The best I've seen so far, is the Quad bag from Jim K.
Heavy duty. Comes with everything you need.
Sometimes instructions too...
Heavy duty. Comes with everything you need.
Sometimes instructions too...
The "best air bag choice
- Thread starter david h. jarvis
- Start date
> I'm sure this is a hot topic.
>
> If the primary purpose is not gaining the lowest price, but gaining the best solution for the problem, who has the best product?
>
> My coach has original bags and they definitely have to be replaced. I am leaning towards Manny Trovao'a one ton front end and reaction arm/brake
> kit as initial upgrades together with replacing the bags & shocks. Fuel line and tank work too.
>
> Luke
Luke,
As you are running the e-mail and not the forum, you don't have a signature line to tell us what your coach is and where you are. To make the most
effective recommendations, this is essential information. There are mods that are definitely better on some years and weights than on others. Some
mods also have real advantages for how you expect to use the coach. For a simple example, I could not accept any suspension that left me with less
usable rear travel. But that is because of how we use the coach.
So, if you fill us in, you may get better answers.
I happen to like Lenzi knuckles, Sully Bags and Applied reaction arms on OE drums, but I have a light coach and we do drive her hard a lot of the
season.
Matt
--
Matt & Mary Colie - '73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan
OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
SE Michigan - Twixt A2 and Detroit
>
> If the primary purpose is not gaining the lowest price, but gaining the best solution for the problem, who has the best product?
>
> My coach has original bags and they definitely have to be replaced. I am leaning towards Manny Trovao'a one ton front end and reaction arm/brake
> kit as initial upgrades together with replacing the bags & shocks. Fuel line and tank work too.
>
> Luke
Luke,
As you are running the e-mail and not the forum, you don't have a signature line to tell us what your coach is and where you are. To make the most
effective recommendations, this is essential information. There are mods that are definitely better on some years and weights than on others. Some
mods also have real advantages for how you expect to use the coach. For a simple example, I could not accept any suspension that left me with less
usable rear travel. But that is because of how we use the coach.
So, if you fill us in, you may get better answers.
I happen to like Lenzi knuckles, Sully Bags and Applied reaction arms on OE drums, but I have a light coach and we do drive her hard a lot of the
season.
Matt
--
Matt & Mary Colie - '73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan
OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
SE Michigan - Twixt A2 and Detroit
Hi Matt,
I am working with a 78 Eleganza II.
> I'm sure this is a hot topic.
>
> If the primary purpose is not gaining the lowest price, but gaining the best solution for the problem, who has the best product?
>
> My coach has original bags and they definitely have to be replaced. I am leaning towards Manny Trovao'a one ton front end and reaction arm/brake
> kit as initial upgrades together with replacing the bags & shocks. Fuel line and tank work too.
>
> Luke
Luke,
As you are running the e-mail and not the forum, you don't have a signature line to tell us what your coach is and where you are. To make the most
effective recommendations, this is essential information. There are mods that are definitely better on some years and weights than on others. Some
mods also have real advantages for how you expect to use the coach. For a simple example, I could not accept any suspension that left me with less
usable rear travel. But that is because of how we use the coach.
So, if you fill us in, you may get better answers.
I happen to like Lenzi knuckles, Sully Bags and Applied reaction arms on OE drums, but I have a light coach and we do drive her hard a lot of the
season.
Matt
--
Matt & Mary Colie - '73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan
OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
SE Michigan - Twixt A2 and Detroit
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
I am working with a 78 Eleganza II.
> I'm sure this is a hot topic.
>
> If the primary purpose is not gaining the lowest price, but gaining the best solution for the problem, who has the best product?
>
> My coach has original bags and they definitely have to be replaced. I am leaning towards Manny Trovao'a one ton front end and reaction arm/brake
> kit as initial upgrades together with replacing the bags & shocks. Fuel line and tank work too.
>
> Luke
Luke,
As you are running the e-mail and not the forum, you don't have a signature line to tell us what your coach is and where you are. To make the most
effective recommendations, this is essential information. There are mods that are definitely better on some years and weights than on others. Some
mods also have real advantages for how you expect to use the coach. For a simple example, I could not accept any suspension that left me with less
usable rear travel. But that is because of how we use the coach.
So, if you fill us in, you may get better answers.
I happen to like Lenzi knuckles, Sully Bags and Applied reaction arms on OE drums, but I have a light coach and we do drive her hard a lot of the
season.
Matt
--
Matt & Mary Colie - '73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan
OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
SE Michigan - Twixt A2 and Detroit
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
My personal preference is the Jim K Quadra Bag system. I replaced my stock bags with one of these systems a few years ago and noticed an improvement
in handling with no evident degradation of ride and travel. Four bags means more of a safety margin in case of a bag blow out as well.
I also have the six wheel disc and Chuck Aulgur Reaction Arm brake system. HUGE improvement in braking and safety. No more dragging the rear wheel
on a panic stop. It decreases stopping distance considerably.
--
Carl Stouffer
'75 ex Palm Beach
Tucson, AZ.
Chuck Aulgur Reaction Arm Disc Brakes, Quadrabags, 3.70 LSD final drive, Lenzi knuckles/hubs, Dodge Truck 16" X 8" front wheels, Rear American Eagles,
Solar battery charging. GMCSJ and GMCMI member
in handling with no evident degradation of ride and travel. Four bags means more of a safety margin in case of a bag blow out as well.
I also have the six wheel disc and Chuck Aulgur Reaction Arm brake system. HUGE improvement in braking and safety. No more dragging the rear wheel
on a panic stop. It decreases stopping distance considerably.
--
Carl Stouffer
'75 ex Palm Beach
Tucson, AZ.
Chuck Aulgur Reaction Arm Disc Brakes, Quadrabags, 3.70 LSD final drive, Lenzi knuckles/hubs, Dodge Truck 16" X 8" front wheels, Rear American Eagles,
Solar battery charging. GMCSJ and GMCMI member
Carl,
The Chuck Aulgur Reaction Arm system we provided to you is the larger
caliper kit.
The ones with the smaller calipers do not give you much of a gain in
stopping.
We're in mid of completing the Newer Chuck Aulgur Reaction arm . We will be
conducting tests on a customers coach. Rick Flanagan is redesigning it and
he will not release the design till he supervises the testing.
I'm sure there will be some videos produced during testing.
> My personal preference is the Jim K Quadra Bag system. I replaced my
> stock bags with one of these systems a few years ago and noticed an
> improvement
> in handling with no evident degradation of ride and travel. Four bags
> means more of a safety margin in case of a bag blow out as well.
>
> I also have the six wheel disc and Chuck Aulgur Reaction Arm brake
> system. HUGE improvement in braking and safety. No more dragging the rear
> wheel
> on a panic stop. It decreases stopping distance considerably.
> --
> Carl Stouffer
> '75 ex Palm Beach
> Tucson, AZ.
> Chuck Aulgur Reaction Arm Disc Brakes, Quadrabags, 3.70 LSD final drive,
> Lenzi knuckles/hubs, Dodge Truck 16" X 8" front wheels, Rear American
> Eagles,
> Solar battery charging. GMCSJ and GMCMI member
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>
--
Jim Kanomata
Applied/GMC, Newark,CA
jimk
http://www.appliedgmc.com
1-800-752-7502
The Chuck Aulgur Reaction Arm system we provided to you is the larger
caliper kit.
The ones with the smaller calipers do not give you much of a gain in
stopping.
We're in mid of completing the Newer Chuck Aulgur Reaction arm . We will be
conducting tests on a customers coach. Rick Flanagan is redesigning it and
he will not release the design till he supervises the testing.
I'm sure there will be some videos produced during testing.
> My personal preference is the Jim K Quadra Bag system. I replaced my
> stock bags with one of these systems a few years ago and noticed an
> improvement
> in handling with no evident degradation of ride and travel. Four bags
> means more of a safety margin in case of a bag blow out as well.
>
> I also have the six wheel disc and Chuck Aulgur Reaction Arm brake
> system. HUGE improvement in braking and safety. No more dragging the rear
> wheel
> on a panic stop. It decreases stopping distance considerably.
> --
> Carl Stouffer
> '75 ex Palm Beach
> Tucson, AZ.
> Chuck Aulgur Reaction Arm Disc Brakes, Quadrabags, 3.70 LSD final drive,
> Lenzi knuckles/hubs, Dodge Truck 16" X 8" front wheels, Rear American
> Eagles,
> Solar battery charging. GMCSJ and GMCMI member
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>
--
Jim Kanomata
Applied/GMC, Newark,CA
jimk
http://www.appliedgmc.com
1-800-752-7502
And Luke lives where???
Mike in NS using E-Mail !!
> Carl,
> The Chuck Aulgur Reaction Arm system we provided to you is the larger
> caliper kit.
> The ones with the smaller calipers do not give you much of a gain in
> stopping.
> We're in mid of completing the Newer Chuck Aulgur Reaction arm . We will be
> conducting tests on a customers coach. Rick Flanagan is redesigning it and
> he will not release the design till he supervises the testing.
> I'm sure there will be some videos produced during testing.
>
>
> > My personal preference is the Jim K Quadra Bag system. I replaced my
> > stock bags with one of these systems a few years ago and noticed an
> > improvement
> > in handling with no evident degradation of ride and travel. Four bags
> > means more of a safety margin in case of a bag blow out as well.
> >
> > I also have the six wheel disc and Chuck Aulgur Reaction Arm brake
> > system. HUGE improvement in braking and safety. No more dragging the
> rear
> > wheel
> > on a panic stop. It decreases stopping distance considerably.
> > --
> > Carl Stouffer
> > '75 ex Palm Beach
> > Tucson, AZ.
> > Chuck Aulgur Reaction Arm Disc Brakes, Quadrabags, 3.70 LSD final drive,
> > Lenzi knuckles/hubs, Dodge Truck 16" X 8" front wheels, Rear American
> > Eagles,
> > Solar battery charging. GMCSJ and GMCMI member
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GMCnet mailing list
> > Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> > http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Jim Kanomata
> Applied/GMC, Newark,CA
> jimk
> http://www.appliedgmc.com
> 1-800-752-7502
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>
--
Michael Beaton
1977 Kingsley 26-11
1977 Eleganza II 26-3
Antigonish, NS
Life is too short to hold a grudge; slash some tires and call it even !
Mike in NS using E-Mail !!
> Carl,
> The Chuck Aulgur Reaction Arm system we provided to you is the larger
> caliper kit.
> The ones with the smaller calipers do not give you much of a gain in
> stopping.
> We're in mid of completing the Newer Chuck Aulgur Reaction arm . We will be
> conducting tests on a customers coach. Rick Flanagan is redesigning it and
> he will not release the design till he supervises the testing.
> I'm sure there will be some videos produced during testing.
>
>
> > My personal preference is the Jim K Quadra Bag system. I replaced my
> > stock bags with one of these systems a few years ago and noticed an
> > improvement
> > in handling with no evident degradation of ride and travel. Four bags
> > means more of a safety margin in case of a bag blow out as well.
> >
> > I also have the six wheel disc and Chuck Aulgur Reaction Arm brake
> > system. HUGE improvement in braking and safety. No more dragging the
> rear
> > wheel
> > on a panic stop. It decreases stopping distance considerably.
> > --
> > Carl Stouffer
> > '75 ex Palm Beach
> > Tucson, AZ.
> > Chuck Aulgur Reaction Arm Disc Brakes, Quadrabags, 3.70 LSD final drive,
> > Lenzi knuckles/hubs, Dodge Truck 16" X 8" front wheels, Rear American
> > Eagles,
> > Solar battery charging. GMCSJ and GMCMI member
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GMCnet mailing list
> > Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> > http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Jim Kanomata
> Applied/GMC, Newark,CA
> jimk
> http://www.appliedgmc.com
> 1-800-752-7502
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>
--
Michael Beaton
1977 Kingsley 26-11
1977 Eleganza II 26-3
Antigonish, NS
Life is too short to hold a grudge; slash some tires and call it even !
North Carolina, close to Mooresville and Hickory.
And Luke lives where???
Mike in NS using E-Mail !!
> Carl,
> The Chuck Aulgur Reaction Arm system we provided to you is the larger
> caliper kit.
> The ones with the smaller calipers do not give you much of a gain in
> stopping.
> We're in mid of completing the Newer Chuck Aulgur Reaction arm . We will be
> conducting tests on a customers coach. Rick Flanagan is redesigning it and
> he will not release the design till he supervises the testing.
> I'm sure there will be some videos produced during testing.
>
>
> > My personal preference is the Jim K Quadra Bag system. I replaced my
> > stock bags with one of these systems a few years ago and noticed an
> > improvement
> > in handling with no evident degradation of ride and travel. Four bags
> > means more of a safety margin in case of a bag blow out as well.
> >
> > I also have the six wheel disc and Chuck Aulgur Reaction Arm brake
> > system. HUGE improvement in braking and safety. No more dragging the
> rear
> > wheel
> > on a panic stop. It decreases stopping distance considerably.
> > --
> > Carl Stouffer
> > '75 ex Palm Beach
> > Tucson, AZ.
> > Chuck Aulgur Reaction Arm Disc Brakes, Quadrabags, 3.70 LSD final drive,
> > Lenzi knuckles/hubs, Dodge Truck 16" X 8" front wheels, Rear American
> > Eagles,
> > Solar battery charging. GMCSJ and GMCMI member
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GMCnet mailing list
> > Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> > http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Jim Kanomata
> Applied/GMC, Newark,CA
> jimk
> http://www.appliedgmc.com
> 1-800-752-7502
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>
--
Michael Beaton
1977 Kingsley 26-11
1977 Eleganza II 26-3
Antigonish, NS
Life is too short to hold a grudge; slash some tires and call it even !
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
And Luke lives where???
Mike in NS using E-Mail !!
> Carl,
> The Chuck Aulgur Reaction Arm system we provided to you is the larger
> caliper kit.
> The ones with the smaller calipers do not give you much of a gain in
> stopping.
> We're in mid of completing the Newer Chuck Aulgur Reaction arm . We will be
> conducting tests on a customers coach. Rick Flanagan is redesigning it and
> he will not release the design till he supervises the testing.
> I'm sure there will be some videos produced during testing.
>
>
> > My personal preference is the Jim K Quadra Bag system. I replaced my
> > stock bags with one of these systems a few years ago and noticed an
> > improvement
> > in handling with no evident degradation of ride and travel. Four bags
> > means more of a safety margin in case of a bag blow out as well.
> >
> > I also have the six wheel disc and Chuck Aulgur Reaction Arm brake
> > system. HUGE improvement in braking and safety. No more dragging the
> rear
> > wheel
> > on a panic stop. It decreases stopping distance considerably.
> > --
> > Carl Stouffer
> > '75 ex Palm Beach
> > Tucson, AZ.
> > Chuck Aulgur Reaction Arm Disc Brakes, Quadrabags, 3.70 LSD final drive,
> > Lenzi knuckles/hubs, Dodge Truck 16" X 8" front wheels, Rear American
> > Eagles,
> > Solar battery charging. GMCSJ and GMCMI member
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GMCnet mailing list
> > Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> > http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Jim Kanomata
> Applied/GMC, Newark,CA
> jimk
> http://www.appliedgmc.com
> 1-800-752-7502
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>
--
Michael Beaton
1977 Kingsley 26-11
1977 Eleganza II 26-3
Antigonish, NS
Life is too short to hold a grudge; slash some tires and call it even !
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
> Yeah, good choice. Only trust one bag and tire to get your coach out of
> harms way. That is measured in feet, not miles. Murphy is always, always
> present. If you give him a chance, he will get you every time.
> Jim Hupy
> Salem, Or
Spot on Jim. Driving on one bag, and one tire is meant as an emergency measure only. Even if one were to inflate that one tire to the max rated PSI,
it would be carrying right around 4,000# on a tire rated for 2,780 Not a very safe proposition.
--
Carl Stouffer
'75 ex Palm Beach
Tucson, AZ.
Chuck Aulgur Reaction Arm Disc Brakes, Quadrabags, 3.70 LSD final drive, Lenzi knuckles/hubs, Dodge Truck 16" X 8" front wheels, Rear American Eagles,
Solar battery charging. GMCSJ and GMCMI member
> harms way. That is measured in feet, not miles. Murphy is always, always
> present. If you give him a chance, he will get you every time.
> Jim Hupy
> Salem, Or
Spot on Jim. Driving on one bag, and one tire is meant as an emergency measure only. Even if one were to inflate that one tire to the max rated PSI,
it would be carrying right around 4,000# on a tire rated for 2,780 Not a very safe proposition.
--
Carl Stouffer
'75 ex Palm Beach
Tucson, AZ.
Chuck Aulgur Reaction Arm Disc Brakes, Quadrabags, 3.70 LSD final drive, Lenzi knuckles/hubs, Dodge Truck 16" X 8" front wheels, Rear American Eagles,
Solar battery charging. GMCSJ and GMCMI member
G'day,
Below you will find an email e-mail I wrote years ago which provides information regarding driving a GMC on less than four wheels.
OPERATING A GMC ON LESS THAN FOUR REAR WHEELS/TIRES
REFERENCE: GMC Motorhome Operating Manual X-7821A Page 1 - IMPORTANT INFORMATION ON VEHICLE LOADING.
http://www.bdub.net/manuals/X7821A.zip
GVWR (Gross Vehicle Weight Rating) represents the maximum permissible loaded weight of the vehicle.
26 foot GMC GVWR = 12,500 lbs
GAWR (Gross Axle Weight Rating) the maximum weight that an axle can carry.
26 foot GMC GAWR
GAWR = 4,500 lbs Front Wheels
GAWR = 8,000 lbs Rear Wheels
REFERENCE: Tire Load Range: http://bdub.net/gmcmotorhome.info/tires.html
Tire Load Range: The max load a tire can carry and the pressure required to carry that load.
D load range max load @ 65 PSI = 2,235 pounds
E load range tire max load @ 80 psi = 2,680 pounds
REFERENCE: Alcoa Light Truck, SUV, RV and Motorhome Wheels Fitment Guide
http://www.southwestwheel.com/pictures5/LTFitment-Screen_10-18-01.pdf
P/N: 160231
Style: Classic
Max Wheel Load Pounds: 2780
Capacity ratings as dual or single in highway service - bias-ply or radial
P/N: 160251
Style: LTS 5
Max Wheel Load Pounds: 2440
Capacity ratings as dual or single in highway service - bias-ply or radial
P/N: 161251
Style: Hot Shot
Max Wheel Load Pounds: 2780
Capacity ratings as dual or single in highway service - bias-ply or radial
COMMENTS:
The weight distribution per tire would be dependant on the how much pressure was supplied to the air bag supporting the remaining
tire. For ease of calculations we'll divide the rear GAWR of 8,000 lbs as noted above by four which results in a load per tire of
2,000 lbs. Operating the GMC with one wheel removed the load on the remaining tire would double; going from 2,000 to 4,000 lbs. This
is an overload of 1,765 pounds (~79%) on a D range tire at the maximum pressure of 65 psi and an overload of 1320 pounds (~49%) on
an E load range tire at the maximum pressure of 80 psi. If the tires are not inflated to the pressures noted in the previous
sentence the overload would be even higher.
CONCLUSION:
If you drive your GMC with less than four rear tires supporting the load you WILL be operating the GMC with OVERLOADED TIRE(S) and
OVERLOADED WHEELS!
Regards,
Rob M.
THE PEDANTIC MECHANIC
Sydney, Australia
AUS '75 Avion - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
USA '75 Avion - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
USA '77 Kingsley - TZE 267V100808
-----Original Message-----
From: Gmclist [mailto:gmclist-bounces] On Behalf Of Carl Stouffer
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2017 8:33 PM
To: gmclist
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] The "best air bag choice"
Yeah, good choice. Only trust one bag and tire to get your coach out of harms way. That is measured in feet, not miles. Murphy is
always, always present. If you give him a chance, he will get you every time.
Jim Hupy
Salem, Or
Spot on Jim. Driving on one bag, and one tire is meant as an emergency measure only. Even if one were to inflate that one tire to
the max rated PSI, it would be carrying right around 4,000# on a tire rated for 2,780 Not a very safe proposition.
--
Carl Stouffer
'75 ex Palm Beach
Tucson, AZ.
Chuck Aulgur Reaction Arm Disc Brakes, Quadrabags, 3.70 LSD final drive, Lenzi knuckles/hubs, Dodge Truck 16" X 8" front wheels,
Rear American Eagles,
Solar battery charging. GMCSJ and GMCMI member
Below you will find an email e-mail I wrote years ago which provides information regarding driving a GMC on less than four wheels.
OPERATING A GMC ON LESS THAN FOUR REAR WHEELS/TIRES
REFERENCE: GMC Motorhome Operating Manual X-7821A Page 1 - IMPORTANT INFORMATION ON VEHICLE LOADING.
http://www.bdub.net/manuals/X7821A.zip
GVWR (Gross Vehicle Weight Rating) represents the maximum permissible loaded weight of the vehicle.
26 foot GMC GVWR = 12,500 lbs
GAWR (Gross Axle Weight Rating) the maximum weight that an axle can carry.
26 foot GMC GAWR
GAWR = 4,500 lbs Front Wheels
GAWR = 8,000 lbs Rear Wheels
REFERENCE: Tire Load Range: http://bdub.net/gmcmotorhome.info/tires.html
Tire Load Range: The max load a tire can carry and the pressure required to carry that load.
D load range max load @ 65 PSI = 2,235 pounds
E load range tire max load @ 80 psi = 2,680 pounds
REFERENCE: Alcoa Light Truck, SUV, RV and Motorhome Wheels Fitment Guide
http://www.southwestwheel.com/pictures5/LTFitment-Screen_10-18-01.pdf
P/N: 160231
Style: Classic
Max Wheel Load Pounds: 2780
Capacity ratings as dual or single in highway service - bias-ply or radial
P/N: 160251
Style: LTS 5
Max Wheel Load Pounds: 2440
Capacity ratings as dual or single in highway service - bias-ply or radial
P/N: 161251
Style: Hot Shot
Max Wheel Load Pounds: 2780
Capacity ratings as dual or single in highway service - bias-ply or radial
COMMENTS:
The weight distribution per tire would be dependant on the how much pressure was supplied to the air bag supporting the remaining
tire. For ease of calculations we'll divide the rear GAWR of 8,000 lbs as noted above by four which results in a load per tire of
2,000 lbs. Operating the GMC with one wheel removed the load on the remaining tire would double; going from 2,000 to 4,000 lbs. This
is an overload of 1,765 pounds (~79%) on a D range tire at the maximum pressure of 65 psi and an overload of 1320 pounds (~49%) on
an E load range tire at the maximum pressure of 80 psi. If the tires are not inflated to the pressures noted in the previous
sentence the overload would be even higher.
CONCLUSION:
If you drive your GMC with less than four rear tires supporting the load you WILL be operating the GMC with OVERLOADED TIRE(S) and
OVERLOADED WHEELS!
Regards,
Rob M.
THE PEDANTIC MECHANIC
Sydney, Australia
AUS '75 Avion - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
USA '75 Avion - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
USA '77 Kingsley - TZE 267V100808
-----Original Message-----
From: Gmclist [mailto:gmclist-bounces] On Behalf Of Carl Stouffer
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2017 8:33 PM
To: gmclist
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] The "best air bag choice"
Yeah, good choice. Only trust one bag and tire to get your coach out of harms way. That is measured in feet, not miles. Murphy is
always, always present. If you give him a chance, he will get you every time.
Jim Hupy
Salem, Or
Spot on Jim. Driving on one bag, and one tire is meant as an emergency measure only. Even if one were to inflate that one tire to
the max rated PSI, it would be carrying right around 4,000# on a tire rated for 2,780 Not a very safe proposition.
--
Carl Stouffer
'75 ex Palm Beach
Tucson, AZ.
Chuck Aulgur Reaction Arm Disc Brakes, Quadrabags, 3.70 LSD final drive, Lenzi knuckles/hubs, Dodge Truck 16" X 8" front wheels,
Rear American Eagles,
Solar battery charging. GMCSJ and GMCMI member
johnd01
snip....
Over the years the allowable GVW has increased. Did the increase come with
stronger parts or did the engineers realize they could up the numbers with
the original desine?
Answer; "Both".
1973 Initial = 10,500
1973 late & 74 = 11,200
1975, 76, 77 =11,700
1978 = 12,500
I had been told by the GMC MotorHome engineers, the supported increase in GVW for the early change was due to design changes (there were many). The
last change was due primarily to the engineering evaluation that the then current design supported a 12,500 GVW.
--
Bill Bryant
1976~PB
1914 Ford
1965 Corvette
GMC MH History CD & GMC Showroom DVD
Workprint DVD GMC development 11-70 to 3-71
http://bdub.net/billbryant/
snip....
Over the years the allowable GVW has increased. Did the increase come with
stronger parts or did the engineers realize they could up the numbers with
the original desine?
Answer; "Both".
1973 Initial = 10,500
1973 late & 74 = 11,200
1975, 76, 77 =11,700
1978 = 12,500
I had been told by the GMC MotorHome engineers, the supported increase in GVW for the early change was due to design changes (there were many). The
last change was due primarily to the engineering evaluation that the then current design supported a 12,500 GVW.
--
Bill Bryant
1976~PB
1914 Ford
1965 Corvette
GMC MH History CD & GMC Showroom DVD
Workprint DVD GMC development 11-70 to 3-71
http://bdub.net/billbryant/
Bill, we know one change was increasing the size of the bogie pin from
1-1/4" to 1-3/8", but they also drilled a deeper oil passage when they did
so. They also added stiffeners and gussets to the front lower control arms,
though front axle rating didn't change.
But what else did they do that would actually increase rear load-carrying
ability? I would expect heavier frame rails, more gussets, heavier bogie
castings, etc. But I don't recall any changes like that.
It would help to know what salvage parts might be preferred.
Rick "not personally worried with a 9400-pound coach" Denney
> johnd01
>
> snip....
> Over the years the allowable GVW has increased. Did the increase come with
> stronger parts or did the engineers realize they could up the numbers with
> the original desine?
>
> Answer; "Both".
>
> 1973 Initial = 10,500
>
> 1973 late & 74 = 11,200
>
> 1975, 76, 77 =11,700
>
> 1978 = 12,500
>
> I had been told by the GMC MotorHome engineers, the supported increase in
> GVW for the early change was due to design changes (there were many). The
> last change was due primarily to the engineering evaluation that the then
> current design supported a 12,500 GVW.
>
> --
> Bill Bryant
> 1976~PB
> 1914 Ford
> 1965 Corvette
> GMC MH History CD & GMC Showroom DVD
> Workprint DVD GMC development 11-70 to 3-71
> http://bdub.net/billbryant/
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>
--
Rick Denney
73 x-Glacier 230 "Jaws"
Off-list email to rick at rickdenney dot com
1-1/4" to 1-3/8", but they also drilled a deeper oil passage when they did
so. They also added stiffeners and gussets to the front lower control arms,
though front axle rating didn't change.
But what else did they do that would actually increase rear load-carrying
ability? I would expect heavier frame rails, more gussets, heavier bogie
castings, etc. But I don't recall any changes like that.
It would help to know what salvage parts might be preferred.
Rick "not personally worried with a 9400-pound coach" Denney
> johnd01
>
> snip....
> Over the years the allowable GVW has increased. Did the increase come with
> stronger parts or did the engineers realize they could up the numbers with
> the original desine?
>
> Answer; "Both".
>
> 1973 Initial = 10,500
>
> 1973 late & 74 = 11,200
>
> 1975, 76, 77 =11,700
>
> 1978 = 12,500
>
> I had been told by the GMC MotorHome engineers, the supported increase in
> GVW for the early change was due to design changes (there were many). The
> last change was due primarily to the engineering evaluation that the then
> current design supported a 12,500 GVW.
>
> --
> Bill Bryant
> 1976~PB
> 1914 Ford
> 1965 Corvette
> GMC MH History CD & GMC Showroom DVD
> Workprint DVD GMC development 11-70 to 3-71
> http://bdub.net/billbryant/
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>
--
Rick Denney
73 x-Glacier 230 "Jaws"
Off-list email to rick at rickdenney dot com
Thanks Bill,
So my 75 Avion TZE064V101164 needs to say with 11,200 where the real 75 to
78 should be ok with 12,500 GVW.
On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Bill Bryant
wrote:
> johnd01
>
> snip....
> Over the years the allowable GVW has increased. Did the increase come with
> stronger parts or did the engineers realize they could up the numbers with
> the original desine?
>
> Answer; "Both".
>
> 1973 Initial = 10,500
>
> 1973 late & 74 = 11,200
>
> 1975, 76, 77 =11,700
>
> 1978 = 12,500
>
> I had been told by the GMC MotorHome engineers, the supported increase in
> GVW for the early change was due to design changes (there were many). The
> last change was due primarily to the engineering evaluation that the then
> current design supported a 12,500 GVW.
>
> --
> Bill Bryant
> 1976~PB
> 1914 Ford
> 1965 Corvette
> GMC MH History CD & GMC Showroom DVD
> Workprint DVD GMC development 11-70 to 3-71
> http://bdub.net/billbryant/
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>
--
*John Phillips*
So my 75 Avion TZE064V101164 needs to say with 11,200 where the real 75 to
78 should be ok with 12,500 GVW.
On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Bill Bryant
wrote:
> johnd01
>
> snip....
> Over the years the allowable GVW has increased. Did the increase come with
> stronger parts or did the engineers realize they could up the numbers with
> the original desine?
>
> Answer; "Both".
>
> 1973 Initial = 10,500
>
> 1973 late & 74 = 11,200
>
> 1975, 76, 77 =11,700
>
> 1978 = 12,500
>
> I had been told by the GMC MotorHome engineers, the supported increase in
> GVW for the early change was due to design changes (there were many). The
> last change was due primarily to the engineering evaluation that the then
> current design supported a 12,500 GVW.
>
> --
> Bill Bryant
> 1976~PB
> 1914 Ford
> 1965 Corvette
> GMC MH History CD & GMC Showroom DVD
> Workprint DVD GMC development 11-70 to 3-71
> http://bdub.net/billbryant/
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>
--
*John Phillips*
Not quite, 1975,76,77 were 11,700.
1978 was 12,500.
--
Bill Bryant
1976~PB
1914 Ford
1965 Corvette
GMC MH History CD & GMC Showroom DVD
Workprint DVD GMC development 11-70 to 3-71
http://bdub.net/billbryant/
1978 was 12,500.
--
Bill Bryant
1976~PB
1914 Ford
1965 Corvette
GMC MH History CD & GMC Showroom DVD
Workprint DVD GMC development 11-70 to 3-71
http://bdub.net/billbryant/
There are many ways the load a tire/wheel system esperiences can be changed. Extended crosswinds, hard cornering, and braking at speed are some that
come to mind. Also, all these load shift's severity increase considerably at higher speed. Wheel/tire manufacturers design the limits of their
systems with the understanding that at full loaded weight, you may have situations where a wheel\tire are loaded far more than steady state driving.
For example, an emergency lane change at 70mph, or a panic stop at those same speeds. If designers did not build the capability to handle these
additional loads into their systems, then you would hear stories of wheels coming apart, and tires blowing out on hard corners, etc and the associated
death and destruction those failures would cause.
Now I'm not saying you should regularly go driving around in an overloaded coach. Not at all. But I would not hesitate at all to drive a coach for
short distances at low speed on 3 rear wheels. Low speed, steady state driving loads are much lower than the coach regularly sees at high speed.
--
Mark S. '73 Painted Desert,
Manny 1 Ton Front End,
Howell Injection,
Leigh Harrison 4bag and Rear Brakes,
Fort Worth, TX
come to mind. Also, all these load shift's severity increase considerably at higher speed. Wheel/tire manufacturers design the limits of their
systems with the understanding that at full loaded weight, you may have situations where a wheel\tire are loaded far more than steady state driving.
For example, an emergency lane change at 70mph, or a panic stop at those same speeds. If designers did not build the capability to handle these
additional loads into their systems, then you would hear stories of wheels coming apart, and tires blowing out on hard corners, etc and the associated
death and destruction those failures would cause.
Now I'm not saying you should regularly go driving around in an overloaded coach. Not at all. But I would not hesitate at all to drive a coach for
short distances at low speed on 3 rear wheels. Low speed, steady state driving loads are much lower than the coach regularly sees at high speed.
--
Mark S. '73 Painted Desert,
Manny 1 Ton Front End,
Howell Injection,
Leigh Harrison 4bag and Rear Brakes,
Fort Worth, TX
