Re: [MV] Re: Underpowered UNIMOG

Andreas Mehlhorn (a.mehlhorn@t-online.de)
Tue, 27 Jan 1998 07:29:44 +0100

Brent Boxall schrieb:
> Here is my 2 cents worth on the Unimog:
> My personal experience with an AM General 2.5 ton 6x6 is that you NEED po=
wer
> in off road situations. Here in the North Georgia Mountains if you are
> climbing a ridge on a dirt road is takes all 134 HP to keep the 13,000 lb=
s.
> unloaded truck climbing at a good 20-25 mph on a steep grade. I don't th=
ink
> that less power would be acceptable especially with cargo load and a trai=
ler.
>
> Brent Boxall
>
Dear Brent,

If your AM Genral 6x6 offers 134 HP and has an unloaded weight of 13.000 lb=
s,
you have a power/weight ratio of 22,8 hp per metric ton unloaded and 16 hp/=
ton
with 2.5 tons payload.

The "underpowered" UNIMOG offers 26,7 hp/ton unloaded and 17,8 hp/ton with
1.5 tons payload. So it has more power per ton than your vehicle.=20

It is true that the Mercedes-Benz 2,2 litre petrol engine of the UNIMOG=20
with its low torque and high revs is not ideal for an off road vehicle.
But in the 60s the Bundeswehr prefered petrol engines. They were afraid
of handling diesel fuel at low temperatures. That was stupid, because the
Russians used diesel since WW2 in their tanks and it worked well, even at
Sibirian temperatures. Note that the 404 UNIMOG is a vehicle desgined in
the mid 50s. At that time trucks had 6 hp per ton fully loaded with trailer=
.

Most civilian UNIMOGS came with diesel engines, which offers better torque
at lower revs.

Regards
Andreas (ex radio operator on UNIMOG and M113)


===
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>.