• Steel Soldiers now has a few new forums, read more about it at: New Munitions Forums!

  • Microsoft MSN, Live, Hotmail, Outlook email users may not be receiving emails. We are working to resolve this issue. Please add support@steelsoldiers.com to your trusted contacts.

M939 Series vs FMTV Series trucks, Pros and Cons

sandcobra164

Well-known member
3,005
317
83
Location
Leesburg, GA
I've worked with and on both and own an M923A1. I certainly have some thoughts but would like to hear from a crowd. I have contemplated in getting into 90's technology and getting a newer truck but I have my doubts about the yellow engine. The FMTV trucks win hands down in the power department at half the displacement but I have experienced quite a few electrical gremlins along the way. In private hands, are they reliable. I'm out of the M1089A1P2 Wrecker in my Weekend Warrior status as I now operate a M984A4 HEMMT Wrecker. I put about 8,000 miles on the FMTV Wrecker with the LTAS cab and save for sticking it in my parents front yard, it's been a good truck. Just curious if I should consider moving onto more current surplus. My old NHC-250 powered ride is doing fine. It does have a higher top speed which is nice. It doesn't have to run on the governor to go 60 mph and sounds more relaxed. I could go on but I'm curious what I may have missed.
 

snowtrac nome

Well-known member
1,674
139
63
Location
western alaska
I have thousands of hours to the on the big brothers the c-7 aside from the hui injection problems the 3126 wont have they are dependable engines. They have a 100k overhead service interval feed them good clean fuel and don't have air leaks they will serve you well. with governor adjustments they can hold together up to 3500 rpm if you have to have a hotrod and can afford the fuel. I would be more worried about electronic problems with the transmission, there where the brunt of the problems we had with them in Iraq. I find the 3126 a little less reliable but it is a simple engine to work on too. I buy parts for both cummins and cat motors on the civilian side now I don't see much difference in the price. or reliability
 

red

Active member
1,988
25
38
Location
Eagle Mountain/Utah
Either CAT engine is fine. Better be very comfortable fixing wiring issues.

If someone gave me an LMTV I would sell it because of the electrical issues. The ones we had on the demolition range required repairs 3 times per year on average compared to the remaining m35a2 that only went in for annual maintenance.
 

Suprman

Well-known member
Supporting Vendor
6,862
697
113
Location
Stratford/Connecticut
There are a few basic issues electrically with LMTVs. I have work-arounds for pretty much all of it. The early A1 trucks all seem to have bad solder joints in the double sided relay breaker panel from use of enviro friendly solder. This leads to a variety of intermittent electrical issues and the TMs have no procedures for intermittent issues. I prefer driving the Lmtv it's a significantly nicer drive, tracks straight over bumps. Great cab heat and forward visibility. Could use a backup cam there is a rear blind spot. Puts down a ton of power in low range. It took the military a long time to work all the kinks out of these trucks. All the Lmtv owners I speak with love their trucks. I don't know anyone who went back to an older truck.
 

Tinstar

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
Steel Soldiers Supporter
4,292
1,779
113
Location
Edmond, Oklahoma
The National Guard Maintenance Facility that I swing by to say hello from time to time HATES the new trucks.
Almost all have electrical issues.
The CW3 was showing me a truck, FMTV, that had to have its entire wiring harness replaced.
To make matters worse, he said it's all one piece!
Also mentioned the number of circuit breakers and the fact that not one connector had anything applied to prevent corrosion. List goes on.

He jokingly said he would trade me two HMMWVs for my M925A2.
All the older guys there really missed the M939 series.
More reliable, better built, can take more damage and keep going etc.
Funny thing.......The one thing they all said they missed the most.....?
The windshield and how you can open it up on a M939 series!

Both have pros and cons.
I personally can't stand the look of the new army trucks.
Just based on what the chief said about them, I wouldn't own one.

The Marine Corps didn't try to reinvent the wheel, they just made it better.
Their 7 ton is a beast and fixed all the M939 shortcomings.
This is the truck the Army should have went with, IMO, saving billions in the process.
Plus it looks like a real truck.
Yes I know there were other considerations as to why the Army chose the new style.


The M939 series is to trucks what the Bell UH-1H is to helicopters.
Old and slow and never enough power, but will take one heck of a beating and still do it's job.
 
Last edited:

sandcobra164

Well-known member
3,005
317
83
Location
Leesburg, GA
The Marine Corps didn't try to reinvent the wheel, they just made it better.
Their 7 ton is a beast and fixed all the M939 shortcomings.
This is the truck the Army should have went with, IMO, saving billions in the process.
Plus it looks like a real truck.
Yes I know there were other considerations as to why the Army chose the new style.
I agree with you. I wouldn't have a discussion with you if MTVR's were available as they are absolute beasts! I work at the Marine Corps Base in Albany and am quite familiar with that platform as well.
 

mkcoen

Well-known member
Steel Soldiers Supporter
5,637
381
83
Location
Spring Branch, TX
I find it amusing all the folks saying they'd never own a LMTV and then trashing them. I've owned many MVs including deuces (still have one) and a 923A2. I'd take my M1078 over any of them.
 

dmetalmiki

Well-known member
5,523
2,029
113
Location
London England
Quote "
Both have pros and cons.
I personally can't stand the look of the new army trucks.
Just based on what the chief said about them, I wouldn't own one.

I agree there, no 'presence' just look like your everyday delivery van. Old stuff just has that (Military collectors(desirability)). "charisma".
 

mkcoen

Well-known member
Steel Soldiers Supporter
5,637
381
83
Location
Spring Branch, TX
Old stuff just has that (Military collectors(desirability)). "charisma".
And there were probably a ton of folks that wouldn't buy a M151 when they first started surplusing them because it "wasn't a REAL jeep." Everyone is entitled to their opinion but until they actually own one of these trucks (and I know there are those on this board that own one and hate them) their opinions are pretty hollow. Its like saying you can't stand a certain kind of food when you've never tried it.
 

sandcobra164

Well-known member
3,005
317
83
Location
Leesburg, GA
I find it amusing all the folks saying they'd never own a LMTV and then trashing them. I've owned many MVs including deuces (still have one) and a 923A2. I'd take my M1078 over any of them.
A M1078 and M1082 are great trucks when all is right in the world. I don't have ownership experience with the platform but I have spent a lot of time around them with my time in the National Guard. I have been the Proud Operator of an M1089A1 Stewart Stevenson Wrecker which was problematic at times and was surplussed with 6,200 miles on it. I also have been the Proud Operator of an M1089A1P2 LTAS Cab Oshkosh Wrecker and it is still rolling strong with 9,000 miles spread over 3 years of operation. That gives me some optimism for the platform. The only reason I'm not on that truck any longer is an M984A4 showed up along with a fleet of M1120 LHS's showed up when my unit transitioned. We will keep the MTV Wrecker around for HMMWV's and Non-LTAS Cab equipped FMTV's. Big Boy will clean up the Heavy stuff! Although the M1089A1P2 LTAS Cab wrecker is designed to tow it's like kind, LTAS Cab trucks always made the front end feel extremely light over bumps. I've done it when that was all I had. I'll stick to the M984A4 from now on. I'm sure some would say "flat tow it". Negative, they didn't put an underlift system on a wrecker just to hook a towbar to the pintle. Wheels up and transfer to intermediate driveshaft pulled is the only way I roll.
 

red

Active member
1,988
25
38
Location
Eagle Mountain/Utah
And there were probably a ton of folks that wouldn't buy a M151 when they first started surplusing them because it "wasn't a REAL jeep." Everyone is entitled to their opinion but until they actually own one of these trucks (and I know there are those on this board that own one and hate them) their opinions are pretty hollow. Its like saying you can't stand a certain kind of food when you've never tried it.
Didn't own it but drove the LMTV's that we had often, and flat towed them off of the range when they would break down. Certainly NOT a hollow, never really messed with them opinion. Used them offroad mostly, varying terrain while transporting cargo within it's rated capability. They averaged 3 break downs per year.

They can be made reliable, but for the cost you could have 2 m939 trucks or a m915-920. Maybe the LMTV is happier on the pavement but the vibrations from offroad driving play **** with the electrical and air systems in my experience.
 

Tinstar

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
Steel Soldiers Supporter
4,292
1,779
113
Location
Edmond, Oklahoma
I agree with you. I wouldn't have a discussion with you if MTVR's were available as they are absolute beasts! I work at the Marine Corps Base in Albany and am quite familiar with that platform as well.
I would have a MTVR tomorrow if they were selling them.
I have yet to find pics of the dash setup.

Have heard that those trucks are doing extremely well in the field.
Haven't seen a Navy version yet. If there's any difference.

I do like how the Marine Corps will take what they have and make it much better.
They did it with the 5 ton. Hugely improved 7 ton
UH-1N Huey helicopter. Same result = New Suoer Huey
AH-1 Cobra helicopter. " " " = New Super Cobra
AH-1W matches the Army Apache and even surpasses it on several systems. Won't post it here.
They rewrote the book on the Harrier Aircraft

Anyway. Back on topic.

The trucks (LMTV/FMTV) in the NG maint Facility were all there for electrical issues.
Some were common and a fairly easy fix. Chief pointed to one and said they were going crazy trying to find the problem.
When I told him those trucks were selling and bringing a premium price he just laughed.
Said they better have deep pockets when the electrical gremlins start appearing.
While the 5 ton had their issues, they were a lot easier to diagnose, fix and more reliable. His words.

This is from someone who dealt with them and the issues everyday.

As I said before.....I just don't like the look of them.

To each his own........
 

snowtrac nome

Well-known member
1,674
139
63
Location
western alaska
I worked with a-2 lmtv's over in Iraq they had lsa cabs on them the only 2 problems I remember was 2 transmission harnesses melted from extreme heat,and one 3126 with a harness problem.The 5 tons and deuces were in weekly for different things,with the duces it was usually related to the airforce guys not knowing how to use the clutch,not a problem with the truck but the loose nut behind the wheel. The 8.3 powered cummins trucks were loaded with fuel system air leaks they all had their quirks I opted to buy the lmtv as I'm, not worried about electrical issues,and wanted a cab that sealed up the other bonus it the lmtv has enough room to wear a cowboy hat while driving. on a sunny day the m44 platform has its perks take the Top off and enjoy the sun. At the end of the day its all about what you want in a truck. the whistler turbo is sexy but can get old if you have to li9sten to it all day.
 

Nomadic

Active member
337
79
28
Location
Nevada
I came across an article that provided some history on Stewart & Stevenson (SW). They won the contract to develop a new fleet of vehicles for the Army, but the Army owned the blueprints/design so it wasn't proprietary. Any vehicle manufacture could build the fleet because of this design ownership. The design was "borrowed" from the Australians and modified to suit the needs of the military. SW didn't have vehicle production experience and significant problems were developing because of it. When I read about problems with the LMTV, I can't help to think about the roots of the SW trucks and that makes me want the M939 even more (dig the style).
Can anyone confirm SW lacked production experience when they were awarded the billion dollar contract to build the LMTVs?
 

Suprman

Well-known member
Supporting Vendor
6,862
697
113
Location
Stratford/Connecticut
Stewart & Stevenson made oilfield trucks, generators and big airfield snowblower trucks. So they knew how to make stuff. All of the military trucks seem to have some issues. M939 t-case low range reverse, 800 series sprag, theres always something.
 

Nomadic

Active member
337
79
28
Location
Nevada
Yeah, the reverse thing is a big deal. I found the article (or one that talked about the same history). Maybe the Army publicly threw SW under the bus for their own short sightings. I've seen the problems in the article posted here, like the vibration issues tearing apart the driveline on the highway. I'm thinking an A1 would be mandatory if I ever changed my mind and with with an LMTV.
 
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website like our supporting vendors. Their ads help keep Steel Soldiers going. Please consider disabling your ad blockers for the site. Thanks!

I've Disabled AdBlock
No Thanks