Csm Davis
Well-known member
- 4,166
- 393
- 83
- Location
- Hattiesburg, Mississippi
Steel Soldiers now has a few new forums, read more about it at: New Munitions Forums!
Is that some kind of wrench holder on the passenger-side step?The length measurement I posted is for the entire area of the passenger side fuel tank, not just the tank itself. From the metal mud flap over to the front of the tank. Subtract about 12" for just the tank.
Looks like a wrench roll to me.Is that some kind of wrench holder on the passenger-side step?
Don't think I ever saw one like that.
View attachment 673100
Is that some kind of wrench holder on the passenger-side step?
Don't think I ever saw one like that.
View attachment 673100
You might be right, but it almost looks like some kind of giant multi-wrench swiss army knife or something.Looks like a wrench roll to me.
Wow they made a cluster **** of the rear winch hydraulics. That's a design of engineers A, B, C, and D didn't talk to each other and assembler E has to put it all together. Pretty obvious that having the rear winch hydraulically powered wasn't their original intention when they laid out the plumbing, then realized they needed a high/low torque option haha.I finally figured out the three ports on top and bottom, pressure, draw, and return.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Brother Ahab, my thoughts exactly.LoLYou might be right, but it almost looks like some kind of giant multi-wrench swiss army knife or something.
Is that some kind of wrench holder on the passenger-side step?
Don't think I ever saw one like that.
View attachment 673100
No it wasn't their original intention, this is just the latest modification to a 1950's design. I also believe that the plumbing could be much better.Wow they made a cluster **** of the rear winch hydraulics. That's a design of engineers A, B, C, and D didn't talk to each other and assembler E has to put it all together. Pretty obvious that having the rear winch hydraulically powered wasn't their original intention when they laid out the plumbing, then realized they needed a high/low torque option haha.
The spin on filter setup will probably be cheaper in the long run. My stock one hasn't decided to leak yet thankfully.On the filter.... I would certainly convert to a spin on with ball valve shut offs instead of that "sir leaks a lot" mil-spec...
This is my metric set. It's the holder that they came with.
View attachment 673102 View attachment 673103
Pretty sure that the tank on the drivers side will fill the space properly and I am pretty sure that it is 78 gal.Im a bit rusty on my cubic inches/volume/cubic feet but 46.5x21x26 = 25,389.00 cubic inches(or such) on the fuel tank,,,
------------------------------------and ----------------------25.5 x 20x35.25 = 17,977.50 on the hydro tank,,,, which unless Im screwing up big time, the fuel tank would actually be bigger so to eliminate the need to relocate the existing hydro tank, just re bung the fuel tank........ I really need to sleep on this and find the correct fluid volume formula from my old algebra/practical engineering books.
On the filter.... I would certainly convert to a spin on with ball valve shut offs instead of that "sir leaks a lot" mil-spec...
I missed the part about the pass side "hole" and not the actual tank,, yes I think with a slosh factor/reserve of a few gallons, the driver side is 78gal. I am in favor of keeping the driver side in place, as its bigger, considering I do a lot of stationary "idleing or 1200rpm" with the crane engaged. The pass can be used for my 871 Detroit on my Frick Circle sawmill now and likely do as Red is and retro fit the existing hydro tank down to the pass "hole" with new bungs welded in.Pretty sure that the tank on the drivers side will fill the space properly and I am pretty sure that it is 78 gal.
As to the filter i have seen lots of leaks on wreckers but never there and it is just a screen so keep it and add the ball valve and spin-on filter.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
No I didn't make myself clear, use a driver side tank in the place of a passenger tankI missed the part about the pass side "hole" and not the actual tank,, yes I think with a slosh factor/reserve of a few gallons, the driver side is 78gal. I am in favor of keeping the driver side in place, as its bigger, considering I do a lot of stationary "idleing or 1200rpm" with the crane engaged. The pass can be used for my 871 Detroit on my Frick Circle sawmill now and likely do as Red is and retro fit the existing hydro tank down to the pass "hole" with new bungs welded in.
I say keep the driver side where it is,,,,, due to I hate having to walk around a truck to fill the tank.. If fuel is on the driver side, I can fill easily, and Soldier B is not as apt to screw things up....
Red, I am awaiting my very own Samsung 350 Rotary manifold via Old dominion freight..... shame it will likely sit on my garage floor for 3-6 months before I can touch it,,, but I got it cheap..... now hoping the sweetness of a good deal is not fouled by the bitterness of poor quality, or under engineering on my part.
Could do that, but then you're having to buy an extra tank when you can just use the factory hydraulic tank relocated to the chassis. Whichever tank is used (i'm using the factory hydraulic tank) will require new fittings welded in.No I didn't make myself clear, use a driver side tank in the place of a passenger tank
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk