Clock is ticking for A frame chassis

Eaglefree, the old vans were very light, manly because they were very basic inside by todays standards.

No microwave, no toilet, no heavy basins, no shower, small water tanks, no batteries or solar, no electric pump, one gas bottle, small cooker and small fridge . Electrics were simple and the lights were 240v. and they were still the same light weight construction that we have today.

From memory my early late 60's 18' viscount had a tare of 1200kg and I could carry about another 400kg and be legal. Towed it with an old side plate grey motor Holden which weighed around 1100kg when chasing work.

Happy touring.

Hey Eagle, I reckon you must not have come across, too many of the "old 'vans"!

When the brother and I bought a farm at Wandering (W.A.) in the late 1970's, we found an old caravan on the farm.

The caravan was built out of overlapped weatherboard timber, over a wooden frame with 4x2 timber studs (just like a regular timber house!), and constructed on the chassis and wheels from a 1937 Ford 3 ton truck!

On top of that, it was fully equipped with a Metters No2 wood stove! I hate to think what it all weighed, full of firewood! LOL

And the brothers boss owned an 18 foot (5.5M) caravan, that was built by a bloke who worked in the Midland Railways workshops, in his spare time - utilising the best metal components he could score.

Those metal components consisted of a caravan frame made from 3/4 inch (19mm) water pipe welded together, all clad with bolted-on corrugated iron!

The caravan tipped over one day, when they roared around a sharp bend too fast, on a gravel road (they were towing it with an Inter truck) - and they dragged the 'van about 300 metres on its side, before they realised it had fallen over!

Not to worry - they righted the 'van, and it had suffered virtually no damage, just scraped the paint off the CGI! LOL

Cheers, Ron.

Owned a couple Ron, but they were commercially built and light as . The axles were of that era were another thing and many were towed by old series 1 and 2 landrovers similar to the early Ford canhardlies.

Can hardly get up one hill and can hardly get down the other side.

Not being picky there Eagle but it's pronounced canardly. :)
Dave.

60/70s vans were nominally 1cwt per foot.
18ft = under 1 tonn.
Cheers,
Peter
OKA196 motorhome

I thought they were Rolls Canardly's. Rolls down hills but can hardly get up them.

Correct Phil but I thought it would be impolite to mention the name R-lls in a joke.
Dave.

I just might have changed it, as I own a Ford. I wouldn't want to be posting about other makes, as that attracts the ire of many who don't see the funny side of someone taking the pee out of their pride and joy.

Peter you maybe correct and it may have been 1200kg loaded.

Peter & Eagle - I bought a late 1950's, wooden-framed, 30 foot Modern 'van (built in Tuart Hill, W.A.) in 1967.

This 'van was built on a single axle chassis, using Landrover wheels, and it weighed 2 3/4 tons! (2794kgs).

I pulled it with a 4 cyl petrol Series 2 Landrover traytop, and the Landrover struggled to keep up 70kmh on level ground, with it attached!

I don't know where that 'van ended up, I sold it to an ex-employee who was living in Norseman in the late 1970's. Maybe it's still in Norseman!

Cheers, Ron.

"I wouldn't want to be posting about other makes, as that attracts the ire of many who don't see the funny side of someone taking the pee out of their pride and joy."


Psssst : Just don't mention Range/Land Rovers or Discoverys LOL

Regards

Did I accidently infer anything derogatory about Rolls Royce? How accidently naughty of me as I was taking the other meaning of "rolls", I think.

On a related note, we were vising relatives down South a couple of years ago in a small SA country town and having a meal at a pub while sitting outside by the towns main street. A very new Rolls Royce was driving by, seemingly looking for a parking spot. One became available just in front of us and they used it. Strangely, all I could thing of about the car was "I wonder what it's towing capacity is".

As to "Don't mention the Range Rovers", I had a 2 door version for 38 years. It was basic, simple and uncomplicated, rode beautifully and corrugations didn't bother it. When I got rid of it (family pressure) it still had original things like the clutch, uni joints and wheel bearings. Sure it had issues but Landrover cleverly designed in an automatic under body rust proofing system based on leather oil seals as evidenced by brand new seals years later still performing just as well. Never had any real issue with electrics as the only 2 electronic items were the radio and the electronic ignition I fitted. Sure some of the Lucas smoke came out once but that's a feature designed to let you know if you did something stupid like let a bit of metal fall down inside the dash, but was easily rectified by shortening the copious amount of extra wiring left by them under the dash. This is a feature that I've found that Jayco also provide.

We now have a Ford Ranger and there's no way I would use it over corrugations like I did with the RR as I doubt it would appreciate it in the long run. It's had one issue that took 6 weeks to locate and that's more time off the road than I had in the whole time with the RR. To be fair to Ford though, it presented no fault codes, no dash light indications and just went in to "Limp home mode" and they had to go back to swapping in and out many sensors etc with test drives to locate. There's a lot to be said for the older simpler vehicles rather than modern ones with so much, and in some ways superfluous, electronics. Just because they can put something extra in to a car doesn't mean they should.

"Just because they can put something extra in to a car doesn't mean they should."

It's that middle fifth cylinder that buggered mine up.

LOL

Hey Frank, if it was a 6 cyl, it could be1 2 3 4 5 or 6.. if it was a 4 cyl it could be 1 2 3 or 4, heavens knows about an 8 cyl or 12cyl as with the 12 I run out of fingers to count them..

I don't quite get your drift.

BTW Phil, you see what happens when a brand is mentioned, RR. LR . you immediately go into defence mode, also you should run that ranger across those corrugations and try it out.

Just a little story I will relate. Mate was talking to a fella that had a 8 cyl big banger 4wd. . The big banger owner berated him on owning a lowly cheap 4wd ute , now my mate is very patient and as the conversation went on it went to different places. Mate said he had been up to a certain destination, and big banger said, what did you walk up there, mate said no I drove, big banger says, I am flat out getting my $80000 4wd up there so how could you get your lowly ute up there. Mate answered him with "you obviously don't know how to drive off-road so you big banger is absolutely wasted on you.

Disclaimer, this is just a true story and DOES not reflect on any of the current people in this post.. Please don't put up the defences.

Eagle,
You've missed a couple of posts of mine in other threads.

My 5 cyl 3.2 litre BT50 blew up, cyl #3 did the damage.

No, I didn't frank, I just didn't understand the extra cyl comment.. BTW. I picked up a mates 4cyl mazda wagon that had just had and engine replaced, motor totalled by an injector problem.

I see yours was replaced under warranty and so was his even though it was one cyclinder short.

My poor attempt at humour, Eagle. Why have a complicated 5 cyl engine that sh1ts itself when a reliable 4cyl will do? But then again, as you have pointed out, they are not immune.

Oh for the good old days of 4 and 6 cyl engines that last forever..