Blown Head Gasket

[glcaines]

I decided to take my M35A2 deuce for a drive today. I always check the coolant and oil before driving. When I pulled the radiator cap off, an emulsion of coolant and and oil blew out in my face. Before anyone asks the question, the engine was cold and the truck hadn't been driven for two days. I've likely got a blown head gasket so I guess I know what I'll be doing this next weekend. I'll get the heads re-surfaced and clean the injectors at the same time. No sign of coolant in the oil. Hopefully it isn't anything more than a blown head gasket.

 

[gimpyrobb]

Good luck on the swap. I have to do mine soon too.

 

[dabtl]

I changed head gaskets three times before realizing that I had a cracked head. The crack was in the intake port and did not show up when the heads were resurfaced. Pressure testing would probably have caught it but it may have just gotten larger with the removal and torquing. Check it out and save time and money.

 

[3dAngus]

Was your engine the -1c?

I have the -1d and I understand the improvement to it was an improved head gasket. I'm no expert so was just wanting some additional experience, or comments.

 

[rosco]

Are you sure it isn't a leaking oil cooler? Oil pressure is higher then water pressure, so that is where it will go. Same symptoms. I,d change it (cooler) 1st, then drain the system, add water, and a box of Cascade dish soap. Flush. Do you have other head gasket symptoms? Tow cylinders missing? low temps on the exhaust manifold? Good Luck

 

[nk14zp]

Only two types of multifuels. Those that need head gaskets and those that have had them done.

 

[patracy]

Only two types of multifuels. Those that need head gaskets and those that have had them done.

Three.

Those that need head gaskets. Those that have had them done. And those that have had them done that will need them again.

 

[3dAngus]

OK, so, I used search and it brought me to this site and a couple of others to get the answer.
Yes, the MDT-465-1d engine supposedly had a better head gasket design with better head cooling.
It wasn't perfect and still had issues, though the argument could be made as to whether it was better or not as there are still reports of failures.

 

[patracy]

OK, so, I used search and it brought me to this site and a couple of others to get the answer.
Yes, the MDT-465-1d engine supposedly had a better head gasket design with better head cooling.
It wasn't perfect and still had issues, though the argument could be made as to whether it was better or not as there are still reports of failures.

I love what a multi will run on. But they just were asking too much of them when they increased the CR, operating RPM, and load compared to what the tractor counterpart engines were designed for. On the upside, they're cheap. So I beat on mine like a red headed step child.

BTW, I don't buy into "this one is better" when it comes to the engines. I had a "TD" block which signifies a thick deck. Ended up having a cracked cyl wall at the water jacket. Ended up blowing that engine a while back. It's still in the back of the shop near the woods. I really should just scrap that thing. Too bad it has new pistons/liners in it. (I believe it blew another HG or cracked a head) And that was all after having the heads surfaced, using the "improved" gaskets, exc.

 

[clinto]

Was your engine the -1c?

I have the -1d and I understand the improvement to it was an improved head gasket. I'm no expert so was just wanting some additional experience, or comments.

Yes, the 1D theoretically has the upgraded gaskets but after 20+ years of 22:1 compression, they're all gonna' leak. Devilman spoke to a Continental engineer (I think) years ago and was told Continental had filmed the multis at speed (rpms) and you could see the head trying to leave the deck.

Only two types of multifuels. Those that need head gaskets and those that have had them done.

I tell this to everyone who comes to my house. You're gonna' do 'em at some point and if you own it long enough, you'll do it again.

Three.

Those that need head gaskets. Those that have had them done. And those that have had them done that will need them again.

Hahaha. See above.

OK, so, I used search and it brought me to this site and a couple of others to get the answer.
Yes, the MDT-465-1d engine supposedly had a better head gasket design with better head cooling.
It wasn't perfect and still had issues, though the argument could be made as to whether it was better or not as there are still reports of failures.

The D is probably better but not perfect. The multifuel is far from perfect, arguably far from acceptable.

I love what a multi will run on. But they just were asking too much of them when they increased the CR, operating RPM, and load compared to what the tractor counterpart engines were designed for. On the upside, they're cheap. So I beat on mine like a red headed step child.

BTW, I don't buy into "this one is better" when it comes to the engines. I had a "TD" block which signifies a thick deck. Ended up having a cracked cyl wall at the water jacket. Ended up blowing that engine a while back. It's still in the back of the shop near the woods. I really should just scrap that thing. Too bad it has new pistons/liners in it. (I believe it blew another HG or cracked a head) And that was all after having the heads surfaced, using the "improved" gaskets, exc.

They should have made the blocks (crankcase webbing), rods and cranks stronger if they wanted to push those kind of rpms.

Agreed: I don't think there's a lot of difference between the White, Continental or Hercules variants. I know a lot of people here are convinced but I'd like to see some peer-reviewed Army statistics. Anecdotes just aren't reliable.

 

[3dAngus]

Gary, I wonder if that Ice Age storm front we had here in Ga. had anything to do with it.
I know these machines are designed to withstand a Wisconsin winter, but they have been parked in the South for most of their life, if not in the desert.

 

[JasonS]

But they just were asking too much of them when they increased the CR, operating RPM, and load compared to what the tractor counterpart engines were designed for. .

This is complete misconception. The multifuel was a nearly complete redesign of a Continental series of engines; NOT a redesign of a tractor engine; and NOT a modified gas engine. The tractor came decades later. The engines from which the multi was derived had similar horsepower and operating rpm.

 

[patracy]

This is complete misconception. The multifuel was a nearly complete redesign of a Continental series of engines; NOT a redesign of a tractor engine; and NOT a modified gas engine. The tractor came decades later. The engines from which the multi was derived had similar horsepower and operating rpm.

Oliver 2050's were made in 68 and 69. They were diesels. I never stated they were a modified gas engine? And they had less power. 118hp vs 134. (12% less) Turned only 2400rpm. Had lower CR's. (18:1 instead) Again all of these factors directly affect bottom end strength (rpm) and head gaskets. (Cyl pressures)

http://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/000/7/1/713-oliver-2050.html
http://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/000/7/1/713-oliver-2050-engine.html

 

[Jeepsinker]

Maybe these motors just grenade because people run the piss out of them because they are cheap to replace for the time being.

 

[JasonS]

I love what a multi will run on. But they just were asking too much of them when they increased the CR, operating RPM, and load compared to what the tractor counterpart engines were designed for. .

Oliver 2050's were made in 68 and 69. They were diesels. I never stated they were a modified gas engine? And they had less power. 118hp vs 134. (12% less) Turned only 2400rpm. Had lower CR's. (18:1 instead) Again all of these factors directly affect bottom end strength (rpm) and head gaskets. (Cyl pressures)

http://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/000/7/1/713-oliver-2050.html
http://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/000/7/1/713-oliver-2050-engine.html

It appeared from your post that you were suggesting that the multi was a redesign of the tractor engine and that they were pushing the rpm ratings and horsepower compared to the tractor engine when designed. The multifuel was specifically designed for the application as a multifuel military diesel; it was not designed as a tractor engine, nor was it simply an existing engine with higher CR and rpm. It was loosely derived from their line of industrial and transportation diesels. The rpm and horsepower rating was really not an increase over what Continental had been offering in these previous diesel engines. They all had a high max rpm. Who knows how well it worked out.

 

[m-35tom]

i used to sell head gaskets cheap because i could buy them direct from the manufacturer. their price went way up so i quit. the best deal i know of now is actually Memphis Equipment, who sells the complete head set.

 

[3dAngus]

How do you troubleshoot this to see where the specific location of the failure is? Is it a trial and error type of thing?
Gary, please report back your findings when you get on it. Any technical help is appreciated for the rest of us, in both identifying and troubleshooting and any issues you came across in doing the disassembly/replacement.
And yes, I do realize there is a search that might cover some of this, but I would like to hear it fresh and new while we have a member working the issue so I can follow along.

 

[JasonS]

I tore down a multi over the holidays which had a leak on #1 cylinder. The head nuts were all noticeably looser in this area. I know that the new gaskets don't need to be re-torqued. But, would it hurt anything to do so?

 

[JasonS]

O And they had less power. 118hp vs 134. (12% less) l

The 118 hp is at the PTO. They were actually a ~150 -155 hp tractor (at ~2200 rpm). ie. the White 2-155 was 2wd 155hp.

 

[3dAngus]

I would have thought that any head gasket, on any type of machine, would require torqueing and balancing, whether gas or diesel, motor vehicle, boat, or plane.