Re: [MV] S&S FMTV

Chief William von Zehle (ChiefvonZehle@wiltonfire.org)
Mon, 12 Apr 1999 16:58:33 -0400

Actually, Mach 3 meant "pedal to the metal" (i.e. flat out) which was about
63 (an estimate since military speedometers only go to 60 mph). It's has to
be aver 250 miles from Ft. Drum, NY to Danbury, CT. Flat out, with just
stops for R&R (restrooms and restaurants) with no problems.

You're right about HMMWVs - they'll go over 60 (some of them). We have a
bunch of them in my Reserve unit - some go fast, some don't, but they'll all
do about 60.

Regards,

William von Zehle, Jr.
MVPA 593
'53 M42

Dave Cole wrote:

> The basic design of the FMTV's might be wonderful, however there are a
> lot of contradictions in the statements that are being made about them by
> everyone.
> For instance this statement, assuming it's accurate..
>
> >> "...Lt. Col. Bill Wheelehan of Army Public Affairs previously said the
>
> problem was discovered last year after three trucks were involved in
> highway accidents. When they were driven faster than 44 mph for long
> durations, a use the trucks weren't designed for, vibrations caused
> the flywheel housings and driveshafts to crack and break, he said."
>
> You mean to tell me that the truck can't be driven for long periods of
> time faster than 44 mph?
>
> That being the case, just how fast is the truck designed to be run at for
> long periods of time?
>
> If 40 mph is the limit, it seems to me that we set our sights a bit low.
>
> I'm assuming that when you said above Mach 3, you weren't referring to
> faster than 30 mph, right?
>
> This is my perpective: if an ISUZU cabover 2 1/2 ton truck can maintain
> 65-70 mph forever until it runs out of fuel and cost about 35K, and a
> specially designed 2 1/2 ton truck is made for on and off road work and
> costs 80-100K or more, then wouldn't the typical person expect it to be
> able to maintain well over 45 mph indefinitely? I would.
>
> Also, the M35 basic design (chassis) was created sometime just after WW2,
> now it's 50 years later and the new truck is slower than the old truck?
> This just doesn't make sense.
>
> I would expect that the FMTV trucks should be able to maintain well over
> 70 mph on the highway indefinitely and also be able to do very, very
> well off road. What is the top speed of a Hummer? They've passed me at
> well over 70 on the freeway.
>
> How would you feel if the top speed of a Hummer was less than 44 mph?
>
> Dave Cole
>
> On Thu, 08 Apr 1999 12:39:14 -0400 Chief William von Zehle
> <ChiefvonZehle@wiltonfire.org> writes:
> >My Army Reserve unit currently has two M1078 LMTVs which replaced two
> >M35s (we still have two M35s left. Even though I'm a lover of the M35
> >(it's a REAL truck), the new LMTVs are actually a pretty impressive
> >vehicle.
> >
> >I know the bad press over the driveline vibration, but only two
> >vehicles
> >actually had a failure the last I heard. We picked our units up at
> >Ft.
> >Drumm, NY and drove them at "Mach 3" all the way to Connecticut with
> >no
> >problems.
> >
> >The CTIF system works great. The automatic transmission is much
> >easier
> >for new soldiers to operat. (Many of them can't drive manual
> >transmissions.) All the top bows, canvas, etc. store under the bed
> >when
> >not in use. The spare tire is raised and lowered pneumatically to
> >minimize injuries. Even though there's no A/C, the ventilation system
> >is
> >far superior to the M35s, and the windshield wipers are electric and
> >actually work when going uphill! the built-in ladder for cargo bed
> >access is nice, too. Engine access is excellent with the tilt cab.
> >
> >About my only initial concern was the vehicle's height and vertical
> >center of gravity. However, after driving it on and off road, it
> >isn't
> >bad - it just requires training on the vehicle before letting soldiers
> >out on their own.
> >
> >The units are being recalled to have the vibration problem repaired
> >(probably at extra cost to US knowing DoD contracts!)
> >
> >By the way, the FMTVs are not new units. They're basically Austrian
> >Steyr model 12 M 18 with US equipment (Cat. diesel, Allison trans.,
> >blackout lights, weapon ring mount, etc.) added.
> >
> >All in all, don't believe everything you read and "try it before you
> >criticize it".
> >
> >William von Zehle, Jr. (MVPA 593)
> >Ridgefield, Conn. USA
> >'53 M42
> >
> >Carl Konefsky wrote:
> >
> >> I was just in Texas doing business and saw truck loads of thease
> >being
> >> hauled down there.I ask about it and was told by someone who said he
> >> knew what seems to be happening.The first ones are just plain bad
> >news
> >> and there is more problems then being reported its kind of a major
> >> secert as this contact was like stolen from AM General and others
> >and
> >> given to a company who had no experance in building this type of
> >> thing.Who know what is going on but we are getting screwed again
> >like
> >> importing and demiling.
> >> Carl
> >>
> >> ===
> >> To unsubscribe from the mil-veh mailing list, send the single word
> >> UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of a message to
> ><mil-veh-request@skylee.com>.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >===
> >To unsubscribe from the mil-veh mailing list, send the single word
> >UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of a message to <mil-veh-request@skylee.com>.
> >
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
> Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
> or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
>
> ===
> To unsubscribe from the mil-veh mailing list, send the single word
> UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of a message to <mil-veh-request@skylee.com>.

===
To unsubscribe from the mil-veh mailing list, send the single word
UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of a message to <mil-veh-request@skylee.com>.