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 » [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 Go to next message
USAussie is currently offline  USAussie   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 #139769 is a reply to message #139749] Thu, 18 August 2011 07:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Andrew is currently offline  Andrew   United States
Messages: 213
Registered: April 2011
Location: Connecticut
Karma: 0
Senior Member
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)
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 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RF_Burns is currently offline  RF_Burns   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 #139780 is a reply to message #139749] Thu, 18 August 2011 08:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Larry is currently offline  Larry   United States
Messages: 2875
Registered: January 2004
Location: Menomonie, WI
Karma: 10
Senior Member
Geese Rob...and I thought "I" needed to get a life...Wink


Robert Mueller wrote on Thu, 18 August 2011 00:19

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")

Cool 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





Larry Smile
78 Royale w/500 Caddy
Menomonie, WI.
Re: [GMCnet] Why was GMC setup to ride low in the rear? [message #139781 is a reply to message #139749] Thu, 18 August 2011 08:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
GeorgeRud is currently offline  GeorgeRud   United States
Messages: 1380
Registered: February 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Karma: 0
Senior Member
They just wanted to be the first "low-riders" Laughing

George Rudawsky
Chicago, IL
75 Palm Beach
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 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ray Erspamer is currently offline  Ray Erspamer   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 #139788 is a reply to message #139749] Thu, 18 August 2011 09:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RF_Burns is currently offline  RF_Burns   Canada
Messages: 2277
Registered: June 2008
Location: S. Ontario, Canada
Karma: 3
Senior Member
I think Item 7 should be 160 + 56 3/8 - 24 3/8 = 192"

Just cause we are getting so exact here!


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
Re: [GMCnet] Why was GMC setup to ride low in the rear? [message #139790 is a reply to message #139749] Thu, 18 August 2011 09:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
C Boyd is currently offline  C Boyd   United States
Messages: 2629
Registered: April 2006
Karma: 18
Senior Member
Robert Mueller wrote on Thu, 18 August 2011 01:19

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")

Cool 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











Sir Rob: The dimensional drawings gives an approach angle of 20* and a departure angle of 12* for both the 23 & 26. Don`t know if this wiould apply to your calculations or not.
http://www.bdub.net/GMCdrawings/


C. Boyd
76 Crestmont
East Tennessee
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 Go to previous messageGo to next message
sgltrac is currently offline  sgltrac   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 #139803 is a reply to message #139788] Thu, 18 August 2011 10:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
USAussie is currently offline  USAussie   United States
Messages: 15912
Registered: July 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Karma: 6
Senior Member
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



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 #139804 is a reply to message #139749] Thu, 18 August 2011 10:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
philipswanson is currently offline  philipswanson   United States
Messages: 282
Registered: January 2004
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Most are way too low because too many folks just ignore the air system and guess what, in an air system, when pressure goes down so does the ride height. Probably the most neglected part of the coach is the air system and bags.

Phil Swanson
Re: [GMCnet] Why was GMC setup to ride low in the rear? [message #139807 is a reply to message #139780] Thu, 18 August 2011 10:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
USAussie is currently offline  USAussie   United States
Messages: 15912
Registered: July 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Karma: 6
Senior Member
Larry,

Good point! ;-)

Regards,
Rob M.
Sydney, Australia
AUS '75 Avion-The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
USA '75 Avion-Double Trouble TZE365V100426


-----Original Message-----
From: Larry

Geese Rob...and I thought "I" needed to get a life...;)

Larry

_______________________________________________
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 #139808 is a reply to message #139790] Thu, 18 August 2011 10:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
USAussie is currently offline  USAussie   United States
Messages: 15912
Registered: July 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Karma: 6
Senior Member
Chuck,

I don't think so, but thanks for reminding me that those drawings exist,
they may come in handy for the purposes of figger'n this out.

I looked them over carefully but there aren't any measurements from the
ground up to the frame or axle centers as far as I can see.

Regards,
Rob M.

-----Original Message-----
From: gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org
[mailto:gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org] On Behalf Of Charles Boyd

Sir Rob: The dimensional drawings gives an approach angle of 20* and a
departure angle of 12* for both the 23 & 26. Don`t know if this wiould
apply to your calculations or not.

http://www.bdub.net/GMCdrawings/
--
C. Boyd


_______________________________________________
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 #139809 is a reply to message #139803] Thu, 18 August 2011 10:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ray Erspamer is currently offline  Ray Erspamer   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 #139810 is a reply to message #139749] Thu, 18 August 2011 11:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mgrue is currently offline  mgrue   United States
Messages: 192
Registered: October 2010
Location: Valmeyer IL
Karma: 0
Senior Member
How do you measure the left side rear? My generator is right where the oval hole should be. I have been measuring the bogy mount on the right and making the left the same.

Mark


Mark Grueninger 76 Palm Beach Valmeyer IL
Re: [GMCnet] Why was GMC setup to ride low in the rear? [message #139811 is a reply to message #139788] Thu, 18 August 2011 11:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Andrew is currently offline  Andrew   United States
Messages: 213
Registered: April 2011
Location: Connecticut
Karma: 0
Senior Member
RF_Burns wrote on Thu, 18 August 2011 10:26

I think Item 7 should be 160 + 56 3/8 - 24 3/8 = 192



Well, that changes everything..! Smile

A is 0.429 deg
B is 2.05 in

I assumed the ride height design had something to do with the differing front/rear suspension system behaviors, and trying to prevent too much frame racking by putting as much of the compensation into the rear as possible without creating a excessively weird ride for humans.



1973 Sequoia 260 (since 2011)
Re: [GMCnet] Why was GMC setup to ride low in the rear? [message #139812 is a reply to message #139749] Thu, 18 August 2011 11:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
sgltrac is currently offline  sgltrac   United States
Messages: 2797
Registered: April 2011
Karma: 1
Senior Member
Set right rear then measure from bottom of rt rear rail to floor and use that number for right same point bottom of rail (that's what I was told by this group)

Sully
77 royale
------Original Message------
From: Mark Grueninger
Sender: gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
ReplyTo: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Why was GMC setup to ride low in the rear?
Sent: Aug 18, 2011 9:03 AM



How do you measure the left side rear? My generator is right where the oval hole should be. I have been measuring the bogy mount on the right and making the left the same.

Mark
--
Mark Grueninger 76 Palm Beach
Valmeyer IL
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist


Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
_______________________________________________
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 #139816 is a reply to message #139749] Thu, 18 August 2011 11:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mike Teets is currently offline  Mike Teets   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/
Re: [GMCnet] Why was GMC setup to ride low in the rear? [message #139832 is a reply to message #139749] Thu, 18 August 2011 14:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ken Burton is currently offline  Ken Burton   United States
Messages: 10030
Registered: January 2004
Location: Hebron, Indiana
Karma: 10
Senior Member
I think you missed one. This allow two BIG people to sit up front and the coach will level out. If they sit in the rear the airbags automatically adjust. If they sit up front front the coach rides a little lower.

Ken Burton - N9KB
76 Palm Beach
Hebron, Indiana

[Updated on: Thu, 18 August 2011 14:50]

Report message to a moderator

Re: [GMCnet] Why was GMC setup to ride low in the rear? [message #139840 is a reply to message #139832] Thu, 18 August 2011 15:00 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Ken Henderson is currently offline  Ken Henderson   United States
Messages: 8726
Registered: March 2004
Location: Americus, GA
Karma: 9
Senior Member
But, Ken, our obesity epidemic hadn't started back then!

Ken H.

On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Ken Burton <n9cv@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>
> I think you missed one. This allow two BIG people to sit up front and the
> coach will level out. If they sit in the rear the airbags automatically
> adjust. If thet sit up front front the coach rides a little lower.
> --
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist



Ken Henderson
Americus, GA
www.gmcwipersetc.com
Large Wiring Diagrams
76 X-Birchaven
76 X-Palm Beach
Previous Topic: Custom Dash
Next Topic: WINDOW GLASS WANTED 1976 GMC Motorhome
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Wed Oct 09 02:21:16 CDT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03300 seconds