Home » Public Forums » GMCnet » Re: [GMCnet] Front end geometry
| Re: [GMCnet] Front end geometry [message #170893] |
Sat, 26 May 2012 13:12  |
KB
Messages: 1262
Registered: September 2009
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I entered those arm length and frame/hub distance numbers in the website and got completely
different results. What am I missing? Here's what I got with horizontal, and 3 inches (76mm)
down and up:
http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/member-galleries/p44314-one-ton-geometry.html
For what it's worth, our coach handles great with the one ton front end, even with a
really sloppy attempt at alignment. It was terrifying to drive before, now it's not.
confusedly,
Karen
1973 23'
1975 26'
> I went to the website and entered the dimensions for the 1 Ton upgrade using these numbers:
> Lower control arm length 14.75" or 375mm
> Upper control arm length 9.75" or 248mm
> Distance between mounting points on HUB 11" or 279mm
> Distance between mounting points on chassis 9" or 229mm
>
> The upper control arm is angled up 12.75 degrees when the
> bottom arm is level.
>
> The camber angle has a huge change from - 5 degrees to
> +2.5 degrees when moving 3 inches up to 3 inches down.
> That's 7.5 degrees of camber change
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Karen
1975 26'
San Jose, CA
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Front end geometry [message #170894 is a reply to message #170893] |
Sat, 26 May 2012 15:00  |
bwevers
Messages: 597
Registered: October 2010
Location: San Jose
Karma: 5
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Karen,
I measured the inner control arm mounting points to be offset about 75mm, with the upper control arm bushings being outboard the lower ones. The initial "Camber" on the website is the steering axis inclination angle (SAI). I measured 12.5 degrees. This angle is fixed in the steering knuckle or hub. So when the SAI is 12.5 degrees the tire should have zero camber.
When I input these numbers I get -4.39 degrees when moving up 77mm and 2 degrees positive when moving down 77mm.
http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/1-ton-suspension/p44315-1ton-motion.html
Regards,
Bill
Bill Wevers GMC49ers, GMC Western States
1975 Glenbrook - Manny Powerdrive, OneTon
455 F Block, G heads
San Jose
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Front end geometry [message #170896 is a reply to message #170894] |
Sat, 26 May 2012 16:05 |
James Hupy
Messages: 6806
Registered: May 2010
Karma: -62
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Yeah, but does it wear tires, bump steer, wander, shimmy, oscillate, or
"drive funny", torque steer ? From what I can determine by these
non-mathematic observations, the 1 Ton does most everything as good as or
in some cases much better than the OEM.
Regardless of the math involved. Just my personal observations with 6 1 Ton
installs.
Jim Hupy
Salem, OR
78 GMC Royale 403
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Bill Wevers <gmc1975@att.net> wrote:
>
>
> Karen,
> I measured the inner control arm mounting points to be offset about 75mm,
> with the upper control arm bushings being outboard the lower ones. The
> initial "Camber" on the website is the steering axis inclination angle
> (SAI). I measured 12.5 degrees. This angle is fixed in the steering knuckle
> or hub. So when the SAI is 12.5 degrees the tire should have zero camber.
>
> When I input these numbers I get -4.39 degrees when moving up 77mm and 2
> degrees positive when moving down 77mm.
>
> http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/1-ton-suspension/p44315-1ton-motion.html
>
>
> Regards,
> Bill
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Front end geometry [message #170899 is a reply to message #170893] |
Sat, 26 May 2012 17:18 |
bwevers
Messages: 597
Registered: October 2010
Location: San Jose
Karma: 5
|
Senior Member |
|
|
With 45mm up the camber changes -2.32 degrees
With 45mm down the camber changes +1.17 degrees
Bill Wevers GMC49ers, GMC Western States
1975 Glenbrook - Manny Powerdrive, OneTon
455 F Block, G heads
San Jose
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Front end geometry [message #170901 is a reply to message #170896] |
Sat, 26 May 2012 17:24 |
 |
USAussie
Messages: 15912
Registered: July 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Karma: 6
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jim,
I'll answer that question with a question.
Why did the automotive engineers design the suspension so that up and down
motion of the control arms have almost no effect on the camber and toe
in/out?
Regards,
Rob M.
-----Original Message-----
From: James Hupy
Yeah, but does it wear tires, bump steer, wander, shimmy, oscillate, or
"drive funny", torque steer ? From what I can determine by these
non-mathematic observations, the 1 Ton does most everything as good as or
in some cases much better than the OEM.
Regardless of the math involved. Just my personal observations with 6 1 Ton
installs.
Jim
_______________________________________________
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] Front end geometry [message #170902 is a reply to message #170901] |
Sat, 26 May 2012 17:45 |
k2gkk
Messages: 4452
Registered: November 2009
Karma: -8
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Moving from front to rear suspension, and from memory
(probably fading fast), I remember that Nader's target
of the Chevy Corvair as "Unsafe at Any Speed" had a
control problem at cornering limits caused by a sudden
shift from the normally slightly negative camber (helps
cornering) to a LARGE positive camber when oversteer
occurred. The rear wheel on the outside of the turn would
break loose and suddenly regain traction with the road.
At that point, the swing axle would tuck under the car
and flip it over!
Later versions had a modification to limit that problem,
but by then the damage to reputation had been done and the
car cancelled. Volkswagens had the same trouble but their
performance was much lower than that of the Corvair and
the problem happened nowhere nearly as with the Corvair.
After-market folks marketed a "camber compensator" which
was basically a transverse leaf spring which greatly
resisted the tendency for the outside wheel to tuck under.
How does this apply to the GMC coach? Probably not very
much, as I don't believe it likely that the true independent
front suspension and the weight of the coach itself would
make a "Laugh-in Tricycle" moment likely with our beasts.
I'd still like to find a Corvair Monza Convertible from the
last year or two of production! My first new car was a '62
Monza coupe! Helluva lot of fun!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ D C "Mac" Macdonald ~ ~~
~ ~ Amateur Radio - K2GKK ~ ~
~ ~ USAF and FAA, Retired ~ ~
~ ~ ~ Oklahoma City, OK ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ "The Money Pit" ~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ '76 ex-Palm Beach ~ ~ ~
~ www.gmcmhphotos.com/okclb ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
______________
*[ ]~~~[][ ][|\
*--OO--[]---O-*
> From: robmueller@iinet.net.au
> To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 08:24:38 +1000
> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Front end geometry
>
> Jim,
>
> I'll answer that question with a question.
>
> Why did the automotive engineers design the suspension so that up and down
> motion of the control arms have almost no effect on the camber and toe
> in/out?
>
> Regards,
> Rob M.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Hupy
>
> Yeah, but does it wear tires, bump steer, wander, shimmy, oscillate, or
> "drive funny", torque steer ? From what I can determine by these
> non-mathematic observations, the 1 Ton does most everything as good as or
> in some cases much better than the OEM.
> Regardless of the math involved. Just my personal observations with 6 1 Ton
> installs.
> Jim
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Front end geometry [message #170903 is a reply to message #170901] |
Sat, 26 May 2012 17:47 |
James Hupy
Messages: 6806
Registered: May 2010
Karma: -62
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Because major changes in those parameters while under way is not a good
thing. The rub of the ointment here is, "What constitutes major changes?"
With all this math floating around, and no two persons agreeing on how much
travel or alignment angles are involved, does not do much towards solving
the problem, or for that mater, establishing if there even is a problem.
Jim Hupy
Salem, OR
78 GMC Royale 403
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Robert Mueller <robmueller@iinet.net.au>wrote:
> Jim,
>
> I'll answer that question with a question.
>
> Why did the automotive engineers design the suspension so that up and down
> motion of the control arms have almost no effect on the camber and toe
> in/out?
>
> Regards,
> Rob M.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Hupy
>
> Yeah, but does it wear tires, bump steer, wander, shimmy, oscillate, or
> "drive funny", torque steer ? From what I can determine by these
> non-mathematic observations, the 1 Ton does most everything as good as or
> in some cases much better than the OEM.
> Regardless of the math involved. Just my personal observations with 6 1 Ton
> installs.
> Jim
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Front end geometry [message #170904 is a reply to message #170903] |
Sat, 26 May 2012 18:29 |
|
USAussie
Messages: 15912
Registered: July 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Karma: 6
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jim,
You've expressed my point perfectly and I agree whole heartedly.
From where I sit we're a bunch of "backyard engineers" none of whom have
designed a suspension system as far as I know.
"We" don't know if the changes in camber and toe in / out that occur when
the control arms of a 1 ton suspension move up and down are problem or not.
"We" are assuming because nothing untoward has happened with any GMC's with
a 1 ton suspension system installed the changes are acceptable.
I apologize for being such a pedantic bastard; it's because I worked in the
aerospace industry for 30 odd years where EVERYTHING is engineered to the
nth degree.
Once again I reiterate that I agree with you that there may not be a problem
with the changes in camber and toe in / out of the 1 ton front end when
installed on a GMC.
I don't have the knowledge to determine that and it appears neither does
anyone else around here which is what you've noted.
I think there is one assumption that is safe to make, since the engineers
that designed the front suspension set it up so that the up and down motion
of the control arms caused almost no changes to camber and toe in / out that
is the desired design parameter.
Regards,
Rob M.
-----Original Message-----
From: James Hupy
Because major changes in those parameters while under way is not a good
thing. The rub of the ointment here is, "What constitutes major changes?"
With all this math floating around, and no two persons agreeing on how much
travel or alignment angles are involved, does not do much towards solving
the problem, or for that mater, establishing if there even is a problem.
Jim
_______________________________________________
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] Front end geometry [message #170907 is a reply to message #170904] |
Sat, 26 May 2012 18:59 |
 |
mike miller
Messages: 3576
Registered: February 2004
Location: Hillsboro, Oregon
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
While I agree that the current One Ton conversion kit is a good modification to our coaches, I also know that it is not optimal. Bump steer and camber changes are way more than would be acceptable to design of something as a new vehicle or something that pushes the limits... like a sports, race or rally car... or even just a street machine that someone wants to push hard.
But we ARE talking about a 6 ton motorhome.
I think that the most important thing for our suspensions is being able to handle the weight, go, stop and not wear out the tires. (Not necessarily in that order.) Long term servicing is right up there with them. Precise steering, handling and even ride are secondary... but I understand the one ton kit does them fairly well also.
If you are building a GMC motorhome for road racing, or you are more than "just a bit" anal, the current one ton kit might not be what you are looking for. But keep in mind, a better solution would most likely be very expen$ive.
| Robert Mueller wrote on Sat, 26 May 2012 16:29 |
... the engineers
that designed the front suspension set it up so that the up and down motion
of the control arms caused almost no changes to camber and toe in / out that
is the desired design parameter.
> ...With all this math floating around, and no two persons
> agreeing on how much travel or alignment angles are involved,
> does not do much towards solving the problem, or for that
> mater, establishing if there even is a problem.
|
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] Front end geometry [message #170908 is a reply to message #170893] |
Sat, 26 May 2012 19:17 |
kingd
Messages: 592
Registered: June 2004
Karma: 2
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I wonder what one would find if they put the numbers off a stock GM 1 ton vehicle in the "program" used to come up with the numbers when the 1 ton front end is on a GMCMH ? Maybe the thinking by the engineers is different than it was in 1973-1978. HHHMMMM
DAVE KING
DAVE KING
lurker, wannabe
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Front end geometry [message #170920 is a reply to message #170902] |
Sat, 26 May 2012 22:06 |
Kosier
Messages: 834
Registered: February 2008
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Mac,
That whole business was proven to be a lie, but by the
time it was refuted, the damage was. The media jumped
on it and spread it all about without ever checking if it
had any credibility. The rear wheel travel was limited
by the shock travel, so you had to take the shock off to
get that effect. I had a '63 Corvair Spyder with a HD
suspension that would out corner a '63 Corvette.
That whole scam was started by a Ford Motor Com-
pany publicity film, purporting to show the difference
in handling between the Corvair and the Falcon.
Ford never released it, but one of Nader's scuzzies
slipped it out. Car & Driver magazine did a careful
analysis and proved that the driver of the Corvair
deliberately induced the spin. Of course, the
scandal loving media never retracted the story just
because it was a lie. Sorta like today>
Gary Kosier
-----Original Message-----
From: D C *Mac* Macdonald
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2012 6:45 PM
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Front end geometry
Moving from front to rear suspension, and from memory
(probably fading fast), I remember that Nader's target
of the Chevy Corvair as "Unsafe at Any Speed" had a
control problem at cornering limits caused by a sudden
shift from the normally slightly negative camber (helps
cornering) to a LARGE positive camber when oversteer
occurred. The rear wheel on the outside of the turn would
break loose and suddenly regain traction with the road.
At that point, the swing axle would tuck under the car
and flip it over!
Later versions had a modification to limit that problem,
but by then the damage to reputation had been done and the
car cancelled. Volkswagens had the same trouble but their
performance was much lower than that of the Corvair and
the problem happened nowhere nearly as with the Corvair.
After-market folks marketed a "camber compensator" which
was basically a transverse leaf spring which greatly
resisted the tendency for the outside wheel to tuck under.
How does this apply to the GMC coach? Probably not very
much, as I don't believe it likely that the true independent
front suspension and the weight of the coach itself would
make a "Laugh-in Tricycle" moment likely with our beasts.
I'd still like to find a Corvair Monza Convertible from the
last year or two of production! My first new car was a '62
Monza coupe! Helluva lot of fun!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ D C "Mac" Macdonald ~ ~~
~ ~ Amateur Radio - K2GKK ~ ~
~ ~ USAF and FAA, Retired ~ ~
~ ~ ~ Oklahoma City, OK ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ "The Money Pit" ~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ '76 ex-Palm Beach ~ ~ ~
~ www.gmcmhphotos.com/okclb ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
______________
*[ ]~~~[][ ][|\
*--OO--[]---O-*
> From: robmueller@iinet.net.au
> To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 08:24:38 +1000
> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Front end geometry
>
> Jim,
>
> I'll answer that question with a question.
>
> Why did the automotive engineers design the suspension so that up and down
> motion of the control arms have almost no effect on the camber and toe
> in/out?
>
> Regards,
> Rob M.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Hupy
>
> Yeah, but does it wear tires, bump steer, wander, shimmy, oscillate, or
> "drive funny", torque steer ? From what I can determine by these
> non-mathematic observations, the 1 Ton does most everything as good as or
> in some cases much better than the OEM.
> Regardless of the math involved. Just my personal observations with 6 1
> Ton
> installs.
> Jim
_______________________________________________
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] Front end geometry [message #170936 is a reply to message #170893] |
Sun, 27 May 2012 03:30 |
bwevers
Messages: 597
Registered: October 2010
Location: San Jose
Karma: 5
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Just some observations 3 years after conversion of my 1975 Glenbrook with a 1 ton front end.
1) I now have much better braking with big rotors.
2) It does not steer or handle as good as advertised.
3) The brake calipers come very close to the wheels and actually rub against the wheels when making sharp turns in parking lots.
This is after I have replaced EVERY component in the front end.
I have rebuilt the rear boggies. And had the wheels aligned by a professional shop. I spent a lot of money.
Would I do it again?
Maybe
Bill Wevers GMC49ers, GMC Western States
1975 Glenbrook - Manny Powerdrive, OneTon
455 F Block, G heads
San Jose
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Front end geometry [message #170956 is a reply to message #170901] |
Sun, 27 May 2012 09:52 |
Bob de Kruyff
Messages: 4260
Registered: January 2004
Location: Chandler, AZ
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
""Jim,
I'll answer that question with a question.
Why did the automotive engineers design the suspension so that up and down
motion of the control arms have almost no effect on the camber and toe
in/out?
Regards,
Rob M.
""
Rob--I designed front suspensions for cars for years and the answer to your question is that the engineers do NOT design suspensions with no toe or camber change with up and down movement. Usually we want enough camber change so as the vehicle leans or rolls in a turn, you want to try to keep the outboard (in the turn) wheel upright. Normally we shoot for 80% roll compensation. As far as steer angle, we want roll understeer so if the suspension moves upwards, we want the outboard wheel (the one which carries the load transfer) to turn out of the overall vehicle turn. This provides a stabilizing effect so that the driver is not surprised by the reaction of the vehicle when he or she inputs a steer motion. The development or ride and handling people want lots of camber compensation and lots of roll understeer. This is usually tempered by the need to minimize tire wear. Additionally you always want compliance understeer so when bushings or components flex, the vehicle turns less than the geometry itself asks for. Again this is a stabilizing effect. Throughout all of this front steer is always desired because of what I just mentioned. The GMC and most rear wheel drive vehicles have front steer (the steering linkage is in front of the wheels). Most transverse front wheel drive vehicles have rear steer because it's tough to get the linkage in front of the engine.
Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Front end geometry [message #170957 is a reply to message #170902] |
Sun, 27 May 2012 09:59 |
Bob de Kruyff
Messages: 4260
Registered: January 2004
Location: Chandler, AZ
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
""I'd still like to find a Corvair Monza Convertible from the
last year or two of production! My first new car was a '62
Monza coupe! Helluva lot of fun!""
I recently still had a 63 Spyder and yes it did suffer from the jacking affect.(Remember Ernie Kovacs killed himself in a Corvair wagon). The 64's had a camber compensator that helped somewhat and by 65 the suspension was redesigned, but by then it was too late. The rope drive Pontiac Tempests also had the Corvair rear suspension from 61 through 63 but because of the front engine weight bias, they never got the bad wrap.
Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ
[Updated on: Sun, 27 May 2012 10:12] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Front end geometry [message #170959 is a reply to message #170903] |
Sun, 27 May 2012 10:06 |
Bob de Kruyff
Messages: 4260
Registered: January 2004
Location: Chandler, AZ
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
""Because major changes in those parameters while under way is not a good
thing. The rub of the ointment here is, "What constitutes major changes?"
With all this math floating around, and no two persons agreeing on how much
travel or alignment angles are involved, does not do much towards solving
the problem, or for that mater, establishing if there even is a problem.
Jim Hupy
""
Jim, in an OEM environment I bet the engineers will be surprisingly close when it comes to a matter of degree. But in our situation where we are modifying things, you are right on. Personally I would bias everything towards handling and stability and let tire wear suffer somewhat since most of us never wear our tires out (and we have 6 tires in the mix if we feel like rotating them). I separated handling from stability because how a vehicle feels during normal small inputs may not always be the best thing for gross lane change or accident ultimate handling situations. Most of us focus on the small going down-the-road handling characteristics because that is what we deal with 99% of the time.
Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Front end geometry [message #170961 is a reply to message #170953] |
Sun, 27 May 2012 10:05 |
k2gkk
Messages: 4452
Registered: November 2009
Karma: -8
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Oh, the Corvair could be flipped! Wife flipped ours
(two complete rollovers) back in April 62 while I was
sleeping in the right front seat! I think she fell
asleep and the car drifted off the right edge of US
Route 66 in Illinois and dropped down. I believe that
woke her up and she grossly overcorrected and over we
went, all our clothes, etc. out the now vacant back
glass and all over the road!
Two complete rollovers and it ended up back on its
wheels. Tough little car indeed. Back glass was only
one broken. We were belted in and I didn't have a
scratch and she apparently bumped her lip on the
gear shift during the rollover as she was reaching
for me to apologize!
We gathered our stuff, continued on into Springfield,
called USAA, found a place to stay, and started
looking for a replacement car.
In retrospect, we probably should have just driven it
the rest of the way to Mather AFB near Sacramento, CA
which was my new base assignment and had it repaired
there. It was my first ever new car and I had only
made four payments on it!
There's more to the story, but that's plenty for now.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ D C "Mac" Macdonald ~ ~~
~ ~ Amateur Radio - K2GKK ~ ~
~ ~ USAF and FAA, Retired ~ ~
~ ~ ~ Oklahoma City, OK ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ "The Money Pit" ~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ '76 ex-Palm Beach ~ ~ ~
~ www.gmcmhphotos.com/okclb ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
______________
*[ ]~~~[][ ][|\
*--OO--[]---O-*
> To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> From: matt7323tze@gmail.com
> Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 09:30:29 -0500
> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Front end geometry
>
>
>
> Not quoted again, much to long...
>
> Gary,
>
> There is another part of the Corvair, Beetle story that people always miss.
>
> If you flipped a Corvair, it would land on and stay on its roof.
> If you flipped a Beetle, it would roll like an Easter Egg and often land back on its wheels still running.
>
> It was not easy to flip a Corvair, but it could be done with the aid of a curb and some stupid driving.
>
> Matt
> --
> Matt & Mary Colie
> '73 Glacier 23 Chaumière (say show-me-air) Just about as stock as you will find
> SE Michigan - Twixt A2 and Detroit
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Nov 18 11:28:11 CST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02094 seconds
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
