• Steel Soldiers now has a few new forums, read more about it at: New Munitions Forums!

  • Microsoft MSN, Live, Hotmail, Outlook email users may not be receiving emails. We are working to resolve this issue. Please add support@steelsoldiers.com to your trusted contacts.

"Rescued" M816 Wrecker

Another Ahab

Another Ahab

Well-known member
17,842
4,203
113
Location
Alexandria, VA
red said:
The length measurement I posted is for the entire area of the passenger side fuel tank, not just the tank itself. From the metal mud flap over to the front of the tank. Subtract about 12" for just the tank.
Click to expand...
Is that some kind of wrench holder on the passenger-side step?

Don't think I ever saw one like that.


ABC.jpg
 
Last edited:
red

red

Active member
1,988
22
38
Location
Eagle Mountain/Utah
Csm Davis said:
I finally figured out the three ports on top and bottom, pressure, draw, and return.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Wow they made a cluster **** of the rear winch hydraulics. That's a design of engineers A, B, C, and D didn't talk to each other and assembler E has to put it all together. Pretty obvious that having the rear winch hydraulically powered wasn't their original intention when they laid out the plumbing, then realized they needed a high/low torque option haha.

Correct Another Ahab that is one of my MAC wrench sets.

The way the pump is mounted is pretty much the same as my plans besides the fact that I'm keeping the power divider and leaving the rear winch PTO powered.
 
Csm Davis

Csm Davis

Well-known member
4,152
376
83
Location
Hattiesburg, Mississippi
red said:
Wow they made a cluster **** of the rear winch hydraulics. That's a design of engineers A, B, C, and D didn't talk to each other and assembler E has to put it all together. Pretty obvious that having the rear winch hydraulically powered wasn't their original intention when they laid out the plumbing, then realized they needed a high/low torque option haha.
Click to expand...
No it wasn't their original intention, this is just the latest modification to a 1950's design. I also believe that the plumbing could be much better.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
red

red

Active member
1,988
22
38
Location
Eagle Mountain/Utah
I'm saying even after that. Looks like the line of thinking was:
1. move the hydraulic pump to the chassis. Call it good.

2. Second engineer comes in and says that they need to tie in the front winch. Call it good.

3. Third engineer comes in and says that the rear winch needs to be hydraulic. Call it good.

4. Fourth engineer decides that the winch needs 2 speeds. Now it's ready.

And none of them decided to discuss their changes with each other haha.
 
red

red

Active member
1,988
22
38
Location
Eagle Mountain/Utah
wcuhillbilly said:
On the filter.... I would certainly convert to a spin on with ball valve shut offs instead of that "sir leaks a lot" mil-spec...
Click to expand...
The spin on filter setup will probably be cheaper in the long run. My stock one hasn't decided to leak yet thankfully.

Haha speaking of hydraulic filters, reminds me of the longest call I had on a single drilling rig. The hydraulic system for the top drive had a pretty large double 5500psi hydraulic pump, driven by a Detroit 60 series and the engine would certainly notice the load to give an idea of the size of the pumps. Well the rig hands would change out all 4 of the suction side filters (3ft tall, 6" diameter filter elements) every few days, and those filters have a metal screen that goes inside them to prevent them from collapsing.

Got a call from the rig, saying that the pump was acting funny. So I grab a new pump, head out to the rig. Check the pressure gauges and notice that the 1st pump is only putting out about 2000psi, while the 2nd pump is cranking out over 7000psi (the pressure hoses are 3" ID) and screaming. So I shut down the engine and have the hands pull the filters (canister setup on all 4), see if there is a restriction. Canister 1 drops and there is about 1/2" of the filter still there, of it's original 3ft x 6" material. Drop the other filter canisters with similar results. All 4 of the filters had been inhaled by the pumps, chewed up, and sent through the hydraulic system. Rig hands had forgotten to reinstall the metal screens for each filter.

Took 36 hours to get the hydraulic system cleaned out. Oddly enough the pump was still working and the pressures had mostly stabilized by the time we were done (4000psi, 5500psi).
 
Csm Davis

Csm Davis

Well-known member
4,152
376
83
Location
Hattiesburg, Mississippi
wcuhillbilly said:
Im a bit rusty on my cubic inches/volume/cubic feet but 46.5x21x26 = 25,389.00 cubic inches(or such) on the fuel tank,,,
------------------------------------and ----------------------25.5 x 20x35.25 = 17,977.50 on the hydro tank,,,, which unless Im screwing up big time, the fuel tank would actually be bigger so to eliminate the need to relocate the existing hydro tank, just re bung the fuel tank........ I really need to sleep on this and find the correct fluid volume formula from my old algebra/practical engineering books.

On the filter.... I would certainly convert to a spin on with ball valve shut offs instead of that "sir leaks a lot" mil-spec...
Click to expand...
Pretty sure that the tank on the drivers side will fill the space properly and I am pretty sure that it is 78 gal.
As to the filter i have seen lots of leaks on wreckers but never there and it is just a screen so keep it and add the ball valve and spin-on filter.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
W

wcuhillbilly

Member
421
5
18
Location
Devils Tower, WY
Csm Davis said:
Pretty sure that the tank on the drivers side will fill the space properly and I am pretty sure that it is 78 gal.
As to the filter i have seen lots of leaks on wreckers but never there and it is just a screen so keep it and add the ball valve and spin-on filter.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I missed the part about the pass side "hole" and not the actual tank,, yes I think with a slosh factor/reserve of a few gallons, the driver side is 78gal. I am in favor of keeping the driver side in place, as its bigger, considering I do a lot of stationary "idleing or 1200rpm" with the crane engaged. The pass can be used for my 871 Detroit on my Frick Circle sawmill now and likely do as Red is and retro fit the existing hydro tank down to the pass "hole" with new bungs welded in.
I say keep the driver side where it is,,,,, due to I hate having to walk around a truck to fill the tank.. If fuel is on the driver side, I can fill easily, and Soldier B is not as apt to screw things up....

Red, I am awaiting my very own Samsung 350 Rotary manifold via Old dominion freight..... shame it will likely sit on my garage floor for 3-6 months before I can touch it,,, but I got it cheap..... now hoping the sweetness of a good deal is not fouled by the bitterness of poor quality, or under engineering on my part.
 
Csm Davis

Csm Davis

Well-known member
4,152
376
83
Location
Hattiesburg, Mississippi
wcuhillbilly said:
I missed the part about the pass side "hole" and not the actual tank,, yes I think with a slosh factor/reserve of a few gallons, the driver side is 78gal. I am in favor of keeping the driver side in place, as its bigger, considering I do a lot of stationary "idleing or 1200rpm" with the crane engaged. The pass can be used for my 871 Detroit on my Frick Circle sawmill now and likely do as Red is and retro fit the existing hydro tank down to the pass "hole" with new bungs welded in.
I say keep the driver side where it is,,,,, due to I hate having to walk around a truck to fill the tank.. If fuel is on the driver side, I can fill easily, and Soldier B is not as apt to screw things up....

Red, I am awaiting my very own Samsung 350 Rotary manifold via Old dominion freight..... shame it will likely sit on my garage floor for 3-6 months before I can touch it,,, but I got it cheap..... now hoping the sweetness of a good deal is not fouled by the bitterness of poor quality, or under engineering on my part.
Click to expand...
No I didn't make myself clear, use a driver side tank in the place of a passenger tank

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
red

red

Active member
1,988
22
38
Location
Eagle Mountain/Utah
Csm Davis said:
No I didn't make myself clear, use a driver side tank in the place of a passenger tank

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Could do that, but then you're having to buy an extra tank when you can just use the factory hydraulic tank relocated to the chassis. Whichever tank is used (i'm using the factory hydraulic tank) will require new fittings welded in.

Wcuhillbilly that's the same rotary as mine, haven't found any negative comments about it's quality.

I'd love to get the hydraulic work done in June but that project will most likely wait until July/August. Airbrake install (since all of the old system is now stripped from the chassis) is first and will make some progress on that this weekend. After that (May most likely) is the locker and lower dog bones. Going to take one of the diffs from the m51a2 and set it up with the locker so the install into the wrecker axle will be quick, aiming to have that done within 1 weekend.

Speaking of deals, decided not to trade the dump bed/components from the m51a2. So, after these couple big projects are done with the wrecker and the m103a2 tool trailer is setup, that will get modified. I had already purchased another dump bed sub frame/components so planning to use those now extra hydraulic cylinders on the m816 bed. With their length (4ft ish of travel) and size they should be great for hydraulic rear ground spades/outriggers. Thinking of doing a similar design as the current class 8 wreckers use but raised as high as possible for ground clearance.
 
W

wcuhillbilly

Member
421
5
18
Location
Devils Tower, WY
Hmmm.... ok,, theoretically, as I don't want to drop a tank right now for shnicks and giggles... but if the driver tank was moved to the pass side,,, the filler would be either under the cab (oriented as it sits on driver side,) or under the bed/outrigger(turned around) thus a major PITA to fill regardless. Soooooo rewelding bungs would be instore either way.... Think Im leaving the driver side where it is, and either finding a different tank,,,, or,,,, if welding is involved,,, extend the pass tank (cut in half and weld in a section of sheetmetal) or modify crane hydro tank... but now that I think about it... extending the existing pass tank might be the better option as I would only have to weld in 1 maybe 2 bungs at that point instead of having to move the filler to a (side, now top) and plug the cut out....

Not trying to beat a dead horse but just a thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
108,735members
163,955threads
2,306,580posts
427online users
Top