| Standard rear suspension [message #160886] |
Sun, 19 February 2012 12:32  |
Bob de Kruyff
Messages: 4260
Registered: January 2004
Location: Chandler, AZ
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I thought I'd start a new thread on this. Supposedly there was a standard self leveling suspension with no driver adjustable controls. It would maintain design ride height but would not allow raising or lowering. It apparently existed during the power level and electrolevel I days on both transmodes and regular coaches. Has anyone ever seen one of these? Maybe Bill B can shed some light on whether GM really built any of them.
Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Standard rear suspension [message #160893 is a reply to message #160886] |
Sun, 19 February 2012 14:25  |
Ken Henderson
Messages: 8726
Registered: March 2004
Location: Americus, GA
Karma: 9
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I saw the diagram for it in a manual last night and was sort of wondering
the same thing because I'd never heard of one.
Ken H.
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Bob de Kruyff wrote:
>
>
> I thought I'd start a new thread on this. Supposedly there was a standard
> self leveling suspension with no driver adjustable controls. It would
> maintain design ride height but would not allow raising or lowering. It
> apparently existed during the power level and electrolevel I days on both
> transmodes and regular coaches. Has anyone ever seen one of these? Maybe
> Bill B can shed some light on whether GM really built any of them.
> --
>
_______________________________________________
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Standard rear suspension [message #160895 is a reply to message #160886] |
Sun, 19 February 2012 14:34 |
bryant374
Messages: 563
Registered: May 2004
Location: Pleasant Valley, NY 12569
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>
>
Has anyone ever seen one of these?
>
>
Yes.
Oh......, you wanted more.
Not sure if this is what you had in mind, but it partially fits your description:
"Suspension Leveler power assist", option GYE was an option from 1973 thru 1977. If you didn't have this option you had air bags with Schraders, that's it. You managed them like you would your tires. I have seen 2 examples of this, both 23', both Midas/Crestmonts.
List price of this option was:
1973 $85
1975 $100
1977 $160
1978 Standard in base price
Sorry for being a smart a*s
Bill Bryant
PO 1976~PB (owned 34 years)
1914 Ford (owned 70 years)
1965 Corvette (owned 39 years)
GMC Motorhome History
|
|
|
|
| Re: Standard rear suspension [message #160907 is a reply to message #160895] |
Sun, 19 February 2012 16:29 |
midlf
Messages: 2212
Registered: July 2007
Location: SE Wisc. (Palmyra)
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| bryant374 wrote on Sun, 19 February 2012 14:34 |
>
"Suspension Leveler power assist", option GYE was an option from 1973 thru 1977. If you didn't have this option you had air bags with Schraders, that's it. You managed them like you would your tires. I have seen 2 examples of this, both 23', both Midas/Crestmonts.
List price of this option was:
1973 $85
1975 $100
1977 $160
1978 Standard in base price
Sorry for being a smart a*s
|
???? My '74 has option GYE401 "POWER SUSP LEVELER". From my shop manual description this is the auto ride height system with the power level dash valves. If you did not have the option the shop manual describes a system that still has the auto ride height valves feeding the bags but with no dash valves (and a lot simpler plumbing.) No mention in the shop manual or operators manual of bags with only Schrader valves. ?????
Steve Southworth
1974 Glacier TZE064V100150 (for workin on)
1975 Transmode TZE365V100394 (parts & spares)
Palmyra WI
|
|
|
|
| Re: Standard rear suspension [message #160914 is a reply to message #160907] |
Sun, 19 February 2012 16:47 |
bryant374
Messages: 563
Registered: May 2004
Location: Pleasant Valley, NY 12569
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
???? My '74 has option GYE401 "POWER SUSP LEVELER". From my shop manual description this is the auto ride height system with the power level dash valves. If you did not have the option the shop manual describes a system that still has the auto ride height valves feeding the bags but with no dash valves (and a lot simpler plumbing.) No mention in the shop manual or operators manual of bags with only Schrader valves. ?????
Steve,
You are absolutely correct! I had no sooner sent my email when I realized my goof. Sorry about that, I should have given it more thought.
Bill Bryant
PO 1976~PB (owned 34 years)
1914 Ford (owned 70 years)
1965 Corvette (owned 39 years)
GMC Motorhome History
|
|
|
|
| Re: Standard rear suspension [message #160921 is a reply to message #160886] |
Sun, 19 February 2012 19:18 |
C Boyd
Messages: 2629
Registered: April 2006
Karma: 18
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Bob: Yep my 76 Crestmont. no dash controls. It does have the air compressor, tank, and leveling valves.
http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/showphoto.php?photo=41180&title=crestmont-dash&cat=5571
| Bob de Kruyff wrote on Sun, 19 February 2012 13:32 |
I thought I'd start a new thread on this. Supposedly there was a standard self leveling suspension with no driver adjustable controls. It would maintain design ride height but would not allow raising or lowering. It apparently existed during the power level and electrolevel I days on both transmodes and regular coaches. Has anyone ever seen one of these? Maybe Bill B can shed some light on whether GM really built any of them.
|
C. Boyd
76 Crestmont
East Tennessee
|
|
|
|
| Re: Standard rear suspension [message #160926 is a reply to message #160921] |
Sun, 19 February 2012 20:54 |
Bob de Kruyff
Messages: 4260
Registered: January 2004
Location: Chandler, AZ
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| C Boyd wrote on Sun, 19 February 2012 18:18 |
Hi Bob: Yep my 76 Crestmont. no dash controls. It does have the air compressor, tank, and leveling valves.
http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/showphoto.php?photo=41180&title=crestmont-dash&cat=5571
| Bob de Kruyff wrote on Sun, 19 February 2012 13:32 |
I thought I'd start a new thread on this. Supposedly there was a standard self leveling suspension with no driver adjustable controls. It would maintain design ride height but would not allow raising or lowering. It apparently existed during the power level and electrolevel I days on both transmodes and regular coaches. Has anyone ever seen one of these? Maybe Bill B can shed some light on whether GM really built any of them.
|
|
WOW that has to be a rare beast!
Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ
|
|
|
|
| Re: Standard rear suspension [message #160927 is a reply to message #160914] |
Sun, 19 February 2012 20:58 |
Bob de Kruyff
Messages: 4260
Registered: January 2004
Location: Chandler, AZ
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| bryant374 wrote on Sun, 19 February 2012 15:47 |
???? My '74 has option GYE401 "POWER SUSP LEVELER". From my shop manual description this is the auto ride height system with the power level dash valves. If you did not have the option the shop manual describes a system that still has the auto ride height valves feeding the bags but with no dash valves (and a lot simpler plumbing.) No mention in the shop manual or operators manual of bags with only Schrader valves. ?????
Steve,
You are absolutely correct! I had no sooner sent my email when I realized my goof. Sorry about that, I should have given it more thought.
|
The reason I asked pertains to the overall question of why GM offered self leveling. If they built the simplified system it indicates to me that they always wanted to make sure the coach would be at production intent trim heights.
Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Standard rear suspension [message #160928 is a reply to message #160894] |
Sun, 19 February 2012 21:07 |
Bob de Kruyff
Messages: 4260
Registered: January 2004
Location: Chandler, AZ
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Exactly Rob--that's why I was wondering since I have never seen one nor heard of anyone talking about one.. This relates to the other question f why GM offered a self leveling suspension. In my mind it susbstantiates that GM felt it was imparative that the coach be level under all conditions.
Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Standard rear suspension [message #160945 is a reply to message #160926] |
Sun, 19 February 2012 23:33 |
Ken Burton
Messages: 10030
Registered: January 2004
Location: Hebron, Indiana
Karma: 10
|
Senior Member |
|
|
My 89 Toronado and many GM Cars had air suspension on the rear with no driver control. If the switch sensed it was low the compressor kicked in and aired up the suspension. If it was high it released some air. I have seen it kick in many times when I added stuff to the trunk.
I think we worry and modify the GMC air suspension too much. It works great as designed. It a part breaks replace it. It the air leaks, fix it, and be done with it.
I've never heard of people worrying about how much air pressure was in their system on other vehicles. Many do not even know there is air involved. They just drive them and fix them if something wears out or breaks.
Ken Burton - N9KB
76 Palm Beach
Hebron, Indiana
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Standard rear suspension [message #161252 is a reply to message #161243] |
Thu, 23 February 2012 17:12 |
James Hupy
Messages: 6806
Registered: May 2010
Karma: -62
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Greg, the technology did not exist for the electronic ride height
controllers when they built the original coaches in 72-73. I have been told
that they fashioned the rear suspension after the Citroen system, but gave
up on the pneumatic/hydraulic system, and went to strictly pneumatic. As
the technology became available later in the production run, I think late
77 and 78 models had the EL II which had electronic ride height controls,
and no air hoses, valves, or compressor up front. EL II once sorted out is
very reliable, and is not prone to as many air leaks as the earlier styles.
Jim Hupy
Salem, OR
78 GMC Royale 403
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Greg and April
<gregandapril@earthlink.net>wrote:
> I'm wondering why they ran more fragile air lines from back to front like
> that, instead of just more durable wires that controlled valves near the
> rear of the coach.
> .
>
> Greg H.
>
> I don't just march to the beat of my own drum - I have an entire brass band
> to keep me company.
>
> .
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Southworth" <midlf@centurytel.net>
> To: <gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org>
> Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 15:29
> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Standard rear suspension
>
>
> >
> >
> > bryant374 wrote on Sun, 19 February 2012 14:34
> >> >
> >> "Suspension Leveler power assist", option GYE was an option from 1973
> >> thru 1977. If you didn't have this option you had air bags with
> >> Schraders, that's it. You managed them like you would your tires. I
> have
> >> seen 2 examples of this, both 23', both Midas/Crestmonts.
> >>
> >> List price of this option was:
> >> 1973 $85
> >> 1975 $100
> >> 1977 $160
> >> 1978 Standard in base price
> >>
> >> Sorry for being a smart a*s
> >
> >
> > ???? My '74 has option GYE401 "POWER SUSP LEVELER". From my shop manual
> > description this is the auto ride height system with the power level dash
> > valves. If you did not have the option the shop manual describes a
> system
> > that still has the auto ride height valves feeding the bags but with no
> > dash valves (and a lot simpler plumbing.) No mention in the shop manual
> > or operators manual of bags with only Schrader valves. ?????
> > --
> > Steve Southworth
> > 1974 Glacier TZE064V100150 (for workin on)
> > 1975 Transmode TZE365V100394 (parts & spares)
> > Palmyra WI
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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] Standard rear suspension [message #161285 is a reply to message #161252] |
Thu, 23 February 2012 19:55 |
 |
mike miller
Messages: 3576
Registered: February 2004
Location: Hillsboro, Oregon
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| James Hupy wrote on Thu, 23 February 2012 15:12 |
... I think late 77 and 78 models had the EL II which had electronic ride height controls, and no air hoses, valves, or compressor up front. EL II once sorted out is very reliable, and ...
|
For the record... The EL2 was only on the last half of 1978.
I personally like it better than the other two OEM systems. (I have all three.) Could it be better? Like Duh! It was designed with 70's electronics!
Mike Miller -- Hillsboro, OR -- on the Black list
(#2)`78 23' Birchaven Rear Bath -- (#3)`77 23' Birchaven Side Bath
More Sidekicks than GMC's and a late model Malibu called 'Boo'
http://m000035.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Standard rear suspension [message #161322 is a reply to message #161243] |
Thu, 23 February 2012 22:47 |
midlf
Messages: 2212
Registered: July 2007
Location: SE Wisc. (Palmyra)
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| Greg and April wrote on Thu, 23 February 2012 15:45 |
I'm wondering why they ran more fragile air lines from back to front like
that, instead of just more durable wires that controlled valves near the
rear of the coach.
.
Greg H.
|
After pulling the bundle of air lines out so I could remove the front clip on mine I can tell you "fragile" is not a word that applies to those nylon lines. I have more trouble with corroded wires and electrical connections than the air lines.
Steve Southworth
1974 Glacier TZE064V100150 (for workin on)
1975 Transmode TZE365V100394 (parts & spares)
Palmyra WI
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
