RE: [ihc] GVW comparisons

["John M. Adams" <jma@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Uhh...

OK, I'm feeling dense, but I'll guess: In the 70s, some government body
invented some magic number below which a vehicle's emissions had to be some
other magic number. IH intentionally set the Scout GVW to greater than magic
number 1 in order to avoid having to comply with magic number 2. Is that
what you're saying? Didn't said government body check these things?

"What a world, what a world..."

Thanks, Ryan.

John




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ryan Moore [mailto:baradium@domain.elided]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 9:05 PM
> To: John M. Adams; ihc-digest@domain.elided
> Subject: Re: [ihc] GVW comparisons
>
>
> One word....
>
> Emmissions.
>
>
> Compared to the listed actual vehicle weight, the scout has a listed 1 ton
> carrying capacity...
>
>
> -Ryan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John M. Adams" <jma@domain.elided>
> To: <ihc-digest@domain.elided>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 21:31
> Subject: [ihc] GVW comparisons
>
>
> > I notice the GVW rating on my '79 Scout is 6,200 lbs. It has a 100"
> > wheelbase. My '67 1100B T'All has a 5,600 lb GVW and a 119" W/B.
> >
> > This seems odd to me... The axles are the same, but everything
> else about
> > the Travelall is heavier - fuel tanks, spring packs, engine,
> transmission,
> > transfer case... The frame is longer, and *looks* as sturdy, or more
> sturdy
> > than the Scout's.
> >
> > Is the Scout really that much more "stout"? Or were there some changes
> made
> > in the way the numbers were crunched between '67 and '79?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > John A.