Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
51. My unit had "Multi-Fuel" M35s
Tue Feb 10, 2015, 11:05 AM
Feb 2015

The "Multi-Fuel" M35s were the first generation of Diesel conversions AND new built Diesel M35s. These Diesel Engines were designed that in a pinch, you could run a Gasoline oil mix in them instead of Diesel Fuel (The Gasoline MUST be mixed with oil, if I remember right one Quart of oil for every ten gallons of Gasoline). Technically ALL DIESELS can do this, but it is rough on the engine AND if the fuel system is NOT set up for it, rough on the fuel system (Rough enough to require replacement of the fuel system, so using the gasoline-oil mix is NOT recommended for use on most Diesels).

These multi-fuels were the worse of the M35s. In the Regular Army they were replaced by later Diesel only engined M35s. In the Reserves, the Gasoline Powered M35s survived them (Mostly do to the fact the Gasoline M35s would require a complete rebuilt (New Engine, New Transmissions, New Fuel System etc), while upgrading the Multi Fuel to a Diesel only generally required replacement of the fuel system.

While I suspect the reason the Multi-Fuel were replace first was the lower cost of upgrading them, the superiority of the Gas Jobs in mud was also a factor. Diesels provide more power overall, but at low speeds in muddy conditions where Gasoline is superior. My unit actually preferred the older Gasoline Jobs to the Multi-fuel M35s. The main reason was that the fuel system of the Multi-fueled M35s caused all types of headaches when it came to maintenance AND operating those M35s. The newer straight Diesels were better then both, for they were 20 years newer and thus less likely to break down (and did not have that troublesome Multi-fuel fuel system), but between the multi-fuel and the gasoline M35s, the Gasoline M35s were considered better.

As to the Norwegian GMC being diesels, I suspect they were diesel conversions. Such conversions were popular in the 1950s and 1960s as the gasoline engines started to wear out. Thus I suspect they were WWII GMC 2 1/2 ton trucks, converted to a Diesel engine that was also called a "Multi-Fuel" engine. Such "Multi-Fuel" engines were popular after the US Army started to use diesel in their tanks (and that is only in 1959. prior to that date all vehicles, including tanks in the US Army were gasoline only jobs). The M113 Armored Personnel Carrier (APC) was originally a Gasoline Engined Vehicle, but it had enough space to be built new with a Diesel starting in 1964 (Only a handful of Gasoline M113s were ever built). Thus in the 1960s the US Army used both Gasoline and diesel vehicles and liked the concept of the Multi-Fuel as a compromise between the two fuel systems.

By the early 1970s the US Army decided to convert to Diesel as much as possible. This required the US Army to get rid of its M114 Scout vehicles (the engine Compartment was to small for a diesel engine of the same power as the gasoline engine the M114 was designed around) AND any other gasoline engine EXCEPT the M151 Jeep. The M151 Jeep's engine was to small to carry a diesel engine of the same power as its gasoline engine. This inability to be converted to a Diesel lead to the HUMVEE coming into being as a replacement for the M151 Jeep. The Humvee took up as much room as four M151 Jeep, but it was a Diesel with an Automatic so the US Army used it to replace the M151 Jeeps.

I did drive the HUMVEE when it first came out. I also drove the M151 and the M113 APC. The M151 could go anywhere, it was small, light and fun to drive. You had to be careful on turns (it could and did tip over), but in the later years of usage a roll bar was added with seat belts (these saved my First Sargent's life when the front tire on his M151 blew out on the Pennsylvania Turnpike and his M151 flipped over onto that roll bar).

Thus the US Army did a conversion to Diesels starting in 1959, but accelerated in the 1970s. M151 lasted to the 1990s in the reserves (and brought back in the late 1990s when it was found that the roads in Macedonia were to narrow for the HUMVEES and the only vehicle that could travel those roads as the then old and "obsolete" M151).

Thus is suspect that the GMC Norway used were old WWII GMC trucks converted to Diesel Power sometimes in the 1950s or 1960s. Probably done in Norway with either a US made or German made Diesel engine capable of using gasoline in a pinch (Thus called a "Multi-Fuel" but probably NEVER ran on gasoline in actual usage). That would have extended the lives of those trucks another 20 to 30 years, thus needed to be replaced by the 1990s (and by then cheaper to buy new than to rebuild those old GMCs, engines and transmissions are expensive to buy AND replace).

Just a comment on the old M35s. I drove them in my youth and I still like them, no power steering and all (Try turning one around with a trailer on a one lane in each direction road to learn why power steering is so well liked by people). In the field you could knock down nice size second growth trees with them, and keep on going. They took a beating and kept on running. Very good trucks.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Report Sees Weak Security in Cars’ Wireless Systems bananas Feb 2015 #1
Senator: Your futuristic car is putting your privacy and security at risk bananas Feb 2015 #2
why are brake systems, etc. connected to a network? Enrique Feb 2015 #3
Modern cars automatically brake when approaching a resting(?) obstacle at high speed. DetlefK Feb 2015 #7
Unfortunately you have to switch it on jakeXT Feb 2015 #9
your 3rd sentence is what I don't get Enrique Feb 2015 #32
It's connected indirectly. DetlefK Feb 2015 #35
And it can all be switched on remotely if turned off by the owner. Fred Sanders Feb 2015 #37
Michael Hastings Murdered? billhicks76 Feb 2015 #10
My first thought as well... Cooley Hurd Feb 2015 #14
Jeez, sure a lot of paranoids around. Jackpine Radical Feb 2015 #20
That's the thing about paranoia... Cooley Hurd Feb 2015 #27
It's Usually Just An Analytical Mind billhicks76 Feb 2015 #40
Unlikely, but even if so, don't need a wireless connection. AtheistCrusader Feb 2015 #19
They're doing it with nuclear reactor control systems, too. bananas Feb 2015 #12
The ODN bus is used for everything now. AtheistCrusader Feb 2015 #18
thanks,but that seems all done local to the car Enrique Feb 2015 #33
Abuse of related wireless systems. AtheistCrusader Feb 2015 #38
I had to think about this a while too. Here's what I came up with: mahatmakanejeeves Feb 2015 #31
"Override the brakes, Siri." mahatmakanejeeves Feb 2015 #54
Car hacked on 60 Minutes bananas Feb 2015 #4
Hope no one in government or with evil intent and political power or ambition is abusing this. Fred Sanders Feb 2015 #24
Of course they are! They use Wi-Fi. Duh! Why does anyone need that in their car? Or TV? Fred Sanders Feb 2015 #5
Because the security system is integrated to ODN and Telematics. AtheistCrusader Feb 2015 #21
True. And now they want to use wireless to unlock your castle's front door..how convenient is that? Fred Sanders Feb 2015 #22
In this case, I think Aldous Huxley would be the clear winner. AtheistCrusader Feb 2015 #23
"Technology promised me a space station for Christmas and all I got was this lousy Face book." Fred Sanders Feb 2015 #26
Looks like my pre-computer car might have some re-sale value after all. dixiegrrrrl Feb 2015 #25
But also standard with the standard WiFi is more standard collision air bags, so it evens up. Fred Sanders Feb 2015 #28
This issue is why I'm trying to keep mine going too. Waiting For Everyman Feb 2015 #45
Sounds like Richard Clark's statements on Hastings death jakeXT Feb 2015 #6
If covert intelligence agencies can find a new way to kill folks they will find and use that way. Fred Sanders Feb 2015 #29
yikes! marym625 Feb 2015 #8
K&R DeSwiss Feb 2015 #11
This is why I won't have a car with WiFi in it. bemildred Feb 2015 #13
Solution? Maynar Feb 2015 #15
Just need a car with no WIFi. Fred Sanders Feb 2015 #30
other nasty ramifications? Martak Sarno Feb 2015 #16
bananas Diclotican Feb 2015 #17
Watch yourself, 93.5% of Americans buy cars with Automatics transmissions.... happyslug Feb 2015 #41
happyslug Diclotican Feb 2015 #43
I have owned ONE automatic in my life happyslug Feb 2015 #46
happyslug Diclotican Feb 2015 #47
I drove Reo-Diamond M35s, the GMCs were either WWII Surplus or M135s. happyslug Feb 2015 #48
happyslug Diclotican Feb 2015 #49
My unit had "Multi-Fuel" M35s happyslug Feb 2015 #51
happyslug Diclotican Feb 2015 #52
This makes me appreciate my Oldsmobile a bit more. Throd Feb 2015 #34
First thought...What do you do for a living? I hack cars. Huh? libdem4life Feb 2015 #36
DOT has put these things all up and down every major roadway here in Dallas. What do they do??? blkmusclmachine Feb 2015 #39
Toll Road RFID Tags mahatmakanejeeves Feb 2015 #42
That is why I buy a car with a Manual Transmission happyslug Feb 2015 #44
Me: 20 year old truck, 25 year old TV, flip-phone IDemo Feb 2015 #50
i like more 'n more my dumb car, dumb phone, dumb tv... NuttyFluffers Feb 2015 #53
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Report: Cars are vulnerab...»Reply #51