# MLVW restrictions



## avgpjon

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.

Because of the above, perhaps MSVS dvr trg will accelerate.


----------



## CEEBEE501

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trunnion#In_vehicles

Looks like it is some sort pivot point for the rear axle


----------



## BDTyre

Hmm...maybe my course won't be cancelled after all. Still, it will be hard to get the necessary 500km when you can only do 60km/h.


----------



## Wookilar

Don't worry about it too much, that's not much of a loss of top speed. It takes a long time, and a good down hill slope, to get up to 60 kph anyways. 

Wook
Cursing fuel pinchers since '93.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

avgpjon said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> Because of the above, perhaps MSVS dvr trg will accelerate.



Haven't heard of any restrictions here in 37 CBG.....


----------



## dapaterson

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Haven't heard of any restrictions here in 37 CBG.....



Push up through your chain of command - Army HQ G3 staff have issued direction.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Push up through your chain of command - Army HQ G3 staff have issued direction.



Then again our lone ML has been in maintence since Nov 15/16.....


----------



## NSDreamer

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Then again our lone ML has been in maintence since Nov 15/16.....



 Send it to us, we need parts.  >


----------



## Nfld Sapper

NSDreamer said:
			
		

> Send it to us, we need parts.  >



Nope, we still need it to tow our 2 x 105mm Howitzers  

BTW has anyone figured out how to attach the trailers to the MSVS without wraping the chains around each other?


----------



## Jarnhamar

The MSVS is a Great machine.

The CF picked an excellent vehicle to replace the MLVW.


----------



## NSDreamer

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Nope, we still need it to tow our 2 x 105mm Howitzers
> 
> BTW has anyone figured out how to attach the trailers to the MSVS without wraping the chains around each other?



 I don't know the specs on gun trailers, but from what I've seen we have no problem hooking up TFars (Not sure if this is how you write it down, I've only ever heard it verbally) or buffalos to them. That being said, trucks are not my speciality.


----------



## Robbie

Situation

1.	This month three MLVW have experienced failure of the trunion.  These were:

- 2 PPCLI (Shilo) - traveling at low speed (approx 10 km/hr) in a compound
- 26 Fd Regt (Shilo) - traveling at low speed (approx 15 km/hr) on Base
- unit not stated (Saint John) - details TBC from LFAA

2.	The occurrence at 2 PPCLI was initially considered a one time fault, but within a two week time frame a second incident occurred at 26 Field Regt.  The incident in St John occurred this past weekend.

3.	I have queried all LFAs and LFDTS on my net.  Only reports thus far of failures are from LFWA and LFAA.

Discussion

4.	In all cases the trunion sheared off breaking flush with the housing.  No accident or injury occurred as a result of the two incidents in LFWA.  I don't have any details regarding the incident in LFAA yet but no mention of accident or injury in the initial report.  In each case the driver was able to retain control of the vehicle.  The nature of the failure is such that there appears to be no danger of a secondary effect (nothing actually hits the ground; the axle will remain straight, etc).

5.	DGLEPM has been engaged and is investigating/assessing a way forward.  Thus far the information available is:

- Other than one other incident of a failure in Wainwright 2 - 3 years ago attributed to 'extreme off road use', there is no previous knowledge of failures of this type.  Trunions don't typically fail unless there is misuse/extreme use and this does not appear to be the case in these instances.

- The cause is suspected to be age/metal fatigue.  The pictures thus far recv indicate the trunions had been cracking for sometime and that the incidents occurred when the remaining intact portion failed.

- Thus far there is no inspection process identified for this nature of failure.  Given the point of failure the only obvious manner of inspection is to disassemble almost the entire rear suspension.

- There are 37 trunions in national stock.  DGLEPM has restricted them (QD msg reqr to order) so that we can maintain control of them as needed.

- Best estimate for the time to replace the trunion on a vehicle is 24 man hours.

6.	A few pictures are attached for reference.

 << File: DSC03363.JPG >>  << File: DSCN0171.jpg >>  << File: DSC03364.JPG >>  << File: DSC03368.JPG >> 

7.	DGLEPM has not recommended any restrictions on the fleet as this failure, although major in appearance, has not impacted any of the primary safety features of the vehicle (brakes or steering).  However as a result of the two incidents experienced in LFWA, Comd LFWA has placed restrictions on his fleet.

8.	While the incidents to date have resulted in "safe" failures in which the driver was able to retain control of the vehicle there is a level of risk involved.  Although there does not appear to be any concern from a strictly technical point of view that a failure will result in loss of control, I believe there is a risk that the driver's potential reaction to the failure could result in an accident.  With winter upon us I believe the potential exists for an accident on icy roads particularly at higher speeds if the driver needs to adjust for a sudden weight shift of the vehicle and then hits a slippery section of the road which could result in loss of control and an accident.

Recommendation

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*

9.	A caution be included (previously communicated on my net) that that personnel working under MLVWs are to support the body under the box when using jack stands in case the trunions breaks while working on or adjusting the rear brakes.  The rear suspension should be left free floating and not supported. It is highly recommended that a Veh Tech be present when doing so.

10.	Any further failures of this nature to be reported to Army G4 Maint ASAP.  

Way Forward

11.	DGLEPM/the LCMM will continue to work with QETE to inspect the failed parts to improve their understanding of the cause of the failure.  Also they will continue to assess the feasibility of a practical inspection method to identify vehicles at risk for this type of failure.  If the current belief that is an age related issue holds true then we are likely looking at these restrictions remaining in place until MSVS (MilCOTS and SMP) are fully fielded and the MLVW fleet retired, unless an inspection process can be developed.  


*********

What get me... I looked up one of the CFRs of the MLVW that failed and it was a TRK MLVW KITCHEN SEV W/W. Meaning that truck does alot of sitting (not moving).  IMO we shouldn't be putting an blanket on the hole fleet with out looking the service records and vehicle useage on the one's that failed first. 

Rob
~


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Hey Robbie, anyway you can attach the pics that are mentioned in your post?


EDITED TO ADD

Wasn't this the same problem that grounded the fleet earlier this spring/summer?


----------



## Robbie

Here are the pictures.


----------



## Robbie

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Hey Robbie, anyway you can attach the pics that are mentioned in your post?
> 
> 
> EDITED TO ADD
> 
> Wasn't this the same problem that grounded the fleet earlier this spring/summer?



No. But in the same area. It was the Torsion Bars.


----------



## dapaterson

Robbie said:
			
		

> What get me... I looked up one of the CFRs of the MLVW that failed and it was a TRK MLVW KITCHEN SEV W/W. Meaning that truck does alot of sitting (not moving).  IMO we shouldn't be putting an blanket on the hole fleet with out looking the service records and vehicle useage on the one's that failed first.



It's not a result of one vehicle failing - its a result of three failing in rapid succession.  Given there is no operational imperative, it's better to err on the side of caution and avoid potential accidents and incidents until the scope of the problem, and any required mitigations, are knows.


----------



## Robbie

dapaterson said:
			
		

> It's not a result of one vehicle failing - its a result of three failing in rapid succession.  Given there is no operational imperative, it's better to err on the side of caution and avoid potential accidents and incidents until the scope of the problem, and any required mitigations, are knows.



I know it's not just the result of one. "I looked up one of the CFRs of the MLVW that failed"

Rob
~


----------



## Wookilar

hmmm a kitchen truck and a gun truck eh? Not especially fast movers (if any ML can be called a fast mover) cross-country. The largest concentration of ML's in Saint John is the Svc Bn, no telling what it's hauled over the years.

What about average weight load? Are the gun trucks usually loaded for bear? I know the kitchen trucks carry, well, just about everything. Seems to me that this has to be more about weight loads than actual mileage.

Didn't we do something with the trunnions a few years ago? Or am I thinking of the "new" torsion bars with the rubber inserts. I'm trying to remember, been a few years now since I worked under one.

Wook


----------



## Dwight Schrute

I can't believe the CF are still using MLVW's. They must be literally falling apart. They were in rough shape when I got out 22 years ago!


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Dwight Schrute said:
			
		

> I can't believe the CF are still using MLVW's. They must be literally falling apart. They were in rough shape when I got out 22 years ago!



The ML's only entered service in 82, so I think you might be refering to the old "Deuce and Half"....


----------



## PuckChaser

Dwight Schrute said:
			
		

> I can't believe the CF are still using MLVW's. They must be literally falling apart. They were in rough shape when I got out 22 years ago!



Believe it, our procurement system at its finest. We only start thinking about replacing a vehicle when they're so worn down they need to be grounded.

Apparently the LSVW is going to go on parking ground sometime in the next year or two, no replacement even talked about yet.


----------



## dangerboy

Dwight Schrute said:
			
		

> I can't believe the CF are still using MLVW's. They must be literally falling apart. They were in rough shape when I got out 22 years ago!



Say what you want about the age of the vehice, on average I find it to be the most reliable vehicle of the ones I use (MLVW, LSVW and MILCOT) and I can depend on it starting when it is cold out.


----------



## Dwight Schrute

I remember like it was yesterday the first time I drove an MLVW (had less than a 1000 k on it) in 84, in the mo. The MLVWs in 3PPCLI when I got out in 89 were thrashed, almost 10 years old at that point.


----------



## startbutton

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> The MSVS is a Great machine.
> 
> The CF picked an excellent vehicle to replace the MLVW.



I don't know how often you've been in an MSVS or driven one , but the truck is not nearly as good as you think it is . It sucks off road especially when do troop lift and the only thing(s) i like about it are it has a radio AC and coffee cup holders other then that give me an ML any day of the week and twice on sunday when in the field


----------



## Nfld Sapper

The MSVS-MILCOTS is best suited for highway movement......


----------



## PuckChaser

Yep, the MSVS-SMP is supposed to be the offroad tactical beast.

I do love the MLVW, but time has simply caught up to them. I don't ever think I've had a breakdown with one, while LSVWs are consistently on the VM shop floor.


----------



## jeffb

The MSVS takes forever to debus as well. Because it's so high, you are basically stuck in the back until someone comes around and attaches the ladder. At least with the MLVW you can jump down fairly easily, especially when you have a trailer or a gun you can use.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

jeffb said:
			
		

> The MSVS takes forever to debus as well. Because it's so high, you are basically stuck in the back until someone comes around and attaches the ladder. At least with the MLVW you can jump down fairly easily, especially when you have a trailer or a gun you can use.



You do realize that with the new gun tractor, all the crew sits in the cab now.... the cargo box will be for ammo, stores, kit, etc.....

Same is true of the ENGR SEV......


----------



## jeffb

I didn't know that. I haven't seen an MSVS being used as a gun tractor yet. That does seem like a better plan though.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

jeffb said:
			
		

> I didn't know that. I haven't seen an MSVS being used as a gun tractor yet. That does seem like a better plan though.



It's because the gun tractor and sev's haven't been fielded yet........


----------



## BDTyre

As of today my MLVW course was officially cancelled.... I'm definitely not speaking in an official capacity, but it sounds like all MLs in 39 CBG are grounded.


----------



## Thompson_JM

I'm waiting to be issued shotguns to take the ML out behind the POL shed and pull an "ol Yeller"......

*Sniff Sniff* I'll miss ya old Boy.....    ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson

When we first got our MLVW, we took it on a slightly rough trail and the front spring mount sheared off the frame, not an inspiring start to their career.


----------



## Thompson_JM

Colin P said:
			
		

> When we first got our MLVW, we took it on a slightly rough trail and the front spring mount sheared off the frame, not an inspiring start to their career.



True... Though at roughly 30 years in service, they certainly have held up....  

I'm sad to see them go, on one hand, but thankful that they are finally being retired on the other... its just time...


----------



## REDinstaller

More like 25 years, entered inventory in 1986. Clearly we need a new truck, not an updated Deuce and a half, but that's what you get from a primarily skidoo manufacturer.


----------



## my72jeep

Tango18A said:
			
		

> More like 25 years, entered inventory in 1986. Clearly we need a new truck, not an updated Deuce and a half, but that's what you get from a primarily skidoo manufacturer.


1986? We were getting them in Lahr in 1983. I rember doing a tool swap from the cage on a Deuce to an MLVW in Hollenfells at the start of the fall Ex.


----------



## REDinstaller

The official CFR is 86-xxxxx. The first 2 numbers being the date of entry into inventory. Not that I can't say you didn't have them, but every MLVW that I have run across in 20+ years has been an 86-xxxxx.


----------



## my72jeep

Maybe we had the first run sent overseas to bolster our NATO conmitment.


----------



## REDinstaller

Well 4CMBG always did get the first kick at new kit.


----------



## Fdtrucker

From the DND Internet site in ref to the MLVWs.  I have seen MLVW CFRs from 82 to 86. 

Specifications:
Weight: 6.3 – 7.8 tonnes (depending on variant)
Payload: Off-road – 2.27 tonnes / Highway – 5 tonnes
Engine: Detroit Diesel, 8.2 litre, V-6
Maximum speed: 90 km/h
Entered service: 1982
Number acquired: 2,769


----------



## my72jeep

2769 units orderd and enterd service in 1982 if the info on the DND web site is right. CFSAL must have got them first for driver trg. wow I feel old I have now out lasted the iltis  and now the mlvw, and soon the CF-18.


----------



## REDinstaller

Don't forget the CUCV, and someday soon hopefully the LSVW.


----------



## my72jeep

yes the LS we can only hope to its demise but with our Gov they will decide to keep it for 25 years like the iltis.


----------



## REDinstaller

It won't make it. Did you know that Ford makes compatible parts for it.


----------



## my72jeep

fix or repair daily sounds about right. Italian engineering at its best.


----------



## REDinstaller

The transfer case lock indicator is now a Ford part, but it must be wired backwards to make it work.


----------



## my72jeep

Why does that not surprise me.


----------



## REDinstaller

I think its high time that this Italian stallion gets taken out to pasture and fed some HESH.


----------



## Fdtrucker

You have to also look at the 5/4 ton and the 3 different Military motorcycles the CF had since the early 80's.


----------



## my72jeep

In 25 years I never touched a bike. I did like the old I think it was a Ford 1 ton might have been a dodge. the 5 quad was OK but was a pain to fuel with a cap on each side.
But not to start a fight I would like a LS Amb to refurbish for the Military vech shows.


----------



## George Wallace

my72jeep said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## REDinstaller

I did see one of those listed for sale at www.army-uk.info shipping might be fun.


----------



## my72jeep

George Wallace said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Fdtrucker

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.


----------



## Fdtrucker

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


----------



## TSM A

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.


----------



## PuckChaser

TSM A said:
			
		

> 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.





> 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.


----------



## TSM A

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.


----------



## PuckChaser

TSM A said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## REDinstaller

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


----------



## 411_Rocket

For a bit of an update on this issue.



			
				avgpjon said:
			
		

> 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. 



			
				Tango18A said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

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.


----------



## eme411

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,


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Colin P said:
			
		

> 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


----------



## Nfld Sapper

eme411 said:
			
		

> 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...


----------



## eme411

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,


----------

