Why was GMC setup to ride low in the rear?

Ray,

Since you noted that you recently set your ride height and have made the
blocks could you please answer this question:

I'm not sure but I think it has also been noted here that with the front and
rear ride height set correctly you can draw a straight line through the
center of the middle axle - front bogie pivot point - rear bogie pivot point
- rear axle; is that correct? I can't check it myself as The Blue Streak is
up on jack stands.

Regards,
Rob M.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Erspamer

The way I check or adjust my ride height is this....

The first time I had the coach in the position per X-7525 Page 3A-20 Fig.
31, I then cut some 2"x2" hard maple blocks that fit between the road and
the bottom of the frame at a defined location. Then whenever I want to
check it or make adjustments, I can do it very easily and quick by sliding
the block under the frame. No messing with a tape measure, etc.

Ray
 
Ken,

HEY, I resent, er, resemble that remark! ;-)

Regards,
Rob M.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Henderson

But, Ken, our obesity epidemic hadn't started back then!

Ken H.

> I think you missed one. This allow two BIG people to sit up front and
the
> coach will level out. If they sit in the rear the airbags automatically
> adjust. If thet sit up front front the coach rides a little lower.
> --
>
 
Ray,

One of the things I noticed about the curvature of that lower strip was
how well it looked on the the coach with the rear slightly lower. It does
look way cool and fast. But, of course, I'd say that.

Byron

-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Erspamer
Reply-To:
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 07:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
To:
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Why was GMC setup to ride low in the rear?

>I recently adjusted my ride height to the factory specs, both front and
>back.
>The rear air system always adjusts the rear height based on load weight
>and it
>sets it dead nuts to spec.
>
>The rear is a tad lower, but not much in my opinion. I know it was
>designed
>that way for handling and steering, but I think the rear being a little
>lower
>gives the coach a nice good soft look too.
>
>
>Pix link attached.
>
>http://tinyurl.com/3rwm3oe
>
>
>
>
>Ray
>
>
>Ray & Lisa Erspamer
>78 Royale "Great Lakes Eagle"
>Center Kitchen TZE368V101144
>Wauwatosa, Wisconsin 53226
>Email: 78GMC-Royale
>414-745-3188
>Web Site: http://ray-lisa.page.tl/
>
>
 
I think it has to do with AoA and coefficient of drag. The behavior, even
at 55, would be different if the ride height were all the same front to
back. I'm sure a wind tunnel experience would tell us something.

Byron

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Mueller
Reply-To:
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 15:19:50 +1000
To:
Subject: [GMCnet] Why was GMC setup to ride low in the rear?

>G'day,
>
>I'm still trying to figure out why the GMC was setup with the rear end
>lower
>than the front. Why didn't they set it up level?
>
>It has been suggested that:
>
>1) To get more caster
>
>Comment: GMC could have located the mounting tabs for the upper and lower
>control arms wherever they wanted to position the upper and lower ball
>joints to get whatever caster they wanted; why would the locate them to
>require running with the rear lower?
>
>2) To make the fuel run into the rear tank
>
>Comment: Quite possibly
>
>3) Front to rear weight balance
>
>Comment: GAWR = 4,500 lbs Front Wheels
> GAWR = 8,000 lbs Rear Wheels
>
>Comment: Running the GMC with the rear lower than the front would increase
>the weight carried on the rear would it not? Why not run the GMC level?
>
>4) Angle of attack (AoA)
>
>Comment: I wonder how much having the rear end lower by 1 7/16" as
>measured
>at the height measurement slots would affect AoA.
>
>I took some more measurements the other day when I was at the workshop.
>Here's a summary of all I have:
>
>1) 13 1/8" = front ride height setting at 0" tolerance
>
>2) 11 11/16" = rear ride height setting at 0" tolerance
>
>3) 1 7/16" = front to rear drop at center of slots at 0" tolerance
>
>4) 24 3/8" = center of front height adjustment slot to front axle center
>
>5) 160" = center of the front axle to the center of the two rear wheels
>(wheelbase)
>
>6) 56 3/8" = center of rear height adjustment slot to the center of the
>two
>rear wheels
>
>7) 240 3/4" distance between center of front and rear adjustment slots (24
>3/8" + 160" + 56 3/8")
>
>8) 274" = end to end length of chrome trim piece on 1975 GMC Avion
>
>9) 46 1/2" = distance from the center of the front ride height slot to the
>front end of the beltline chrome trim piece
>
>10) 34" = distance from the center of the rear ride height slot to the
>rear
>end of the beltline chrome trim piece
>
>I can take the measurements but my math skills are not good enough anymore
>to figger the following out:
>
>A) Using the measurements above what is the angle of the drop front to
>rear?
>
>B) Using the measurements above what is the measurement of the drop at the
>ends of the chrome trim piece?
>
>It has been noted that with the front and rear ride height set as above
>the
>front axles are straight and level with the ground with 225/75-16R tires
>fitted.
>
>I'm not sure but I think it has also been noted here that with the front
>and
>rear ride height set correctly you can draw a straight line through the
>center of the middle axle - front bogie pivot point - rear bogie pivot
>point
>- rear axle; is that correct? I can't check it myself as The Blue Streak
>is
>up on jack stands.
>
>If anything I have stated is incorrect, illogical or my math incorrect
>PLEASE correct it!
>
>Regards,
>Rob M.
>
>_______________________________________________
>GMCnet mailing list
>Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
>http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
 
Same for walking horse photos.

Byron

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Teets
Reply-To:
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:33:01 -0400
To:
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Why was GMC setup to ride low in the rear?

>Another consideration... it was just style, combined with after the fact
>engineering to improve steering. Style of 1977 was low in the rear...
>
>All brochures from the time even were taken to exaggerate the high in the
>front stance.
>
>http://oldcarbrochures.org/index.php/NA/Chevrolet_Corvette/1977_Chevrolet_
>Corvette/1977_Corvette_Brochure/1977-Chevrolet-Corvette-02-03
>
>http://www.heatercorereplacement.com/index.php/models/chevrolet/chevrolet-
>camaro-1977/
>
>
 
Byron,

I agree with you in theory, however, Bill Bryant has a model of the wind
tunnel test coach and it is clean as a whistle.

http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/showphoto.php?photo=1621

I did a search on the Forum for "coefficient of drag" and found a message
that noted that the GMC had a CoD of .31 which coincides with what I
remember.

I ga-ron-tee you that with all the crap attached to the outside of a
production GMC it's not in the same ballpark, in fact I'd say it's not even
in the same city, or state!

Regards,
Rob M.

-----Original Message-----
From: gmclist-bounces
[mailto:gmclist-bounces] On Behalf Of Byron Songer

I think it has to do with AoA and coefficient of drag. The behavior, even
at 55, would be different if the ride height were all the same front to
back. I'm sure a wind tunnel experience would tell us something.

Byron
 
Phil,

We may disagree on Chinese tools on this I AGREE 100%.

It was easy to determine the front to rear drop at the frame slots (1
7/16").

I took all the measurements so that someone who had the math skills could
calculate what the drop was at the front and rear of the chrome trim piece.

Maybe someone whose ride height is set properly could measure it. My GMC
here is up on jack stands or I'd do it myself.

Regards,
Rob M.
Sydney, Australia

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Swanson

Most are way too low because too many folks just ignore the air system and
guess what, in an air system, when pressure goes down so does the ride
height. Probably the most neglected part of the coach is the air system and
bags.

Phil Swanson
 
> I took all the measurements so that someone who had the math skills could
> calculate what the drop was at the front and rear of the chrome trim piece.
>
> Maybe someone whose ride height is set properly could measure it. My GMC
> here is up on jack stands or I'd do it myself.


No one has challenged my math yet, so 2.05" should be it. I'm curious to see how it compares to the truth in situ.

--
1973 Sequoia 260 (since 2011)
In-transit, westward
 
Rob,

I was thinking of a real wind tunnel test with a 1:1 model that included
the extra stuff underneath and at least an AC on top. One other thing I
was thinkin' was that the AoA, for the length and weight, might make for a
better ride overall using the air space, underneath, to help as a
dampening effect. Fuzzy logic, I know. But, in theory, it could help the
coach to settle down somewhat. It is a curiosity. Enquiring minds want to
know.

Byron

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Mueller
Reply-To:
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 10:32:02 +1000
To:
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Why was GMC setup to ride low in the rear?

>Byron,
>
>I agree with you in theory, however, Bill Bryant has a model of the wind
>tunnel test coach and it is clean as a whistle.
>
>http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/showphoto.php?photo=1621
>
>I did a search on the Forum for "coefficient of drag" and found a message
>that noted that the GMC had a CoD of .31 which coincides with what I
>remember.
>
>I ga-ron-tee you that with all the crap attached to the outside of a
>production GMC it's not in the same ballpark, in fact I'd say it's not
>even
>in the same city, or state!
>
>Regards,
>Rob M.
 
Rob,

You had the correct answer back in your first post. Some of the
goofy suggestions that came out are ridiculous. No one is
thinking.
The front ride height is set by the fact that GM just spread a
Toro
frame drawing out. in the rear, if the bogie pins were lowered,
the
frame rails would be twisted even worse by the weight. And if
the
bogie pins are not dead level with the center of the wheels and
you
have ANY camber, either positive or negative, the rear wheels
will
not be pointing the same direction.(front to back. With any
camber,
the bogies are swinging at an angle and one will point in and the
other out. Think what that will scrub off.

Gary Kosier
77EII & 77PB
Newark, Ohio

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Mueller"
To:
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Why was GMC setup to ride low in the rear?

> Ray,
>
> Since you noted that you recently set your ride height and have
> made the
> blocks could you please answer this question:
>
> I'm not sure but I think it has also been noted here that with
> the front and
> rear ride height set correctly you can draw a straight line
> through the
> center of the middle axle - front bogie pivot point - rear
> bogie pivot point
> - rear axle; is that correct? I can't check it myself as The
> Blue Streak is
> up on jack stands.
>
> Regards,
> Rob M.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Erspamer
>
> The way I check or adjust my ride height is this....
>
> The first time I had the coach in the position per X-7525 Page
> 3A-20 Fig.
> 31, I then cut some 2"x2" hard maple blocks that fit between
> the road and
> the bottom of the frame at a defined location. Then whenever
> I want to
> check it or make adjustments, I can do it very easily and quick
> by sliding
> the block under the frame. No messing with a tape measure,
> etc.
>
> Ray
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
 
Andrew,

Is that from end to end of the belt chrome trim or the ride height set
points?

I asked Ray to measure his GMC, hopefully he'll do so and we can compare
what we find.

Regards,
Rob M.
Sydney, Australia
AUS '75 Avion-The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
USA '75 Avion-Double Trouble TZE365V100426


-----Original Message-----
From: gmclist-bounces
[mailto:gmclist-bounces] On Behalf Of Andrew

No one has challenged my math yet, so 2.05" should be it. I'm curious to see
how it compares to the truth in situ.
 
I like the color scheme. I have one question, though.

Is there actually a Screamin' Eagle Harley in the trailer
that has what appears to be a dead ringer for Harley's
Screamin' Eagle logo/insignia?

It surely looks very much like what is on each side of
the fuel tank on _MY_ Harley!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ D C "Mac" Macdonald ~ ~~
~ ~ Amateur Radio - K2GKK ~ ~
~ ~ USAF and FAA, Retired ~ ~
~ ~ ~ Oklahoma City, OK ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ "The Money Pit" ~ ~ ~~
~~ ~ ~ (TZE166V101966) ~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ex-Palm Beach, 76 ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

www.gmcmhphotos.com/okclb



From: Ray Erspamer
Reply-To:
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 07:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
To:
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Why was GMC setup to ride low in the rear?

I recently adjusted my ride height to the factory specs, both front
and back. The rear air system always adjusts the rear height based
on load weight and it sets it dead nuts to spec.

The rear is a tad lower, but not much in my opinion. I know it was
designed that way for handling and steering, but I think the rear
being a little lower gives the coach a nice good soft look too.

Pix link follows.

http://tinyurl.com/3rwm3oe

Ray

Ray & Lisa Erspamer
78 Royale "Great Lakes Eagle"
Center Kitchen TZE368V101144
Wauwatosa, Wisconsin 53226
Email: 78GMC-Royale
414-745-3188
Web Site: http://ray-lisa.page.tl/

 
Nope, not a screaming eagle in the trailer, just a standard Ultra Classic. We
just like eagles and we liked the logo.

Ray

Ray & Lisa Erspamer
78 Royale "Great Lakes Eagle"
Center Kitchen TZE368V101144
Wauwatosa, Wisconsin 53226
Email: 78GMC-Royale
414-745-3188
Web Site: http://ray-lisa.page.tl/

----- Original Message ----
From: D C *Mac* Macdonald
To: gmclist
Sent: Thu, August 18, 2011 11:34:04 PM
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Why was GMC setup to ride low in the rear?

I like the color scheme. I have one question, though.

Is there actually a Screamin' Eagle Harley in the trailer
that has what appears to be a dead ringer for Harley's
Screamin' Eagle logo/insignia?

It surely looks very much like what is on each side of
the fuel tank on _MY_ Harley!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ D C "Mac" Macdonald ~ ~~
~ ~ Amateur Radio - K2GKK ~ ~
~ ~ USAF and FAA, Retired ~ ~
~ ~ ~ Oklahoma City, OK ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ "The Money Pit" ~ ~ ~~
~~ ~ ~ (TZE166V101966) ~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ex-Palm Beach, 76 ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

www.gmcmhphotos.com/okclb

From: Ray Erspamer
Reply-To:
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 07:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
To:
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Why was GMC setup to ride low in the rear?

I recently adjusted my ride height to the factory specs, both front
and back. The rear air system always adjusts the rear height based
on load weight and it sets it dead nuts to spec.

The rear is a tad lower, but not much in my opinion. I know it was
designed that way for handling and steering, but I think the rear
being a little lower gives the coach a nice good soft look too.

Pix link follows.

http://tinyurl.com/3rwm3oe

Ray

Ray & Lisa Erspamer
78 Royale "Great Lakes Eagle"
Center Kitchen TZE368V101144
Wauwatosa, Wisconsin 53226
Email: 78GMC-Royale
414-745-3188
Web Site: http://ray-lisa.page.tl/


_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
 
> Andrew,
>
> Is that from end to end of the belt chrome trim or the ride height set
> points?
>
> I asked Ray to measure his GMC, hopefully he'll do so and we can compare
> what we find.


The 2.05" is the expected drop over the full 274" of the chrome trim.

I used the angle calculation derived from the slot-to-slot measurements in horizontal and vertical planes, but you could also just use rise over run (1-7/16 over 192) = (x over 274); x=2.05

The iPad keyboard resists my attempts to format that mathematically correctly, but I tried.

&©

--
1973 Sequoia 260 (since 2011)
In-transit, westward
 
Andrew,

Thanks!

Ray,

How about you measure your GMC and see if it matches Andrew's calculations?

Regards,
Rob M.

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew

The 2.05" is the expected drop over the full 274" of the chrome trim.

I used the angle calculation derived from the slot-to-slot measurements in
horizontal and vertical planes, but you could also just use rise over run
(1-7/16 over 192) = (x over 274); x=2.05

The iPad keyboard resists my attempts to format that mathematically
correctly, but I tried.
 
Just wondered. I ride a 2000 FLTRSEI 95 CID Screamin' Eagle Roadglide
and wife Judy rides a 2007 FXDL 96 CID Dyna Low Rider.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ D C "Mac" Macdonald ~ ~~
~ ~ Amateur Radio - K2GKK ~ ~
~ ~ USAF and FAA, Retired ~ ~
~ ~ ~ Oklahoma City, OK ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ "The Money Pit" ~ ~ ~~
~~ ~ ~ (TZE166V101966) ~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ex-Palm Beach, 76 ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

www.gmcmhphotos.com/okclb





> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 05:47:55 -0700
> From: 78gmc-royale
> To: gmclist
> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Why was GMC setup to ride low in the rear?
>
> Nope, not a screaming eagle in the trailer, just a standard Ultra Classic. We
> just like eagles and we liked the logo.
>
> Ray
>
> Ray & Lisa Erspamer
> 78 Royale "Great Lakes Eagle"
> Center Kitchen TZE368V101144
> Wauwatosa, Wisconsin 53226
> Email: 78GMC-Royale
> 414-745-3188
> Web Site: http://ray-lisa.page.tl/
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: D C *Mac* Macdonald
> To: gmclist
> Sent: Thu, August 18, 2011 11:34:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Why was GMC setup to ride low in the rear?
>
> I like the color scheme. I have one question, though.
>
> Is there actually a Screamin' Eagle Harley in the trailer
> that has what appears to be a dead ringer for Harley's
> Screamin' Eagle logo/insignia?
>
> It surely looks very much like what is on each side of
> the fuel tank on _MY_ Harley!
>
> ~~ ~ D C "Mac" Macdonald ~ ~~
> ~~ ~ ~ "The Money Pit" ~ ~ ~~
> ~~ ~ ~ (TZE166V101966) ~ ~ ~~
>
>
>
>
> From: Ray Erspamer
> Reply-To:
> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 07:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
> To:
> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Why was GMC setup to ride low in the rear?
>
> I recently adjusted my ride height to the factory specs, both front
> and back. The rear air system always adjusts the rear height based
> on load weight and it sets it dead nuts to spec.
>
> The rear is a tad lower, but not much in my opinion. I know it was
> designed that way for handling and steering, but I think the rear
> being a little lower gives the coach a nice good soft look too.
>
> Pix link follows.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3rwm3oe
>
> Ray
>
> Ray & Lisa Erspamer
> 78 Royale "Great Lakes Eagle"
> Center Kitchen TZE368V101144
> Wauwatosa, Wisconsin 53226
> Email: 78GMC-Royale
> 414-745-3188
> Web Site: http://ray-lisa.page.tl/
 
Nice Bikes Mac !!!

Lisa doesn't want a bike of her own, she just likes to sit on the back and look
at the scenery and take pictures. Works for me !

Ray

Ray & Lisa Erspamer
78 Royale "Great Lakes Eagle"
Center Kitchen TZE368V101144
Wauwatosa, Wisconsin 53226
Email: 78GMC-Royale
414-745-3188
Web Site: http://ray-lisa.page.tl/

----- Original Message ----
From: D C *Mac* Macdonald
To: gmclist
Sent: Fri, August 19, 2011 10:44:56 AM
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Why was GMC setup to ride low in the rear?

Just wondered. I ride a 2000 FLTRSEI 95 CID Screamin' Eagle Roadglide
and wife Judy rides a 2007 FXDL 96 CID Dyna Low Rider.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ D C "Mac" Macdonald ~ ~~
~ ~ Amateur Radio - K2GKK ~ ~
~ ~ USAF and FAA, Retired ~ ~
~ ~ ~ Oklahoma City, OK ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ "The Money Pit" ~ ~ ~~
~~ ~ ~ (TZE166V101966) ~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ex-Palm Beach, 76 ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

www.gmcmhphotos.com/okclb

> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 05:47:55 -0700
> From: 78gmc-royale
> To: gmclist
> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Why was GMC setup to ride low in the rear?
>
> Nope, not a screaming eagle in the trailer, just a standard Ultra Classic. We
> just like eagles and we liked the logo.
>
> Ray
>
> Ray & Lisa Erspamer
> 78 Royale "Great Lakes Eagle"
> Center Kitchen TZE368V101144
> Wauwatosa, Wisconsin 53226
> Email: 78GMC-Royale
> 414-745-3188
> Web Site: http://ray-lisa.page.tl/
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: D C *Mac* Macdonald
> To: gmclist
> Sent: Thu, August 18, 2011 11:34:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Why was GMC setup to ride low in the rear?
>
> I like the color scheme. I have one question, though.
>
> Is there actually a Screamin' Eagle Harley in the trailer
> that has what appears to be a dead ringer for Harley's
> Screamin' Eagle logo/insignia?
>
> It surely looks very much like what is on each side of
> the fuel tank on _MY_ Harley!
>
> ~~ ~ D C "Mac" Macdonald ~ ~~
> ~~ ~ ~ "The Money Pit" ~ ~ ~~
> ~~ ~ ~ (TZE166V101966) ~ ~ ~~
>
>
>
>
> From: Ray Erspamer
> Reply-To:
> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 07:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
> To:
> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Why was GMC setup to ride low in the rear?
>
> I recently adjusted my ride height to the factory specs, both front
> and back. The rear air system always adjusts the rear height based
> on load weight and it sets it dead nuts to spec.
>
> The rear is a tad lower, but not much in my opinion. I know it was
> designed that way for handling and steering, but I think the rear
> being a little lower gives the coach a nice good soft look too.
>
> Pix link follows.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3rwm3oe
>
> Ray
>
> Ray & Lisa Erspamer
> 78 Royale "Great Lakes Eagle"
> Center Kitchen TZE368V101144
> Wauwatosa, Wisconsin 53226
> Email: 78GMC-Royale
> 414-745-3188
> Web Site: http://ray-lisa.page.tl/

_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
 
I will have to wait until next week to take these measurements, right now my
coach is up on blocks for changing out the final drive. I plan to finish that
tomorrow and then drop my fuel tanks for inspection, cleaning, new socks and all
new hoses.

But I'll try to get it measured as soon as I can.

Ray

Ray & Lisa Erspamer
78 Royale "Great Lakes Eagle"
Center Kitchen TZE368V101144
Wauwatosa, Wisconsin 53226
Email: 78GMC-Royale
414-745-3188
Web Site: http://ray-lisa.page.tl/

----- Original Message ----
From: Rob Mueller
To: gmclist
Sent: Thu, August 18, 2011 9:49:44 PM
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Why was GMC setup to ride low in the rear?

Andrew,

Is that from end to end of the belt chrome trim or the ride height set
points?

I asked Ray to measure his GMC, hopefully he'll do so and we can compare
what we find.

Regards,
Rob M.
Sydney, Australia
AUS '75 Avion-The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
USA '75 Avion-Double Trouble TZE365V100426

-----Original Message-----
From: gmclist-bounces
[mailto:gmclist-bounces] On Behalf Of Andrew

No one has challenged my math yet, so 2.05" should be it. I'm curious to see
how it compares to the truth in situ.

_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
 
I "think" I have a motorhome.....

Ray

Ray & Lisa Erspamer
78 Royale "Great Lakes Eagle"
Center Kitchen TZE368V101144
Wauwatosa, Wisconsin 53226
Email: 78GMC-Royale
414-745-3188
Web Site: http://ray-lisa.page.tl/

----- Original Message ----
From: Byron Songer
To: gmclist
Sent: Fri, August 19, 2011 11:55:20 AM
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Why was GMC setup to ride low in the rear?

Ray and Rob,

Do you guys have trailers or motorhomes?

Byron

_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Get your shine on at www.cruzingear.co
GMCMI Fall 2026 Rally

Share this page

Share this page
Top Bottom
Back