M37 variant/motor pool experiment?

[Jones]

When I was in 'Nam we had two M37s that had flex joints in the frames allowing the front end of the truck to rotate, along it's axis, from the rear. The set-up consisted of a double crossmember with a big slip joint made out of two pieces of pipe; an inner, attached to the forward x-member and the outer attached to the rearward one. The pipe joint was lubricated with grease fittings and had a collar that kept the thing from pulling apart. The whole set-up was large enough and positioned so that the rear driveshaft ran through the hole. Flex lines in horseshoe shape allowed fuel and rear brake circuits to work. The whole thing could be locked solid by sliding pins; or the pins retracted and the flex joint allowed to do it's thing. I never new if these were motor pool mods or something that Chrysler was experimenting with as a way to extend the life and versitility of the M37s as an answer to the Gama Goats. Both set-up were identical and pretty professional looking. The reason for the validity of the Chrysler experiment argument is that it was right about the time of the Chrysler Screw Amphibian and a forward control 5/4 ton truck built on the M37 Weapons Carrier idea.
Does this ring a bell with anybody?

 

[clinto]

I have never seen an M37 like this, but I know earlier Power Wagons had been subjected to such expiraments. They are highly prized in the Mopar hobby. I believe a company by the name of "Willock" did most of them, but I could swear I remember reading about a Dodge (factory) test mule(s). I have a friend who has a '64 ex-USN W200 crewcab Dodge who is very familiar with both MV's and Dodge's, I'll call him tonight or tomorrow and ask him if he knows more.

Here are a few:

More images like this at: http://imageevent.com/powerwagon/swivel;jsessionid=gvmg2zhc92.buffalo_s

Images courtesy of www.dodgepowerwagon.com

 

[Jones]

Thanks for the info Clinto! I was hoping it wasn't one more '60s hallucination.
THE big problem we had with them was that; while on rough but solid ground they'd work great-- in mud or swampy conditions, a corner of the vehicle would often sink like a stone if it found a particularly soft spot.

 

[rchalmers3]

Holy thread ressurection, Batman!

I have been musing over this frame modification lately. Not for the hacking of a piece of OD, but for a vintage civvy Ford 1/2 ton 4x4 that has seen better days. This is only an idea...., I may be better off selling the truck complete and running, vs hacking it into a two piece, piece of doo-doo that has zero value. But still.

For those of you who unacquainted with this method of articulation, search: "Willock swivel frame" and follow the threads, Utube videos and discussions.

It occurred to me that I may be able to substitute the whole bushing/collar/tube assembly of the original design for a deuce or 5 ton hub and spindle. I'd much rather run a preloaded, sealed tapered bearing set than a bushing. Plus the hubs and spindles are fairly cheap! Another thought would be to use the M105 hub and spindle. That choice may be the lower end of load capacity, and the spindle is solid I believe. Not that it matters. The parking brake, light wiring and brake lines can all be altered to account for the swivel.

Utilizing the TLAR engineering method (That Looks About Right) I'd guess the deuce parts are suitable and the 5 ton is overkill. What are your thoughts and suggestions?

Rick

 

[moving chicane]

The shear load might be a little too much for a spindle, you have to account for the leverage imparted by the length of frame to the axles. Kind of like running wheels with too much offset. Utilizing my own TLAR of course .

 

[rchalmers3]

Boy, I dunno. The deuce spindle tube is about the same diameter as the original swivel. Would that not make them about equal for shear, with the material selection making the difference?

Rick

 

[nattieleather]

Here is what someone is doing with a M715. You might get an idea of how to do this from this thread. http://m715zone.com/vb/showthread.php?t=24560&highlight=swivel

 

[ducer]

Big difference in stregenth between steel and chromoly!
Denny

 

[quickfarms]

Neat idea

I wonder if the rock crawlers would like it?

 

[maddawg308]

There is an ATV called the COOT that uses frame pivots like this to get over objects. While I believe it's okay for a smaller vehicle, I hate to think of the stresses on the pivot of a larger vehicle, especially offroading. Also, would there be any DOT restrictions against using these on a road-legal vehicle? Not exactly a stock frame setup, if it's not designed and maintained right, your vehicle is going to separate when you hit a large pothole.

 

[rchalmers3]

Thanks for the Coot reference. I took a quick look and found them to be exactly as you say: a smaller version of the concept.

I have found no references on the internet pertaining to failures of either a Willock swivel frame nor a Coot. There was one bloke poking around a few years back on an engineering forum asking about replacement bushing material for his worn out frame swivel. The absence of articles announcing instances of failures is encouraging, at least at this stage in considering a project.

You are correct in mentioning that an improperly selected joint, poor planning and lousy installation could be hazardous. I believe I can avoid those pitfalls. And DOT rules do not apply in my location, but making it right and having it last is important to me. When I look at the rotating pintle arrangement on the deuce and 5 tons, I believe that I can use those parts and dimensions to calibrate my eye for this task.

Cheers,

Rick

 

[Gamagoat1]

Thanks for the Coot reference. I took a quick look and found them to be exactly as you say: a smaller version of the concept.

I have found no references on the internet pertaining to failures of either a Willock swivel frame nor a Coot. There was one bloke poking around a few years back on an engineering forum asking about replacement bushing material for his worn out frame swivel. The absence of articles announcing instances of failures is encouraging, at least at this stage in considering a project.

You are correct in mentioning that an improperly selected joint, poor planning and lousy installation could be hazardous. I believe I can avoid those pitfalls. And DOT rules do not apply in my location, but making it right and having it last is important to me. When I look at the rotating pintle arrangement on the deuce and 5 tons, I believe that I can use those parts and dimensions to calibrate my eye for this task.

Cheers,

Rick

The Gamagoat has the same design..............