After around 20 years (I think) of service, the M141 was replaced by the HumVee, or Hummer. A number of jeep rollovers occured along with initial issue of the M141, compensated for by driver training emphasis. I think the frames were torched on disposed M141's because the military did not think these vehicles would be driven safely by civilians without special training.

Focusing the discussion, I thought the issue was whether solid-axle vehicles have inherently more off-road mobility than independently-suspended vehicles.

Asked whether a highly-mobile, independently-suspended jeep has been seen in the field, my answer is, "Yes. The M141."

The M141, as I recall, exhibited greater mobility than its solid-axled predecessor, a vehicle looking an awful lot like today's "CJ's."

I believe a vehicle's mobility (articulation, etc.) is a function of its overall design, not whether its axles are solid or not. Also, I don't know how good the Jeep-to-ATV comparison is, since, as far as I know, no ATV's have solid front axles (like civilian jeeps).

Solid axles definitely have advantages of simplicity and others mentioned, generally. However, I'm unaware of any given advantage in mobility from a solid axle; in fact, I would guess any advantage would lie with a properly-designed independent suspension, because of easier achievement of articulation and suspension travel.

I won't argue which is "better," solid axles or independent suspensions; I would argue whether solid axles axiomatically (Pun? Hey, I AM weak!) provide better mobility.

Tree Farmer

 

actually, My 1986 forman 4x4 has a solid front axle.... rides rough on thr trail though. hummers were not made for rock climbing, mudding and guess what IFS DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY BETTER ARTICULATION!!!! RTI indexes have proven a correctly designed solid axle will provide better wheel travel, sorry to burst your bubble... why? cause when one wheel goes up, the other goes down, where as ifs if the is weight on other side that will also compress. Plus the main reason for developing Ifs on hummers was to place planitaries at each wheel, alowing a wheel to be blown off by a tank hehe and keep going, I hope there wont be any tanks shooting at my grizz
Oh and I have wheeled the rubicon and have seen alot of money and engineering placed into these most capable 4x4s, all with solid front and rear axles, now for obvious reasons why atvs hav ifs in front, to compromise ride.. hummer has a rti of 38, pretty poor wheel travel. but they are great in the desert. thats about it.

 

You think all a Hummer is good for is the desert. You are dead wrong with that statement. You should see what they go through in my neck of the woods. They will outmud any stock truck on the market. Remember, they have more ground clearance than any lifted truck with solid axles, even a truck sitting on a set of 44's.

 

You must be a military man. well I just think they are way to big and heavy for any type of trail riding or rock crawling. Otherwise you would see them fair a little better in the jamborees. Anyway the original reason for this post was to say that every manufacturer has its strong points as well as weak, yamaha tried to make a complete atv, great for almost any situation.

 

I'm not a military man, but there is an swamp area where they do manuvers in my town. I didn't mean to stray from the subject at hand. I think the Sportsman outhandles the Grizz in just about ever catagory, and I am a Yamaha owner. I own a new Kodiak. I think Yamaha should put the same features on the Grizz, that they put on the Kodiak. All in all the Kodiak is a better machine than the Grizzly. I gave up 200cc's for better ride, handling, disc brakes, and liquid cooling. I can't say the Grizzly is a bad quad, but on anything but open roads, my Kodiak will run all over one. To get back on the subject, you are right, there is no quad out there that is number one. I can't even imagine a quad that would ever be the ultimate quad, because everyone is different. I think that there are three machines that stand out as the best of both worlds. They are the Wolverine, Scrambler, and Explorer. The Explorer is a machine that is overlooked all the time. It is as fast as a Scrambler, muds very well, and has low range. Well anyway sorry for the rambling on.

 

Your right Tree Farmer. They did not discontinue the M141 completely, just the original model that proved to be so unstable. The only reason I mention it is because I just saw a show on the history of the Jeep recently. One bad thing about IFS is it will allow both outside wheels to rise while allowing the carrier housing to drop. Greatly reducing ground clearence. The only IFS set up that didn't do this was the Ford TTB. But all of this is getting off the point. I think the IFS set up on my Griz works great. Does a good job of keeping wheels on the ground, and the ground clearence is second to none!

 

I used to own a Kodiak. There are places I can go with my Griz that I couldn't go with my Kodiak. Due to greater ground clearence, and to a certain extent more power. They are both great bikes though!

 

Thanks, 01Grizzly; man, I KNOW I'm gettin' old, when things I've experienced and witnessed in my lifetime are featured on "The History Channel!"

Tree Farmer

 

Did you have a older Kodiak? The newer versions are a awsome. I am afriad he is right.

00 trx400ex - AC mudscreen front bumper, Nac's headlight covers

http://www.geocities.com/cory_14/

 

10.6" ground clearence Grizzly
9.8" ground clearence Kodiak.
Thats enough to make a difference! Equal to the difference between 33's or 35's on my truck. Believe me the 35's will go farther. Been there done that.