sermis
Active member
- 1,844
- 17
- 38
- Location
- Temple, TX
If going with singles, hub flip and no other mods on a M35A2, how large of tires will work with out hitting or rubbing?
-
Steel Soldiers now has a few new forums, read more about it at: New Munitions Forums!
How large of tires will fit
- Thread starter sermis
- Start date
- 34,014
- 1,814
- 113
- Location
- GA Mountains
395s
sermis
Active member
- 1,844
- 17
- 38
- Location
- Temple, TX
Not not up on sizes. What size are 395's equal to? 14:00 20's
- 34,014
- 1,814
- 113
- Location
- GA Mountains
They're a bit smaller than the 14:00x20s. Those won't fit without some heavy fabriication to the spacing between the rear axles. 395R 20s are used on the FMTV trucks. Lots of surplus tire dealers sell them.
jasonjc
Well-known member
- 5,325
- 283
- 83
- Location
- Gravette Ar.
14.50R20 will fit to they are on the A3's and they have some coming up at texarana soon
M1075
Active member
- 3,589
- 4
- 38
- Location
- Oklahoma City
To use 395/85R20, 15.5R20, or 14.5R20 tires you will need to modify your existing rims or purchase new ones. They are too wide to safely run on a standard deuce rim. 11.00x20 are the largest to run without changing rims.
Gadget
New member
- 20
- 0
- 1
- Location
- Brewster, NY
I remember reading somewhere that military trials of super-singles on deuces resulted in damaged suspension components, brake destruction, etc.
Can you safely put big tires like these on an unmodified deuce?
Can you safely put big tires like these on an unmodified deuce?
m35a2cowner
Member
- 369
- 2
- 16
- Location
- Columbus, Ohio
Larger tire
I am looking to pick up a bit of speed on the deuce (60 or so) to better travel highway and give the engine a few less RPMs. Also looking for something that would last a while and be good for year round on and off road travel. I would like to keep the duals with the existing rims. Does anyone have a suggestion? Also, how do you figure out which speedometer adapter?
Thanks
I am looking to pick up a bit of speed on the deuce (60 or so) to better travel highway and give the engine a few less RPMs. Also looking for something that would last a while and be good for year round on and off road travel. I would like to keep the duals with the existing rims. Does anyone have a suggestion? Also, how do you figure out which speedometer adapter?
Thanks
M1075
Active member
- 3,589
- 4
- 38
- Location
- Oklahoma City
m35a2cowner- Maybe you could try radial 1100s (G177 maybe?). There is a lot of 15 on GL in Florida.
Gadget- I would be interested in that information if you run across it. Bigger tires can lead to damage (just ask any 4x4 guy) but the military runs super singles on everything now, even the M35A3. I think those are 43", not 46" though.
Gadget- I would be interested in that information if you run across it. Bigger tires can lead to damage (just ask any 4x4 guy) but the military runs super singles on everything now, even the M35A3. I think those are 43", not 46" though.
rizzo
Active member
- 2,841
- 8
- 38
- Location
- Port Huron, MI
Larger tire
I think you can buy the adapter
1100-20'sm35a2cowner said:
I think you can buy the adapter
M1075 said:
BFR
Rocket Surgeon
- 2,331
- 43
- 48
- Location
- North Georgia
those tires (177's) in florida are already an item of interest to a steel soldiers member 
![[thumbzup]](https://www.steelsoldiers.com/images/smilies/icon_smile_thumzup.gif "Thumbs Up [thumbzup]")
jasonjc
Well-known member
- 5,325
- 283
- 83
- Location
- Gravette Ar.
M1075 is right the M35A3 are running the 14.50R20 and they are 43.3" tall 14.4" wide and need a 11"wide wheel.
The Michelin 11.00R20 are 43.1" tall 11.1" wide and need a 7.7 - 8" wide rim.
the 12.50R20 are 40.7" tall 13.1 wide and need a 11" rim.
The Michelin 11.00R20 are 43.1" tall 11.1" wide and need a 7.7 - 8" wide rim.
the 12.50R20 are 40.7" tall 13.1 wide and need a 11" rim.
m35a2cowner
Member
- 369
- 2
- 16
- Location
- Columbus, Ohio
Tires
Not in a big rush so don't worry about Florida. What number or ratio adapter and is there a guide Thanks guys
Not in a big rush so don't worry about Florida. What number or ratio adapter and is there a guide Thanks guys
- 10,350
- 74
- 48
- Location
- Meadows of Dan, Virginia
The adapter ratio for 900-20 tires is 0.187:1 and for 1100-20 it's 0.200:1.
With those numbers you can figure out the ratio for any tire diameter.
With those numbers you can figure out the ratio for any tire diameter.
m35a2cowner
Member
- 369
- 2
- 16
- Location
- Columbus, Ohio
Tire size
Thank you very much for the adapter numbers sir. Your a gentleman and a scholar.
Thank you very much for the adapter numbers sir. Your a gentleman and a scholar.
emr
New member
- 3,211
- 24
- 0
- Location
- landing , new jersey
1200s, Fit on a deuce rim , It is stamped right on many rims, gives max tire size 1200, I have seen them on artillary mostly, but man they would be cool on super singles, NDTs of course for me, Randy
mcinfantry
New member
- 343
- 0
- 0
- Location
- denham springs/ la
saturn surplus has the actual 110020 adapter in stock.
2520-00-404-3098
2520-00-404-3098
m35a2cowner
Member
- 369
- 2
- 16
- Location
- Columbus, Ohio
Tire Size
Thanks I'll be getting one from them.
Thanks I'll be getting one from them.
Gadget
New member
- 20
- 0
- 1
- Location
- Brewster, NY
This is the original text from the mil-veh list back in '99, took me a while to find it!
In 1969, I was regular army, and got assigned to an AMC (Army Materiels
Command back then) unit at Camp Pickett Va, for the very first testing of
super singles on 2 1/2 ton trucks. The agency responsible for the testing was USA-GETA, Army Materiels Command, General Equipment Test Activity.
We took 12 brand new M35A2's and 12 driver/co-driver teams and laid out a course of rough terrain testing more than 30 miles long. All the trucks
required modification of the hubs, which if I recall correctly involved
pressing in new lug studs, and moving the brake drums to the other side of the hub flange. A drag link valve and tierod cylinder type power steering kit was installed on each truck. Special pump kits were provided for installation on the LDS465-2 multifuel engines. Wheels were supplied by each of six tire manufacturers for this test. They were one piece drop center wheels, and the radials were tubeless of course. Most of the tires resembled very closely what we have today as super singles, with just a few tread patterns differing radically.
The first results were inconclusive as far as tire suitability, mostly because
of the damage to the trucks. This damage was in several categories, as
follows:
*damage to hubs, bearings, and running gear due to the greater wheel offsets toward the outside of the truck...the hubs were under-designed for the extra loading.
*dramatic damage to the service brakes...several trucks experienced total and explosive brake destruction in emergency stop situations. In several cases it was necessary to change out entire bogey assemblies because of severe shrapnel damage to the axle housings and brake assemblies.
*premature wear on all front axle steering parts, caused by the increased
mechanical advantage the wider tracked wheels had on the truck's front end. Front end life was measured in weeks, not years! All trucks experienced bent tierods, bent hubs, bearing failures, and steering gear damage. Dampers were tried, with the result that several had their pistons pulled right out of them. The rough terrain was just too much for the front end design.
*Collisions due to loss of control...two trucks were totally destroyed and
there was one fatality and two serious injuries after one truck lost control
on a rough downgrade and was unable to avoid the stopped truck in front of it.
This was attributed to inadequate brakes and a steering system "excursion" from normal, probably caused by the front end forces over-riding the hydraulic cylinder. The driver of the rear truck suffered a broken arm, chest injuries, and facial injuries. His codriver was severely maimed when he attempted to bail out, and was caught by the rear duals. The driver of the front truck that was struck was killed instantly when his truck was pushed over the embankment and a large tree limb penetrated the windshield frame and impaled him. This occurred at less than 30 mph..try to imagine this same thing happening at highway speeds!
*Low speed rollovers were frequent, and it was established that the
construction of the much thinner radial sidewalls was lacking in enough
stability to permit operation at the edge of the truck's design limits...(an
M35 rolls easily to begin with) in sharp turns, rollovers were occurring at
less than 20 MPH. In several units that didn't actually roll, wheel damage
was observed from contact with the pavement after the sidewalls rolled under.
*Excessive body & frame wracking caused by uncontrolled wheel articulation way beyond the truck's design limits. The combined wheel-tire weight at the extended track widths were too much for the suspension.
*Torque rod failures were almost a daily thing...with pivot bearing failures
close behind.
The first year of testing was plagued by the above, at which point I retired
and handed the mess to someone else. Obviously, a lot of the problems were resolved, because the singles eventually found their way to deployed units. I am not sure how long this test was run, or how it turned out ultimately, but the first year's results certainly give some food for thought. There are a LOT of issues involved when you retrofit a vehicle with equipment it was not designed for. As in a lot of DOD transactions, sales pressure from manufacturer's reps seems to have a way of sweeping serious problems under the rug, and field units often find themselves with
dangerous gear. This is my opinion, but there is enough data backing it up
that super singles perhaps have no place on large tacticals...at least not as
they were designed back in 1969.
In 1969, I was regular army, and got assigned to an AMC (Army Materiels
Command back then) unit at Camp Pickett Va, for the very first testing of
super singles on 2 1/2 ton trucks. The agency responsible for the testing was USA-GETA, Army Materiels Command, General Equipment Test Activity.
We took 12 brand new M35A2's and 12 driver/co-driver teams and laid out a course of rough terrain testing more than 30 miles long. All the trucks
required modification of the hubs, which if I recall correctly involved
pressing in new lug studs, and moving the brake drums to the other side of the hub flange. A drag link valve and tierod cylinder type power steering kit was installed on each truck. Special pump kits were provided for installation on the LDS465-2 multifuel engines. Wheels were supplied by each of six tire manufacturers for this test. They were one piece drop center wheels, and the radials were tubeless of course. Most of the tires resembled very closely what we have today as super singles, with just a few tread patterns differing radically.
The first results were inconclusive as far as tire suitability, mostly because
of the damage to the trucks. This damage was in several categories, as
follows:
*damage to hubs, bearings, and running gear due to the greater wheel offsets toward the outside of the truck...the hubs were under-designed for the extra loading.
*dramatic damage to the service brakes...several trucks experienced total and explosive brake destruction in emergency stop situations. In several cases it was necessary to change out entire bogey assemblies because of severe shrapnel damage to the axle housings and brake assemblies.
*premature wear on all front axle steering parts, caused by the increased
mechanical advantage the wider tracked wheels had on the truck's front end. Front end life was measured in weeks, not years! All trucks experienced bent tierods, bent hubs, bearing failures, and steering gear damage. Dampers were tried, with the result that several had their pistons pulled right out of them. The rough terrain was just too much for the front end design.
*Collisions due to loss of control...two trucks were totally destroyed and
there was one fatality and two serious injuries after one truck lost control
on a rough downgrade and was unable to avoid the stopped truck in front of it.
This was attributed to inadequate brakes and a steering system "excursion" from normal, probably caused by the front end forces over-riding the hydraulic cylinder. The driver of the rear truck suffered a broken arm, chest injuries, and facial injuries. His codriver was severely maimed when he attempted to bail out, and was caught by the rear duals. The driver of the front truck that was struck was killed instantly when his truck was pushed over the embankment and a large tree limb penetrated the windshield frame and impaled him. This occurred at less than 30 mph..try to imagine this same thing happening at highway speeds!
*Low speed rollovers were frequent, and it was established that the
construction of the much thinner radial sidewalls was lacking in enough
stability to permit operation at the edge of the truck's design limits...(an
M35 rolls easily to begin with) in sharp turns, rollovers were occurring at
less than 20 MPH. In several units that didn't actually roll, wheel damage
was observed from contact with the pavement after the sidewalls rolled under.
*Excessive body & frame wracking caused by uncontrolled wheel articulation way beyond the truck's design limits. The combined wheel-tire weight at the extended track widths were too much for the suspension.
*Torque rod failures were almost a daily thing...with pivot bearing failures
close behind.
The first year of testing was plagued by the above, at which point I retired
and handed the mess to someone else. Obviously, a lot of the problems were resolved, because the singles eventually found their way to deployed units. I am not sure how long this test was run, or how it turned out ultimately, but the first year's results certainly give some food for thought. There are a LOT of issues involved when you retrofit a vehicle with equipment it was not designed for. As in a lot of DOD transactions, sales pressure from manufacturer's reps seems to have a way of sweeping serious problems under the rug, and field units often find themselves with
dangerous gear. This is my opinion, but there is enough data backing it up
that super singles perhaps have no place on large tacticals...at least not as
they were designed back in 1969.
- 34,014
- 1,814
- 113
- Location
- GA Mountains
Interesting but the singles date back to the first G-742 trucks prototyped in 1949 and in production in 1950. I dunno, sounds somewhat askewed. Another interesting point was the guy that bailed and was severly maimed by the rear duals. Weren't these trucks singled out, and how do you bend a hub? Dunno, I question the validity of this.