Hi. I found another related document:
Excerpt from: ARSENAL FOR THE BRAVE, A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY MATERIAL COMMAND 1962-1968
"The Army's experience with LD465 and LDS465 multifuel series engines was not altogether satisfactory. These were Government designed, standard automotive compression ignition engines, as defined in Logistical Directive 115–715 issued 13 April 1961. The design of both series was basically identical with the Continental LDS427 multifuel engine, with an increase in displacement from 427 to 478 cubic inches. The LDS465 was turbocharged for air induction, while the LD465 was naturally aspirated.
There were several reasons for the problems with these multifuel engines. In April 1967, when the failure rate was very high in Europe, the Army launched a program in CONUS to find out what was causing the failures. This program revealed that the engine was being overworked. The users were expecting too much horsepower out of a small displacement, lightweight engine. Admittedly, there were problems with the cooling system and there were parts shortages, but basically the engine was overworked.
In the fall of 1967, AMC [U.S. Army Material Command] began derating the engine to a lower power level. This reduced the heat, and it was hoped that this would in crease reliability and give the engine longer life. AMC made an effort to improve repair parts support and provided technical representatives from the production engineering contractor.
Both of these multifuel engines could operate on various liquid hydrocarbon fuels, including diesel fuel, and 86/95 octane gasoline. The ability of the engines to operate on fuels of many grades came from the application of the MAN system, a hypercycle multifuel combustion system, which was invented by Dr. Muerer in Germany. The LD465 replaced the LDS 427–2 as the standard engine for the 2 1/2-ton truck family. The LDS 465 was the standard engine for the 5-ton truck series. These engines were deployed to CONUS, USAREUR, USAR PAC, and Vietnam. In 1966 and 1967, four production contracts for multifuel engines were awarded—one to Hercules Division for 191 LD 465 and 3,589 LDS 465 engines and three to Continental for a total of 1,307 LD 465 and 2,250 LDS 465 engines.
Unanticipated heavy SEA [Southeast Asia] demands for the LDS465–1 engines in Fiscal Year 1967 depleted the inventory and exceeded the avail able commercial capacity. The Tank-Auto motive Command coordinated with AMC and industry for procurement of rebuild parts and the establishment of an engine rebuild capability at Red River Army Depot. Within an unusually short time, engines were being rebuilt at the rate of five per day. Fleet testing for both the 2 1/2-ton and 5-ton truck series was initiated in Fiscal Year 1965 and 200 5-ton trucks were tested at Red River. The objectives were to measure the reliability of the multifuel engine, the durability of the vehicle, and the design corrections in the multifuel engine technical data package. One hundred M44 2 1/2-ton trucks were also tested.
In May 1967, a special task force was activated at TACOM to solve engineering problems with the multifuel engines. The principal areas under consideration were heat rejection, vibration, and quality control. TACOM also initiated a field campaign to instruct operating and maintenance personnel through the media of driver and field maintenance bulletins. In August 1967, the Commanding General, AMC, appointed a project manager for multifuel engines. Prior to Fiscal Year 1969, PEMA funds were authorized to the Project Manger for General-Purpose Vehicles for the procurement of multifuel engines within these vehicle programs. On 1 July 1968, PEMA funds for this purpose were authorized by the AMC Comptroller directly to the Project Manager for Mul tifuel Engines. These funds were for procure ment, production engineering, and testing of the LD465–1 engine for 21/3-ton trucks. Funds were also authorized for production engineering and testing of the LDS-2 engine for the 5-ton M656 truck. After several years of experience, General Besson believed that there was a better way of meeting the multifuel engine problem. In 1968 he concluded that the problem could be solved by buying off-the-shelf commercial diesel engines—engines that had been proved by many miles of satisfactory service to truckers. Accordingly, in Fiscal Year 1968 AMC began procuring Mack diesel commercial engines. Meanwhile, sufficient military designed multifuel engines had to be procured to maintain the old fleet.”
