Old school setup

My 2004 Chevy pickup is built so light that I believe that the 1968 Impala I drove in high school was a tougher vehicle. With the right rear springs and gears the Impala would pull as good as my new pickup.

But, the mileage would be a little worse. The Impala got 20 MPG empty going down the road on yesterdays gas. The 2004 Chevy pickup gets 15 going down the road on today's gas but, it has a overdrive. Take into consideration today's gas and the Impala would not do as good as the pickup running empty on today gas. Give it a overdrive, some modern cylinder heads, and then, it just might!

The Impala could have used better stopping power too.

subcamper wrote:

dodge guy wrote:

Dog Folks wrote:

prichardson wrote:
That's a mid to late 60's Cadillac. Probably has a 429 ci engine and tips the scales around 4700# on a 224" wheel base. They were built on a frame that was probably as hefty as todays pickups. Only got at best 10 mpg even without a trailer.

Early 70's was when the auto makers went to "uni body" construction.

That means NO ladder frames, and thus towing became a pick up's job.

Towing, even light towing, with a uni body would twist the whole car and often crack the windshield.

Don't ask how I know.

Actually full frame cars disappeared when Fords Panther platform (Crown Vic, Grand Marquis, Town Car) went away! Back in 2011!

And as the OP stated that is a mid 70's Buick. Possibly an Olds? Probably a 455!

The full frame is only part of it.

The 2010 Ford Crown Victoria is only rated to tow 1500lbs!

So there is a lot more involved.

For example, it had been a long time since a really strong rear axle was put in a car (like the old Ford 9 inch and GM 12-bolt). I am not counting the special rear axles in V8 Corvettes and Camaros, they are built for high HP and peak torque but can't take the strain of a trailer pull up and down grades repeatedly.

The big rear axles and strong rear-drive transmissions are all in the trucks now.

I am sure the automakers aren't unhappy about all of us buying high-profit-margin trucks and SUVs either;).

Steve

I can attest that the rear axles on 90s-2000s camaros/firebirds were not "built for high hp". My 10 bolt twisted in half with little effort. The 12 bolt lastest till I sold the car. Corvettes were/are IRS.

dodge guy wrote:

subcamper wrote:

dodge guy wrote:

Dog Folks wrote:

prichardson wrote:
That's a mid to late 60's Cadillac. Probably has a 429 ci engine and tips the scales around 4700# on a 224" wheel base. They were built on a frame that was probably as hefty as todays pickups. Only got at best 10 mpg even without a trailer.

Early 70's was when the auto makers went to "uni body" construction.

That means NO ladder frames, and thus towing became a pick up's job.

Towing, even light towing, with a uni body would twist the whole car and often crack the windshield.

Don't ask how I know.

Actually full frame cars disappeared when Fords Panther platform (Crown Vic, Grand Marquis, Town Car) went away! Back in 2011!

And as the OP stated that is a mid 70's Buick. Possibly an Olds? Probably a 455!

The full frame is only part of it.

The 2010 Ford Crown Victoria is only rated to tow 1500lbs!

So there is a lot more involved.

For example, it had been a long time since a really strong rear axle was put in a car (like the old Ford 9 inch and GM 12-bolt). I am not counting the special rear axles in V8 Corvettes and Camaros, they are built for high HP and peak torque but can't take the strain of a trailer pull up and down grades repeatedly.

The big rear axles and strong rear-drive transmissions are all in the trucks now.

I am sure the automakers aren't unhappy about all of us buying high-profit-margin trucks and SUVs either;).

Steve

Yes, but the tow rating was around 5500lbs? Back in the late 80's or early 90's. The only thing that changed was the tow rating. The Panther cars always had the 8.8 axle in them.

I agree that auto manuf. like is buying the more profitable trucks/Suv's......which is a good indication of the reason behind lowering the tow rating. this way they could get people into more profitable trucks!

Hi Dodge Guy....

My 94 Lincoln Town Car had a 4500 or 5500 lb tow rating.

It is nearly identical under the sheet metal to my 2000 Town Car that has a 2,000 lb tow rating.

What is different?

At one time I had mapped out the change and seems the only perceptible change was a move from a Full Size spare tire to a compact spare tire....2500-3500 lbs of tow rating lost due to a compact spare....

I would pull 5,000-6,500 lbs with my Town Car without thinking about it after I added a HD tranny cooler, brake controller, and a custom class IV Hitch.

The only issue with making the Town Car a serious tow car would be the rear axle ratio...I would swap the rear axle ratio to a 3.55 if I were serious. Possibly look at some higher load capacity tires too. I would also look at some HD Limo progressive coil springs for the rear axle...Oh yea, and a full size spare. Lol

Thanks!

Jeremiah

It's a Buick, and he's done a ****py job of setting the hitch rigging. Of course, after forty years those car springs are tired. Which is still no excuse. A set of MONROE Load Level progressive rate coils in the rear is a start.

As to unibody, all Chryslers after 1956 were such. And the preferred TV as the engines were better and by far and away the better auto transmission. Not to mention bigger brakes, better steering and a suspension a quarter century ahead of the rest. Our family, and I, towed with all of them. Took Ford and Gm more than a decade to catch up. Really, not until the late 1970s.

Unibody is structurally stronger than body on frame. Less weight, as well so it was easier to set the WD. Overhang on those old cars was the reason to avoid some brands, and luxury cars in general. A full size sedan with Taxi/Police spec pieces was the way to go. A late 1960s-early 1970s Dodge Monaco was a genuine wolf in sheeps clothing. A Dodge Police Pursuit with a luxury overlay.

I've no idea how that old man thinks that deflector is helping. That they CAN work is one thing. But not at that angle.

Thanks for the thread.

subcamper wrote:
I forgot to mention, the car in the OP's pictures is almost certainly a Cadillac, as evidenced by the taillight view in the third picture.

Steve

I hate to do this...(give away my age and all ;) )...the hubcaps give it away. It is a 1976 Buick Electra. Here is a shot of the electra with deluxe wheels...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/77461664@N08/12052122675

...and here are the standard hubcaps...
https://www.google.com/search?q=buick+hubcaps&biw=1920&bih=928&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAmoVChMI4bDPyeSNxwIVRBuSCh1_1ga4#imgrc=5luv3N193VlIoM%3A

subcamper wrote:

dodge guy wrote:

Dog Folks wrote:

prichardson wrote:
That's a mid to late 60's Cadillac. Probably has a 429 ci engine and tips the scales around 4700# on a 224" wheel base. They were built on a frame that was probably as hefty as todays pickups. Only got at best 10 mpg even without a trailer.

Early 70's was when the auto makers went to "uni body" construction.

That means NO ladder frames, and thus towing became a pick up's job.

Towing, even light towing, with a uni body would twist the whole car and often crack the windshield.

Don't ask how I know.

Actually full frame cars disappeared when Fords Panther platform (Crown Vic, Grand Marquis, Town Car) went away! Back in 2011!

And as the OP stated that is a mid 70's Buick. Possibly an Olds? Probably a 455!

The full frame is only part of it.

The 2010 Ford Crown Victoria is only rated to tow 1500lbs!

So there is a lot more involved.

For example, it had been a long time since a really strong rear axle was put in a car (like the old Ford 9 inch and GM 12-bolt). I am not counting the special rear axles in V8 Corvettes and Camaros, they are built for high HP and peak torque but can't take the strain of a trailer pull up and down grades repeatedly.

The big rear axles and strong rear-drive transmissions are all in the trucks now.

I am sure the automakers aren't unhappy about all of us buying high-profit-margin trucks and SUVs either;).

Steve

Yes, but the tow rating was around 5500lbs? Back in the late 80's or early 90's. The only thing that changed was the tow rating. The Panther cars always had the 8.8 axle in them.

I agree that auto manuf. like is buying the more profitable trucks/Suv's......which is a good indication of the reason behind lowering the tow rating. this way they could get people into more profitable trucks!

I went to visit my high school sweetheart out in Colorado and her mother had a little BH TT that they towed with her 70's Caddy. I remember camping on that trip, but I think the drive scared me enough that I don't remember any of those details.

I forgot to mention, the car in the OP's pictures is almost certainly a Cadillac, as evidenced by the taillight view in the third picture.

Steve

dodge guy wrote:

Dog Folks wrote:

prichardson wrote:
That's a mid to late 60's Cadillac. Probably has a 429 ci engine and tips the scales around 4700# on a 224" wheel base. They were built on a frame that was probably as hefty as todays pickups. Only got at best 10 mpg even without a trailer.

Early 70's was when the auto makers went to "uni body" construction.

That means NO ladder frames, and thus towing became a pick up's job.

Towing, even light towing, with a uni body would twist the whole car and often crack the windshield.

Don't ask how I know.

Actually full frame cars disappeared when Fords Panther platform (Crown Vic, Grand Marquis, Town Car) went away! Back in 2011!

And as the OP stated that is a mid 70's Buick. Possibly an Olds? Probably a 455!

The full frame is only part of it.

The 2010 Ford Crown Victoria is only rated to tow 1500lbs!

So there is a lot more involved.

For example, it had been a long time since a really strong rear axle was put in a car (like the old Ford 9 inch and GM 12-bolt). I am not counting the special rear axles in V8 Corvettes and Camaros, they are built for high HP and peak torque but can't take the strain of a trailer pull up and down grades repeatedly.

The big rear axles and strong rear-drive transmissions are all in the trucks now.

I am sure the automakers aren't unhappy about all of us buying high-profit-margin trucks and SUVs either;).

Steve

The first Monocoque body car was the 1934 Citroen Traction Avant. It was also Front wheel drive with full four wheel independent suspension. America didnt catch on for many many years.

In terms of ultimate strength a Box frame will be stronger than the old "C" section frames.

The issue isnt really frame strength. The issue became making cars lighter, stiffer (for better handling) and better fuel economy.

One of the major reasons people did not tow with the pickup was there was no where to put the family. Thats why the station wagon was so popular. And the station wagon had been around since the 30's in one incarnation or another but really dates to the 40's. But it wasnt until after WWII that Trailering really took off and that meant using the family car. Few had the resources to have two cars.