My Willys 3A and 3B Community
TECH FAQ SECTIONS => EVERYTHING ELSE, General tips => Topic started by: oldtime on October 24, 2014, 06:19:55 PM
-
In truth no one particular jeep is "THE BEST".
We all understand that "BEST" is a relative term.
This implies that a jeep or jeep model can only be considered as "best" when it is compared to the task at hand.
And time changes the need.
This is not the 1940's, 1950's nor 1960's anymore.
So I ask you all what is it that the CJ-3A continues to excel at that no other Universal model can claim ?
There exists 1 very important advantage of the CJ-3A as compared to all other Jeep models that are designated as the " THE UNIVERSALS".
In fact then it is this same "UNIVERSAL" designation that allows the CJ-3A to excel above the rest.
Your turn........
-
There are some obvious advantages the 3A has over the 2A, MB, GPW. Visibility, driving comfort, frame strength, etc�
I don�t have a 3B, so I�m not sure there is a weakness that would tilt a �thumbs up� back to the 3A.
The primary change from 3A to 3B is the engine, thus the need for the high hood. I see the Hurricane engine as an advantage for the 3B, so perhaps the high hood causes a disadvantage�
Maybe in visibility?
Tim
-
Tim, in my experience that is absolutely correct.
The high hood design decreases offroad visability.
So basically here we are delving into the low hood vs high hood body debate.
More on that later...
The CJ universal was in a constant state of change that we generally call progression.�
And most of those changes are in fact a progression toward a better design.
But some few changes to the universal were apparently influenced by cost cutting incentives.
I expect that the 1957 change from individual instrumentation toward cluster instrumentation was such an example.
The 1953 body change from low hood to high hood was not determined from cost cut incentive.
It was clearly mandated due to the excessively tall inline 4 cylinder F-head design.
It seems strange to me that the CJ-3A should ever have existed.
The original CJ-2A universal was a low hood and reasoning questions why was it ever re-designated to become model CJ-3A ?
The body designs between 2A and 3A are nearly identicle until you look hard at the details.
The windshield being the most obvious change.
Did that alone warrant a change of model designation ?
After all a 1955 Chevy Bel-Air and a 1957 Chevy Bel-Air are technically the same models but having a vastly different appearance.
So what was Willys thinking when they decided to change from 2A to 3A ?
The mechanical upgrades from 2A through 3A were relatively few and were not vastly significant.
Regardless of the model re-designation reasoning;
it stands that the model CJ-3A remains to-date as the most advanced production universal jeep design having the low hood advantage.
Add that the 3A windshield provides better visibility than the 2A design.
And this fact remain to date as the 3A's superior niche for all time to follow.
No production universal jeep body prior to or since the CJ-3A can rightfully claim to yield superior visability.
So I ask you....
Excepting the "high hood" reasoning why would one ever want to change away from the CJ-3A body design ?
I see no true progression beyond the 3A form ever put into production.
More� to follow.
Thanks for your comments !
-
The CJ certainly was a progression.
There are actually a few small differences, or improvements, in CJ-3A body vs the CJ-2A body - other than the windshield frame. Stuff like more space for the driver and a gutter around the tool box lid.
The CJ-3B had one huge improvement - 12 more horsepower makes a BIG difference. But the hood, I just can't get past that. For me X98 was perfect. A flat fender CJ with 72 HP AND good looks.
-
It seems strange to me that the CJ-3A should ever have existed.
Marketing. Would you rather have a CJ-3A or a CJ-2B?
;D
3 is better than 2!
-
I agree with the marketing idea. The 2a had been around for several years so it was time for a "new" number...
But for me, at 6' 1", the 3a's leg room made a difference.
The visibility is hugely better(I sit higher) than my CJ-5, and the 3a seems lighter and more maneuverable than the -5. It just seems that you can "toss" it around more easily, sort of a sports car for off-road.
When I drive the -5 it just seems heavy and sluggish compared to the 3a....but, it is more comfortable and "smoother" if that term can be applied to a jeep....
-
Hey Bob W, It's been a really long while since we chatted.
Yeah I must agree the CJ-2 vs. CJ-3 switch seems like some kind of marketing ploy.
I never did get to read your 3A book ....
1955CJ-5, now that's certainly another interesting comparison CJ-3A vs CJ-5.
FYI... the CJ-5, 6 did get a taller arched windshield glass for the 1969 - 1975 vintages.
For me X98 was perfect. A flat fender CJ with 72 HP AND good looks.
Previously we were comparing plusses and minuses concerning various production CJ's.
I'm not fully convinced that the X 98 was a thing of beauty.
Never the less my personal CJ interest is solely functional and not the aesthetic form.
The X98 does appear to have a strong hood shape.
I only find a single example of a non production or prototype CJ that is more functionally advanced than the CJ-3A body type.
It sits over here: http://cj3b.info/Photos/Proto/Willys141041Left.jpg
Warning !!! We certainly must restrain from declaring the 3B modified "SLOPE HOOD" as being aesthetically pleasing.
The "Slope Hood" does provide identical ground view as the "Low Hood" CJ's.
The Slope Hood design allows for more engine compartment modifications than a Low Hood.
Finally it has an added benefit almost resembling the word "aerodynamic".�
Of the production vehicles I find the CJ-3A to be the most advanced body form.
I find the Slope Hood 3B to be the best universal body form if we include the various prototype forms.
I'm 5'-7-1/2".
So most all CJ's fit me pretty well.
Some will fit / function better than others.
-
It sits over here: http://cj3b.info/Photos/Proto/Willys141041Left.jpg
To me it looks like it just got hit really hard in the front end...
"aerodynamic" and "jeep" are antonyms.
-
Bob W mentioned the X98. I didn't know what it was, so I did a quick search. Just in case there are others that are in the dark with me, below is some very informative info about a number of Willys Jeeps that never were to be.
http://cj3b.info/CJ4Prototypes.html
I do like the X98, but I think I like the CJ-4M a little better. After all, the fenders are still technically flat. ;)
The prototype "CJ-3B" that OldTime shows us just looks wrong. I can see why it was quickly rejected.
Anyway, great thread.
Tim
-
So I ask you....
Excepting the "high hood" reasoning why would one ever want to change away from the CJ-3A body design ?
I see no true progression beyond the 3A form ever put into production.
I think the M-38 body was superior to the CJ-3A. The removable floor pans are really nice. The M-38 canvas enclosure is light years ahead of the CJ-3A seven piece top. And then there is a larger fuel tank. Other stuff like threaded transfer case shift pivot pin, indexed drive shaft slip joints, etc, etc. all fall under mechanical rather than body. The only downfall of the M-38 was the extra couple hundred pounds of weight was just too much for the little Go-Devil engine.
-
I think the M-38 body was superior to the CJ-3A.
So that brings us to the topic of CJ-3A body vs M38 body.
Besides the transmission tunnel and the larger fuel tank opening;
Are there any other notable differences between the M38 and 3A bodies ?
-
Tailgate mounted spare and gas can...
-
In addition to the other items listed, I wish my 3A had the removable gauge panel. Electrical work would be much easier. A glove box would come in handy too.
Tim
-
Some minor stuff. Different floor drain holes. Different tool compartment latch.
-
CJ-3A body vs M38 body .........
Concerning floor pans I don't see any big advantage to the removable transmission panels unless the drivetrain is extensively modified requiring custom shaped floor pans.
As for the M38 tailgate mounted spare I feel that it's a superior location to the 3A side mount but inferior to a well designed swing out carrier.
The military dash panel glove box is nice but it interferes with heater installations.
I'd certainly choose a heater over a glove box.
Yeah getting to the gauges can be a real pain on the 3A but normally it rarely needs to be serviced.
I kinda like the park brake cane handle on the left side like the M38, but at least the 3A version is well angled to accomidate right hand use.
CJ-3A body vs MB / GPW body
Personally I would not consider a jeep without the tailgate.
For me that alone easily rules out the MB/GPW jeeps.
CJ-3A body vs CJ-2A body
Although the 2A has a "cool" looking windshield it is not nearly as strong as the 3A design nor as easy to mount a modern top.
I find the Bestops are much more practicle for everyday use.
The 2A bow pockets are useless you have an original style top.
CJ-3A body vs all other CJ bodies
We must remember that the 3A is a near direct descendent from the LRV.
I seriously doubt that any tub was lighter than the 3A version.
In that sense it is the most true form to the original military stipulations that started it all.
Ones intended useage obviously affects their choices.
For me its merely a matter of everyday practicality yielding to a universal form.
Concerning universal function and practicality I really don't feel that the stock 3A body can be beat.
And the stock CJ-3B body is easily my favorite runner up.
Afterall; the flat fenders and tailgate serve one very well in lieu of a real table.
Should we further address stock bodies vs modified bodies ?
-
I really don't feel that the stock 3A body can be beat.
You have convinced me, the CJ-3A is the best.� :)
Should we further address stock bodies vs modified bodies ?
Yes.
-
OLDTIME wrote....CJ-3A body vs M38 body .........
Concerning floor pans I don't see any big advantage to the removable transmission panels unless the drivetrain is extensively modified requiring custom shaped floor pans.
As for the M38 tailgate mounted spare I feel that it's a superior location to the 3A side mount but inferior to a well designed swing out carrier.
The military dash panel glove box is nice but it interferes with heater installations.
I'd certainly choose a heater over a glove box.
Yeah getting to the gauges can be a real pain on the 3A but normally it rarely needs to be serviced.
I kinda like the park brake cane handle on the left side like the M38, but at least the 3A version is well angled to accomidate right hand use.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
May I offer some alternative views on the 3A vs M38 comparison?
I wish Bretto or Ryan would chime in on the removable floor pan.� They have M38s.� Bretto has removed his transmission and TC for a number of reasons.� On one occasion, he just wanted to install a sealed bearing on the front of his tranny to shore up a small leak.� The removable floor makes this a snap.� �Honestly, how many of us 3A owners would go through the trouble of pulling a drive train to stop a small leak?� I contest that most of us would if it were easier to get to the darn thing.
I agree that it's a great advancement, but I feel we should leave a swinging tire mount out of the comparison between the 3A and M38.� After all, it was not an option for either.
Heater vs. Glove box...If we really want a heater in an M38,� we could borrow the original 2A design which was mounted on the driver side.� We could have the best of both worlds.
Removable gauge panel...I found it very challenging to wire my 3A.� Remove seats, add some padding, climb in, and get comfortable.� You're going to be here for a while.� I'm not a big guy.� I can't imagine how difficult this might be for a big or tall fellow.� I know it would have cost a few dollars more to have a removable panel in a 3A, but I think it would have been worth it.
I have no good reason to question the park brake position.� Either right or left of the steering wheel works for me.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a proud owner of two 3As.� I can't help but love everything about them.� But I have to admit, the M38 has a few perks. ;)
Tim
-
If we really want a heater in an M38, we could borrow the original 2A design which was mounted on the driver side.
M-38s had optional heaters. I've never been in an M-38 with a heater but I will bet that it gets HOT, unlike some of the CJ heaters.
-
I wish Bretto or Ryan would chime in on the removable floor pan.�
It's night and day. I have removed and reinstalled a transmission/TC in my M38. The removable floor pans make it a relatively painless task. From being able to support the transmission from above to having easy access and visibility when inserting the input shaft into the back of the motor and bolting everything back up - it's a breeze. After completing the process on an M38 I dread having to attempt the same job on my 3A. And my 3A is a candidate for it since the transmission is leaking from pretty much everywhere.
Honestly, I'm surprised it took Willys so long to come up with this. You'd think after an early engineer had to change out his first transmission he would have broken out the reciprocating saw and immediately implemented a design change to all tubs.
-
You'd think after an early engineer had to change out his first transmission he would have broken out the reciprocating saw and immediately implemented a design change to all tubs.
Laugh out loud!� ;D
-
Yes I agree it's a real chore lowering a 60 pound transmission that's bolted to a 70 pound transfer case down onto your chest.
That's why we plan ahead. Do it once and do it right.
So I must agree those are valid arguments in favor of the M38 removable floor pans.
That aside I use my jeeps for civilian functions and therefore I prefer CJ designation.
Guided by the topic title.... I believe we have found the CJ-3A to best fill the role of being the lightest universal type jeep ever put into mass production.
And for that single achievement it should be recognized as supreme.
Any more comments on that ?
-
...it should be recognized as supreme.
I agree! [smiley=thumbsup.gif]
Tim
-
We have previously identified the CJ-3A as the lightest mass production universal jeep.
The CJ-3A's low hood and windshield design also provides for superior foreword visibility as compared to other the Jeeps.
It thereby becomes the optimum candidate for certain universal jeep builds.
I� state "certain builds"; because intended useage may dictate other priorities beyond lightness and visibility.
Example:
In my area we have lots of forested trails with mud, rocks and creeks to ford.
So here in the Ozarks the short lightweight jeep with high visability certainly reigns supreme.
In other open areas of the country like Moab; a longer wheel based universal may prove to be the superior off-road performer.
Every operator of the universal jeep should consider using the model and vintage of jeep that best suites their particular needs without need for modification.
For more extensive reading on Jeep modifications see: http://z4.invisionfree.com/CJ3B_Bulletin_Board/ar/t2591.htm
Stock 3A Bodies vs. Modified and Aftermarket 3A Bodies
In general; modifications may be implemented to correct a design flaw.
Modifications are also implemented so as to compliment an already existing trait.
So what all� design flaws do we see in the CJ-3A body ?
And what features can we reasonably or practically hope to correct or to compliment ?
After all, the jeep universal should always be envisioned as a complete and synchronous system.
The "complete synchronous system" directly implies that all individual components and assemblies should compliment one another.
-
So what all� design flaws do we see in the CJ-3A body ?
Besides being prone to rust?
But, really, we have mostly covered the shortcomings...
Poorly place spare tire, lack of a glovebox, no removable floor panel as in the M-38 and CJ-5's..etc...
how about the lack of an adjustable drivers seat....?
-
1955CJ-5,
A couple of good points.
The CJ-3B seats were not adjustable prior to 1961.
With minor changes one could easily install the late 3B seats into a 3A.
Willys Motors called them "bucket type" seats.
The 3A and the identical early 3B seats with the steel backs were called "1/3 type" seats.
Yes I suppose that rust is the obvious flaw that we nearly overlooked.
The solution ???
Did you hear in the recent news about Fords big gamble for the F-150 pickup series ?
All 2015 Ford F150's are scheduled to have aluminum bodies .
So what if we put an aluminum body on the CJ-3A ?
Will the aluminum be any more resistant to corrosion than steel ?
We will soon see as the new aluminum Fords will soon be on the road.
And would not an aluminum construction compliment the superior "light weight trait" of the CJ-3A body ?
Maybe and maybe not !
The Aquala aluminum bodies are rather thick. See: http://www.aqualu.com/jeep-bodies.html
-
The solution ???
Was it Tumbleweed that had his tub "dipped" and plated? That sounds like a great solution, though it's not available everywhere....
-
There is always fiberglass. I built a fiberglass bodied CJ-3A many years ago. The body did not rust, but everything else did (here in the rust belt). The military was experimenting with a "plastic" M-38. I'm assuming that was fiberglass. Still searching for more info about it.
-
Wow, this is an incredible thread.� I'm thinking we need to archive most of it in an article.
Oldtime said:
:So I ask you all what is it that the CJ-3A continues to excel at that no other Universal model can claim ?"
I haven't a clue what Oldtime� is referring to, but I do have a question for Bob W...What in the M 38 made it so much heavier?� I know about reinforced tailgate, different top, removeable pan, etc...but it seems I must be missing something heavy.
Only thing I can think of is the ability to drop in a later engine in these with the different motor mount design, but that can't be it as you still need to do hood modifications or get the short carb.� To me Universal seems to refer to the anyone can drive it for any purpose....and there were a whole lot of accessories by the time the 3A came around but they all would work on a 2A...
I know...the 3A body tub could be used for the fastest flatfender jeep in production, the king of the hill (paved, of course.. ;D) Dispatcher! :D
-
"Original 3A body compared to modifications for improvement"
I think a good place to start would be the advancements that have happened to the modern Jeep.
Better paint finishes and undercoating.
And it�s hard to argue with the design change to the fender.� Even the soldiers of WWII knew the flat fender was flawed�
(http://i1195.photobucket.com/albums/aa397/athawk11/Willysmods_zpsb79123ff.jpg)�
Don�t beat up on me.� I like the look of the flat fender as much as the next guy.� Just trying to stay within the context of this discussion.
Tim
-
What in the M 38 made it so much heavier? I know about reinforced tailgate, different top, removeable pan, etc...but it seems I must be missing something heavy.
There is no one item that was really heavy, but everything adds up. It doesn't take much weight to make a huge difference in performance when we only have 60HP on a good day. The electrical system alone added a lot of weight. The military was trying to develop vehicles with interchangeable components to ease parts supply. Just pick up a military tail light and compare it to the civilian type. A Patton tank used the same tail light. How about the voltage regulator. It was so heavy it had to be mounted to the frame. The list goes on and on. During testing the M-38 was considered underpowered compared to the MB, the only thing that made it squeak by was going with 5.38 axle ratio. Add 12HP with the F-head engine (M-38A1) and then things were acceptable.
-
How about the voltage regulator. It was so heavy it had to be mounted to the frame.
The 3A voltage regulator is less than 1.5 lbs. The M38 equivalent is nearly 9lbs. The cable that comes out of it is about the size of a garden hose. Pretty much�everything - except the motor -� was bigger, badder, and much heavier.
(http://i1188.photobucket.com/albums/z403/rmurdock2121/Misc%20Junk/20141116_190000_zpsd0d96921.jpg)
-
Great picture Ryan!
I have a couple of the frame tie-down footman loops and they must be nearly a pound each, and there were at least four, maybe six on the M-38...the half loop bumpers, the extra battery....the fording equipment...
It all adds up....
What is the weight difference anyway?...I'll start searching....
The M38 was listed at about.........2750
I found the CJ-3a weight listed as 2205
A difference of ...........................545......That is the 1/4 ton capacity of the 3a!
-
Was it Tumbleweed that had his tub "dipped" and plated? That sounds like a great solution, though it's not available everywhere....
The main problem with galvanic hot dipping is that it makes it very difficult and hazardous to weld repair things in the future.
There is always fiberglass. I built a fiberglass bodied CJ-3A many years ago.
I bought a Jewels full stainless CJ-3A body several years back and I'm still collecting a few parts for that build.
During testing the M-38 was considered underpowered compared to the MB, the only thing that made it squeak by was going with 5.38 axle ratio. Add 12HP with the F-head engine (M-38A1) and then things were acceptable.
I can fully appreciate that.
Other than 1 notable exception I have driven old jeeps as daily drivers since the mid 1970's.
I drove a near stock standard Go-Devil powered CJ-2A without O.D. back when the national speed limit was 55.
At the time it was very marginally acceptable on cross country trips of 500 miles per day.
I always keep my Willys engines in good shape and I'm not afraid to run them long and hard.
In the early 1980's the speed limit went up.
I was basically forced to convert to a Hurricane for practical reasons.
So I rebuilt a pristine CJ-3B with 25% overdrive.
For multiple reasons I feel that the Hurricanes as daily drivers are very marginal by todays standards.
I am currently still running a Hurricane as a daily driver but will soon convert to Dauntless power for increased practicality.
All Jeeps were originally derived from the 1940 military build stipulations
It's a pity that I have not studied the Military jeeps in greater depth.
I am however, very familiar with every significant change that occurred from 1945 CJ to 1985 CJ.
My point is that the original WWII Military LRV was re-introduced to the public in 1945 as a "UNIVERSAL".
That Universal design underwent a constant state of change that we generally consider to be progress.
For whatever reasons some of the changes did deviate away from the original military stipulations.
My Jeep interest is to KNOW all changes 1941- 1985 and beyond that I determine what was true progress.
Considering my own optimum JEEP build stipulations I have the tremendous advantage of oversight or hindsight.
I can see all the changes and determine what was truly progressive.
Considering the "L" in LRV, I see no significant body progress beyond the CJ-3A� form.
And so I feel obliged to claim the M-38 / CJ-3A body form was the all time superior "Universal" design.
Obviously I am considering mass produced jeeps and eliminating the rare prototypes.
But it is very shrewd to be aware of the prototypes and possible body deviations from standard.