Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
1  Main Forum / Polls / Re: dumb idea on: May 31, 2012, 09:05:45 pm



To a certain someone:

(And please, Aimee, spike me with all prejudice if Im wrong to so speak freely):

American brand names are paramount a certain Member - yet who indeed, per country of record now actually owns Disney?  Disney is truly an internationally owned conglomerate. And its international owners enjoy both the dividend and appreciation flow, and in multiple countries of record other than the US.

And of what country of manufacture is their toad?  While an American brand, this American Manufacturers same toad - as built - originates from Mexico.  While an American nameplate, it originates in a country said certain someone vows they will not ever visit either now or in the future.  Not that I disagree with their desire to not visit nor travel there otherwise.
2  Main Forum / General Discussion / Re: Scangauge users on: April 27, 2012, 04:24:13 pm
Sigh!

While I am wont to travel at 75-80 MPH in a passenger vehicle on the Interstate, I can also understand those vehicles and combo's that need travel at about 60 MPH, and will accommodate them.  I am entirely aware that my "net" speed over distance (allowing for Parnelli Jones-style gas and food stops) will only net me a 60-65 MPH average, tops, over a 1200 mile drive.  If thats not acceptable, Im entirely free to subject myself to air travel and a strip-search.

If some of these 1-finger saluters would actually THINK about the situation, here's what they might come to understand:

Anyone travelling slower in the right lanes?  Good.  Considerate.  Legal.

Anyone travelling slower in the 2nd right lane on a 4+ lane urban expressway in the heart of Atlanta or Chicago during rush-hour?  Good.

I would assume the majority of us are travelling slower in the right-hand lanes as we should, and as we likely do.

The problem comes in with the rest of humanity that are sadly, on the road with us.

Problem #1 the slower-moving and larger combo need move left to accommodate a driver entering the flow from an on-ramp.  Best practice, yet creates only a 1-minute delay.  1 minute!  The actual problem is created by the idiots that decide they need cut right to pass, preventing the slower vehicle from returning to the right lane.

Problem #2 Ma & Pa Kettle Theyre either from Ontario or Florida.  They have the garment rod in the back seat area jammed with hung clothing, along with a Yorkie on the dashboard.  Even if acknowledging the above realities and practicalities, and on a 65 MPH highway; decide to pass at the breath-taking rate of 65.0123 MPH.  That .0123 MPH differential backs up about 40 vehicles behind them, and requires 20 or 30 miles to alleviate!  And then Ma & Pa, once regaining their right-lane supremacy, give YOU, the passing passenger vehicle driver, the finger!  Or later, you, the motorhome driver, for daring to drive at 65 MPH!  Or else it is someone driving a pickup or passenger vehicle with a king or queen-sized mattress tied to the top of their vehicle. LOL!

You just cant win.

3  Main Forum / General Discussion / Re: Big v10 or small v10 on: April 27, 2012, 03:33:39 pm
Wranglers are also quite heavy.
4  Main Forum / General Discussion / Re: Big v10 or small v10 on: April 26, 2012, 07:36:16 pm
Big ol' fat and lazy torque!  MMM-mmm-mmm!

Just call me fat 'n lazy!  I won't object in the least!  LOL!
5  Main Forum / General Discussion / Re: New 4x4 finished on: April 26, 2012, 07:34:08 pm
>>>>  And, does it use a transfer case or is it full time AWD?

According to the Quigley website, it is not AWD, but only part-time 4wd Hi/LO-range with a transfer case the F-Series transfer case.  But on the other hand, am not entirely familiar with the Ford F-Series (Pickup, Expedition and/or Excursion) front axle and transfer cases.  Chevrolets competing models feature auto-locking front hubs, resulting in something close to AWD.  Ford also claims auto front hubs, but dont know if the end result is the same as GMs in ability to mimic AWD.

On the other hand, you can theoretically order an E-350 or E-450 cutaway chassis with a limited slip rear differential, or can easily substitute that gearing later on.  Have you either a limited slip OR locking rear differential?  That alone could easily provide almost 75% of the increased traction benefit that a 4wd chassis might provide otherwise without a weight or MPG penalty.  At least thats the seat of the pants difference noted between Toyotas (TRD Toyota Racing Developments) Pre-Runner models (2wd with either limited-slip or locking rear differential) vs Fore-Runner models  (4wd/AWD) models - according to various off-road magazines reviews between the two systems.

But then, if I can get more lower to the ground and cheaper traction, I dont have to be worried about the front set of jacks hanging out there on the PC2400 in the first place.

I would personally choose one or the other over the standard open-axle setup myself.

Kevin?
6  Main Forum / General Discussion / Re: New 4x4 finished on: April 26, 2012, 07:33:45 pm
>>>>  Is the MPG lower than a conventional two wheel drive? In other words, other than cost, do you sacrifice anything to get a 4 wheel drive motorhome?

Probably - according to the Quigley website, when reviewing the measured statistics for standard cargo and/or passenger van bodies in the E-350 or E-450 range, the Quigley 4wd setup results in approximately 1 less mpg city, 2 less mpgs highway.  Those are for standard-bodied van chassis without any appreciable chassis load as tested.  For PC owners with a fully-loaded motorhome house?  Could be less, could be more.

Kevin?
7  Main Forum / General Discussion / Re: New 4x4 finished on: April 26, 2012, 07:33:11 pm
JC Said:

>>>>  As someone who's never had any 4 wheel drive vehicle larger than a Chevy Tracker.

I had the Suzuki Sidekick Tracker twin!  LOVED that little truck!  Nothing in anyway similar at the present time!  My friends insisted I refer to her as Suzie.  LOL!  Good times, fond memories.

>>>>  I have a couple of questions. While it seems useful in some terrain and back country camping sites, does it have a higher center of gravity and more tendency to sway on the roads?

Maybe the Quigley option apparently up-sizes your tire and wheel sizes, and certainly jacks up your chassis ride height.  But then again, also introduces a lot of heavy iron down low up front, with the addition of a transfer case, as well as the F-Series chassis solid front axle and all associated suspension hardware, probably weighing more than that of a normally-weighted E-Series independent front end.  Dont know what Magic 8-ball might really say, but could easily opine a response of Maybe.

>>>>  Is the ride appreciably rougher?

It must be a more primitively-sprung solid front axle from the F-Series pickup vs an independent and coil-sprung front end as is standard on an E-Series van chassis.  With the Quigley option, your front end is now riding on an F-Series, solid, pickup-type truck front axle.

Only Kevin might be able to tell you about the ride quality for sure.
8  Main Forum / General Discussion / Re: Big v10 or small v10 on: April 26, 2012, 06:34:40 pm
And so, as for JC and Ron, more trade-offs.

And again as for Ron, if you had a smaller V-8, plus towing a 4,000#+ toad, could result in even greater gas consumption, while giving up power that might otherwise be had for "free" or for very little cost otherwise, either as an option, or in fuel burned.  Or as in the simplicity or convenience in having the standard V-10 motorhome chassis serviced otherwise.

Not to mention the feeling, when punching the "go-pedal", that you're only stepping into a lesser pile of "cow-flop" as Billy has otherwise mentioned!
9  Main Forum / General Discussion / Re: Big v10 or small v10 on: April 26, 2012, 06:21:23 pm
And so, as for JC and Ron, more trade-offs.

And again as for Ron, if you had a smaller V-8, plus towing a 4,000#+ toad, could result in even greater gas consumption, while giving up power that might otherwise be had for "free" or for very little cost otherwise, either as an option, or in fuel burned.  Or as in the simplicity in having the standard V-10 chassis serviced otherwise.

Not to mention the feeling, when punching the "go-pedal", that you're only stepping into a pile of "cow-flop" as Billy has otherwise mentioned!
10  Main Forum / General Discussion / Re: New 4x4 finished on: April 26, 2012, 06:12:52 pm





Let me say for the record - I am sooooo grateful that someone other than I brought up the 4x4 option as a topic.  And lets also assume Kevin is also the owner of the previously depicted stealth mode 4x4 white whale and if so, hes certainly able to answer many questions in this regard.

What of the 4x4 option?  I can foresee myself as seriously having to consider the Quigley 4x4 option for my own future PC, as I can also foresee myself frequenting many under-improved private campsites, as well as those in State and Federal Parks as well.  And as I commented on FAR earlier on this Forum, have spent many a merry beer-breakfast Sunday watching non-4x4 campers even trying to exit a grassy, relatively level; yet now rainy and muddy campsite.  Not to mention the possibility of snow in my future camping forecast, as well as perhaps having to visit a boat launch!

So Im mostly about traction, and not about ground clearance necessarily.  Yet I cant help but notice in the pictures of the latest PC2400 4x4, that the front pair of leveling jacks are really hanging out there below the chassis, while the rear pair appear relatively normal.

Question is this due to the fact that so much more hardware is packed into the front end on the 4x4 chassis, that on this shorter chassis, their mounting points are dispersed to a less desirable and lower location otherwise?  Would their appearance be less prominent if the leveling jacks used had greater potential extension as might otherwise be fitted to a taller Class A chassis?  Or to a longer PC chassis?

It would seem that even on the previously depicted stealth mode 4x4, that the hanging, and disengaged jacks are not quite so prominent.  Is this due to that longer chassis wheelbase and center of gravity allowing the forward jack pair to be mounted further aft as compared to the shorty 2400 chassis?

Just asking -
11  Main Forum / General Discussion / Re: Big v10 or small v10 on: April 26, 2012, 05:21:52 pm
Billy -

Assuming your CRV is even a two-wheel drive vehicle, you'd still be quite hard-pressed to find a "truck" or any compact "pickup" of any modern vintage whose gross weight is any less than your CRV.

You can go "lighter", but then it would be for "B" cars, such as the much smaller Toyotas (Corolla's, Matrix's or certainly, the Yaris'), or the Honda Civic's (or certainly the Honda Fit), etc.

You're not likely to find any lighter vehicle that matches the CRV's interior accommodations at a lighter weight.  Uless you're willing to put up with less passenger space and less cargo space otherwise.
12  Main Forum / General Discussion / Re: Big v10 or small v10 on: April 26, 2012, 05:11:48 pm
JC Said:

>>>>  I guess I have two questions. Has anybody actually felt limited by the power of their V10 powered PC motorhome?

It would depend on what your expectations are when it comes to the driving dynamics of a 5-9 ton vehicle, or vehicle combination.  What you think it is that is responsive when piloting what is, in essence, an entire domicile and personal vehicle, out upon the roadways.

And should also be compared to the same weight and/or combination performance vs that of a Class A, or a Class C for that matter.
13  Main Forum / General Discussion / Re: Big v10 or small v10 on: April 26, 2012, 05:01:43 pm
But then again, Billy -

You ARE actually piloting an approximately 14,000#, 7-ton "pile".

But as I've said before, who doesn't like "more"?

But for every benefit, there is yet again, a trade-off.

14  Main Forum / General Discussion / Re: Troubleshooting electrical problems in rear camera hookup on: April 24, 2012, 09:54:53 am
Huh -

Never thought of that, JC -

"Gummy-ness" and humidity both are a poor marriage.  I can see that as a great possibility, especially for a rarely used vehicle.

In terms of faulty ignition switches, another issue can be excessive key ring sets.  Get enough keys and fob weight swinging and jouncing in the ignition switch over time, and that can also result in premature wear of the switch - especially on modern vehicles.  I've seen some folks whose key ring sets look like they were correctional officers at shawshank!  LOL!

I carry my 2 keys individually, one in each front pocket.  The single keys alone are not bothersome, and at least twice in the last 30 years, were my salvation.
 
15  Main Forum / General Discussion / Re: Tire pressure/weight on: April 19, 2012, 01:50:37 pm
Then theres personal experience.  And thats where your, eh, umm, er.. *ss - or seat of the pants - comes into play.  Dont at all discount this feedback.  My seat has often proven far more correct far earlier than any other set of data that somethings wrong.

Bobander is correct in regards to the Michelin Guide data, the tire will be at optimal road contact and side wall bulge as per Michelin.  Optimal is optimal, in terms of safety, wear. handling and gas mileage.

I personally find a few extra PSI enhances all the above and gives me a margin for error.  And for those travelling north to south and back, especially during winter; a good rule of thumb is you lose/gain about 1 lb in pressure for each 10 degrees in temperature difference.  Driving up and down between Chicago and Tampa in winter (a blessed 60-degree shift), I usually air-down in Tennessee, then again in Tampa.  Airing-up again on departure, and once again in Tennessee.

Being too over-inflated causes more problems than it solves.  It decreases the contact patch of the tire, causing it to squirm along the road surface, which can result in negative handling safety, tire wear and gas mileage.

Only your seat knows for sure.   Wink
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8