From: chance wolf (chance_wolf@shaw.ca)
Date: Sat Feb 05 2005 - 12:03:10 PST
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mil-Veh Co." <milveh@sbcglobal.net>
To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2005 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: [MV] Vaccum test results ... re M151 mystery miss
> Oh, almost forgot to tell you this part.... I
> re-checked to see how the engine ran with the choke on
> and yes, it appears it does run slightly better,
Another giveaway. That's what happened on mine. It'll still fire
miserably, but will fire more often than with no choke at all.
> You wouldn't think a minor vaccum leak would make that
> much difference to how it fires would you?
That's why I didn't even think to look for it myself when I had my own 151
woes. It's just not something that leaps to mind given the 'average' gas
engine miss we've all had to deal with which wound up being a bad plug or
bad wire or bad cap etc. I was amazed when my next-door-neighbour ex-CDN
Army mech nailed it in one, and showed it up for what it was using nothing
more than a can of ether and lots of "time in" on the vehicles in service.
> Q. Is there an interchange for the intake gasket to a
> civilian type? Something I might find at a local auto
> parts store. I think a Ford industrial engine seems
> real similar to a Mutt engine, anybody know for sure?
Those engines were used on Ingersoll-Rand compressors and a bunch of other
things (usually listed as a White engine), but for whatever reason, every
one I've seen seems to have a completely different intake/exhaust manifold
setup to that used in the M151. For the extra day or so and $1.36 in
shipping, it's just as easy to get the *right* one off Saturn or one of the
other hobby retailers instead of messing about with the 17 yr olds at NAPA
and making several trips back and forth because "it's wrong." I've done
that in earlier, dumber days - and have come to value my time a bit more
nowadays :)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:39:50 PDT