Steel Soldiers now has a few new forums, read more about it at: New Munitions Forums!
I haven't been to an Ace in years. I would have never thought of looking there. Thanks. I'll pop in. I'd like to get some of the basic 6mm bolts that appear all over the engine for spares so I can swap the rusty old ones out as time permits.
That's sound advice. The next trick is figuring out what the common bolts/nuts are on the vehicle so I know what to order.
Do I recall right that your Camper Module is direct bolted to the chassis? If so could one unintended benefit of the front spring mounts on the 1079 system that it reduces other stresses that flow thru the system? Granted the Alt. Bracket etc would certainly be a very indirect relationship to the mounts so it is a bit of a stretch (pun not intended) The Beds are direct mount too but they are lighter...... sure they get loaded...... but not "all the time" like a camper module.
i might be wrong, but I think Eric's camper is lighter than the standard bed? I am watching this thread closely. I hope you guys find the root issue!
Another thing I forgot to mention is that all the safety/lock plates on my u-joints were missing! There are supposed to be these thin sheetmetal plates that you put on top of the u-joint cap before the bolts go in. After the bolts are in, you bend up the ears/tabs on the sheetmetal and it hold the bolts so they can't vibrate loose. The torque spec on the u-joint caps is surprisingly low (like 20 ft*lb; it's in the manual), so those safety plates are doing all the retention. I'm not sure if you can buy them from somewhere else, separately, but my new u-joints came with them.
About how much is the Bed System's Weight? What all do you include in your term "Bed System" (just so not too assume). Do you perchance got a clue on what the Box on the 1079 weighed? Was ir aluminum and steel construct?
Interesting. Do you have any more information (a document perhaps describing the install)? Do you have a picture of a data plate with the "D" stamp?
Interesting. It sounds like all the trucks should have received the upgrades - I wonder if that's true. It's also clear that when things aren't right in the driveline, it can have big effects.
Stronger brackets may certainly fix the bracket breakage problem, but that will move the failure to the next weakest link. An engine block is far more difficult to repair..
They ALL got the update long ago. Been discussed in here previously a good bit. Either that study... or a second study done later. ( I forget which) made a recommendation based on solid analysis to use a special type of CV jointed driveshaft . They did NOT take the recommendation and went/stayed a beefier drive line as mentioned in above info. Think they also updated TM's (in 1998 and put increase eye on the issue with more often maintenance and stricter tolerances on when replacement of driveshaft must be made. Then in 2008? they started making all new LMTV 4x4's with a different rear axle "sorta". Sorta as in.. started using the front 6x6 axle in the 4x4's. This raised the rear driveshaft to something nearly parallel to the chassis which allows for small vibrations to have less effect on things up the chain.
It looks like that is the later (2003) study. Here's the first one (1998 ).
That doesn't sound like the exact bracket we currently have, so I'm assuming they changed it as a result of this study. Interesting how their first failure was the water pump. Next the starter cracks (like mine did). Then a u-joint seizes.ADA366822-Page4 said:
