Design Change between 1952 and 1953?

[Barrman]

I have a 1952 M35 and a 1953 M35. The 1952 is being made like new again while the '53 sits in the field and gets to store parts inside it. I also have another rust free Gasser cab/fenders/hood/running boards that are going to live on the '52 real soon.

While prepping the cab, I came across 2 broken bolts under the passenger side rocker panel. I walked over to the '52 and could not find any similar bolts or any evidence of such bolts or even the bolt holes. I figured it was something a unit added to the truck and didn't bother to clean out the broken bolts. The holes on the drivers side are functional.

I painted the bottom of the cab a week or so ago. Monday, I walked through my parts piles looking for something when I noticed the extra holes on my replacement fenders. I walked over to my orginal fenders notice no holes and then I went back and forth a few times to make sure I wasn't seing things. Then I walked over to the '53 truck and it has the holes.

 

[acetomatoco]

Many things happened in the early years... reduced 2 to 1 air valve under dash... removed under hood trouble light plug.. Instruments from 12V with resistors to std M series 24V type. Light swithes with separate front and rear harness connectors to a single connector. Rear suspension torque rods from round body to H shaped. See the DD Book...

 

[Barrman]

Ace,
I know from the way you post almost daily that you believe everyone on the internet except yourself to be blubering idiots who can't read. However, that is not always the case. I for example have the DDoyle book and have read it several times cover to cover. I also have 6 of the 7 publications pertaining to the Gasser M35. I am missing the pre-'65 -30. I have read them several times as well.

Before I started this thread, I looked through the TM 9-8022, the ORD 9-SNL and the -20P dated January 1965 along with the -10 and -20 of the same date. I could find no picture or line item regarding the different front fender rear mount options I posted pictures of. Matter of fact, I could find nothing about how to bolt the fender to the truck. Doing a search here for "M35 Cab" or "M35 body" gets thousands of hits. I am at home on dial up and did not persue each and every one listed. But, in the more than 2 years I have been here, I have no recollection of this particular mount ever being mentioned. This sight crashed and was redone not long before I joined, so information posted before the crash can't be searched anyway.

Therefore, I figured maybe someone out there might be interested in the two different fender mount methods offered from the factory. Because after all, isn't this sights main purpose to exchange information about old military trucks? I thought I was doing that. Not offering myself up to get slammed by you for not reading the manual!

 

[DDoyle]

Thanks for the recommendation Ace. Unfortunately, the Stnadard Catalog does not address this level of detail. However, I've been contracted to do a book specifically on the G-742 which may address this. The book I've been contracted to do is not the large deuce book that I'd hoped to do (that one is still being negotiated), but I still suspect it will be ahead of anything else on the market on this subject.

I do have some documentation on this, which sadly I don't have time at the moment to dig out (deadline on another project looming). There are several changes as ya'll mention, the fender mounting, the split wiring harness, the relocated trailer receptacle, the changes to under dash air connections, type of sprag (the very first trucks had a different sprag type than the sprags used on most of the trucks, and of course far different from the later air shift.

Regards,
David

 

[gimpyrobb]

Ladies and Gentlemen the has sung!

 

[nattieleather]

Re: RE: Design Change between 1952 and 1953?

Ladies and Gentlemen the has sung!

No Gimp I don't think so...Tim's question has not been answered.

To me it seems that by the first pic with the two wrenches on the holes that the builders/designers felt they needed the extra mounting, but maybe to speed production up or to cut cost those two mounting points were eliminated as overkill. That's just my edumacated $.02 worth.

 

[DDoyle]

Re: RE: Design Change between 1952 and 1953?

Ladies and Gentlemen the has sung!

No Gimp I don't think so...Tim's question has not been answered.

To me it seems that by the first pic with the two wrenches on the holes that the builders/designers felt they needed the extra mounting, but maybe to speed production up or to cut cost those two mounting points were eliminated as overkill. That's just my edumacated $.02 worth.

You've got it backwards, I believe. Initially, the trucks lacked these bolts, they were added later in production.

In an effort to make peace, I have dug through some of my files this evening - I simply lack the time to do more digging over the next few days.

During inspection control tests of the M34, which was conducted 30 June - September 1950, and the findings published 19 January 1951, it was noted that the front fender bolts sheared on registration number 41085662, serial number 90053. This, and a few other minor problems, resulted in the generation of manufacturing deficiency report number 2, dated 8 August 1950, APG 451.2/152. This occured after 890 miles of operation, and severe frame twist.

This report recommended that this be corrected by "appropriate modifications".

The results of these recommendations often take several months to implement (as a case in point, the very FIRST test of the M135 recommended that the telescoping hood props be eliminated, but ths didn't actually hit the production line until very late in the program.)

Do I need to look for more reports, or is that close enough to be a fat lady singing?

Best wishes,
David Doyle

 

[gimpyrobb]

RE: Re: RE: Design Change between 1952 and 1953?

Sorry if you thought that was aimed at you Dave. You beat me to the punch on the reply. It was actually meant to go after Tim's post. I hope you don't believe I think you are a fat lady. BWAAHAHAHAHAAHAah hehe.

 

[DDoyle]

Re: RE: Re: RE: Design Change between 1952 and 1953?

Sorry if you thought that was aimed at you Dave. You beat me to the punch on the reply. It was actually meant to go after Tim's post. I hope you don't believe I think you are a fat lady. BWAAHAHAHAHAAHAah hehe.

Just having fun with you

The fat I wouldn't argue about - the lady however......

 

[acetomatoco]

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Design Change between 1952 and 1953?

My mind works like an Engineer's, not a social worker's. Trying to sooth savage beasts and whiners is not part of my approach to things.. Attempting to educate folks to use their own resources instead of expecting those who learned stuff in the school of hard knocks to stand on their heads and puke this knowledge out for nada is not my idea of helping. Here's an example... Which one of these potential posters would you help?

1. " tell me how to bleed my brakes"

2. "I have tried to bleed the brakes on my non-modified M35A2C by the procedures listed in the manuals and made all the adjustments listed, flushed and cleaned the system, and refilled with DOT 5, and still from time to time my pedal goes to the floor. Could someone please give me some next steps to try."


Back to the question at hand... From the same engineering standpoint, regarding frame flex it would make sense to eliminate the two bolts in question... Most of the front end sheet metal on the larger cousins (M54) was mounted with long bolts with springs and captive nuts to allow movement of fenders without damage as the frame flexed. The hood tiedown loops were long in order for the latches to slide from side to side in off road operations...extreme frame flex...as the grille is frame mounted, and the hood mounted way back on the cab cowl. Look at the front body mounting bolts on the Deuce Cargo body as the big example of this application of flexible assembly.

 

[ida34]

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Design Change between 1952 and 1953?

I try to help anyone I can and hopefully educate them along the way. Not all people can look over a book and "get it". I do fine with TMs and books but not all people are. I do agree that people should read the manuals but on this topic I don't see how one could find the information unless they made a living of looking over every piece of deuce literature they could find (David Doyle). Most of the TM's show the most recent parts available. I can't find anything in the new TM's about the old ratchet style parking brake so if you wanted to know about them you would need to find an old TM or ask someone that has worked on the old style before. Again, I try to help everyone in hopes that when I need help someone will step up and help me out. I doubt anyone could find the info about the design change in any of the TM's and we have established that David does not cover this in his book.

My main point is that this site is all about helping people and sharing knowledge. On some posts I have said to myself "this guy should just look in the manual for that". Mostly this is for the "what is the empty weight of the deuce" or something of the such. On other posts I have thought the answer given by some such as "check the tm" has been somewhat harsh. We also see a lot of threads started by new people to the site that rehash old topics. Usually this brings out the dead horse icon and some rude comments about searching. Some people are helpful and provide links to the other threads and that is great. Searching can be problematic at best and some are better at it than others. Lets help people without being trite or rude. Even the new guys that do not know where to find the TM or search functions. I do not like doing work for someone else but I think that most of the time being lazy is the problem. Lack of knowledge is the problem. We were all new to this site at one time or another.

No flame disclaimer. This is not an attack on anyone including ace. I have just noted some rude responses to these type of inquiries sometimes by some of the members.

 

[73m819]

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Design Change between 1952 and 1953?

CHUCK,

 

[clinto]

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Design Change between 1952 and 1953?

My main point is that this site is all about helping people and sharing knowledge. On some posts I have said to myself "this guy should just look in the manual for that". Mostly this is for the "what is the empty weight of the deuce" or something of the such. On other posts I have thought the answer given by some such as "check the tm" has been somewhat harsh. We also see a lot of threads started by new people to the site that rehash old topics. Usually this brings out the dead horse icon and some rude comments about searching. Some people are helpful and provide links to the other threads and that is great. Searching can be problematic at best and some are better at it than others. Lets help people without being trite or rude. Even the new guys that do not know where to find the TM or search functions. I do not like doing work for someone else but I think that most of the time being lazy is the problem. Lack of knowledge is the problem. We were all new to this site at one time or another.

 

[cranetruck]

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Design Change between 1952 and 1953?

I agree wholeheartedly with Ron and Clinto on this, even when I know the subject is in the TM, finding it can be a real problem and all TMs don't have the same coverage as stated above...... sharing info is what this site is all about.

PS. I do enjoy Ace's posts and appreciate his experienced outlook, keep'em coming.

 

[73m819]

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Design Change between 1952 and 1953?

also the tms show the military way, with all the spacific mil. tools, that does not mean thats the best way, easest, ect, let alone ALL the tricks that we have learned from each other

 

[DDoyle]

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Design Change between 1952 and 1953?

A commentary - not directed at anyone in particular - but more about life in general and the internet. Increasingly it seems society expects literally everything to be available on the internet. Over the holidays I walked into a room and heard my 22 year-old son son (majoring in programming) talking to my 16 year old soon-to-be stepson, one saying to the other "who goes to the library anymore? You can look everything up on line." Now, I am a guy sitting in an office with 500 plus linear feet of books and four filing cabinets of documents, who spends several days each month in libraries and archives, and this is what put a roof over my boy's head the last several years he lived at home. To say I was incredulous at this would be an understatement! You would think that if anyone would appreciate what a resource the printed page is it would be these boys. It is doubtful that more than 10 % of the material in my office is on line - and a lot of it never will be on line.

Regarding the topic at hand, one of the first things I look at on the subject of early G-742 trucks are various operators manuals, such as TM 9-819, June 1950 - this covers only the M34, 'cause at that time, that was the only type of G-742 in existance. Next step would be TM 9-819, January 1952 - by this time there were many more versions of the G-742, yet the manual is still a modest 318 pages. Next would be TM 9-8022, January 1954, which includes even more variations, and is a whopping 690 pages. There were also numerous technical bulletins published throughout the first few years that addressed problems that cropped up early on. And of course the ORD 9, and its little brother the ORD 8, as well as the dozen or so rebuild manuals published in the early 1950s.

I've not looked, but I doubt that any of the manuals I've just mentioned are available on line anywhere. To my son, my future step son, and from what I've observed in my conversations and travels many other people - this information may as well not exist. How much cumulative knowledge will our society ultimately lose due to this kind of thinking?

And these were volumes published for general use - not like Aberdeen test reports or Reo production records one would not expect to be in common circulation. But rather books that are available on the marketplace, (and, IMHO, much better written than the later -10, -20, etc versions).

Again, I am not blasting anyone - but there are those - and my family members are among them - who need to be reminded regularly to "look in the manual".

Talking with a friend of mine on this subject the other day (telling him what I heard) - he asked me where I looked first when I wanted to know something - my reply, a book. He asked a younger friend of ours who joined us for lunch the same question - the answer? "Google".

End of rant now.

Regards,
David Doyle

 

[gimpyrobb]

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Design Change between 1952 and 1953?

David, I somewhat agree with you. Times are a changing. There is a wealth of info on the web. Since I have a computer and high speed internet connection, I go online first. No need to leave the comfort of home. 80% of my questions can be answered online. That being said. I have had to look in a book for other questions. It is a skill to be able to find the info you want, when actually doing book research. I am glad I learned it when in school. I feel that with everything going to computer based systems LOTS of info will be lost. It is a shame but I doubt there is much that can be done except make sure we pass these skills to our youth.

 

[cranetruck]

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Design Change between 1952 and 1953?

As a compromise, why not give reference to a particular TM and even a page and/or paragraph to help out when suggesting to "look in the TM", at least it won't leave the person cold and perhaps feeling a bit unwelcomed.

 

[emr]

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Design Change between 1952 and 1953?

Just could not help to say something on this post, It sure is nice to have David around, Randy

 

[emr]

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Design Change between 1952 and 1953?

And Bjorn !, Randy