Weights and Measures

[Don Bradner]

I run at 44,000 fully loaded. GVWR would allow more than 3,000 more, but all of
the slack is on my Drivers.

Don Bradner
90 PT40 "Blue Thunder"
Posting by air card from a rest stop on I-95

On 10/25/2008 at 9:28 AM bubblerboy64 wrote:

>Can some one give me an idea of the "ready to roll" weights on a couple
>of these coaches. The ones I am interested in are the SP, PT 40, and
>PT 38, and PT 36. My reason for asking? Just would like to have a
>ruff HP to weight ratio. My Napper is just at 12 tons with 200hp and
>I'd like to do a little number crunching. I know the HP ratings of the
>various machines, don't know the weight. Not looking for exact numbers
>just a ball park to get an idea.
>
>John Heckman
>central Pa
>1973 FC
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[crissrace]

--- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, "bubblerboy64"
wrote:
>
> Can some one give me an idea of the "ready to roll" weights on a
couple
> of these coaches. The ones I am interested in are the SP, PT 40,
and
> PT 38, and PT 36. My reason for asking? Just would like to have a
> ruff HP to weight ratio. My Napper is just at 12 tons with 200hp and
> I'd like to do a little number crunching. I know the HP ratings of
the
> various machines, don't know the weight. Not looking for exact
numbers
> just a ball park to get an idea.
>
> John Heckman
> central Pa
> 1973 FC
>
Hi John
I have a '90 SP 36. Weighs about 33,000 # with the 3208 turbo turned
up to about 300 horsepower. Pulls 7000#s at 60-62 mph and gets 6.7 mpg.
Bob Criss
Bethel Park, PA

'90SP36

[sfedeli3]

I'm at 41,000 with full fuel, empty water and holding tanks, no
people. Was 39,500 before the spare on the roof and the toolbox. Must
be that heavy pile carpet and pad that Ernie used this summer (LOL)

Shane Fedeli
85PT40
Hershey, PA

--- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, "bubblerboy64"
wrote:
>
> Can some one give me an idea of the "ready to roll" weights on a couple
> of these coaches. The ones I am interested in are the SP, PT 40, and
> PT 38, and PT 36. My reason for asking? Just would like to have a
> ruff HP to weight ratio. My Napper is just at 12 tons with 200hp and
> I'd like to do a little number crunching. I know the HP ratings of the
> various machines, don't know the weight. Not looking for exact numbers
> just a ball park to get an idea.
>
> John Heckman
> central Pa
> 1973 FC
>

[bubblerboy64]

Thanks guys, I was looking to see how the ratio of weight to HP
worked out in these vehicles. The winner of course is the PT 38 with
the 475 HP engine. The PT 36 and the SP appear to be dead even.
There are other factors to be considered, just wanted a idea of who
had what.
John Heckman
central Pa
1973 FC. The ole Napper with 24,000 lbs and 200 hp isn't all that
out of the running. Transmission and suspension holding it back.





>
> --- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, "bubblerboy64"
> wrote:
> >
> > Can some one give me an idea of the "ready to roll" weights on a
> couple
> > of these coaches. The ones I am interested in are the SP, PT
40,
> and
> > PT 38, and PT 36. My reason for asking? Just would like to
have a
> > ruff HP to weight ratio. My Napper is just at 12 tons with 200hp
and
> > I'd like to do a little number crunching. I know the HP ratings
of
> the
> > various machines, don't know the weight. Not looking for exact
> numbers
> > just a ball park to get an idea.
> >
> > John Heckman
> > central Pa
> > 1973 FC
> >
> Hi John
> I have a '90 SP 36. Weighs about 33,000 # with the 3208 turbo
turned
> up to about 300 horsepower. Pulls 7000#s at 60-62 mph and gets 6.7
mpg.
> Bob Criss
> Bethel Park, PA
>
> '90SP36
>

[Gardner Yeaw]

John,
I drove Tom Sorentino's PT38 with the 8v92. It is a power house.
Smooth and steady on any hill I climbed. I also drove an SP36. It too
had plenty of power on hills. Either one would be a winner power
wise. Now fuel economy may be a different subject.

Gardner
83FC35 (with a broken Allison)


--- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, "bubblerboy64"
wrote:
>
> Thanks guys, I was looking to see how the ratio of weight to HP
> worked out in these vehicles. The winner of course is the PT 38
with
> the 475 HP engine. The PT 36 and the SP appear to be dead even.
> There are other factors to be considered, just wanted a idea of who
> had what.
> John Heckman
> central Pa
> 1973 FC. The ole Napper with 24,000 lbs and 200 hp isn't all that
> out of the running. Transmission and suspension holding it back.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > --- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, "bubblerboy64"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Can some one give me an idea of the "ready to roll" weights on
a
> > couple
> > > of these coaches. The ones I am interested in are the SP, PT
> 40,
> > and
> > > PT 38, and PT 36. My reason for asking? Just would like to
> have a
> > > ruff HP to weight ratio. My Napper is just at 12 tons with
200hp
> and
> > > I'd like to do a little number crunching. I know the HP
ratings
> of
> > the
> > > various machines, don't know the weight. Not looking for exact
> > numbers
> > > just a ball park to get an idea.
> > >
> > > John Heckman
> > > central Pa
> > > 1973 FC
> > >
> > Hi John
> > I have a '90 SP 36. Weighs about 33,000 # with the 3208 turbo
> turned
> > up to about 300 horsepower. Pulls 7000#s at 60-62 mph and gets
6.7
> mpg.
> > Bob Criss
> > Bethel Park, PA
> >
> > '90SP36
> >
>