Found a gas powered wrecker

[turnerman]

If anyone has an interest in what I believe is a m543 wrecker maybe from Korean era. It is a gasoline model. No pictures yet but if there is any interest I’ll get some

 

[Valley Rock]

Location ?
And pics yes .

 

[turnerman]

Greenville sc

 

[WillWagner]

543 will not have a spot to mount tee spare on the crane. The hydraulic tank is where the tire went. M62 had the hydraulic tank mounted on the frame behind the cab. 543 uses a Garwood crane, 62 has an Austin Western.

 

[turnerman]

Well got to look at it closer today. Turns out it’s a m62 from 1954.

 

[WillWagner]

Too bad that is so far away, there are some pieces that we need! That looks rough.

 

[turnerman]

Yes our weather is not as nice as California. Guy says he had it running few years ago but no brakes.

 

[jimmr]

I think it looks like it was recently parked. I couldn't really use it but someone should want it. I'll be the mileage is atrocious
with that gas engine! I hope someone rescues it.

 

[msgjd]

I'll be the mileage is atrocious with that gas engine! I hope someone rescues it.

1; actually, per the TM, the R6602's are only 1MPG less than the diesel and multifuel 5-tons .. I think that's debateable though, I know my gassers drink noticeably more than the others just idling and moving themselves around the property..

2: in the army the gassers needed about 1/3rd more fuel to top them off at the halfway point on long road marches, IME

3: "Economy" and cold starts are improved when the orig Holley is replaced by the superceding Zenith carb ...

4: Perhaps the R6602's should be rated "gallons per hour"

 

[jimmr]

we know gph is a realistic measurement but ............. with military we're not driving too many hours!
but the TM........... 1 mpg less than diesel. I suppose that's conceivable on flat level ground maybe at about 70% output?
BUT WHO'S TO ARGUE WITH A TM?

 

[Valley Rock]

we know gph is a realistic measurement but ............. with military we're not driving too many hours!

Also with the Military you're not opening up your own wallet at every fuel stop

 

[jimmr]

haha, well , one wonders what magic could be invoked during the creation of the TM to 'conform' to specs but honestly, I do not want to believe there
is chicanery involved building a TM. but fuel consumption is a consideration, doctrine encourages the US to attack with 5x the enemies capability.
so.......... we can ass-sume fuel isn't too much of a consideration?

 

[WillWagner]

1; actually, per the TM, the R6602's are only 1MPG less than the diesel and multifuel 5-tons .. I think that's debateable though, I know my gassers drink noticeably more than the others just idling and moving themselves around the property..

2: in the army the gassers needed about 1/3rd more fuel to top them off at the halfway point on long road marches, IME

3: "Economy" and cold starts are improved when the orig Holley is replaced by the superceding Zenith carb ...

4: Perhaps the R6602's should be rated "gallons per hour"

#1, yes, they are VERY thirsty. The last working of the M62, last week, just un-spooling the front winch and re spooling it used almost 4 gallons. I un-spooled almost all of the cable and let the winch pull the truck to the chain.

#3, The Zenith performs MUCH better than the Holley, just the idle fuel used is noticeable as well as the starting, hot or cold.

#4, maybe rated gallons per mile, like a tank!

 

[msgjd]

#4, maybe rated gallons per mile, like a tank!

OTR hauling with R6602's isn't THAT bad .. However, your humor is likely correct if it were a Hall-Scott 1091

At least hopefully these early 5-tons are doing something useful to justify the expense.. OTR nowadays (and in the army) , they seem(ed) to consume about the same amount loaded or empty .. But I use pure ethanol-free 91 to 93-octane fuel in everything .. Ethanol-laced gasoline decreases power, mileage, and performance in carburated engines between 5% to 10% depending on quality/age of the fuel .. For the few years when non-ethanol wasn't available here , i sadly noticed the difference in the farm tractors and trucks that worked the moderate-to-heavy tasks .. Same with 1950's diesels when heating oil was first was substituted for off-road diesel 30 years ago, it was ping city and a general reduction of nuts, not something you'd ever think to hear coming from a diesel

One of my fuel suppliers has this to say about their non-ethanol gasoline (which i believe comes from the americans up in canada ):

• Higher energy content. More energy = More power
• Improved gas mileage (around 3-4%)
• No dependence on ethanol crops
• Significantly much less harm to engines as ethanol attracts water, which can lead to rust on the interior parts of an engine
• Ethanol can increase vapor pressure which can cause vapor lock in a vehicle’s carburetor
• Does not corrode the engine
• Increases expected life on smaller engines
• Less costly to produce
• Uses fewer fossil fuels
• Required for outdoor equipment because small engine equipment is not designed to handle high-ethanol based gasoline
• Preferable for older car engines
• Prevents costly repairs on outdoor power equipment**Always refer to your owner’s manual for the correct fuel to use

 

[jeffhuey1n]

Please, more pictures!

 

[msgjd]

we know gph is a realistic measurement but ............. with military we're not driving too many hours!
but the TM........... 1 mpg less than diesel. I suppose that's conceivable on flat level ground maybe at about 70% output?
BUT WHO'S TO ARGUE WITH A TM?

in the Armor BN we often drove 6 to 10 hours a day whenever the trucks went out , be it road marches to different installations or hauling fuel and ammo to feed about 55 tanks every day or two.. On the civilian side of the last 30 years, i spend many hours in the 5-tons hauling, but not half as much of it has been OTR-beyond-2-hours non-stop in recent few years after the purchase of the FLD120 (M915A4 lookalike) .. Gallons-per-hour is still the appropriate measure for my 6x6's, whether moving around the property or on the road

 

[msgjd]

Also with the Military you're not opening up your own wallet at every fuel stop

Ummm,, I had to do that one afternoon 40 years ago with a M54 gasser T&P (hauling diesel) long ago to a tank company 2-1/2 hours away .. And it HURT , it was my last 10 bucks for the week!! The guy in the 49-charlie (gas) accompanying me had taken care of the mess section , the medics, and the CO/XO jeeps but left , he forgot to fuel me up, so he later said .. I had to stop at a sunoco about 10 miles from destination, tank only had a couple inches in it .. Never got reimbursed either, the receipt was in my pocket and my wife washed that set that night before I remembered to grab it