Talk:Willys MB

Wranger

The section about the Wrangler does not belong in the MB page, the direct successor is the CJ series, and both the CJ and the Wrangler have their own individual pages. The information is also duplicative and not directly related to the MB. I have commented this section out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxq32 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Article title

The "Willys MB" page submission is a great addition to the Wikipedia folio because it is a good, solid, researched article that otherwise would not be available. There is no other "Willys MB" article available. All other research on the subject is scattered and voluminous. The material in this article has been combined and condensed to share only the most interesting and impacting factors of the historical account of the inventing of the WWII US Army Jeep, the first of all RVs and SUVs today. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DMPrdctns (talk • contribs) .

Nice marketing spiel. The article still needs cleaning up, though, as it doesn't conform to Wikipedia style. I'll see what I can do. Powers 13:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I've done some cleanup. Still not great, but it'll do for now. Powers 14:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you, Powers. Looks great. By the way, were you the one who suggested this be merged with "Bantam GP?" There was no "Bantam GP." The Bantam had a different designation. Also... Are you also LtPowers? DMPrdctns 05:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I did suggest the merge. Whether or not the name of the Bantam GP article is correct, it does exist, and it's so short that it seems to merit merging into another article. This one seemed the most likely candidate, since it covers the early competition involving American Bantam fairly well, but I'm open to other suggestions. Powers 12:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that the best option would be to change the title of the Bantam article so that it is accurate. But I think that to eliminate the Bantam article and include the information into the Willys MB page would not be true to the Willys MB subject, since the page was to be about the Willys Jeep, not the Bantam test vehicle. I feel that the Bantam article is needed and should exist as a separate piece. It should be accurate though, and I feel that the title should be changed to Bantam BRC40 Jeep, or Bantam BRC60 Jeep, Bantam Jeep or the like. I think that there should be no Bantam GP article on Wikipedia. If anything, there should be a Ford GPW article. DMPrdctns 07:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

If you feel Bantam GP should be renamed, feel free to do so using the move link at the top of the page. I notice that that vehicle is called the Bantam BRC in the article itself, so that might be the best choice. If you do change the article title, please change the corresponding entry on the Jeep (disambiguation) page. As for the merge, it is merely proposed. You're against and I'm for, so we could use some more opinions on the topic. =) Powers 18:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not feel it would give the Bantam car it's due attention to have it be merged into another article.DMPrdctns 20:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm already aware of your opinion on that. What I'm asking for is some other people's opinions. And don't remove the merge tag until we have some sort of consensus. Powers 00:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Half-Safe

I just added a note to the Amphibious Vehicles page about Half-Safe, it was apparently an amphibious jeep. I don't know much about Jeeps so leave it to the experts to add something here if they wish). It was driven and sailed around the world by Ben Carlin in the 1950s. --jmb 23:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Good

Nice article it deserve to be a featured one... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.230.191.36 (talk • contribs) .

You can nominate it here: WP:FAC. Powers ^T 00:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Peep

In General George Patton's quasi-autobiography War As I Knew It, he repeatedly refers to the Jeep as the "peep." As such, the citation needed tag in the article itself is not needed, and I will add this source properly. --Gerolsteiner 05:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Successor

It is stated that the M151 Mutt was the successor to the Willys MB. My understanding is that MB was succeeded by the M38. Then later the M38 would be replaced by the M151. Someone who knows more about this should look into it and correct it if necessary. --71.226.66.141 22:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I would second that clam it was the mb then the m38 then the m38a1 then the mutt. and the motor description is all wrong. it didn't have a 1.4l 4cylender motor. it had the 134ci 4cylder go devil motor with 60hp. not 45hp... get it right. i would change it but i cant figure out the side bar thing... Chardrc (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

there are still major issues with the sidebar. it is very wordy and is wrong in many ways. i fixed some things but i don't remember and can't find if they used a 6v or 24v system for theses jeeps.. i know they used 24v on the m38's for starting aircraft but i don't know about the mb, but i know its a generator not a generator.Chardrc (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

fixed some more errors in the side bar. but it is still overly wordy Chardrc (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The following contrib is disavowed by the editor who added it, by attempting to remove it in their now reverted edit of 12:24, 26 November 2008: No reference is to be found to the M201, the Hotchkiss (then French Automobile manufacturer) produced of a Willys Jeep under licence for the French army after the war. Tourist.tam (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

noticed the introduction was changed on January 8th 2009... I feel that it may be a bit bias and makes it seem like people modding a willys jeep as something that is bad. although many willys jeeps have been modded for better or for worse. but what is stated is generally correct and could be acceptable i just wanted to give a heads up for the more experienced Wikipedia people. Chardrc (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

split up

gotta say, cj, and m38 et all need there own articles, clicking on m38, and having a mb pop up is a little confusing. not to mention the hole history of willys overland under the heading willys mb is a little mutch, vehicle nominclature articles, should stick to the vehicle in the title header, its really confusing trying to cross link stuff in other articles. IMHO. Brian in denver (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Powertrain?

Does anyone have more information about the engine and drivetrain? for now we have nothing except number of cylinders, displacement, and peak output. I for one would be very interested to know who designed the engine, what was the bore and stroke (I recall reading that this is the most undersquare engine ever built) what kind of differentials were used, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.11.213.246 (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, we need to see some more about the drivetrain. I want to know about the differential setup, the transmission, and the engine. For god's sake, we have a whole section about the grille, and no information about the drivetrain other than "4WD". --24.119.76.17 (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)==

Ask and ye shall receive: The engine was a four-cylinder in-line L-Flathead with 134.2 cubic inches. It had a compression ratio of 6.38 to 1. The vehicle had 54 horsepower at 4,000 rpm. The transmission was a three-speed manual, with Ford and Willys using a synchromesh Warner T-84J model with a floor-mounted shifter. The transfer case was a Spicer 18, two-speed. The Jeep had hydraulic disc brakes. The Jeep had 6-by-16-inch tires. About 10 percent of the vehicles had all-wheel drive, according to Army specs. A six-volt battery was used to start the Jeep. http://www.ehow.com/list_7427708_1942-ford-jeep-specs.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.145.33 (talk) 01:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

No performance statistics

The data box in the article does not list the performance statistics for the vehicle. The four main ones it is missing are top speed, acceleration, fuel economy and operational range. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.197.214 (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Teardown and reassembly

This youtube video shows a 4-minute teardown and reassembly with just handtools! LeadSongDog come howl! 16:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Name Change

Shouldn't the title of this page be changed to Ford GPW/Willys MB/Bantam Since Ford was just as big of a factor. Or since many other companies had there share in the vehicle, maybe it should be titled "pre-Chrysler Jeeps".Route66draw (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

IF there were to be a move / title change – then "World War II jeep" would make most sense to me.

But there is a lot to be said for retaining "Willys MB", because this was the finalised design, mass-produced by both Willys and Ford.

--GeeTeeBee (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Infobox 3 Dec 14

I changed the infobox from Automobile to Weapon, many other Army trucks use weapon. I used dimensions from TM-9-803 and TM-9-2800-43. I used the official inch dimensions instead of feet/inches, that doesn't seem like "specifications". I used fraction ton in the "type", because that's how the Army rates them.

I converted to meters with 2 digits, this was suggested from a UK guy. I used centemeters with no digits before, close to inches. I know that European manufacturers use mm, but converting inches rounded off isn't close enough to go to mm. The conversions are meters: {{convert|123|in|m|2|abbr=on}}, centimeters: {{convert|123|in|cm|0|abbr=on}}, and millimeters: {{convert|123|in|mm|0|abbr=on}}. On cm and mm you can leave digits (0|) off, that is default. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammy D III (talk • contribs) 21:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I am inclined to go back to infobox automobile, because the jeep is primarily a vehicle, and thus the template would offer more parameters of automotive relevance. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

tons

American English about a US Army vehicle. We do not use “short ton”, just “ton”. That is why I wrote it out as ton(kg) instead of converting. It also fits nicely on one line. Or not, your choice.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammy D III (talk • contribs) 03:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Grille photos

There is a photo of a Suzuki Jimny with a caption that implies they were inspired by and "copied" the 7 slot grille, (which was a "new" innovation impmemented in order to obtain copyright for their grille) although the Suzuki has 8 slots. Which is something totally new that has never been done before. Shouldn't this at least be worded differently? If I hadn't counted for myself I would have assumed they used a 7 slot grille and would have been scratching my head wondering how they got permission for that. The last thing we need is a whole bunch of people scratching their heads. House dust is primarily composed of human skin, you know. 2601:601:CE7F:BB40:AC34:3F41:61AD:584E (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Photo or diagram of transfer case 4wd

This article lacks a decent picture or explanation which shows the layout of the transfer case and how it makes 4wd possible. There are some pictures on the internet but none are public domain. https://www.allpar.com/SUVs/jeep/wrangler/future/transmissions.html has one such picture https://www.waybuilder.net/sweethaven/MechTech/Automotive01/AutomotiveSystems.asp?iNum=104 also has a good diagram and explanation Bachcell (talk) 05:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Too much detail/images?

Like, wow. Wow, oh my god, dude.

The entire article is littered with images, many of which are out of place (e.g. "Other contemporaneous jeeps" being next to "Willys-Overland's positions and promotion" when it should probably be up next to "Eugene the Jeep and prior usage of "jeep""). That Ontario poster about "blitz buggies" doesn't even have a jeep on it! That's just a generic armored car! Basically, the entire left-hand side of the page looks like a convoy.

As for the detail in the text, oh man, it's a LOT. Do we really need an entire separate category for the grille? The section for this thing's service in the war is shorter than the section for it's etymology!

It's very long and uncomfortable to read. I just want to know when they decided to enclose the headlights in the grille, since the prototype and the final design look very different (information this article apparently lacks; was it just some spur-of-the-moment decision they made between generations?). AdoTang (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Too many duplicate links

Per WP:DUPLINK, "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." Today, I just removed 15 links to the same article from one section, and there are more links to same article in the next one, and there are more duplicates to other articles in the body. Is there a tool that someone can use to remove all these? BilCat (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

See also

Many of the items listed in the see also have already been wikilinked in the article. See MOS:NOTSEEALSO for guidance on items that should be removed. BeckyAnne(talk) 04:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Considering the duplicate links issue in the article, I'm not surprised. That's usually one of the first things I check of late, but the duplicate links in text took priority. If I get some free time in the next week, I'll try to go through it. BilCat (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)