Should I Fix the GTO to tow a Scamp? - Page 6 - Fiberglass RV


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-04-2013, 01:25 PM   #71
Senior Member
 
Carol H's Avatar
 
Name: Carol
Trailer: 22' Airstream Formerly 16' Scamp
British Columbia
Posts: 11,731
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by RV NUT CASE View Post
I would prefer the 16 foot its along 3 foot longer and cant weigh that much more? I just dont know? thit is where I need you guys. This is somthing way out of my comfort range.
that 3' more will run you at a min. 1000lbs more depending which model/make 16' trailer you are after and what options it has.

Check out the thread TRAILER WEIGHTS IN THE REAL WORLD for info on what you can expect the trailers to weigh loaded for camping. Note most of the weights were done at a campground with hook ups so its not likely that many if any of the trailers had much or any water in their tanks.
__________________

Carol H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 01:40 PM   #72
Senior Member
 
Name: Steve
Trailer: Scamp 13
California
Posts: 1,416
If your going to do the brakes do it right.
1964-72 GTO Brake Conversion, Disc (for 14” Wheels) power (1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972) @ OPGI.com

With good brakes the car will be fun to drive again and you wont have to scoop up that $1500 dust ever again. Why did you stop driving it because the car was scary to drive in traffic so fix the brakes. Keep your old parts for the next owner if you wish. I'm sure you can do it cheaper in the wrecking yards if you research what to look for.
As to tow or not that is up to you. If your owners manual doesnt specify the limits then its your decision. If limits are specified then its still up to you and your taking the risk should some lawyer want to use that information as evidence against you to find fault.

What ever you do fix the goat and take the drive of your dreams. When your done with your drive get some young pretty girls and have your car photographed with them and have the picture enlarged and framed so you will have something to remember when your old. Then sell the car when your ready before you ever park it again. You will always have that picture to reminiss about.
__________________

__________________
stevebaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 01:46 PM   #73
MC1
Senior Member
 
MC1's Avatar
 
Name: Wayne
Trailer: Nest fan, Airstream Sold
Ontario
Posts: 2,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by RV NUT CASE View Post
The designers knew this and incorporated it for the convertible chassie. It has positrac with a Borg Warner 4 speed. Back in the day they used to drag race with these old Borg Warner T 10s and the transmission would hold together race after race.

I think the car will tow one of these scamps. But only after carefull modifications. The brakes and suspension will all be gone through completely. A brake control will be installed and a tandum master cylinder will also be installed . If the drums are marginal they will be replaced also.

So you can keep all your traction control and computer crap I will go old school!
I hear ya RV NUT. I have tow'd with both old school and new modern. They both work, have their differences, each to their own.

PS... Know all about the BW T10. Had a close ratio version with a Hurst Competition Plus in a 1970 AMX I once owned and raced. They are bullet proof for sure.
Attached Thumbnails
AMX 70 wayne.jpg  
__________________
MC1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 01:58 PM   #74
Senior Member
 
Name: Roger
Trailer: Nomad
Nevada
Posts: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevebaz View Post
If your going to do the brakes do it right.
1964-72 GTO Brake Conversion, Disc (for 14 Wheels) power (1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972) @ OPGI.com

With good brakes the car will be fun to drive again and you wont have to scoop up that $1500 dust ever again. Why did you stop driving it because the car was scary to drive in traffic so fix the brakes. Keep your old parts for the next owner if you wish. I'm sure you can do it cheaper in the wrecking yards if you research what to look for.
As to tow or not that is up to you. If your owners manual doesnt specify the limits then its your decision. If limits are specified then its still up to you and your taking the risk should some lawyer want to use that information as evidence against you to find fault.

I like your thoughts on this and I couldn't agree more. Either way get the damn car back on the road. Its paid for I don't owe a dime on it. I know the car inside and out. And I know what I must do.

Beleive it or not this is not Bull sh## I bought the car for a !100.00 back in the late 70s no engine just a trans and the top was shot and the interior still in good shape quite a return on the investment huh.

What ever you do fix the goat and take the drive of your dreams. When your done with your drive get some young pretty girls and have your car photographed with them and have the picture enlarged and framed so you will have something to remember when your old. Then sell the car when your ready before you ever park it again. You will always have that picture to reminiss about.
Thank you for you kind words of support I really do appcreciate it. Truthfully I propably wont ever sell it. I don't nor will I ever have the money to replace it. Now if sombody came up with a 70 charger RT Plumb crazy 440 hp with a counsole and a pistol grip shifter I might be sorely tempted
__________________
RV NUT CASE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 02:01 PM   #75
Senior Member
 
Name: Roger
Trailer: Nomad
Nevada
Posts: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by MC1 View Post
I hear ya RV NUT. I have tow'd with both old school and new modern. They both work, have their differences, each to their own.

PS... Know all about the BW T10. Had a close ratio version with a Hurst Competition Plus in a 1970 AMX I once owned and raced. They are bullet proof for sure.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh a 70 AMX my favorite year they are so bad ass looking I love the lines! 401 or 390?? Big AMC fan I always wanted a 69 1/2 SC Scrambler Rambler those are just so bad ass!

I bet you wish you had your old car back?
__________________
RV NUT CASE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 02:48 PM   #76
Senior Member
 
Brian B-P's Avatar
 
Name: Brian
Trailer: Boler (B1700RGH) 1979
Alberta
Posts: 5,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carol H View Post
that 3' more will run you at a min. 1000lbs more depending which model/make 16' trailer you are after and what options it has.
That's 1000 pounds of additional trailer... and equipment, and cargo, and water, and propane. The actual difference in the trailer weights is much smaller, but people typically take advantage of the extra space to carry more equipment, more of their stuff, and more contents of larger tanks. You determine the stuff, so the difference is only the empty trailer weight difference plus what more you decide to carry. It is good to be aware of the tendency to use all available carrying capacity.

Actual empty weights of usable 13' Scamps start at 1200 pounds, while the comparable 16' Scamp is under 1800 pounds. Current versions of the two models are the same height and width, so extending the shell and interior from about 10 feet to about 13 feet should cause only less than a 30% weight increase; similarly the frame needs to be not just longer but stronger, but the tongue stays the same length, so again perhaps a 30% increase. The 16' has no larger tires, and even though the axle is the next size up (the 13' uses a Torflex #9 and the 16' a Torflex #10) that's again nowhere near a doubling of weight and even if you add brakes it's a small fraction of trailer weight. That might account for 500 pounds of extra trailer weight - the rest is stuff that you only have in the 16' if you choose to carry it.

The roughly 500 pound difference agrees with Scamp's specs for comparable equipment. If the only good deal you find on a 16' has a bunch of stuff that wouldn't be on a typical 13' - and you don't need it - then you can chuck the extra stuff and save the weight.

The longer trailer of the same height and width will have no more - and quite possibly less - aerodynamic drag, and aero drag largely determines continuous cruising power requirement and thus drivetrain (and cooling) load.
__________________
1979 Boler B1700RGH, pulled by 2004 Toyota Sienna LE 2WD
Information is good. Lack of information is not so good, but misinformation is much worse. Check facts, and apply common sense liberally.
STATUS: No longer active in forum.
Brian B-P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 02:56 PM   #77
Senior Member
 
Brian B-P's Avatar
 
Name: Brian
Trailer: Boler (B1700RGH) 1979
Alberta
Posts: 5,000
Not that this is at all helpful, but I'll note that one of the two earliest family cars I remember was a 1965 Buick Skylark V8, the same model family as most GTOs. I do have a bit of sentimental attachment to those cars. A neighbour still has two in show condition... perhaps I'll ask him if he has ever towed with them.
__________________
1979 Boler B1700RGH, pulled by 2004 Toyota Sienna LE 2WD
Information is good. Lack of information is not so good, but misinformation is much worse. Check facts, and apply common sense liberally.
STATUS: No longer active in forum.
Brian B-P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 03:11 PM   #78
Junior Member
 
jim ellis's Avatar
 
Name: jim & mary
Trailer: scamp 13 1999
Washington
Posts: 29
Registry
Smile towing trailer with a 65 GTO

sounds like fun.would have to downsize to a 13' Scamp.I have pulled a 13' scamp for years behind my two street rods,a 1934 dodge and a 1947 ford with out any problems. pulls easy and seems to not create too much drag.



Jim Ellis
__________________
jim ellis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 05:07 PM   #79
Senior Member
 
Brian B-P's Avatar
 
Name: Brian
Trailer: Boler (B1700RGH) 1979
Alberta
Posts: 5,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by RV NUT CASE View Post
The GTO is an F body its a mid size car.
Roger, did you mean A-body? The F-body was the Camaro and Firebird (up to 2002).

I had assumed that these cars had leaf-spring rear suspension, but I noticed various web page references to a coil-spring four-link for the A-body all the way back in 1964: can I assume a four-link is under the GTO?
__________________
1979 Boler B1700RGH, pulled by 2004 Toyota Sienna LE 2WD
Information is good. Lack of information is not so good, but misinformation is much worse. Check facts, and apply common sense liberally.
STATUS: No longer active in forum.
Brian B-P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 05:10 PM   #80
Senior Member
 
Name: Roger
Trailer: Nomad
Nevada
Posts: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian B-P View Post
That's 1000 pounds of additional trailer... and equipment, and cargo, and water, and propane. The actual difference in the trailer weights is much smaller, but people typically take advantage of the extra space to carry more equipment, more of their stuff, and more contents of larger tanks. You determine the stuff, so the difference is only the empty trailer weight difference plus what more you decide to carry. It is good to be aware of the tendency to use all available carrying capacity.

Actual empty weights of usable 13' Scamps start at 1200 pounds, while the comparable 16' Scamp is under 1800 pounds. Current versions of the two models are the same height and width, so extending the shell and interior from about 10 feet to about 13 feet should cause only less than a 30% weight increase; similarly the frame needs to be not just longer but stronger, but the tongue stays the same length, so again perhaps a 30% increase. The 16' has no larger tires, and even though the axle is the next size up (the 13' uses a Torflex #9 and the 16' a Torflex #10) that's again nowhere near a doubling of weight and even if you add brakes it's a small fraction of trailer weight. That might account for 500 pounds of extra trailer weight - the rest is stuff that you only have in the 16' if you choose to carry it.

The roughly 500 pound difference agrees with Scamp's specs for comparable equipment. If the only good deal you find on a 16' has a bunch of stuff that wouldn't be on a typical 13' - and you don't need it - then you can chuck the extra stuff and save the weight.

The longer trailer of the same height and width will have no more - and quite possibly less - aerodynamic drag, and aero drag largely determines continuous cruising power requirement and thus drivetrain (and cooling) load.
Wow that is good info! You have done your home work. I agree that a 16 foot is not that much more weight and you get a lot more convenices. I don't think its going to weigh the car down the much as long as you ugrade the suspension brakes etc. Thanks
__________________
RV NUT CASE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 05:12 PM   #81
Senior Member
 
Name: Roger
Trailer: Nomad
Nevada
Posts: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian B-P View Post
Not that this is at all helpful, but I'll note that one of the two earliest family cars I remember was a 1965 Buick Skylark V8, the same model family as most GTOs. I do have a bit of sentimental attachment to those cars. A neighbour still has two in show condition... perhaps I'll ask him if he has ever towed with them.
This is very helpfull the skylarks have the same frame and suspension. They are idenitcal.
__________________
RV NUT CASE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 05:16 PM   #82
Senior Member
 
Name: Roger
Trailer: Nomad
Nevada
Posts: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian B-P View Post
Roger, did you mean A-body? The F-body was the Camaro and Firebird (up to 2002).

I had assumed that these cars had leaf-spring rear suspension, but I noticed various web page references to a coil-spring four-link for the A-body all the way back in 1964: can I assume a four-link is under the GTO?
I stand corrected I beleive you are correct. Damn its been so long since I have been under the car I forgot. I do remember four link and coil springs. When you don't work on these for a long time you forget. I feel like a dummy now.
__________________
RV NUT CASE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 05:42 PM   #83
Senior Member
 
honda03842's Avatar
 
Name: Norm and Ginny
Trailer: Scamp 16
Florida
Posts: 7,300
Roger, I would go with the 16 partially because 16s always have trailer brakes and 13s often don't have trailer brakes. As a result the trailer braking load on the gto approaches zero. As well trailer brakes can be helpful in an emergency.
__________________
Norm and Ginny

2014 Honda Odyssey
1991 Scamp 16
honda03842 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 05:47 PM   #84
Senior Member
 
Brian B-P's Avatar
 
Name: Brian
Trailer: Boler (B1700RGH) 1979
Alberta
Posts: 5,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by RV NUT CASE View Post
I do remember four link and coil springs.
Thanks. I saw leaf springs under older GM drive cars - Camaros, and I'm pretty sure our 1971 full-size wagon (although I now realize the sedan would have had coils) - so I didn't realize that most of them had long been coil sprung... I've had the wrong impression for many years. Our Cutlass had coils, but that was 1979. This has been an educational discussion!

Although four-links with angled upper arms are not the best for axle control (ask early Fox-chassis Mustang owners about wheel hop), they must be better than leaf springs, and with good bushings they should work well to manage an attached trailer. If there's nothing in the rear coils (such as a concentric shock) air bags such as Firestone Coil-Rite or Airlift 1000 can be easily added to adjust for trailer tongue weight... a nice feature.
__________________

__________________
1979 Boler B1700RGH, pulled by 2004 Toyota Sienna LE 2WD
Information is good. Lack of information is not so good, but misinformation is much worse. Check facts, and apply common sense liberally.
STATUS: No longer active in forum.
Brian B-P is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
scamp


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Suger's Scamp Fix-Up sugermc Modifications, Alterations and Updates 28 10-04-2015 07:01 PM
Scamp Bunk Fix ? Tim Wood Problem Solving | Owners Helping Owners 3 02-07-2012 07:38 AM
How to fix a scamp door Mary Ann in MN Problem Solving | Owners Helping Owners 9 05-07-2011 07:06 AM
Scamp 19 anyone modified to tow behind an SUV? Wayne Hill Towing, Hitching, Axles and Running Gear 23 04-13-2011 09:47 AM
Scamp door fix questions (recurve) LanM Problem Solving | Owners Helping Owners 0 08-01-2010 12:58 PM

» Upcoming Events
No events scheduled in
the next 465 days.
» Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.