Why the Deuce Doesn't Have These I'll Never Know!

[ATC]

So what sort of axle shafts do the monster truck guys use in the 2.5ton axles?

Monster trucks use custom built ZF axles. Unless you were talking about rock crawlers and mud boggers. 'Crawlers use them for their strength. Mudders use them because they are cheap. A built D70/D80 combo would handle all the HP you could throw at them. They'll be lighter (not by much), disc brakes, and you can get parts for them anywhere, and you could gear them however you want. But that costs lots of money (about $2k each). 6.72 gears are not good for mud.

Not that I'm suggesting using those axles or anything...just some information to pass around.

Plus it would be great if the unit could hand 660ft-lbs of torque running through Fuller transmission with a first gear of 7.05 to 1 coupled to the 2.16 of the Oshkosh 55000 transfer case you have mud eating monster.

Mud requires higher gearing than that and lots and lots of HP. Two of which you do not have. It takes A LOT of HP to turn 4 large tires in the mud...much less 6 or 10 tires with over 13,000lbs on them. You're talking quadruple-digit HP figures so spin them fast enough to keep cleaned out. My '78 Bronco has a 466ci big block in it that makes around 425-450HP, and it's adequate at cleaning out my 38" TSL's through an automatic (and 3.50 gears as of now...I really need 4.88's)

I understand that you are not building this to be a mudbogger, but when you do get in the soft stuff and your truck starts to sink...you'd better have the power to clean them tires out quick.

FYI, not the sprag T-136-21 TC, but YES the T-136-27 airshift TC gives you true 100% positive locked equal speed forward/backward 6x6 operation when front axle is engaged! Nothing less compared to a TC from a Graz or the Ural or the M880's NP203 when their internal diff. is locked.

That's exactly what I was thinking

I'm sure the t-case does not lock up. Why else would mud boggers use the case? They never drive in the mud so they don't need traction like I do in my MV.

I'm confused on this one



Either way, I really wish you the best of luck with this project, and I will be following it closely. A 5.9L or DT466 powered Deuce is something I've dreamed about doing for a long time. I might buy a parts truck and do the conversion in the near future

 

[Elwenil]

Rizzo was being sarcastic.

 

[FreightTrain]

Well,the deuce was NOT intended to be a mud truck.It was designed to be driven on un-improved roads.AKA dirt roads and pig trails hauling material to the men.That is why after we bomb the crap outta the area we start building roads.Mud is bad on any vehicle so the US military tried to stay away from it as much as possible.

 

[Rolling_Eudaimonia]

Monster trucks use custom built ZF axles. Unless you were talking about rock crawlers and mud boggers. 'Crawlers use them for their strength. Mudders use them because they are cheap. A built D70/D80 combo would handle all the HP you could throw at them. They'll be lighter (not by much), disc brakes, and you can get parts for them anywhere, and you could gear them however you want. But that costs lots of money (about $2k each). 6.72 gears are not good for mud.

Not that I'm suggesting using those axles or anything...just some information to pass around.



Mud requires higher gearing than that and lots and lots of HP. Two of which you do not have. It takes A LOT of HP to turn 4 large tires in the mud...much less 6 or 10 tires with over 13,000lbs on them. You're talking quadruple-digit HP figures so spin them fast enough to keep cleaned out. My '78 Bronco has a 466ci big block in it that makes around 425-450HP, and it's adequate at cleaning out my 38" TSL's through an automatic (and 3.50 gears as of now...I really need 4.88's)

I understand that you are not building this to be a mudbogger, but when you do get in the soft stuff and your truck starts to sink...you'd better have the power to clean them tires out quick.



That's exactly what I was thinking



I'm confused on this one



Either way, I really wish you the best of luck with this project, and I will be following it closely. A 5.9L or DT466 powered Deuce is something I've dreamed about doing for a long time. I might buy a parts truck and do the conversion in the near future

I've driven a Unimog 500 series truck through some serious mud in its crawl gears. Sure some mud you want speed to go through, but I'm thinking mud about 10-12 inches deep on a trail where the terrain is up and down hills. Where I'm from in New York we get mud, not mud like they have in Louisville 'it usually doesn't have that nice clay suction but it is pretty bad; and the best way to go through it is in a truck with a totally locked up drive train. That's what I'm talking about being able to to just muscle your way up and out of gorges and other nasty obstacles.

Well it will be some time before I start taking apart the truck. I have to get out of grad school first that's five more years for PhD in Philosophy but I need a hobby while I'm in school. A man cannot live on Wittgenstein and Russell Books alone. Sometimes you just need a little quality time with diesel.

 

[Rolling_Eudaimonia]

Well,the deuce was NOT intended to be a mud truck.It was designed to be driven on un-improved roads.AKA dirt roads and pig trails hauling material to the men.That is why after we bomb the crap outta the area we start building roads.Mud is bad on any vehicle so the US military tried to stay away from it as much as possible.

Yeah mud is not your friend. But, lets face it when you have a truck like a M35A2 you want to play in the mud, sand, water, and other nasty obstacles... So I want a truck that has positive traction between all the wheels no matter how many maybe off the ground.

 

[oddnor]

Air locker

Hello.

Her is some info, from the cold North.

When the Norwegian Army in the late 60's was looking fore new truck's they had some specs, so did not exist at the time.

All truck's should have sin gel tires , diff, locker on all axles and be fitted to use in the NATO/US configuration.

The Swedish army had this on their truck's , and they used the Rockwell axle.

We had here in Norway the M-35 and M34 and they was not so usable.

Out of this the M6 series come, singel tires, LD- multifuel engine, air lockers, air transfer.

Why the US army did not have them I don' t now, but some other country did get some. I heard Israel, Canada, and Korea.

So if any want axles we have them her in big lot's for cheep price

If some get together fill up a container, get a lot out of it.

Odd

 

[Rolling_Eudaimonia]

Hello.

Her is some info, from the cold North.

When the Norwegian Army in the late 60's was looking fore new truck's they had some specs, so did not exist at the time.

All truck's should have sin gel tires , diff, locker on all axles and be fitted to use in the NATO/US configuration.

The Swedish army had this on their truck's , and they used the Rockwell axle.

We had here in Norway the M-35 and M34 and they was not so usable.

Out of this the M6 series come, singel tires, LD- multifuel engine, air lockers, air transfer.

Why the US army did not have them I don' t now, but some other country did get some. I heard Israel, Canada, and Korea.

So if any want axles we have them her in big lot's for cheep price

If some get together fill up a container, get a lot out of it.

Odd

Are they air-lockers or just standard mechanical lockers?

 

[Elwenil]

I think you are looking on the fringe of what the Deuce was intended for. It was said before that the Deuce was intended for use on paved and unimproved dirt roads. For this it is well suited. True, lockers in the axles would provide more traction but these trucks rarely traveled alone and just about every other one has a winch. Most of the convoys I see on pavement are usually followed by a wrecker of some sort also. Lockers would also have a lot of problems with wear and tear on the axles themselves as well as tire wear. The increased cost of the lockers and more maintenance would push most of the bean counters over the edge. I believe there are a few Deuces that got lockers but they were for specific uses that required the extra traction, much like the USMC 5 tons. I'm not going to get into the transfer case bit since it's obvious by looking at the drawings that it is a locked configuration with no center differential or clutch in the air shift models.

 

[Rolling_Eudaimonia]

R.E.: may I suggest studying TM 9-2520-246-34 and -34P to tell us exactly how our transfer cases do work....?

FYI, not the sprag T-136-21 TC, but YES the T-136-27 airshift TC gives you true 100% positive locked equal speed forward/backward 6x6 operation when front axle is engaged! Nothing less compared to a TC from a Graz or the Ural or the M880's NP203 when their internal diff. is locked.

I do aggree though that a TC differential would be a great plus in our trucks if we had to drive most of the time on slippery surfaces.

G.

I've never read any manual that says the T-136-27 has anything more than disconnect for the front axle that is air-operated. I'll believe you and that is good to know but it still won't help since I want to double the torque rating almost. So it has to go. But It was my understanding that truck's transfer case was unlocked and that the only change from the sprag actuation system to the air-system was a change in the disconnect mechanism. That is what I understood the differences to be in the two transfer cases.

Either way the Oshkosh 55000 series fits and it will take up to 1500 or 1600 ft-lbs of torque and has 2.66 to 1 low range and .98 to 1 high range when coupled to the correct transmission the truck should not only have better off road climbing capabilities but also better on road capabilities.

 

[FreightTrain]

Once you throw the little switch on teh dash the front end is pulling no matter what.Same ratio as teh rear so all 3 axles are getting equal power.Just no telling what side of each axle is spinning.But the transfer case doesn't vary the power period.Try putting it in 6wheel on pavement and turn a corner.It will try to yank the wheel outta your hand wanting to straighten back out.

 

[Barrman]

I don't know how to put this nicely. Are we some kind of class project you are doing for your philosophy degree?

I ask this because you ask a question, we answer it. You don't like the answer so you argue back. You get the same answer again. You still don't like it so you argue again. I can just see you posting this thread as a power point in a class. "Now here, even though the proper answer has been given for the 4th time, I argued some more. Notice how the group responds...."

As for your observation about the t-case. A shaft brings power into the t-case. That power goes to a gear. That gear touches other gears. The other gears are connected to shafts going front and back. The power is not spit up, it is evenly distributed to both front and rear at all times when the front drive shaft has the proper gear connecting it to the rear. Where is the difficulty in understanding that?

Your question about lockers and why they weren't installed from the start. Have you ever driven a vehicle with lockers? My M715 has a Detroit in the rear axle. It works great off road. Tears grass up real fast too. Manners on the road aren't the best until a person gets used to it. I can change lanes without turning the steering wheel by added or subracting throttle if I have the engine wound out to 3,000 rpm or more.

That just makes your arguement for selectible lockers, right? Have a look at the little scooters the campus maintenance guys use. Most of the "Gator" type things have selectible lockers. If they do, go to the maintenance shed and see how many are down because of rear end trouble. I would imagine a large number based on what the maintenance guys at my school experience. We have about 6 of the little things. The locker gets accidentally engaged or is left engaged once pavement is reached. Failure soon follows.

I am sure the military would have had the same results and probably did if they tested such systems. But, then again. The M35 series was basically cancelled in the late '80's. When did selectible lockers first become commercially available? I dont' know that answer, but I would imagine it was after the military started looking for replacements. Why spend the time or money on something that was going away?

 

[Elwenil]

He isn't a "Doctor" is he? I know, I know, I shouldn't have said that, but LMFAO!

 

[oddnor]

Air locker

Hei

The lockers are true air lockers. in and out in when ever you want

I have newer seen any use a wrecker to follow up a convoy, in troops movement
They where on work shop lines.

Here in Norway the air steering was taken off, snow chain killed the hoses

Have been on exercise with US troops, and learn them to drive on is and snow
and had fun when the M-35 stuck, and we use the M-6 to get them loose.

But there is a back mirror thing with air locker, when in use at all axles then the steering is down to almost zero, the force is so huge that it go straight forward. And danger to break the front axle.

So the use of all at the same time was only fore use in extreme conditions.

Normal use was on the rear axles, when stock , and it get true.

The army did go over to the Scania 4x4 but it did not beat the Mseries
To day the M.A.N is taken over in 4x4, 6x6 and 8x8.

Odd

 

[Rolling_Eudaimonia]

I think you are looking on the fringe of what the Deuce was intended for. It was said before that the Deuce was intended for use on paved and unimproved dirt roads. For this it is well suited. True, lockers in the axles would provide more traction but these trucks rarely traveled alone and just about every other one has a winch. Most of the convoys I see on pavement are usually followed by a wrecker of some sort also. Lockers would also have a lot of problems with wear and tear on the axles themselves as well as tire wear. The increased cost of the lockers and more maintenance would push most of the bean counters over the edge. I believe there are a few Deuces that got lockers but they were for specific uses that required the extra traction, much like the USMC 5 tons. I'm not going to get into the transfer case bit since it's obvious by looking at the drawings that it is a locked configuration with no center differential or clutch in the air shift models.

Well I've never seen any schematic of the air-shift model. But what I've been told is that it doesn't lock up. And from watching the truck in action I would agree that it possible doesn't lock up. Which is what I have, but if it is locked up great. Still doesn't matter I want to put about 800ft-lbs of torque through the thing and it won't handle that. It will probably do about 660ft-lbs of torque max.

As for the lockers I'd agree with the extra wear if I planned on using mechanical lockers. I plan on using air-lockers so I can disconnect them when running on pavement. Sure they have the potential to slip but let's face it, better when they slip instead of breaking the axles.

I don't think I'm on the fringe use of the truck. I think the truck was clear designed to go where the Military needed it to go. I think the problem is that design is from 1949 and they went with just a minor upgrade over the GMC trucks. I think it was case of keep it simple stupid and if you get stuck there are usually two or three trucks that do have winches that can get you out. That's what I think the reasoning behind it was.

 

[BFR]

the deuce t- case doesn't need a locker. (it is always locked)

lockers would be nice, but the tcase is fine

It's easy to lock the tcase just use the air switch under the dash board.

R.E.: may I suggest studying TM 9-2520-246-34 and -34P to tell us exactly how our transfer cases do work....?

FYI, not the sprag T-136-21 TC, but YES the T-136-27 airshift TC gives you true 100% positive locked equal speed forward/backward 6x6 operation when front axle is engaged! Nothing less compared to a TC from a Graz or the Ural or the M880's NP203 when their internal diff. is locked.

I do aggree though that a TC differential would be a great plus in our trucks if we had to drive most of the time on slippery surfaces.

G.

I think you are looking on the fringe of what the Deuce was intended for. It was said before that the Deuce was intended for use on paved and unimproved dirt roads. For this it is well suited. True, lockers in the axles would provide more traction but these trucks rarely traveled alone and just about every other one has a winch. Most of the convoys I see on pavement are usually followed by a wrecker of some sort also. Lockers would also have a lot of problems with wear and tear on the axles themselves as well as tire wear. The increased cost of the lockers and more maintenance would push most of the bean counters over the edge. I believe there are a few Deuces that got lockers but they were for specific uses that required the extra traction, much like the USMC 5 tons. I'm not going to get into the transfer case bit since it's obvious by looking at the drawings that it is a locked configuration with no center differential or clutch in the air shift models.

Once you throw the little switch on teh dash the front end is pulling no matter what.Same ratio as teh rear so all 3 axles are getting equal power.Just no telling what side of each axle is spinning.But the transfer case doesn't vary the power period.Try putting it in 6wheel on pavement and turn a corner.It will try to yank the wheel outta your hand wanting to straighten back out.

I don't know how to put this nicely. Are we some kind of class project you are doing for your philosophy degree?

I ask this because you ask a question, we answer it. You don't like the answer so you argue back. You get the same answer again. You still don't like it so you argue again. I can just see you posting this thread as a power point in a class. "Now here, even though the proper answer has been given for the 4th time, I argued some more. Notice how the group responds...."

As for your observation about the t-case. A shaft brings power into the t-case. That power goes to a gear. That gear touches other gears. The other gears are connected to shafts going front and back. The power is not spit up, it is evenly distributed to both front and rear at all times when the front drive shaft has the proper gear connecting it to the rear. Where is the difficulty in understanding that?

Your question about lockers and why they weren't installed from the start. Have you ever driven a vehicle with lockers? My M715 has a Detroit in the rear axle. It works great off road. Tears grass up real fast too. Manners on the road aren't the best until a person gets used to it. I can change lanes without turning the steering wheel by added or subracting throttle if I have the engine wound out to 3,000 rpm or more.

That just makes your arguement for selectible lockers, right? Have a look at the little scooters the campus maintenance guys use. Most of the "Gator" type things have selectible lockers. If they do, go to the maintenance shed and see how many are down because of rear end trouble. I would imagine a large number based on what the maintenance guys at my school experience. We have about 6 of the little things. The locker gets accidentally engaged or is left engaged once pavement is reached. Failure soon follows.

I am sure the military would have had the same results and probably did if they tested such systems. But, then again. The M35 series was basically cancelled in the late '80's. When did selectible lockers first become commercially available? I dont' know that answer, but I would imagine it was after the military started looking for replacements. Why spend the time or money on something that was going away?

troll?

 

[Rolling_Eudaimonia]

I've watched you guys run around in circles about the multi-fuel aspect of the engine spewing misinformation like it is manna from heaven. I want to see proof that the system is locked because from understanding the transfer case is essential the same as the sprag unit with a different actuation system for the front axle.

 

[Hammer]

Your still arguing the point, and after schematics show it to be locked.
Good call Tim.

Just to prove it.
If the front axle isn't engaged, you would be just spinning the tcase trying to drive ANY WHERE with just the rears engaged.
You can take out the rear shaft and drive around perfectly normal with front drive only (just did this a couple days ago actually).

And, as a matter of fact, the sprag type does 'lock up'. Just has to take a little rear spin to make it engage (same as the Detroit lockers you are looking at). Once engaged, it's locked. And it doesn't always take all that much to engage the sprag anyways.

You should really plan on the $ of those alloy shafts. The moment you put the lockers in the axles behind that much power and with the weight of the truck, it will become a ticking time bomb.

Don't tell me it was a Year thing for lockers. It was a usage thing.
The HMMWV has open difs front and rear. It is a gutless pig with the 6.2 or 6.5, but it works, and lasts. And that is saying something with how they get used and abused.
They only put them in when there was a specific NEED for them.

 

[Rolling_Eudaimonia]

Did someone post these? I haven't seem them??? If you are talking about the PDF I posted that is the Oshkosh 55000 series transfer case and I know that is locked that is why I posted it. I have never seen a schematic in any manual for the M35 that indicated the transfer case is locked in any way.

 

[Rolling_Eudaimonia]

I think some people don't read. I said like four times if the thing locks up that is great but I'm still changing it for the superior Oshkosh 55000 series Transfer Case. Beyond that everyone wants to tell me the lockers are a bad idea. And I agree with mechanical lockers but I want air-lockers so I can turn them off an on. It is funny the Russian put Air-Lockers on the Kraz 255b and Ural trucks in the 1960's and 1970's and I've seen them go through stuff that the M35 wouldn't even be able to think about through. So the question is why make a truck that isn't the best it could be?

 

[Elwenil]

Because it wasn't needed. The 2 1/2 ton cargo truck is not the last resource for moving cargo for the US military. If things needed to be transported off road further than what a Deuce or 5 ton could handle, there are always helicopters. I'm not saying that you can't put lockers in your truck, just that the military saw fit not to since it wasn't needed. Everything will get stuck, no matter what it is or how it's built. Eventually you will run into something it can't handle. The military chose not to over-design the trucks since it didn't suit the purpose. The title of this thread poses the question of why they were not built to your satisfaction and the answer is obvious and just as true as the first time the question was answered in this thread. The US military didn't feel the need to add lockers to the majority of the trucks. The Russian trucks are a completely different story and are built to deal with a completely different theater with different parameters. I'm sure if we had intended to invade the Soviet Union during the Cold War, we would have designed trucks to deal with the challenges there. Naturally the amount of tanks the Soviets had made an invasion suicide, so it was not seriously considered nor were vehicles to do so.

Oh and the TMs all refer to the transfer case as a "positive lockup" system, so I'd say that clenches that right there.

Procedures given are the same for both air actuated
positive lockup transmission transfer with
power takeoff, and non air actuated positive
lockup transmission transfer with power takeoff,​

except where noted.