Tappet clearance.. humble pie (aka being wrong!)

He's the modern version of Joe Dope! I respectfully and solemnly dedicate this forum to the great one. These posts are moderated.. so if you want to post, they will not immediately appear.

Tappet clearance.. humble pie (aka being wrong!)

Postby pfarber » Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:39 pm

Ok, this is about JEEPS! It well known that the CCKW had valve lash upped from .014 to .016.

First read this:

http://www.g503.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=121686
Postby Ben Dover » Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:40 am
There was a WWII bulletin changing MB/GPW valve clearance to 0.016. All subsequent L-134 were 0.016 thru end of profuction in the 70s. Did you have each valve in correct position before checking. It helps to remove fender, but not necessary. There is plenty of room to work around manifold, it just takes a bit of time. The valves are done cold on these Jeeps, making the job simple. Locktite is not really needed. If there is turning resistance to the adjusting screw, that is all that is needed to keep the adjustment.

When asked to show proof:

Postby Ben Dover » Fri Jul 11, 2008 5:53 am
I have it buried, it is also printed in WWII Army Motors, and the changes to TM9-803. It's out there. The part numbers for the G-503 valve train carried through to the CJ Jeeps. The reason was for valve longevity.

There are man more posts where he states this.. with no proof.

Now in 2009 he seems to have a little change of heart:

http://www.g503.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=141033
Re: Tappett gaps?

Postby Ben Dover » Fri May 01, 2009 5:15 am
Ignore the tolerances cast onto the head, Jeep changed them to 0.016" on later engines. The MB/GPW, CJ-2A components such as lifters valves and springs did not change. The changes were noted in the TMs. (THEY WERE?!?!?! - pdf) Most collectors have one manual, and do not have access to changes that were inserted into the manuals.
During and after WWII the changes were distributed thru the system to those involved with vehicle maintenance, and were to be inserted loose into the TMs.

There are so many errors in this statement....

And the money shot (ie proof)
http://www.g503.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=177490

Well, to be fair, Bendy Me Over didn't 'fight' this post. There are many threads that have this SB listed so its not like it was an obscure reference.

The ONLY good thing about this was it *SEEMS* that Bendy Me Over did learn something.

As words of Martha Stewart: "Thats a good thing".

If anyone has evidence that jeeps were in fact set to .016 please post...
I got a Mountain Cur and a ~~pitbull~~ big loveable cuddle puppy
RIP Kimber 5/26/2022
RIP Yeager 1/3/2019
RIP TJ 3/25/2014
RIP Sugar Bear 8/29/2014
RIP Shilo 4/10/2015
RIP Yuki 2/19/2017
User avatar
pfarber
Motor Sergeant
 
Posts: 2839
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:45 am
Location: The Internet

Re: Tappet clearance.. humble pie (aka being wrong!)

Postby pfarber » Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:49 pm

TM9-1803A Feb 44 Para 18b shows .014

By the April 44 TM9-801 Change 1 did include .016 as the EXHAUST lash... but again, there was a SB that covered this.
I got a Mountain Cur and a ~~pitbull~~ big loveable cuddle puppy
RIP Kimber 5/26/2022
RIP Yeager 1/3/2019
RIP TJ 3/25/2014
RIP Sugar Bear 8/29/2014
RIP Shilo 4/10/2015
RIP Yuki 2/19/2017
User avatar
pfarber
Motor Sergeant
 
Posts: 2839
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:45 am
Location: The Internet

Re: Tappet clearance.. humble pie (aka being wrong!)

Postby pfarber » Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:55 pm

If there was a change to put all L heads to .016 why, in 1948 did Willy have to issue a Service Bulletin? The change was made (according to some) back in 44.

48-52a.jpg


Not that its not even a critical adjustment... you can set it at .014 if needed.
I got a Mountain Cur and a ~~pitbull~~ big loveable cuddle puppy
RIP Kimber 5/26/2022
RIP Yeager 1/3/2019
RIP TJ 3/25/2014
RIP Sugar Bear 8/29/2014
RIP Shilo 4/10/2015
RIP Yuki 2/19/2017
User avatar
pfarber
Motor Sergeant
 
Posts: 2839
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:45 am
Location: The Internet


Return to Things Dover/Gopan/WWII Truck is wrong about