re: towing

[Ken Farmer <Ken.Farmer@domain.elided>]

Joel Brodsky wrote:

>     I knew having that Chev would help here on the IHDigest!  Anyway, My T'all 
>is 120" WB, and the '72 Sub was 127"WB.  The turning radius on the T'all is 
>amazingly in comparison,  and I think it's due to the limits on the axle. 

I've noticed the same thing - it takes something like five lanes for
me to do a u-turn!  Anyway, Darrel Kline and I were looking at my axles
and he noticed a screw that stops the tires.  It appears to be set
to stop 12.5" x 32" tires (just guessing) from rubbing, and my little
30x9.5s are a very long way from that.  I still haven't gotten around
to changing that yet.

One of the reasons that I am interested in the differences between
T'alls and Travelers is that my Scout and Travelall have such different
performance characteristics.

Here's what the two vehicles are like:
    1.  The travelall has a 392, the scout a 304
    2.  The travelall probably weighs 50% more than the scout
    3.  They both have 3.73 axles
    4.  They both have healthy engines, carbs, ignition systems (although
        the Scout's engine seems practically brand new)
    5.  The scout has a T-19 close ratio (~4:1 1st gear), the Travelall
        has a TF 727 (~2:1 1st gear)
    6.  The travelall has 30x9.5 tires, the scout has 235s.

I've noticed that the Travelall has more power off the line, but much
less at highway speeds.  Since they are both running the same axles,
I would think that the Travelall would have much more power at highway
speeds.  I've been chalking the differences up to the lower max rpms
of the 392 (3600 vs 4100) as well as the much greater weight.

Sooo, based on the above I've assumed that the heavier travelall would
have more towing power at low rpms than a lighter traveler, but would
have less power at highway speeds.  Am I reading this right, or is
my data flawed?


Ken Farmer
1980 Scout II
1974 Travelall