Compatible transmissions for the M35a3 with the cat 3116

[73m819]

Ron, your point is quite valid and has been received. Agreed, the truck (in this case the M35A3) may have been originally "designed" for 48 mph. That speed is probably fine and dandy in the convoy setting that the truck had in its military life. I mean, the "designed" engine and transmission combination only give roughly 48-50 mph at 2,700 rpm. In civilian ownership, I agree with the other posters that this speed is more of a danger than anything else because for the most part, we don't travel in convoys and are therefore a hazard to ourselves and others while traveling at that incredibly slow speed (even on a lot of surface streets). This thread is in the "deuce modification and hot rodding" section and that is exactly the topic we are discussing here (in this case, modifying a M35A3 to actually make it safer/better). If anyone cares to place so much weight on technologies that are (in the case of my truck) over 20 years old. Kudos to you but I think that better things have come about in that time. Respectfully, I and many folks on this site are more than capable of designing systems that are better than their original design of 20-45 years ago. By your train of logic, if someone were considering installing dual circuit brakes on a M35A2, you would probably say "no that isn't part of the original design. Why are you trying to ruin this hobby?". As I have done here, I would make the opposite case that a newer, better, safer design is out there and should be pursued without persecution.

Not true, upgrading safety is great, BUT if a GO FAST event happens, no one is going to look at the upgrades, BUT a old army truck going faster then designed that killed some one. I am not arguing that you can make the trucks go faster, safer with technologies, but when you go to court and are asked the design criteria for the truck, you tell them 50 mph then are asked why you were doing 65, you answer "well I changed some things so it can" I for some reason DO NOT think that will go over very good no matter how safe you made it and in the public's eye you will be at fault no matter true or not. The bad thing is because someone went fast in a hot rod old army truck and somebody got hurt or killed, will look bad on the hobby as a whole, The hobby has enough problems, it will only take 1% of owners doing stuff that bring negative attention to get our trucks changed to OFF ROAD ONLY.

 

[Rambling Wreck]

Not true, upgrading safety is great, BUT if a GO FAST event happens, no one is going to look at the upgrades, BUT a old army truck going faster then designed that killed some one. I am not arguing that you can make the trucks go faster, safer with technologies, but when you go to court and are asked the design criteria for the truck, you tell them 50 mph then are asked why you were doing 65, you answer "well I changed some things so it can" I for some reason DO NOT think that will go over very good no matter how safe you made it and in the public's eye you will be at fault no matter true or not. The bad thing is because someone went fast in a hot rod old army truck and somebody got hurt or killed, will look bad on the hobby as a whole, The hobby has enough problems, it will only take 1% of owners doing stuff that bring negative attention to get our trucks changed to OFF ROAD ONLY.

I respect your opinion and I understand where you are coming from. However, I could just as easily imagine this scenario:

An M35A3 traveling 48mph gets rear ended by a motorists traveling 80mph. If the motorist tried to sue (for whatever reason, people sue today even when they are at fault) a judge could just as easily say that "MV's should be off road only because they can't travel at highway speeds and therefore pose a risk to other motorists".

So the whole speed debate has valid arguments for safety and potential legal outcomes on both sides. I appreciate the candor and debate. You are a master debater.

 

[73m819]

I respect your opinion and I understand where you are coming from. However, I could just as easily imagine this scenario:

An M35A3 traveling 48mph gets rear ended by a motorists traveling 80mph. If the motorist tried to sue (for whatever reason, people sue today even when they are at fault) a judge could just as easily say that "MV's should be off road only because they can't travel at highway speeds and therefore pose a risk to other motorists".

So the whole speed debate has valid arguments for safety and potential legal outcomes on both sides. I appreciate the candor and debate. You are a master debater.

40 mph and over is legal to be on the interstate system, 80 mph is not legal on most, does not matter what people do, it is what the law says, so some dumb a$$ picking there nose or doing what ever while breaking the law doing 80 mph REAR ENDS a truck doing a legal 48 mph. gets a judge to rule off road, I DO NO THINK SO, In fact the 80 mph dumba$$ WILL see a big bill and maybe even jail, (start with reckless driving , reckless endangerment, and a down hill run from there and if kids are involved, a very fast down hill)

 

[Rambling Wreck]

40 mph and over is legal to be on the interstate system, 80 mph is not legal on most, does not matter what people do, it is what the law says, so some dumb a$$ picking there nose or doing what ever while breaking the law doing 80 mph REAR ENDS a truck doing a legal 48 mph. gets a judge to rule off road, I DO NO THINK SO, In fact the 80 mph dumba$$ WILL see a big bill and maybe even jail, (start with reckless driving , reckless endangerment, and a down hill run from there and if kids are involved, a very fast down hill)

I didn't say that the motorists would win. I am just saying that he could attempt to sue. The negative attention it would bring is my point.

The way I score this discussion is as follows:

_____________Ron_____Me
MV Expert______1______0_
Older than Dirt__1______0_
Legal Expert____1______0_
Master Debater__1______0_
Sum___________4______0_

I should probably give myself at least 1 style point. Even so, I am losing to you, 4 to 1. Let me think how I can further substantiate my point and then get back to you. Going to be hard to overcome a 3 point deficit.

 

[markmontana]

I didn't say that the motorists would win. I am just saying that he could attempt to sue. The negative attention it would bring is my point.

The way I score this discussion is as follows:

_____________Ron_____Me
MV Expert______1______0_
Older than Dirt__1______0_
Legal Expert____1______0_
Master Debater__1______0_
Sum___________4______0_

I should probably give myself at least 1 style point. Even so, I am losing to you, 4 to 1. Let me think how I can further substantiate my point and then get back to you. Going to be hard to overcome a 3 point deficit.

This should be nominated for Post of the Day! Loved it!

 

[73m819]

I didn't say that the motorists would win. I am just saying that he could attempt to sue. The negative attention it would bring is my point.

The way I score this discussion is as follows:

_____________Ron_____Me
MV Expert______1______0_
Older than Dirt__1______0_
Legal Expert____1______0_
Master Debater__1______0_
Sum___________4______0_

I should probably give myself at least 1 style point. Even so, I am losing to you, 4 to 1. Let me think how I can further substantiate my point and then get back to you. Going to be hard to overcome a 3 point deficit.

By math, it looks like 4 to 0 loss, which = a 4 point deficit

 

[Rambling Wreck]

By math, it looks like 4 to 0 loss, which = a 4 point deficit

I should probably give myself at least 1 style point. Even so, I am losing to you, 4 to 1. Let me think how I can further substantiate my point and then get back to you. Going to be hard to overcome a 3 point deficit.

So I don't get any style points? You drive a hard bargain. That's probably one of the reasons you are such a master debater.

 

[73m819]

I didn't say that the motorists would win. I am just saying that he could attempt to sue. The negative attention it would bring is my point.

The way I score this discussion is as follows:

_____________Ron_____Me
MV Expert______1______0_
Older than Dirt__1______0_
Legal Expert____1______0_
Master Debater__1______0_
Sum___________4______0_

I should probably give myself at least 1 style point. Even so, I am losing to you, 4 to 1. Let me think how I can further substantiate my point and then get back to you. Going to be hard to overcome a 3 point deficit.

By math, it looks like 4 to 0 loss, which = a 4 point deficit

So I don't get any style points? You drive a hard bargain. That's probably one of the reasons you are such a master debater.

I was JUST going by YOUR CHART

 

[Rambling Wreck]

Yeah I should have put it in the chart but the style point was an afterthought. You're a good sport Ron.

 

[JasonS]

There is a HUGE aftermarket for all variety of things automotive. There are a lot of forums which discuss upgrades using aftermarket parts to go faster in antique vehicles using stock drivetrains or stock suspensions. None of these forums are as paranoid as SS.

 

[Chief_919]

There is a HUGE aftermarket for all variety of things automotive. There are a lot of forums which discuss upgrades using aftermarket parts to go faster in antique vehicles using stock drivetrains or stock suspensions. None of these forums are as paranoid as SS.

None of those other hobbyist groups have seen a state ban their vehicles from being registered in their state because the state claimed they were unsafe either. But MV owners have seen it happen in one state, and be proposed in others.

 

[trukhead]

There is a HUGE aftermarket for all variety of things automotive. There are a lot of forums which discuss upgrades using aftermarket parts to go faster in antique vehicles using stock drivetrains or stock suspensions. None of these forums are as paranoid as SS.

Here in Wisconsin, I just got the right to title and license for my M35A3 and the right to title and license a CUCV as a regular vehicle. That action only came about after a protracted effort by a persistent and informed few.
The legislation also seemed to affect vintage and hobbyist vehicles as well.
The administrative doctrine that this legislation thwarted endeavored to remove from the highway use MVs, hobbyist vehicles, vintage vehicles and who knows what else.
When you go off and confuse paranoia with concern for the hobby, you show and ignorance of the bigger world around you and the efforts of those to recover and establish an ability to pursue the military vehicle hobby and its operation on public highways.
Thread hijack over for now, over and out

 

[JasonS]

When you go off and confuse paranoia with concern for the hobby, you show and ignorance of the bigger world around you and the efforts of those to recover and establish an ability to pursue the military vehicle hobby and its operation on public highways.


I undstand the concerns of the hobby; I think that you are confusing and combining different aspects. I see what I consider to be an excessive amount of concern about operating the trucks at safe highway speeds. While it may be "legal" to operate a mil vehicle at 40mph on the interstate, prevailing speeds here are 80mph and you are creating a condition equally unsafe as those chatting away on their cell phones. I am also surprised that the same folls who cry about single circuit brakes (with which I agree) don't seem at all concerned withe the full hydraulic steering mods.

 

[73m819]

When you go off and confuse paranoia with concern for the hobby, you show and ignorance of the bigger world around you and the efforts of those to recover and establish an ability to pursue the military vehicle hobby and its operation on public highways.


I undstand the concerns of the hobby; I think that you are confusing and combining different aspects. I see what I consider to be an excessive amount of concern about operating the trucks at safe highway speeds. While it may be "legal" to operate a mil vehicle at 40mph on the interstate, prevailing speeds here are 80mph and you are creating a condition equally unsafe as those chatting away on their cell phones. I am also surprised that the same folls who cry about single circuit brakes (with which I agree) don't seem at all concerned withe the full hydraulic steering mods.

Wrong, you ARE NOT creating a unsafe condition, the 80 mph DUMBA$$ doing the ILLEGEAL 80 mph IS, just because the prevailing speed is 80 mph, does not mean our trucks need to match it, instead maybe these DUMBA$$ go fasters in there little go fast cars need to OBAY the law and pay attention, drive ahead, not pick there noise, shave, ect, ect, ect.

I am so tired of DUMBA$$ people blaming others for there screw ups, because they want to go fast and run into a slower vehicle, it is the slower vehicles fault, there are accidents everyday where go fast was the cause, not because a army truck was on the road. These GO FAST DUMBA$$ERS do not understand that the faster you go , the further you need to drive ahead, doubt they even KNOW that concept.

 

[Rambling Wreck]

Wrong, you ARE NOT creating a unsafe condition, the 80 mph DUMBA$$ doing the ILLEGEAL 80 mph IS, just because the prevailing speed is 80 mph, does not mean our trucks need to match it, instead maybe these DUMBA$$ go fasters in there little go fast cars need to OBAY the law and pay attention, drive ahead, not pick there noise, shave, ect, ect, ect.

There are plenty of roads that have 75mph speed limits and there is even a road in Texas now that has a speed limit of 85mph.

If the flow of traffic is legally doing 75mph and an MV is cruising at 45mph, then I would say that the MV is presenting the potential danger because it is the outlier. If that same MV could travel 60mph then the potential danger has significantly been reduced because the other motorist are only flying by you at 15mph instead 30mph (relative speed). Considering those relative speeds, imagine a car going 15mph and runniing into the rear of a parked deuce. The damage to the car would be substantial but the driver would probably be okay. Now imagine that same car running 30mph into the back of a parked deuce. The damage would be much worse and the driver would probably sustain serious injuries. There is a big difference between the impacts at those two speeds. Also, the likelihood of a rear end collision occurring is probably lower for the faster MV because the other motorist would have a slower rate of approach (therefore more time to react) on it than the slower MV.

 

[73m819]

There are plenty of roads that have 75mph speed limits and there is even a road in Texas now that has a speed limit of 85mph.

If the flow of traffic is legally doing 75mph and an MV is cruising at 45mph, then I would say that the MV is presenting the potential danger because it is the outlier. If that same MV could travel 60mph then the potential danger has significantly been reduced because the other motorist are only flying by you at 15mph instead 30mph (relative speed). Considering those relative speeds, imagine a car going 15mph and runniing into the rear of a parked deuce. The damage to the car would be substantial but the driver would probably be okay. Now imagine that same car running 30mph into the back of a parked deuce. The damage would be much worse and the driver would probably sustain serious injuries. There is a big difference between the impacts at those two speeds. Also, the likelihood of a rear end collision occurring is probably lower for the faster MV because the other motorist would have a slower rate of approach (therefore more time to react) on it than the slower MV.

If someone runs into the back of someone, it is NOT the fault of the vehicle that got run into, but the rearender for NOT driving ahead, people run up on the rear of vehicles all the times thinking that they can change lanes at the last minute and keep going only to find out that that can not happen and have to get on the brakes real quick, sometimes not quick enough.

With the logic of Mvs going faster because people want to be gofasters, is the same logic that says DO NOT PARK A DEUCE ON THE STREET BECAUSE IT MIGHT GET HIT BY A CAR Doing 30 MPH and strain damage and the driver hurt. Da, it is NOT the parked trucks fault it got run into, no more then a MVs fault going down the road, that gets rear ended, it is the persons fault that ran into it, there is a million reasons why the driver hit something in FRONT of them but in the end it is there fault, AND there fault that they got hurt and damage done to the vehicle. In today's world, the ONLY way to guarantee from getting rear ended is either park your vehicle in a locked one vehicle garage or go faster then anybody else, which will most likely turn you into a REARENDER

Remember SHOOTING IRON died NOT BECAUSE the speed of his truck BUT because someone was going fast and NOT PAYING ATTENTION

 

[Rambling Wreck]

If someone runs into the back of someone, it is NOT the fault of the vehicle that got run into, but the rearender for NOT driving ahead, people run up on the rear of vehicles all the times thinking that they can change lanes at the last minute and keep going only to find out that that can not happen and have to get on the brakes real quick, sometimes not quick enough.

The fault would obviously lie with the person who rear ended the MV. I am more concerned about avoiding such collisions altogether, regardless of who is at fault. The attention from any collision would be negative, regardless of who is at fault. That is why I feel it is best to try and minimize collisions even if it means traveling at a slightly higher (and I argue safer) speed. I can't control if another motorist coming up from behind me is paying attention or not. However, I can travel at a speed the is less likely to catch that motorist by surprise and thus reduce the chance of an accident.

It is clear that I am not going to change some minds, and that was not my goal. I do hope that I have explained why the speed issue isn't about reckless abandon and hot rodding but instead has legitimate and positive safety implications. People can have different views and opinions on the matter. No one is necessarily 100% wrong and no one is necessarily 100% right.

 

[mactiredearg]

If someone runs into the back of someone, it is NOT the fault of the vehicle that got run into, but the rearender

As a former LEO I should warn you that the rule you have stated is not absolute. It is entirely possible for the vehicle that was run into to be ticketed for causing the accident.

A specific example of how this can happen is when there is a posted minimum speed limit, which these trucks would have an issue meeting for some of the roads near me. And before someone throws out the argument that we just shouldn't be on those roads, well that works great for y'all back east but here in the west there are places where it is either the interstate or several hours (at least) of detour, if a route is available at all.
Its also possible for the LEO at the accident scene to ticket you for "obstructing the flow of traffic". Lots of states have that concept on the books. And in fact you can get ticketed for that even when doing the speed limit if everyone else is going faster. I've personally seen CHIPies write that one twice in that situation.

Back to the mod'ing for speed: anyone who wants to do 65 (let alone more) in these things is nuts.

That said the A3 variant deuce has the same suspension, axles, brakes (namely drums, etc that do the actual stopping) as the A2. And in fact have a SAFER overall braking system due to the dual circuits. So what is the issue with getting the A3s to cruise at the same speed as an A2? Both variants can stop just as easily from that speed.

After all, while someone rear-ending me will _probably_ get the ticket, I'd rather not have the collision in the first place.

 

[hornetfan]

not really, a 3116 @ 2700RPM will set your teeth on edge.

I know, I did it from MD to MA, almost 500 miles in a single (LOOOONG-a55ed day)

Marine 6BTs are a common marine engine. The SAE#3 bell housing is a common marine bellhousing -- yes a bellhousing is available.

 

[hornetfan]

Michelin XZL 395/85R20 max road speed

What are 395's rated for?

Still, to sum up 7 pages in a nutshell....it is going to cost you almost as much as you paid or the WHOLE truck to go much faster than 48-50MPH in an A3.

still on the nice-to-have list. If I could find a way to do it affordably, even if I had to crawl under and shift a spicer manually, and not have 6x6 unless I went back to 1:1, I would do it.

If I feel the need to do 65 in a FMV, there's always my wheel chock 1009.....

I haven't finished this entire thread so somebody may have already answered the question. There is a memo from Michelin which approves the 395/85R20 tires for use to 70 mph under MRAPs and lists the loads vs inflation pressure.