MLU FORUM  

Go Back   MLU FORUM > MILITARY VEHICLES > The Carrier Forum

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-05-21, 13:49
Grant Bowker Grant Bowker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,318
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynn Eades View Post
Heres a thing. The (minimum) octane rating on a 16 April, 1942 Jeep stated "68" Maybe the "80" refers to specific gravity of POL products for the weight calculation? Oil and petrol being approx. .8 sg?. Just a thought....
I think Octane remains more likely. If 70 octane rating was "regular", with lower numbers being still available it would be reasonable if the Jeep required a minimum of 68 to specify the minimum to avoid someone using lower values. Surely the point of marking the tin is to ensure the correct product ends up in the correct vehicle but I've never heard of specific gravity of fuel or oil varying much (except with temperature - jet aircraft plan their required fuel load for a flight by weight since the energy content varies more accurately by weight than volume, then convert to volume, depending on temperature, for ease of measuring when pumping into the aircraft).
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-05-21, 14:50
rob love rob love is offline
carrier mech
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Shilo MB, the armpit of Canada
Posts: 7,592
Default

Google is one's friend, especially wrt this MT80 conundrum.


"RESTRICTED
I. – REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION OF M.T.80 PETROL

1. Certain American armoured fighting vehicles, in use both by British and American armies, were fitted with de-rated aircraft engines which required a fuel with a minimum octane rating of 80.

2. After due consideration, it was decided that it was impracticable to stock two different octane rating fuels within the army, and it was, therefore, decided that the basic army fuel would be of 80 octane rating and that this fuel would be the standard supply for all types of vehicles within the British and American armies."


Good discussion on it at this link: http://ww2talk.com/index.php?threads...of-mt80.58510/
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-05-21, 15:11
Robert Bergeron's Avatar
Robert Bergeron Robert Bergeron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: East Central Canada
Posts: 1,528
Default

Guys, i don’t mind lovely women . It’s a nice change from rusty old cans. 80 is an aviation fuel rating ( 80/87) . It is also an hydraulic / transmission oil rating . I accept Rob’s explanation . MT 80 stands for 80 Octane grade motor transport gasoline . I also agree a flimsy is unlikely to have been used for oil . Keep them coming !
__________________
44 GPW / 44 C-15-A Cab 13 Wireless 5 with 2K1 box X 2 /
44 U.C. No-2 MKII* /
10 Cwt Cdn Brantford Coach & Body trailer /
94 LSVW / 84 Iltis

Last edited by Robert Bergeron; 12-05-21 at 01:28.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-05-21, 17:33
brengunman brengunman is offline
George
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 37
Default

Would DR's wear street shoes and pants?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-05-21, 18:58
Ron Pier's Avatar
Ron Pier Ron Pier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Poole. UK
Posts: 1,273
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brengunman View Post
Would DR's wear street shoes and pants?
Highly unlikely. They sometimes wore shorts in hot climates but usually with boots and sometimes Kinky Boots! Ron
Attached Images
File Type: jpg BSAWM20-BritishNavalDispatchRider.jpg (110.9 KB, 3 views)
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-05-21, 00:21
Robert Bergeron's Avatar
Robert Bergeron Robert Bergeron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: East Central Canada
Posts: 1,528
Default

Ron , you are fixated on female motorcyclists ! Show us their “cans” .... because that is the subject of this thread . Let’s stay on track “can” we ?
__________________
44 GPW / 44 C-15-A Cab 13 Wireless 5 with 2K1 box X 2 /
44 U.C. No-2 MKII* /
10 Cwt Cdn Brantford Coach & Body trailer /
94 LSVW / 84 Iltis

Last edited by Robert Bergeron; 12-05-21 at 01:25.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-05-21, 07:43
Ron Pier's Avatar
Ron Pier Ron Pier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Poole. UK
Posts: 1,273
Default

I'm not fixated. I merely posted a picture with girls because of their cans. Others then asked questions. I think it's better to talk about something, than nothing, which seems to be the case a lot of the time! Sorry to piss on your firework. Ron
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-05-21, 19:05
Robert Bergeron's Avatar
Robert Bergeron Robert Bergeron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: East Central Canada
Posts: 1,528
Default

Ron , i was joking . in North American parlance “cans” = breasts . Sorry if i have offended you . It was all meant in jest.
__________________
44 GPW / 44 C-15-A Cab 13 Wireless 5 with 2K1 box X 2 /
44 U.C. No-2 MKII* /
10 Cwt Cdn Brantford Coach & Body trailer /
94 LSVW / 84 Iltis
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-05-21, 17:59
Chris Suslowicz Chris Suslowicz is offline
Junior Password Gnome
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: England
Posts: 858
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grant Bowker View Post
I think Octane remains more likely. If 70 octane rating was "regular", with lower numbers being still available it would be reasonable if the Jeep required a minimum of 68 to specify the minimum to avoid someone using lower values. Surely the point of marking the tin is to ensure the correct product ends up in the correct vehicle but I've never heard of specific gravity of fuel or oil varying much (except with temperature - jet aircraft plan their required fuel load for a flight by weight since the energy content varies more accurately by weight than volume, then convert to volume, depending on temperature, for ease of measuring when pumping into the aircraft).
Hansard, 13th November 1950:

Mr Russell asked the Minister for Fuel and Power if he will consider raising the standard of pool petrol to approximately 80 octane.

(Answer: basically not without substantially increasing its lead content, which might cause maintenance issues with British engines.)

Further down:

Mr Noel-Baker "Before the war we had three grades of petrol - commercial 68 octane, No.1 grade 75 octane and top grade 80 octane. I am advised that very few vehicles used 80 octane. Nearly all of them used the other grades. To raise our petrol to even 75 octane would mean a loss of output."

Much later...

The 1967 British Standard "Star" system had:

1 Star - 89 octane "Standard" or "Regular" (89 - 91)
2 Star - 92 octane
3 Star - 95 octane "Mixture" (by mixing Premium and Regular)
4 Star - 98 octane "Premium" (96 - 98)
5 Star - 101 octane "Super" (99 - 101)

Chris.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wanted: LP2 Carrier MG Water Can Strap The Bedford Boys For Sale Or Wanted 0 20-03-15 22:14
For Sale: Trailer Water Bob McNeill For Sale Or Wanted 0 28-12-14 04:56
Water in the oil Little Jo The Softskin Forum 22 23-01-14 15:26
FS: M1917 Water Cooled MG M1 Water Can Steve Greenberg For Sale Or Wanted 0 17-11-09 17:34
Water Rookie The Sergeants' Mess 9 30-03-08 01:02


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 19:17.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Maple Leaf Up, 2003-2016