I saw some photos here a few days ago. That was showing thicker pads then GM engineering called for. I believe that the originals were at .5 inch, or just under. I have some that I can check. thick Bob Dunahugh
Why put in thicker body pads then GM engineeringcalled for.?
- Thread starter Bob Dunahugh
- Start date
I just measured an old compressed pad. 5/16th. May have been 3/8th new. But that's more then enough clearance for the 1/4th inch air lines. Bob Dunahugh 78 Royale
________________________________
From: Bob Dunahugh
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 12:16 AM
To: gmclist
Subject: Why put in thicker body pads then GM engineeringcalled for.?
I saw some photos here a few days ago. That was showing thicker pads then GM engineering called for. I believe that the originals were at .5 inch, or just under. I have some that I can check. thick Bob Dunahugh
________________________________
From: Bob Dunahugh
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 12:16 AM
To: gmclist
Subject: Why put in thicker body pads then GM engineeringcalled for.?
I saw some photos here a few days ago. That was showing thicker pads then GM engineering called for. I believe that the originals were at .5 inch, or just under. I have some that I can check. thick Bob Dunahugh
From my Googling around it appears that early coaches had thick pads about 1/2". Here is a photo from Bert & Faye Curtis's sit showing old pads versus
their replacement thick pad (which is the set I used):
http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/body-pads/p25791-body-pads.html
It then appears GM went to a long strip thinner pad, then to short thin pads. I speculate these changes were most likely driven more by cost saving
in assembly and materials than best function.
--
Bruce Hislop
ON Canada
77PB, 455 Dick P. rebuilt, DynamicEFI EBL EFI & ESC.1 ton front end
http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/showphoto.php?photo=29001
My Staff says I never listen to them, or something like that
their replacement thick pad (which is the set I used):
http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/body-pads/p25791-body-pads.html
It then appears GM went to a long strip thinner pad, then to short thin pads. I speculate these changes were most likely driven more by cost saving
in assembly and materials than best function.
--
Bruce Hislop
ON Canada
77PB, 455 Dick P. rebuilt, DynamicEFI EBL EFI & ESC.1 ton front end
http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/showphoto.php?photo=29001
My Staff says I never listen to them, or something like that
The thicker pads were of a "softer" rubber than the thinner ones used in
the later coaches. By durometer (?) readings from original pads. Probably
when the coach weight was on either, they each gave close to the same
clearance.
Fay Curtis
'76 Glenbrook
Kneeland, CA
On Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 11:23 AM Bruce Hislop via Gmclist <
> From my Googling around it appears that early coaches had thick pads about
> 1/2". Here is a photo from Bert & Faye Curtis's sit showing old pads versus
> their replacement thick pad (which is the set I used):
>
> http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/body-pads/p25791-body-pads.html
>
> It then appears GM went to a long strip thinner pad, then to short thin
> pads. I speculate these changes were most likely driven more by cost saving
> in assembly and materials than best function.
>
>
>
> --
> Bruce Hislop
> ON Canada
> 77PB, 455 Dick P. rebuilt, DynamicEFI EBL EFI & ESC.1 ton front end
> http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/showphoto.php?photo=29001
> My Staff says I never listen to them, or something like that
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>
the later coaches. By durometer (?) readings from original pads. Probably
when the coach weight was on either, they each gave close to the same
clearance.
Fay Curtis
'76 Glenbrook
Kneeland, CA
On Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 11:23 AM Bruce Hislop via Gmclist <
> From my Googling around it appears that early coaches had thick pads about
> 1/2". Here is a photo from Bert & Faye Curtis's sit showing old pads versus
> their replacement thick pad (which is the set I used):
>
> http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/body-pads/p25791-body-pads.html
>
> It then appears GM went to a long strip thinner pad, then to short thin
> pads. I speculate these changes were most likely driven more by cost saving
> in assembly and materials than best function.
>
>
>
> --
> Bruce Hislop
> ON Canada
> 77PB, 455 Dick P. rebuilt, DynamicEFI EBL EFI & ESC.1 ton front end
> http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/showphoto.php?photo=29001
> My Staff says I never listen to them, or something like that
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>
David. I've seen pads from 3/4 to 1 inch. I'm not saying don't do it. I just haven't seen a reason to do it. Doing it would give you more engine air cleaner. Bob Dunahugh
________________________________
From: Bob Dunahugh
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 12:23 PM
To: gmclist
Subject: RE: Why put in thicker body pads then GM engineeringcalled for.?
I just measured an old compressed pad. 5/16th. May have been 3/8th new. But that's more then enough clearance for the 1/4th inch air lines. Bob Dunahugh 78 Royale
________________________________
From: Bob Dunahugh
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 12:16 AM
To: gmclist
Subject: Why put in thicker body pads then GM engineeringcalled for.?
I saw some photos here a few days ago. That was showing thicker pads then GM engineering called for. I believe that the originals were at .5 inch, or just under. I have some that I can check. thick Bob Dunahugh
________________________________
From: Bob Dunahugh
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 12:23 PM
To: gmclist
Subject: RE: Why put in thicker body pads then GM engineeringcalled for.?
I just measured an old compressed pad. 5/16th. May have been 3/8th new. But that's more then enough clearance for the 1/4th inch air lines. Bob Dunahugh 78 Royale
________________________________
From: Bob Dunahugh
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 12:16 AM
To: gmclist
Subject: Why put in thicker body pads then GM engineeringcalled for.?
I saw some photos here a few days ago. That was showing thicker pads then GM engineering called for. I believe that the originals were at .5 inch, or just under. I have some that I can check. thick Bob Dunahugh
Mine are 3/4" because that's the rubber that was locally available. They work fine and you gain a little clearance for running air lines and the like
without fear of them pinching.
I don't see one being better or worse than the other honestly, just what I had on hand.
--
Justin Brady
http://www.thegmcrv.com/
1976 Palm Beach 455
without fear of them pinching.
I don't see one being better or worse than the other honestly, just what I had on hand.
--
Justin Brady
http://www.thegmcrv.com/
1976 Palm Beach 455
This is good info guys. Did not know about the glueing of one side and lubeing the other for vehicle movement slippage but makes absolute sense. I
assume the glue is on the top of the pads and the lube is on the bottom at the rail bearing point? Make sense to me since we're running the Tek screws
up into the aluminum bands. Any other tips on this? Starting that pad insert this afternoon.
Thanks,
Tom
76 Eleganza 2
KCMO
assume the glue is on the top of the pads and the lube is on the bottom at the rail bearing point? Make sense to me since we're running the Tek screws
up into the aluminum bands. Any other tips on this? Starting that pad insert this afternoon.
Thanks,
Tom
76 Eleganza 2
KCMO
Gluing is tricky as you need to let it tack up so it does not get squesed
out.
We use screws to hold the pads along with the glue.
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 7:49 AM tom geiger via Gmclist <
> This is good info guys. Did not know about the glueing of one side and
> lubeing the other for vehicle movement slippage but makes absolute sense. I
> assume the glue is on the top of the pads and the lube is on the bottom at
> the rail bearing point? Make sense to me since we're running the Tek screws
> up into the aluminum bands. Any other tips on this? Starting that pad
> insert this afternoon.
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
> 76 Eleganza 2
> KCMO
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
out.
We use screws to hold the pads along with the glue.
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 7:49 AM tom geiger via Gmclist <
> This is good info guys. Did not know about the glueing of one side and
> lubeing the other for vehicle movement slippage but makes absolute sense. I
> assume the glue is on the top of the pads and the lube is on the bottom at
> the rail bearing point? Make sense to me since we're running the Tek screws
> up into the aluminum bands. Any other tips on this? Starting that pad
> insert this afternoon.
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
> 76 Eleganza 2
> KCMO
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
