![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
| |||||||
| Forums | Register | Groups | Awards | Arcade | Pets | T-Bucks / T-Store | Invite Your Friends | Blogs | Mark Forums Read |
| MV List Archives of the MV Mailing List |
![]() |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools |
| | #1 (permalink) |
| Civilians | Thanks, Squirt-Trucker! What series of TM's cover the M135/M211 trucks? Bjorn [color=blue] >From: Squirt_Truck <squirt_truck@yahoo.com> >To: Bjorn Brandstedt <super_deuce@hotmail.com>, Military Vehicles Mailing >List <mil-veh@mil-veh.org> >Subject: Re: [MV] David Doyle's article on the Hydra-Matic >Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:33:50 -0800 (PST) > >See the response below... >--- Bjorn Brandstedt <super_deuce@hotmail.com> wrote: >[color=green] > > David always manages to find very informative > > pictures for his articles > > (MVM). I have a couple of question about two photos > > in the Hydra-Matic > > article (December 2004, page 34-35): > > > > 1) Is the rear suspension shown for the M135 > > standard for the M135/M211 > > trucks? Two springs, one auxiliary and one primary > > (figure 6). Yes that is standard, another of the[/color] >superior design features of the GMC. This allowed for >greater carried loads over rougher terrain by >controlling the axle movement. On the highway, 15,000 >was no problem for these trucks. In a push, all four >tires on a single rear axle could be removed and the >truck still driven. Add this to having 2 separate >rear drive shafts and you have a very field friendly >truck.[color=green] > > > > 2) Does anyone have any experience with the snow > > chains shown on the truck > > in figure 11? The cross links appear to be solid > > pieces. They work great for the duals, have much[/color] >better bite than conventional chains, but a dual set >is a bear to install. We always ran chains on all >wheels, some guys tried without chains on the front >and that was a mess.....even with the superior front >axle engagement system that the GMC had (NO they did >NOT have sprag units like the M-35, or air lockers >like the M-35 was upgraded to, the GMC unit did not >give any trouble, IF it was adjusted to fully engage.) > >By the way, in addition to those extra springs, and >with an engine that weighed less than half what the >M-35 has, the GMC (211) still weighed over 1000 pounds >more. Not fat just heavy built. > > >Squirt_Truck(er)[/color] ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list=== To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org> To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org> To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org> |
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| [MV] David Doyle's article on the Hydra-Matic | Tim Korade | MV List | 0 | 02-21-2005 02:50 |
| Re: [MV] David Doyle's article on the Hydra-Matic | Squirt_Truck | MV List | 0 | 02-21-2005 02:50 |
| [MV] David Doyle's article on the Hydra-Matic | Bjorn Brandstedt | MV List | 0 | 02-21-2005 02:50 |
| [MV] Art's Air-O-Matic comments | Jim Cooney | MV List | 1 | 07-20-2004 14:01 |
| [MV] Art's Air-O-Matic comments | Adams-Graf, John | MV List | 10 | 06-18-2004 02:25 |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |