A very hot tow vehicle

[slowmover]

Originally Posted by dznf0g

I believe you would find that SAE (since you made presumptive comments about them) j2807 prescribed the reduction in the 300 tow rating reduction.....which should tell you something.

Ha! Not when one exposes the faults in that!

[dznf0g]

Originally Posted by slowmover

Ha! Not when one exposes the faults in that!

Huh???

[slowmover]

Originally Posted by Hittenstiehl

Andy T has likely long since quit reading this and moved onto another setup that will serve a customer and their Airstream well.

When you guys debate AndyT's setups not ONE person has ever said their set up:
Didn't work
Wasn't safe
Voided their warranty
Put anyone at risk
Catapulted them into an abyss
Pulled off their bumper
Ruined their transmission
Blew their engine
Busted their heads
Flattened their tires

Yada yada yada...

I'm sold and if ever I get a chance this will be the vehicle he will set up for me.Attachment 298586

There's a thread on here about a hitch receiver needed on a '57 Dodge. Yeah, I know. It's a Dodge and not an Imperial (unibody vs BOF); still you'll enjoy it.

I understand Wilwood or one of the others can fit you up with 4-whl disc brakes

The 1969 Imperial had a tow package with increased diameter front torsion bars (and IIRC, a slight increase for rear leaf); might be useful to find percentage increase. Info should be at Imperial Club.

Custom shock absorbers all around would be the other.

The other angle would be to look at percent increase from a New Yorker to a 300 pre-1964. That's a little more than one would need, but it would figure with rear leaf change.

I talked some with the folks at Lee Power Steering about a Saginaw unit on my '71 Chrysler to change to variable-ratio. Also worthwhile, IMO. That trailing link steering is just too slow.

As to front anti-roll bar, a rear bar can be used once one changes to radial tires. Not otherwise. But would want an increased diameter on front; again, IMO.

If you're going to run the V8-440, the 440-3 Marine & Industrial spec as used in motorhomes still has a following. And if you can get the cam specs that Morgan Hill RV set for the FMC motorhomes, you'd be ahead.

There are several shops that specialized in the late overdrive version of the 727 TorqFlite.

.

[slowmover]

Originally Posted by dznf0g

Huh???

Oh, I have to do this again? We covered it at depth 4-5 years back.

Let's start here: why did it take fifty years to discover (ha) that the older way of setting a WDH was a problem? (As it wasn't).

We can also end it there.

J2807 "might" be useful comparing one truck to another. It's not good for anything else. Too many flaws.

[slowmover]

Originally Posted by dznf0g

Beeeecause........it wasn't conceived, designed, spec'ed nor built to tow.....that's why we don't trust for it to tow.

Nor are pickups. That's the fundamental flaw in the assumption. They're "good" IF one has to carry a heavy load in the bed. That's it. And only then if one keeps speed well below the upper limit on a rural highway.

As do you, of course. About 55 or so? Already at or above what it's capable in the slalom. Especially with revised WD guidelines.

[dznf0g]

Originally Posted by slowmover

Oh, I have to do this again? We covered it at depth 4-5 years back.

Let's start here: why did it take fifty years to discover (ha) that the older way of setting a WDH was a problem? (As it wasn't).

We can also end it there.

J2807 "might" be useful comparing one truck to another. It's not good for anything else. Too many flaws.

We agree on that. I do understand that it can be an apples to apples shopping tool, but I don't care if I maintain 60 up a steep hill with a/c on high....... I don't drive like that regardless of available power. I find the gear and rpm where the engine breathes well, and relax. The problem with j2807, for me, is that I still would like to know what weights and measures is the tv capable of mechanically. That is gone. My comment above relates to vehicles which lost trailer rating and gcwr when nothing changed with the product. I know why some of GM's vehicles lost a few hundred pounds, and I am pretty confident I can draw some educated conclusions about most all of those occurrences. I would wager that all the reductions are due to not being able to maintain designated speed and/or powertrain cooling issues at designated speed (with a/c on high) .

[dznf0g]

Originally Posted by slowmover

Nor are pickups. That's the fundamental flaw in the assumption. They're "good" IF one has to carry a heavy load in the bed. That's it. And only then if one keeps speed well below the upper limit on a rural highway.

As do you, of course. About 55 or so? Already at or above what it's capable in the slalom. Especially with revised WD guidelines.

This we disagree on. I happen to know that towing capability is in the top three considerations when developing trucks.

[slowmover]

Originally Posted by dznf0g

This we disagree on. I happen to know that towing capability is in the top three considerations when developing trucks.

Yes. Marketing. 900 LB/FT. Ridiculous stuff. Not serious

Serious would be fully independent suspension and a lowered center of gravity. Four wheel steering would be up there as well.

So, no, "towing" is not a top consideration. Bragging based on square feet of chrome is the equivalent. Lipstick on a pig.

It's a cheap vehicle with a high profit margin. Hasn't changed since World War Two for what matters re this subject.

The assumption that it's a good tow vehicle is the problem. It isn't defined nor is it demonstrated. I'd call that other than responsible. The travel trailer manufacturers are no better. Worse then 19th century suspensions. And SAE engineers giving the appearance of taking money from both sides.
.

[RandyNH]

slowmover and dznf0g, that was fun to watch. Both of you argue the same point on so many other threads, when you started arguing each other I wondered how long it would take for you both to realize you were actually of the same thought process (for the most part)

[dznf0g]

Originally Posted by RandyNH

slowmover and dznf0g, that was fun to watch. Both of you argue the same point on so many other threads, when you started arguing each other I wondered how long it would take for you both to realize you were actually of the same thought process (for the most part)

Regarding J2807, I think a lot of our collective heartburn with it will fade as new platforms are designed to it. Where we all get our undies in a bunch is when it was introduced mid life-cycle of vehicles and some already produced component reduces ratings due to its performance under some unforeseen test parameters. Remember, a vehicle is pretty much locked in stone in design about 2 - 3 years before it rolls out. All- new platforms released after 2015, which have towing as a design element will see better results. So,, I would anticipate that the 2019 GM 1500s will rise somewhat in tow ratings. We'll see.

[PKI]

Search for the STD turned up this thread from - 2011

http://www.airforums.com/forums/f463...g-85266-7.html

Last couple of pages are interesting. Most of the prior info is similar to many of the arguments here.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program - got to catch up. Pat

[dznf0g]

Originally Posted by slowmover

Yes. Marketing. 900 LB/FT. Ridiculous stuff. Not serious

Serious would be fully independent suspension and a lowered center of gravity. Four wheel steering would be up there as well.

So, no, "towing" is not a top consideration. Bragging based on square feet of chrome is the equivalent. Lipstick on a pig.

It's a cheap vehicle with a high profit margin. Hasn't changed since World War Two for what matters re this subject.

The assumption that it's a good tow vehicle is the problem. It isn't defined nor is it demonstrated. I'd call that other than responsible. The travel trailer manufacturers are no better. Worse then 19th century suspensions. And SAE engineers giving the appearance of taking money from both sides.
.

900 lb/ft ridiculous - For us ASers, yes. For a forty foot fifth wheel and many commercial applications, not ridiculous.

Towing is a top consideration regardless of your personal thoughts...and they have been made very clear across these threads. Disagree - from personal professional experience.

Fully independent suspension has handling benefits, but is substantially weaker when sized for the available space which each type is to occupy. Interestingly, case in point...I was brushing up on my Camaro knowledge today, as I don't deal with it on a daily basis. IRS for all street models; can handle torque and power well; corners superior for track and street. But a COPO Camaro has a live axle....why....brute strength and extraordinary weight transfer (load...starting to sound like the virtues of a PU). There are benefits and drawbacks to both. For a load carrying PU, I would not want IRS in my truck, period. I operate close to RGAWR most of my driving miles. IRS would be expensive for me....they are not as durable....way too many moving parts for a truck that works for a living.

Yes, trucks and FSSUVs have a higher profit margin than unitized vehicles, for a number of reasons. One is build simplicity of full frame...and there is lots of room to install interior components. No apologies for that. I would like to have been able to get 6.2L, 8 speed, MaxTow without going to an LTZ and paying for that "lipstick". But they are no longer pigs. And it's not anything like it was 40 years ago. The ride, and yes, HANDLING is remarkably good. It's no Camaro, but the truck was never supposed to be a sports car any more than the sports car was intended to tow like a truck. Different primary conceptions and designs.

I guess my biggest disagreement with your truck positions is your personal visceral hatred for trucks, which is demonstrated in your opinion as fact that trucks are not capable tow vehicles and built to more rugged levels than crossovers, cars or watered down "civilized" (for lack of a better word) FSSUVs.

[J. Morgan]

I wonder if cars pulling Airstreams was controversial in 1955?

[Countryboy59]

Originally Posted by slowmover

Oh, I have to do this again? We covered it at depth 4-5 years back.

Let's start here: why did it take fifty years to discover (ha) that the older way of setting a WDH was a problem? (As it wasn't).

We can also end it there.

J2807 "might" be useful comparing one truck to another. It's not good for anything else. Too many flaws.

You guys sure love arguing about that specification. I'm an engineer myself but sometimes ya gotta put away the paper and think outside the box.

[Countryboy59]

Originally Posted by J. Morgan

I wonder if cars pulling Airstreams was controversial in 1955?

People have been arguing about whose engine was bigger since they built the second car. The same guys who did it in high school and later in midlife crisis when the bought Mustangs and Vettes are now doing it in retirement, with big pickup trucks pulling Airstreams. But we don't race anymore (that's dangerous), we wave the spec sheets.

I was remarking to my wife how, at the campground, a lot of the moms put up trailer lights and cute stuff and the guys make sure the truck is prominently parked in front of the trailer, with the front wheels cocked like it's in a commercial. Even caught myself doing it.

[dznf0g]

Originally Posted by J. Morgan

I wonder if cars pulling Airstreams was controversial in 1955?

Airstream didn't weigh 9k (and more) in 1955.

[dznf0g]

Originally Posted by Countryboy59

People have been arguing about whose engine was bigger since they built the second car. The same guys who did it in high school and later in midlife crisis when the bought Mustangs and Vettes are now doing it in retirement, with big pickup trucks pulling Airstreams. But we don't race anymore (that's dangerous), we wave the spec sheets.

I was remarking to my wife how, at the campground, a lot of the moms put up trailer lights and cute stuff and the guys make sure the truck is prominently parked in front of the trailer, with the front wheels cocked like it's in a commercial. Even caught myself doing it.

But I don't have a big pickup. I have a gas 1500 spec'ed right at the center of the "needs" bullseye, relative to mechanical ability.

[Countryboy59]

Originally Posted by dznf0g

But I don't have a big pickup. I have a gas 1500 spec'ed right at the center of the "needs" bullseye, relative to mechanical ability.

But where do you park it at the campground?😎

[dznf0g]

Originally Posted by Countryboy59

But where do you park it at the campground?😎

I can only think of once where I had to park away from the site...adn guess what, no vehicle would've fit. No reservation, near full campground and a 30' AS in a 25' site was all I could get. I never (except this one time) have had a parking issue. Not sure why you bring up this point????? I do understand there are some really old small campgrounds out west, but I recon my 30'er wouldn't fit regardless of TV.

[ROBERT CROSS]

......when Streaming we prefer a continuity of scale, big over dinky.
But that's just me...I also make sure my socks match.

Bob