Author Topic: MLVW restrictions  (Read 56482 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 436,850
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,600
  • Crewman
Re: MLVW restrictions
« Reply #50 on: January 09, 2011, 13:07:03 »
But not to start a fight I would like a LS Amb to refurbish for the Military vech shows.

Why go with a Canadian version of the Italian (IVECO) version of the German Unimog?  Why not go right to the original and get one of the Unimog Ambs that we had in Germany?  A much more versatile and reliable vehicle.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Tango18A

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 1,587,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 887
Re: MLVW restrictions
« Reply #51 on: January 09, 2011, 13:08:09 »
I did see one of those listed for sale at www.army-uk.info shipping might be fun.

Offline my72jeep

  • It is the duty of all canadians to be prepared to defend thier country
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 36,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,034
Re: MLVW restrictions
« Reply #52 on: January 09, 2011, 13:11:27 »
Why go with a Canadian version of the Italian (IVECO) version of the German Unimog?  Why not go right to the original and get one of the Unimog Ambs that we had in Germany?  A much more versatile and reliable vehicle.
Were they the standard trany version of the LS? I remember some coming back in peaces to CFSEME in the mid 90s.
MA Davidson CD
Wawa,Ont.
Army.ca coin #53

Offline Fdtrucker

  • Member
  • ****
  • 10,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 123
Re: MLVW restrictions
« Reply #53 on: January 09, 2011, 13:15:13 »
At one point there were both 1 ton Dodge and Ford at different Bases. The German UniMog would be my choice. Excellent off road capabilities.

Offline Fdtrucker

  • Member
  • ****
  • 10,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 123
Re: MLVW restrictions
« Reply #54 on: January 09, 2011, 13:20:26 »
Were they the standard trany version of the LS? I remember some coming back in peaces to CFSEME in the mid 90s.

Those could have been prototypes or an original IVECO. 1994 in Croatia I remember driving a standard tranny IVECO. Should have seen some personal who did not know how to drive a standard transmission on the column, thinking it was an automatic. LOL

Offline TSM A

  • New Member
  • **
  • 545
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 36
Re: MLVW restrictions
« Reply #55 on: February 22, 2011, 21:23:30 »
before my unit gets too hot and h***y. can anyone tell me if the ML's (read Gun tractors) are allowed to go out into the field. ie going cross country.

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 925,425
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,223
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: MLVW restrictions
« Reply #56 on: February 22, 2011, 22:01:10 »
before my unit gets too hot and h***y. can anyone tell me if the ML's (read Gun tractors) are allowed to go out into the field. ie going cross country.

Quote
8.   Recommend the following restrictions be placed upon the MLVW fleet:

- MLVW will not be used for troop lift
- MLVW will not be used for ammunition transportation
- MLVW are not to be used on highways
- the fleet is restricted to a maximum speed of 60 km/hr

Doesn't say anything about no cross-country, but you'd need to follow the restrictions listed above. I have not heard of anything changing on these.

Offline TSM A

  • New Member
  • **
  • 545
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 36
Re: MLVW restrictions
« Reply #57 on: April 14, 2011, 08:51:00 »
Yaay!!! got 3 of my gun tractors back!! Now if only they had some thing to tow!! 6 out of 7 unit ML's passed inspections  and restrictions are now lifted. finally a little bit of good news.

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 925,425
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,223
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: MLVW restrictions
« Reply #58 on: April 17, 2011, 21:09:01 »
Yaay!!! got 3 of my gun tractors back!! Now if only they had some thing to tow!! 6 out of 7 unit ML's passed inspections  and restrictions are now lifted. finally a little bit of good news.

Are the restrictions lifted due to inspection, or lifted by message? I'd love to get my Sig Stores ML back.

Offline Tango18A

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 1,587,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 887
Re: MLVW restrictions
« Reply #59 on: April 17, 2011, 23:45:18 »
The restrictions are removed by inspection. We still have some ML's that need to be lowbeded.

Offline 411_Rocket

  • Guest
  • *
  • 310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5
Re: MLVW restrictions
« Reply #60 on: December 20, 2013, 22:58:56 »
For a bit of an update on this issue.

This just in from LFCA TC Meaford.

Because of trunnion (whatever they are...suspension item?) problems, the following restrictions apply:
1. No troop transport,
2. No ammo transport,
3. Max allowable road speed=60kph.

I had already ordered 4 Trunion assys in Wainwright WATC Maint & they were shipped from Montreal.
We normally had them done in a day, as we had spare bearings, seals & U bolts Ect in stock.
This was prior to the time this was initially posted.

The restrictions are removed by inspection. We still have some ML's that need to be lowbeded.

A week after I arrived home from Wainwright (3.5 yrs @ WATC), I was part of the BC insp team & we inspected 49
MLVWs in 1 day, between TEME Wksp Esquimalt, Chilliwack & 12 Svc in Richmond. The inspections were ultrasound
I preped, the person from Ottawa did the testing & A Wo took notes.  Of the 49 MLVWs tested we had 2 FAIL.
I informed the tester, of the replacements in Wainwright, told him they were easy to spot, the trunnion assy is painted white.

Later 2011, some of the worst MLVWs sitting @ TEME Esquimalt, were shipped for being parted out, by CORCAN
Earlier last year (2012), some of the Vancouver Island based trucks, were sent to Edmonton for a refurb of some kind, so the Reg force can use them.  Since their replacement fleet, for the MLVW is still non existant.

Late June of this year, I saw about 24  MLVWs on hwy 2 heading back to Edmonton from the floods in the Calgary area.


Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 147,805
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,683
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: MLVW restrictions
« Reply #61 on: December 27, 2013, 11:11:33 »
Have a question, just how many parts are unique to the ML (minus body parts of course)?

going from memory it was a Allison transmission coupled to a 7.3L V8 Diesel, both were basically commercial units. Axles would likely be Dana's or similar.

It seems to me that regardless of the vehicle we have it's the part acquisition system that is far more broken than the fleet will ever be.

Offline eme411

  • Guest
  • *
  • 340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18
Re: MLVW restrictions
« Reply #62 on: December 28, 2013, 15:29:49 »
what I see here may be a issue of quality of the part ,  over torqueing the nut , and also the fact that we are the only ones that install a V-8 power plant when all other users of the M-35 install a 6 cylinder , more torque for the trunion  and torque rods , this is  the item that does fail on other M-35 series vehicles, the rear suspension on the M-35 series was never designed for a V-8 and the current fix for the torque rod is garbage, cheap fix, compare a original torque rod to the new, last item would be the way the truck is operated by some of the drivers, some of the drivers just do not care but they may when the vehicle is their only way off the battlefield , that much abuse for that many years proves the fact the ML is a solid truck , I've not seen this problem with the US operated M-35 series  the original specs for this part does not show torque specs for the nut, my own collection of 2 1/2 trucks all WW 2 vintage and I have seen 100's of trucks and I've never seen this failure, these trucks are now pushing 70 years and many that I've seen have been abused much more than what any army could do, the problem here is the CF never does a rebuild and upgrade program for the tactical truck fleets and it is time we did,

Offline NFLD Sapper

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 285,251
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,092
  • CFSME STAFF
Re: MLVW restrictions
« Reply #63 on: December 28, 2013, 15:38:36 »
Have a question, just how many parts are unique to the ML (minus body parts of course)?

going from memory it was a Allison transmission coupled to a 7.3 8.2 L V8 Diesel, both were basically commercial units. Axles would likely be Dana's or similar.

It seems to me that regardless of the vehicle we have it's the part acquisition system that is far more broken than the fleet will ever be.


FTFY
CHIMO!
First in, Last out
Sappers Lead the Way

Just tell your wife she owes your life to some Muddy Old Engineer,
Some dusty, crusty, croaking, joking Muddy Old Engineer

Offline NFLD Sapper

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 285,251
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,092
  • CFSME STAFF
Re: MLVW restrictions
« Reply #64 on: December 28, 2013, 15:40:36 »
last item would be the way the truck is operated by some of the drivers, some of the drivers just do not care but they may when the vehicle is their only way off the battlefield

I think you hit the nail on the head with that part...
CHIMO!
First in, Last out
Sappers Lead the Way

Just tell your wife she owes your life to some Muddy Old Engineer,
Some dusty, crusty, croaking, joking Muddy Old Engineer

Offline eme411

  • Guest
  • *
  • 340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18
Re: MLVW restrictions
« Reply #65 on: January 01, 2014, 12:46:23 »
do any of you know if the break is the same on all the vehicles? if so this looks like it's all about the torque rod mod allowing to much lateral movement and stressing the stud to the point where it just breaks off, they should expect this break on every ML that has had the torque rod mod done , best fix is to go back to the OE torque rods, but now they have caused a much larger problem that all the ML's with the mod will require inspection for cracks,