Come on now Todd!
I didn't get my experience with the 715 from any book..I had a motor pool full of them in the army, and half were always deadlined for oil leaks and bearing problems. If it leaks, and the Tornado sure leaks, then it's always going to be low on oil, which as you confirm, the Tornado won't tolerate. The overly complex valve train is what suffers first, followed by engine bearings. Some of my trucks were only months old, and they were already
knocking and being deadlined by their drivers.
The army also put the trucks in the field a year before they added it to their training regimen for mechanics, so no one in the field had any clue about what the engine needed. We had to learn by trial and error. THAT didn't take long. We got daily complaints about engine vibration and noise. Compared to the Dodges they sat side by side with, they were a poor piece of equipment for a tactical unit. Perhaps the civvie versions were assembled more carefully, but I would never recommend the engine to anyone based on my military experience with them. I must admit that I have carefully avoided owning a civilian one so I have no point of reference for them. I defer to you on that point.
If I recall, the most problem area was the gasket joint between the front of the timing cover and the valve cover. All of them leaked copiously there, at least every one I ever saw, and put that in the hundreds. A reseal job seldom lasted long. If yours doesn't also leak there, it WILL. It was identical to the rear seal mount leak problem that early Ford V-8's suffered from. Also note that these trucks were in the field long before the current RTV "stretchy" sealants were around. If you had to seal an engine up, you used Permatex or you used Permatex.
Compared to our Dodges, our M35's, and M151's, the 715 was half as dependable because of such problems. I was out of the army long before the CUCV came along, but the army didn't replace the 715 because it was so dependable. The trucks simply sucked, and they got tired of complaints from the using units. BTW, my first impressions of it when I first drove one was that it was also ergonomically inferior to our other vehicles, and it fatigued the driver unduly because of the interior layout. I would probably find the same fault with the civvie versions of this interior, but again, I have no experience there.
Again, my 2 cents...
Jack
In a message dated Thu, 19 Jul 2001 9:13:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Todd Paisley" <paisley@erols.com> writes:
> > Run this engine for a couple years now and never had problem. I run this
> at
> > 70 mph down highway (900 X 20 tires) for 50 miles one way and then 100
> miles
> > to Iola military show pulling a 1.5 ton trailer at 60 mph. I did put
> solid
> > fuel line for the oil line to the head and have NEVER had oiling problem
> or
> > loss of oil problem. The Tornado is a good engine.
>
> Yep. We had one in a '64 Wagoneer that went well over 100,000 miles with
> absolutely no problems. (Only problem was a bent oil pan hitting a rock
> going through the woods.) The thing rusted out badly and the drivetrain was
> still going strong. I currently own another '64 Wagoneer and the engine
> runs very smoothly and it has alot of torque.
>
> People read things in books and like to pass it off as gospel.
>
> Todd.
>
>
>
> ===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 2b29 : Tue Aug 07 2001 - 09:34:12 PDT