said, there are some very useful modifications (flow-thru mufflers), some modifications that are just flat out required since the original parts are no longer available (airbags), some that provide modern technology that wasn't available in the 70s (electronic cruise control), and some that are just fun and cool (whoever just posted about wireless controls for his airbags).
While it's possible that some do harm, I'm more inclined to believe that many modifications simply don't provide any improvement or don't provide enough improvement to justify the investment.
Thanks,
Jeremy Knezek
1976 Glenbrook
Birmingham, AL
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Stone Stock GMC s [message #97635 is a reply to message #97373] |
Sat, 28 August 2010 11:44 |
Luvn737s
Messages: 1106
Registered: June 2007
Karma: 2
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I think some bolt-on improvements may be fine in and of themselves, but the integration with other systems can lead to problems.
Randy
1973 26' Painted Desert
Ahwatukee (Phoenix) AZ
|
|
|
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
