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>.