Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dang! Ya got me on a technicality. The Sovereign was 30', not 28'! And yes, I'll be happy to correct my typo of 6200 to 5200.
Except that it wasn't 5200 either, it was 5070. Another typo?
Was it also a typo when you typed "empty" instead of "loaded"?
Quote:
Do you always answer legitimate questions with other questions?
Sometimes the answer to a crazy question is another question.
What exactly is "crazy" about
Quote:
Originally Posted by ram2
Did the huge old wagons have stiff rear suspensions to handle the trailer tongue weight?
and
Quote:
Originally Posted by ram2
Could you get a 4.10 rear axle ratio for towing in the old station wagons?
They sound like legitimate questions to me, I don't see why, if one knew the answers, one wouldn't simply answer them.
Quote:
Do YOU remember load levelers? Do you remember how individuals - and even some companies - modified the suspension under those old wagons?
Sure. In fact, I mentioned them (we always called them "air shocks," mostly because that's what they are) when I answered ram2's question. And modifications really have nothing to do with how they were equipped from the factory.
Quote:
The big wagons all had coil springs as far as I know, and I believe all the domestic full-size trucks ran leaf springs after 1972. If you put a trailer with much tongue weight behind a wagon you had to have air shocks or you were sure to ruin a tire.
The guys that towed heavy trailers with those wagons almost always beefed up the rear suspension - much the same was that I've done on vehicles over the years.
Again, not really sure what aftermarket modifications have to do with how something came from the factory. If we're going to go that route we might as well consider the fact that pretty much anything can be modified to perform pretty much any task which really eliminates any basis for discussion.
Quote:
Back in the COPO days you could get darn near anything you wanted. But as a rule, no. Mid-3's was probably as close as you could get off the showroom floor. That being said, although a low (or high numeric) gear ratio is optimal for towing heavy loads, it's certainly not essential. Most of the trucks I've used to tow have been mid-2's to low-3's.
The guts of those differentials were the same. Same spider gears, same ring gears, same pinion gears, same bearings. Most of the differential housing were the same, though they had different suspension mounts welded to them depending on the vehicle they went under. It was when you got into the heavier trucks that things changed.
And this would all matter except that the question dealt only with the gear ratio available from the factory.
Sure. In fact, I mentioned them (we always called them "air shocks," mostly because that's what they are) when I answered ram2's question. And modifications really have nothing to do with how they were equipped from the factory.
We always called air shocks air shocks. This is what we've always referred to as load levelers.
Last edited by GarageLogic; 04-11-2013 at 01:31 PM..
I own a 55' Mercury four door and I would hate ti think what it gets MPG and probably don't want to know. I bet it gets maybe 8MPG. Thus I only drive it around town on weekends.
I own a 55' Mercury four door and I would hate ti think what it gets MPG and probably don't want to know. I bet it gets maybe 8MPG. Thus I only drive it around town on weekends.
Some of those big tanks were surprisingly economical. We owned a 72 Olds Delta Royale, with the 455 cid & a 4bbl. It would regularly get right at 18 mpg going down the highway, at 55-60 mph. The main problem was that it was very hard to not romp on the thing all the time.
I own a 55' Mercury four door and I would hate ti think what it gets MPG and probably don't want to know. I bet it gets maybe 8MPG. Thus I only drive it around town on weekends.
It should be much better than 8 mpg.
A '55 Cadillac, with the 331-cu-in V-8 could do 18-20 mpg on the highway and about 14 mpg in city stop-and-go driving.
with respect to mpg's, is it true that at 70 mph c onsumed the most fuel whereas at a steady 30 mpg consumed the least? I think i recall a 1968 CR's test of the Cadillac Sedan De Ville where the car actually got 18 mpg at a steady 30 mpg but only like 11 or 12 at a steady 70 mph
a 1969 Plymouth Fury actually got 22 or 23 mpg at some speed but i don't remember which at speed it was tested for(normal mpg range was 11-21 pretty good for a big car)
with respect to mpg's, is it true that at 70 mph c onsumed the most fuel whereas at a steady 30 mpg consumed the least? I think i recall a 1968 CR's test of the Cadillac Sedan De Ville where the car actually got 18 mpg at a steady 30 mpg but only like 11 or 12 at a steady 70 mph
a 1969 Plymouth Fury actually got 22 or 23 mpg at some speed but i don't remember which at speed it was tested for(normal mpg range was 11-21 pretty good for a big car)
There was no one speed that was ideal for every vehicle. But the law of physics is hard to beat. It takes more power to push weight at a higher speed, and that requires more energy.
Even so, it's not an exact science. Back in the day, we had a 1990 Dodge Caravan that would get 24 mpg at 55 mph, but would drop to 18 mpg at 70. Run it at 75 mph, and it'd drop down to 16. On the other hand, I've got an old Volvo I restored that sticks pretty close to 22-23 mpg whether I'm driving 55 or 75 mph.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.