Something to ponder. Why didn't GM do it back then to start with?

[Bob Dunahugh]

GM spends a huge amount of $ on R&D. As do all car/truck manufacture. To TRY to make their produce the best that it can be. After 45 years. Advancements have been made due to advancements in technology. Howell, putting the GM EFI into a kit form. And much better cruise control systems. Rear Disc brakes. These are to me the three Biggies. And fallow basic SAE standards, and practices that may apply . Kits have been made for the rear suspension. True track, and reaction arms. Not SAE approved. These show value, and worth. And still maintain the same basic geometry of the original system. There are chargers that replace the way out dated Buzz Box. That greatly extended battery life. The 3:70/4:10 will greatly extend the life of the trans, and engine. Plus MPGs.
Then there are items that I question. The 1 ton is tops on ( MY ) list. Just MY opinion. But due to some facts. As it can never meet any SAE standards. Ever. Puts excess load on A arms, torsion bars, and pork chops. Front wheel spacers are in this same class. Next is the liability issue with both. Headers, and oversized tail pipes. Great produces. Use them a lot. For some Chevy engines that I run from 5500 to 8000 RPMs all the time. Most data show that under around 4400 RPMs. The value of both drops off greatly. The real issue with headers is the radiant heat that they produce. We have a huge amount of air that enters our front grill. That exits the GMC by way of a low-pressure zone under our floor. That air is super-heated by those headers. So. How much air is really going to make that left/right hand turn around your big fender liners? While on the subject of heat. Do you have heat shields between your tail pipe, and both gas tanks?
As a note. I just completed a simple study on MPG. As to headers, 3-inch tail pipes, and FD. It's interesting.

Sorry about this post. I'm trying to limit my tech post. Or post in general. Plus keeps me out of trouble. GRIN. As there are some great knowledgeable owners that are already here.
Bob Dunahugh
78 Royale since 2003.
4 real COPO Yenkos.

 

[sgltrac]

Headers are used primarily because of the lack of availability of manifolds
not performance I believe.

Sully
Bellevue wa

> GM spends a huge amount of $ on R&D. As do all car/truck manufacture. To
> TRY to make their produce the best that it can be. After 45 years.
> Advancements have been made due to advancements in technology. Howell,
> putting the GM EFI into a kit form. And much better cruise control systems.
> Rear Disc brakes. These are to me the three Biggies. And fallow basic SAE
> standards, and practices that may apply . Kits have been made for the rear
> suspension. True track, and reaction arms. Not SAE approved. These show
> value, and worth. And still maintain the same basic geometry of the
> original system. There are chargers that replace the way out dated Buzz
> Box. That greatly extended battery life. The 3:70/4:10 will greatly extend
> the life of the trans, and engine. Plus MPGs.
> Then there are items that I question. The 1 ton is tops on ( MY ) list.
> Just MY opinion. But due to some facts. As it can never meet any SAE
> standards. Ever. Puts excess load on A arms, torsion bars, and pork chops.
> Front wheel spacers are in this same class. Next is the liability issue
> with both. Headers, and oversized tail pipes. Great produces. Use them a
> lot. For some Chevy engines that I run from 5500 to 8000 RPMs all the time.
> Most data show that under around 4400 RPMs. The value of both drops off
> greatly. The real issue with headers is the radiant heat that they
> produce. We have a huge amount of air that enters our front grill. That
> exits the GMC by way of a low-pressure zone under our floor. That air is
> super-heated by those headers. So. How much air is really going to make
> that left/right hand turn around your big fender liners? While on the
> subject of heat. Do you have heat shields between your tail pipe, and both
> gas tanks?
> As a note. I just completed a simple study on MPG. As to headers,
> 3-inch tail pipes, and FD. It's interesting.
>
> Sorry about this post. I'm trying to limit my tech post. Or post in
> general. Plus keeps me out of trouble. GRIN. As there are some great
> knowledgeable owners that are already here.
> Bob Dunahugh
> 78 Royale since 2003.
> 4 real COPO Yenkos.
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
>

 

[mghamms]

Gm never "To TRY to make their produce the best that it can be."
GM will do anything to make there product more profitable not at all interested on being best.
--
1977 Kingsley 455 as stock as it gets except lots of Ragusa parts

 

[Keith V]

This is the truth. GM and everyone, makes the cheapest thing they can that will sell.
________________________________
From: Mike Hamm via Gmclist
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 3:36:18 PM
To: gmclist
Cc: Mike Hamm
Subject: [GMCnet] Re: Something to ponder. Why didn't GM do it back then to start with?

Gm never "To TRY to make their produce the best that it can be."
GM will do anything to make there product more profitable not at all interested on being best.
--
1977 Kingsley 455 as stock as it gets except lots of Ragusa parts
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:

 

[Jim Hupy]

Those 455 engines in a "hard service" application like agricultural pumps
or heavy motorhomes are at a disadvantage to a more modern oversquare
engine like the 403. The coolant path in the 455 does not carry heat away
as efficiently as the much more modern design like the 403.
Top that off with that old "horse collar" cooling fan ducting that
only reaches 2/3 of the radiator, combined with a engine compartment not
designed to flow air really well, and you have a combination that can
benefit from some enhancements.
What GM did was learn from experience of overheated engines in
service, and design some really beneficial improvements in the latest
coaches. Directed air flow through the entire radiator core helps a whole
bunch.
This week the GMC CASCADERS staged a "rolling rally" in Eastern Oregon
and Washington state. Starting at the Columbia River gorge with it's
notorious winds, and then crossing over the river and climbing to over 3000
ft elevation gain up the Roosevelt grade to the horse heaven hill country
to a small community named Bickleton (110 souls, and host to a Rodeo with a
110 year old history). The 403 equipped coaches handled that grade well, a
couple of the 455 equipped coaches didn’t care much for that climb, and had
to stop partway up and catch their breath.
After the Rodeo, Judy and I decided to go home via white pass. It
scales to over 4000 feet, with some several miles long 6% up-grades. Our
403 with 131,000+ miles on the clock handled that pass no problem. Late
1978 Heavy Royale with all those improved shrouds works very well in those
situations. As long as the old girl keeps that up, I am not messing with it.
Jim Hupy
Salem, Oregon

On Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 1:36 PM Mike Hamm via Gmclist
wrote:

> Gm never "To TRY to make their produce the best that it can be."
> GM will do anything to make there product more profitable not at all
> interested on being best.
> --
> 1977 Kingsley 455 as stock as it gets except lots of Ragusa parts
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
>

 

[Matt Colie]

Bob,

You were not in the RV biz 48 years ago, I was. I was the last engineer on the Thermosan Commercial Program.

When the GMC Motorhome hit the streets, it was like an earthquake. The industry was literally set on its ear.....

Just having real brakes on all six wheels was a big deal. They didn't need more brake on the rear because they could barely use all the brake that
they had with the bias ply tires of the day. Yes, radials were coming, but at that time they were only for small cars.

While the technology for "reaction arms" existed (I had such a system on my dirt bike of the day). There was no need because the 11X2 Bendix had all
it could manage with the tires as mentioned above.

The "Buzz Box" was the peak of technology at that time. You should have seen the things others were doing to try to get to what that could do. The
best joke was the "Converter/Charger" that was two parts. When 120VAC was available, this dual box converted directly to the 12V system with one side
and then had a lame battery charger on the other side. Smart people had to remember to pull the plug when they need more 12V for something because
the converter side was only about 20 amp and the heating system could use all of that. Then the lights would dim and the water pump would stop.

That stupid 3.07 was put in when the national speed limit was 70MPH and fuel was cheap. A big problem with it was that the engine engineering mind
set was still suck in the pre-war thinking that piston speed is everything, and you want it as low as possible for long life. With the lubricants and
materials of the day that was only partly true, it has taken others years to stomp that idea flat. When Soichiro Honda was invited to the SAE in
Detroit to talk about their racing program some time in the late 60s, there was another earthquake. He stood up there and told all of us engineers
that we got it wrong. Displacement and low piston speeds had been the Gibraltar of engine design forever. We all knew that, we had been taught that
in engineering school. Then while he was talking about the winning GP bikes, (they hadn't started with cars yet) and he looked out at us and said,
"CC's cost money and are heavy, RPMs are FREE!" (Quote is 50yo and from memory.") Can you say BOOM? In ship parlance, that was "Two under the
stack". (That is a short reference to a sure kill in an attack on virtually any steam ship.) Everything everybody thought mattered about engines was
possibly wrong. It took the first arab oil embargo to break that old thinking.

The cruise control I am running is the long predecessor to the Rostra that many like. Mine is a Dana/Perfect Circle analog unit. One of them in my
box has a main board with dates in the early 70's and it wasn't new then. It is not as adaptable as the Delco version and has to be "tuned" for each
vehicle. But, it does have a "Resume" and set point adjust from the stalk. I like them. This one is in its third install.

The first CDI I had in Chaumière was also a 70's dated item. This is a device I have 50 years of experience running. It was way more expensive even
than Chrysler's electronic ignition of the day. It was most noted for taking over the racing world at the the time. But it was new and "unproven" at
that time. That one died because C1 aged out, so I am now running a Mod2 of the device and I can run the plugs at 0.060 if the cap and wires will
hold it in. (At 0.080 that limit is reached.)

There are still lots of things that they could have done at the time to improve the product, but most were too recent and unproven technology. That
was a risk GM was not willing to take. This again was something that hurt them when they got their teeth kicked in by their attempt to introduce a
Wankel engine in the early 70's that engine engineering was the black sheep around GM Tech center in Warren for a number of years.

As you can all imagine, I could go on with this history lesson, but I have places to go and other people to annoy.

Matt
--
Matt & Mary Colie - Chaumière -'73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan with OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
SE Michigan - Near DTW - Twixt A2 and Detroit

 

[Ken H.]

Matt,

Nice history, but I think the speed limit you're referring to in the 70's
was not 70 mph, but the Jimmy Carter (still living 9 miles from me) imposed
national 55 mph.

Ken H.

> Bob,
>
> You were not in the RV biz 48 years ago, I was. I was the last engineer
> on the Thermosan Commercial Program.
>
> When the GMC Motorhome hit the streets, it was like an earthquake. The
> industry was literally set on its ear.....
>
> Just having real brakes on all six wheels was a big deal. They didn't
> need more brake on the rear because they could barely use all the brake that
> they had with the bias ply tires of the day. Yes, radials were coming,
> but at that time they were only for small cars.
>
> While the technology for "reaction arms" existed (I had such a system on
> my dirt bike of the day). There was no need because the 11X2 Bendix had all
> it could manage with the tires as mentioned above.
>
> The "Buzz Box" was the peak of technology at that time. You should have
> seen the things others were doing to try to get to what that could do. The
> best joke was the "Converter/Charger" that was two parts. When 120VAC was
> available, this dual box converted directly to the 12V system with one side
> and then had a lame battery charger on the other side. Smart people had
> to remember to pull the plug when they need more 12V for something because
> the converter side was only about 20 amp and the heating system could use
> all of that. Then the lights would dim and the water pump would stop.
>
> That stupid 3.07 was put in when the national speed limit was 70MPH and
> fuel was cheap. A big problem with it was that the engine engineering mind
> set was still suck in the pre-war thinking that piston speed is
> everything, and you want it as low as possible for long life. With the
> lubricants and
> materials of the day that was only partly true, it has taken others years
> to stomp that idea flat. When Soichiro Honda was invited to the SAE in
> Detroit to talk about their racing program some time in the late 60s,
> there was another earthquake. He stood up there and told all of us
> engineers
> that we got it wrong. Displacement and low piston speeds had been the
> Gibraltar of engine design forever. We all knew that, we had been taught
> that
> in engineering school. Then while he was talking about the winning GP
> bikes, (they hadn't started with cars yet) and he looked out at us and said,
> "CC's cost money and are heavy, RPMs are FREE!" (Quote is 50yo and from
> memory.") Can you say BOOM? In ship parlance, that was "Two under the
> stack". (That is a short reference to a sure kill in an attack on
> virtually any steam ship.) Everything everybody thought mattered about
> engines was
> possibly wrong. It took the first arab oil embargo to break that old
> thinking.
>
> The cruise control I am running is the long predecessor to the Rostra that
> many like. Mine is a Dana/Perfect Circle analog unit. One of them in my
> box has a main board with dates in the early 70's and it wasn't new then.
> It is not as adaptable as the Delco version and has to be "tuned" for each
> vehicle. But, it does have a "Resume" and set point adjust from the
> stalk. I like them. This one is in its third install.
>
> The first CDI I had in Chaumière was also a 70's dated item. This is a
> device I have 50 years of experience running. It was way more expensive
> even
> than Chrysler's electronic ignition of the day. It was most noted for
> taking over the racing world at the the time. But it was new and "unproven"
> at
> that time. That one died because C1 aged out, so I am now running a Mod2
> of the device and I can run the plugs at 0.060 if the cap and wires will
> hold it in. (At 0.080 that limit is reached.)
>
> There are still lots of things that they could have done at the time to
> improve the product, but most were too recent and unproven technology. That
> was a risk GM was not willing to take. This again was something that hurt
> them when they got their teeth kicked in by their attempt to introduce a
> Wankel engine in the early 70's that engine engineering was the black
> sheep around GM Tech center in Warren for a number of years.
>
> As you can all imagine, I could go on with this history lesson, but I have
> places to go and other people to annoy.
>
> Matt
> --
> Matt & Mary Colie - Chaumière -'73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL,
> GMCES
> Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan with OE Rear Drum
> Brakes with Applied Control Arms
> SE Michigan - Near DTW - Twixt A2 and Detroit
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
>

 

[john phillips]

Nixon did the 55 MPH speed limit. I do not remember the year.
Google says Jan. 2, 1974.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/nixon-signs-national-speed-limit-into-law#:~:text=As%20part%20of%20his%20response,U.S.%20appetite%20for%20foreign%20oil.

On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 5:05 PM Ken Henderson
wrote:

> Matt,
>
> Nice history, but I think the speed limit you're referring to in the 70's
> was not 70 mph, but the Jimmy Carter (still living 9 miles from me) imposed
> national 55 mph.
>
> Ken H.
>

>
> > Bob,
> >
> > You were not in the RV biz 48 years ago, I was. I was the last engineer
> > on the Thermosan Commercial Program.
> >
> > When the GMC Motorhome hit the streets, it was like an earthquake. The
> > industry was literally set on its ear.....
> >
> > Just having real brakes on all six wheels was a big deal. They didn't
> > need more brake on the rear because they could barely use all the brake
> that
> > they had with the bias ply tires of the day. Yes, radials were coming,
> > but at that time they were only for small cars.
> >
> > While the technology for "reaction arms" existed (I had such a system on
> > my dirt bike of the day). There was no need because the 11X2 Bendix had
> all
> > it could manage with the tires as mentioned above.
> >
> > The "Buzz Box" was the peak of technology at that time. You should have
> > seen the things others were doing to try to get to what that could do.
> The
> > best joke was the "Converter/Charger" that was two parts. When 120VAC
> was
> > available, this dual box converted directly to the 12V system with one
> side
> > and then had a lame battery charger on the other side. Smart people had
> > to remember to pull the plug when they need more 12V for something
> because
> > the converter side was only about 20 amp and the heating system could use
> > all of that. Then the lights would dim and the water pump would stop.
> >
> > That stupid 3.07 was put in when the national speed limit was 70MPH and
> > fuel was cheap. A big problem with it was that the engine engineering
> mind
> > set was still suck in the pre-war thinking that piston speed is
> > everything, and you want it as low as possible for long life. With the
> > lubricants and
> > materials of the day that was only partly true, it has taken others years
> > to stomp that idea flat. When Soichiro Honda was invited to the SAE in
> > Detroit to talk about their racing program some time in the late 60s,
> > there was another earthquake. He stood up there and told all of us
> > engineers
> > that we got it wrong. Displacement and low piston speeds had been the
> > Gibraltar of engine design forever. We all knew that, we had been taught
> > that
> > in engineering school. Then while he was talking about the winning GP
> > bikes, (they hadn't started with cars yet) and he looked out at us and
> said,
> > "CC's cost money and are heavy, RPMs are FREE!" (Quote is 50yo and from
> > memory.") Can you say BOOM? In ship parlance, that was "Two under the
> > stack". (That is a short reference to a sure kill in an attack on
> > virtually any steam ship.) Everything everybody thought mattered about
> > engines was
> > possibly wrong. It took the first arab oil embargo to break that old
> > thinking.
> >
> > The cruise control I am running is the long predecessor to the Rostra
> that
> > many like. Mine is a Dana/Perfect Circle analog unit. One of them in my
> > box has a main board with dates in the early 70's and it wasn't new then.
> > It is not as adaptable as the Delco version and has to be "tuned" for
> each
> > vehicle. But, it does have a "Resume" and set point adjust from the
> > stalk. I like them. This one is in its third install.
> >
> > The first CDI I had in Chaumière was also a 70's dated item. This is a
> > device I have 50 years of experience running. It was way more expensive
> > even
> > than Chrysler's electronic ignition of the day. It was most noted for
> > taking over the racing world at the the time. But it was new and
> "unproven"
> > at
> > that time. That one died because C1 aged out, so I am now running a Mod2
> > of the device and I can run the plugs at 0.060 if the cap and wires will
> > hold it in. (At 0.080 that limit is reached.)
> >
> > There are still lots of things that they could have done at the time to
> > improve the product, but most were too recent and unproven technology.
> That
> > was a risk GM was not willing to take. This again was something that
> hurt
> > them when they got their teeth kicked in by their attempt to introduce a
> > Wankel engine in the early 70's that engine engineering was the black
> > sheep around GM Tech center in Warren for a number of years.
> >
> > As you can all imagine, I could go on with this history lesson, but I
> have
> > places to go and other people to annoy.
> >
> > Matt
> > --
> > Matt & Mary Colie - Chaumière -'73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL,
> > GMCES
> > Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan with OE Rear Drum
> > Brakes with Applied Control Arms
> > SE Michigan - Near DTW - Twixt A2 and Detroit
> > _______________________________________________
> > GMCnet mailing list
> > Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> >
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
>

--

*John Phillips*

 

[bdub1]

National 55 mph limit became effective March 1974. Nixon signed it into law. That's after the GMC was developed. And partially what killed it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law

bdub

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Henderson [mailto:hend4800]
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 7:05 PM
Subject: [GMCnet] Re: Something to ponder. Why didn't GM do it back then to start with?

Matt,

Nice history, but I think the speed limit you're referring to in the 70's
was not 70 mph, but the Jimmy Carter (still living 9 miles from me) imposed
national 55 mph.