GMCforum
For enthusiast of the Classic GMC Motorhome built from 1973 to 1978. A web-based mirror of the GMCnet mailing list.
Home » Public Forums » GMCnet » TZE166V902114 the odd number project.
Re: [GMCnet] TZE166V902114 the odd number project. [message #292114 is a reply to message #292111] Mon, 14 December 2015 23:16 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
James Hupy is currently offline  James Hupy   United States
Messages: 6806
Registered: May 2010
Karma:
Senior Member
What's your point?. If you just want to stir crap to see if it stinks, you
have succeeded. Now it would be my Christmas wish that you stop wasting
bandwidth with this subject.
Jim Hupy
Salem, Or.
78 GMC ROYALE 403
On Dec 14, 2015 8:25 PM, "notavailable" wrote:

> bryant374 wrote on Mon, 14 December 2015 16:25
>> Sorry I missed your previous post before acquiring your coach, I do not
> view the net as frequently as I did in earlier years.
>
>
> no need for apology, a member had mentioned you when I first joined and
> asked so Im glad you have posted this time around.
>
>
>
>
> bryant374 wrote on Mon, 14 December 2015 16:25
>> FYI, I have been a GMCMH owner for 30 years and have written a few
> articles on GMCMH history. I hope you will accept that as possibly knowing a
>> few details about GMCs.
>
>
> I admit that was it not for you collecting and freely sharing your
> information on the net, I probably wouldnt have made the decision to take
> on such a
> huge project. your enthusiasm (as well as others here of course) for these
> machines may be contagious?
>
> bryant374 wrote on Mon, 14 December 2015 16:25
>> The "bold claim" I made about your invalid TZE166V902114 is quite easy
> to explain, in fact you are the one that provided the proof.
>
>
> Ive only presented evidence that *seems* to support your claim.
>
>
>
> bryant374 wrote on Mon, 14 December 2015 16:25
>> The side tag EMBOSSED with the number 902114 is a genuine GMCMH ORDER
> NUMBER and was never used as a valid TZE# (yes, I used the word "never".
>
>
> you just did it again, made another claim. LOL would you agree that the
> burden of proof lies on the claimant? unfourtunately, Im not so easily
> swayed,
> I question everything (as all men should, they owe it to themselves first
> and foremost IMO)
>
>
> bryant374 wrote on Mon, 14 December 2015 16:25
>> The TZE numbers started each model year at, "V100000" & continued in
> numerical sequence to the last coach produced that model year, then reset to
>> V100000 for the start of the next year.
>
>
> that seems to make sense but can there be no exceptions?
>
> bryant374 wrote on Mon, 14 December 2015 16:25
>> The TZE tag on the front of the firewall is blatantly bogus as follows:
>
>
> tsk tsk ;)
>
> bryant374 wrote on Mon, 14 December 2015 16:25
>> The tag identifies your coach as (166) a 26' coach 1976 model year. With
> all of the photos YOU show, I do not see a single feature that indicates
>> a 1976, I pointed out a number of them in my previous post.
>
> I havent found anything that suggest this coach is a 1976 model either.
>
>
> bryant374 wrote on Mon, 14 December 2015 16:25
>> The GVW indicated on the TZE tag was proper for later 1973 & 1974s. The
> GVW was increased twice for later years.
>
> then that seems to add up.
>
> bryant374 wrote on Mon, 14 December 2015 16:25
>> All the information on the tag Federally requires it be embossed.
>
>
> the way that reads doesnt technically make sense but I think I get what
> you are writing. do you or anyone reading know of the actual MV code you are
> hinting at, that would be some pretty tough evidence to overcome (but
> nothing is impossible)
>
>
> bryant374 wrote on Mon, 14 December 2015 16:25
>> Also required are the special rivets, Phillips screws are incorrect.
>
> is this also according to a specific code, if so where can it be obtained
> and does it actually apply to this motorhome?
>
> bryant374 wrote on Mon, 14 December 2015 16:25
>> Size/shape of your tag was used for 1973 & 74 only, later GMCs used a
> different shape/size.
> seems reasonable.
>
>
> bryant374 wrote on Mon, 14 December 2015 16:25
>> It certainly is nice to have so many numbers to work with, unfortunately
> none of them match, that does matter you know :^(
>
> I dont know anything LOL but Ive asked you to prove so much already lets
> agree to forget that. what would we ever do without numbers? ;)
>
> bryant374 wrote on Mon, 14 December 2015 16:25
>> I have assumed the T4Vxxxx number is probably an original, not sure of
> the last #, appears to me as T4V100324?
>> The other # appears to be T3V103036
>> Interesting as we have a pretty early 1974 (324)vs a very late 1973
> (3036).
>
>
> yes, this is interesting as it seems to show this coach was actually right
> in the middle of the shut down, no? would you agree that this could explain
> at least some of the odd numbers? (this shut down) one number indicates
> just prior to and the other just after. I think this might could lead to
> some
> interesting new chapters for the GMC history books. seems to me also to
> lend itself to a reasonable doubt that this TZE number is NOT invalid but
> possibly an anomaly that made it out just before or after a chaotic time
> frame in the GMC MH timeline.
>
> if you had not been influenced by the prior somewhat interrogative tact by
> some members here and could look at this with fresh eyes to consider. do
> you think it is possible beyond the shadow of ANY doubt that this coach
> may have made it out at that time with these numbers as they are found?
>
>
> bryant374 wrote on Mon, 14 December 2015 16:25
>> Sorry Emery, this tag is bogus for the reasons stated above. In fact
> with all the red flags including a restamped frame, I have never before seen
>> such a collection of misinformation on one coach.
>
>
>
> IMO I think the other posters conduct has contributed to these so called
> red flags you "see" I dont see them, I see possible mistakes, disruption in
> supplies, tools, the timeframe was also during the most major holidays and
> who knows what else that could have contributed to such an odd numbered
> coach.
>
> I realize that with a vested interest and now sweat equity also in this
> coach that I could easily be swayed into thinking this so I wont make that a
> claim, only that I think it cant be ruled out. Id like you to consider
> this also and see where it may lead.
>
> youve indicated that the cancelled out number would be the very last of
> the 73's that you have ever seen, I think, is that right?
>
> but the actual number that is not canceled out, where would that put it
> datewise in the timeline?
>
> also I have nothing to compare these stampings to, how does a "normal"
> coach frame stampings look? is there two there with one inverted to the
> other,
> is only one there?
>
> I cant thank those of you here enough who can think for yourselves on all
> of these things and who chime in with whatever in some type of helpful
> manor. you guys are what this supposed to be all about.
>
> there is no question that I am not an average joe and this coach is not an
> average coach but hopefully Ive posted enough info for most here to see
> that thats all this is. a little more diferentness LOL than usual but no
> ill intent or bad will.
>
> maybe there are others too? wow, this post was a chore, i sure hope it was
> worth it. those undelined and bolded replys did not show up in the reply
> box, only as HTML code so I had to work on that one. have no ide how the
> it will show on the emails LOL hopefully not add more flames to that fire.
>
> anyway thanks all of you, even the initial instigator LOL!
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]
 
Read Message icon2.gif
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: GMC Radio Comms Experiment
Next Topic: Radiator cap
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sat Sep 28 18:40:55 CDT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01045 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.1.1.
Copyright ©2001-2021 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software