Re: [MV] Only tangentially MV related but interesting nonetheless

From: Stephen & Jeanne Keith (cckw@comcast.net)
Date: Sat Jan 17 2004 - 11:11:03 PST


I have one of the 3 piece ex manifolds. I thought they came from the
M59? APC

I have never has a problem with a CCKW or M135 ex manifold. I use
them interchangeably. I have seen severe problems with the 4 bolt (carb)
intake manifolds. This is the same as the civy one. I have 5 of them and
4 of them are either missing pieces of casting under the carb heat box
or are cracked.

Steve AKA Dr Deuce

PS: The M135/211 ex manifold is quite funny. It resembles the 1st CCKW
ex manifold in that one flange bolt is behind the manifold. Somewhat
difficult to
get to. Later CCKW manifolds rotated the flange so that they were easier to
get to. Apparently, the M135/211 reverted to the more difficult version. Go
figure!

----- Original Message -----
From: "International Movie Services" <ims@telus.net>
To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: [MV] Only tangentially MV related but interesting nonetheless

> The Canadian Army kept the M135's and derivatives in service from 1952
until
> the late 80's. We seldom had transmission problems despite the abuse that
19
> year old soldiers who don't own them can inflict on a vehicle.
> My experience with those in civvy street that have transmission problems
are
> either related to using the wrong oil or failing to install enough
> antifreeze in the cooling system to protect the water-cooled transmission
> system. Driving habits rate a poor third in causing problems, but include
> shifting from forward to reverse without stopping and just poking the
> selector in high-range drive and expecting the tranny to cope like that in
a
> modern car. The best way to think of an M135 trans is as a semi-auto; I
> always liked to think of the process as rowing the vehicle with the
> selection lever!!
> Summary: Good transmission but not fool-proof.
> FYI the most common problem we had with the 135's was exhaust manifold
> fractures; The US Army came out with a modified three piece system which
> works far better than the one piece casting we poor Canucks were afflicted
> with, anybody on the list got one (or three)?? I still run an M135, a 211
> and a 220; the 135 is a truck from my old Artillery Regiment which I first
> drove as a teenager-I'm MUCH older than that now!!
> Ubique!
> Ian
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "everette" <194cbteng@bellsouth.net>
> To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 9:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [MV] Only tangentially MV related but interesting nonetheless
>
>
> > Fantastic site
> >
> > someone tell me again about GM tramission in M135/211 not being reliable
> >
> >
> > Everette
> >
> > "----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Vernon Tuck" <vtuck@tucklings.com>
> > Subject: [MV] Only tangentially MV related but interesting nonetheless
> >
> >
> > While searching the web on the words "GMC 302 MILITARY NOS" I ran across
> >
> > http://www.futurliner.com
> >
> > I spent nearly an hour going through this awesomely large restoration.
> The
> > site is a real tribute to enthusiasm and tenacity and the power of an
> > organized group.
> >
> > It turns out the star of this show used the same engine and transmission
> as
> > the Korean War era M135s.
> >
> > Hope somebody finds it of interest.
> >
> > VT
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> > To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> > To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to
<mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> > To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
> >
>
>
>
> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:28:02 PDT