RE: [ihc] GVW comparisons

[Steven Stegmann <steve.stegmann@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Every mfr did it.  They were shooting at a moving
target at the time with no EFI or digital timing to
help.  It gave them about an additional year to work
on pollution related stuff.  It was an ugly period. 
Driveability was really terrible in those days.

Steve
--- "John M. Adams" <jma@domain.elided> wrote:

> 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.