• 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.

Why no Multi-Fuel engine?

vtdeucedriver

Well-known member
2,523
38
48
Location
Vermont
The 465 was just plain and simply a weak motor for the 5 ton. In the deuce, it appears to have been ok but after many conversations with maint and drivers in VN, the lds was weak on power and could not withstand compression braking when needed. Look at the other engines they had for the time. 673 and the 6602. Both of these were preferred to the 465. The 800 series would be the direct answer to the 465 problem in 5 tons
 

TehTDK

Active member
589
41
28
Location
Denmark
I love how people say the engines are too weak :p. Our present line-up of military transport trucks doesn't have more power then a Deuce has <.<. I think most of our trucks tops out at around 240 HP max for the bigger ones.

Correction 370-400 is the max but thats for the heavier hauling trucks. Most of the trucks dedicated to moving troops etc are around 240 HP tops.
 
Last edited:

clinto

Moderator, wonderful human being & practicing Deuc
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Steel Soldiers Supporter
Supporting Vendor
12,596
1,133
113
Location
Athens, Ga.
I love how people say the engines are too weak :p. Our present line-up of military transport trucks doesn't have more power then a Deuce has <.<. I think most of our trucks tops out at around 240 HP max for the bigger ones.

Correction 370-400 is the max but thats for the heavier hauling trucks. Most of the trucks dedicated to moving troops etc are around 240 HP tops.
Some of the "weak" complaints you're hearing aren't about horsepower output, it's about connecting rod output from them blowing up.

I don't care about the 140 hp, I care about the short lifespan, which probably aren't helped by 12 seconds of dry bearings every time you start (and yes, spin-on, anti-drainback filters eliminate this, but by the time us civilians own these things, 99% of the wear has already occurred).
 

Kalashnikov

Member
372
4
18
Location
NH
Pretty much any regular diesel will run kero, WMO, ATF, WVO, etc. so "multifuel" really doesn't matter.

A list of engines that have documented that have been run on some amount of WMO/WVO/WATF:

Cummins NHC 250, 12v 5.9, 6.7 ISX, V8300

IH 6.9, 7.3 IDI, 7.3 PSD, 6.4 PSD, DT466

Detroit 6.2/6.5 (mechnical only),

6.6 Duramax

Those old mercedes that I know nothing about but everyone has heard about running WVO.

I'm sure there are more, these are just ones that I happen to know of and I see no reason why it wouldn't work in any other diesel.
 
Last edited:

MotorTMan

Member
46
31
18
Location
Aliquippa, Pa
The multifuel does lack power in a 5 ton. I have Cummins and Mack powered 5 tons and there is definately a difference. On a steep hill by my place, a Cummins will go 27mph, Mack 24, and the multifuel 18....If you arent in a hurry like me, its no big deal. As for reliability, Ive had mine for 9 years. I dont beat on it, never going over 45mph, and keeping the RPMs under 2200. Ive never had any issues with it.
 

TehTDK

Active member
589
41
28
Location
Denmark
The multifuel does lack power in a 5 ton. I have Cummins and Mack powered 5 tons and there is definately a difference. On a steep hill by my place, a Cummins will go 27mph, Mack 24, and the multifuel 18....If you arent in a hurry like me, its no big deal. As for reliability, Ive had mine for 9 years. I dont beat on it, never going over 45mph, and keeping the RPMs under 2200. Ive never had any issues with it.
I would think those changes are down to gearing as well. I wouldn't think you did that test with the same gearbox attached to all 3 engines ;)?
 

bayoux12b

New member
4
0
0
Location
Mandeville/ LA
TehTDK is right about the get up and go power on the new 5tons. And..they are problem children. Not so much due to the engine but the electronics connected to it. They really don't have much pulling power either. 900 series were better than the 800 but I did drive an 800 series with two fuel pods in the back and a fuel trailer hooked to the back in Germany. Strangely enough, it didn't bog down any more than any other truck in the convoy going up those **** mountains. But difference going up those same hills in a 900 series is night and day.
 

cranetruck

Moderator
Super Moderator
Steel Soldiers Supporter
10,350
77
48
Location
Meadows of Dan, Virginia
The multifuel was designed to military spec and based on a 1950 something German patent (hypercycle). The viscosity compensator was patented by Continental in the early '60s and provides the same power output regardless of the fuel used as long as the recommended fuels were used. The viscosity compensator has the opposite effect on biofuels, however.
The last multifuel developed for the army by Continental was the 210 hp LDS465-2, used in the m656 series of trucks. These trucks were designed from scratch to military spec and and came with a lot of features never used.
When the army "went commercial" to lessen cost, the multifuel dropped by the wayside.

One feature of the multi is the ability to run at full load/power 24/7. The newer engines have reserve power, but can't run indefinitely at full power.
Since the oil filters were designed to drain when engine was shut down to permit heating in the oil pan at extreme low temperatures, the time to oil pressure takes a while. The -2 model engine has a higher capacity oil pump and the time to oil pressure is reduced to about 6 to 8 seconds (based on my experience). The LDS465-2 also incorporated many other design improvements...
 

Beerslayer

Well-known member
Steel Soldiers Supporter
1,054
55
48
Location
Tualatin, Oregon
Pretty much any regular diesel will run kero, WMO, ATF, WVO, etc. so "multifuel" really doesn't matter.

A list of engines that have documented that have been run on some amount of WMO/WVO/WATF:

Cummins NHC 250, 12v 5.9, 6.7 ISX, V8300

IH 6.9, 7.3 IDI, 7.3 PSD, 6.4 PSD, DT466

Detroit 6.2/6.5 (mechnical only),

6.6 Duramax

Those old mercedes that I know nothing about but everyone has heard about running WVO.

I'm sure there are more, these are just ones that I happen to know of and I see no reason why it wouldn't work in any other diesel.
I concur.

**run but not long
Disagree.

Kerosene is essentially the same as No. 1 Diesel, used in cold weather all the time. It has less energy than No. 2 Diesel but doesn't hurt the engine any, you just burn more of it to get the job done.

I can't speak to the new diesels with all the EPA mandated pollution controls, but just about any older diesel will burn kerosene or a clean ATF, hydraulic, or motor oil mix. Depends entirely on temperatures, but once started or with heated fuel, a diesel will happily burn heavier fuel. Or in cold weather lighter fuel. It just needs some lubricity in the fuel for the injector pump.
 

ichudov

Member
399
15
18
Location
Chicagoland, IL
My platoon SFC that I had back at Ft. Stewart when he went into Iraq in 2003 said he had to run his m35a2 at one point on kerosene. They ran low on fuel and raided an Iraqi storage depot. So it has come in handy since Vietnam.
My father in law once ran my lawnmower on kerosene too, it actually worked, but would never start since. I had to completely wash the carb.
 
Top