Talk:M151 ¼-ton 4×4 utility truck

Grammar etc
This article is awful. Bad grammar (tenses), lots of incorrect information, etc... I will rewrite this article tomorrow. -- Blackdog404 04:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * When you're ready. -Ashley Pomeroy 18:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

He didn't seem all that serious, so I fixed it up a bit instead. It's not perfect, but it's better. We need to get the person who originally did this article, as I'm no expert. I can correct grammar and sentence structure until I'm blue in the face, but this article needs fleshing out. 203.35.135.133 (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

MUTT?
Is it worth mentioning where the word "jeep" comes from? In case anyone wanted to look into it futher, it was the name of a character in the Popeye comic strip. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_the_Jeep#Other_uses 75.81.106.86 (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Were did this name "Mutt" come from? I never heard it before. It sounds like some made up name to be similar to the "Jeep" name from the WW 2 original and the Korean War M-38.--TGC55 00:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

We can thank Ford for this. In a 1960 copy of "Ford Times", Ford unfortunately referred to the M151  jeep  as a "MUTT" or "Military Utility Tactical Truck". This nickname has only re-emerged in recent years among collectors. During it's service life, the M151 series of vehicles was referred to by service members as a jeep, and the military officially called it "Truck, Utility: 1/4 Ton 4x4, M151 Series." The military never called it a MUTT. I repeat, the military never called it a MUTT. I personally see the reference to the term "MUTT" as a huge inaccuracy in this article. The has only been able to perpetuate so rampantly because of internet articles like this, and like on FAS.org, articles that are copied over and over again into many, many places... -- blackdog404 -- oh and sorry about never getting back to rewriting this article. It is still horrible, and I notice that it has only become worse... !!

Absolutely correct. I literally learned to drive behind the wheel of an M151A2, and NO ONE in the US military EVER called it a "MUTT." It was a "jeep" or a "151" or a "quarter ton" (from the official nomenclature "Truck, utility, 1/4 ton, M151-series"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.241.180.185 (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I will third the above comments - "MUTT" only existed in the minds of the Ford PR department. We hardly used the term "Jeep", usually it was a "quarter ton" or "one-five-one" but, never, never, never in my 25 years service did anyone call it a "MUTT". It's use now comes from the civilian wanna-bes who never wore a uniform and think there was something called a "Tanker Garand" and that the M60 series were called "Super Pattons" (two other ideas that should be obliterated).

Beausabre (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I will forth, fifth, and sixth this; and then ask "why the $^#$%& is this MUTT nonsense still in the article so prominently?" This was a word that never made it out of TACOM or Taradcom or whatever that operation was calling itself that week. I say remove it. Anmccaff (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to add my two cents. In 1979 my first license was USMC issued for the M151/M35/M54 vehicles and earned at Kaneohe MCAS Drivers course. The off-road portion of the course was given at Bellows AFS in Waimanalo, Oahu. I recall how scared I was going down a very long and steep decline while in the back of a covered M35 with 15 other Marines. I was a Motor Transport 3rd Echelon mechanic from 78-88. We did complete R/R of major components including rust repair. Most of the Marine Corps vehicle fleet was still Vietnam era at the time. The greatest thing about being a mechanic was the "road test" after the repairs were complete. We'd go the beach if in Hawaii or Mount Mother**** at Las Pulgas(43 Area)Camp Pendleton and really give the vehicles work out(beat the crap out of). We were also responsible for maintaining fleets of vehicles staged (in case of conflict) in warehouses on Ford Island at Pearl Harbor. Once an episode of "Magnum P.I. was being filmed while were out there. I was stationed on all over the U.S. and sailed to many locations with the Navy while deployed from Hawaii. I never heard once heard the term "Mutt", even from old timers. The M151 was a fairly simple but very rugged vehicle. At the Pōhakuloa Training Area on the Big Island in '81, two Marines ( Cpls.McKeown and Jackson) with aid of my M543 Wrecker, pulled the M151 motor/trans in 12 minutes. It was tough duty, all cherished memories now. Semper Fidelis, Jojosdad1@gmail.com Springfield, Massachusetts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:199:2:92B0:7DF1:C0E8:CC08:B55C (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * This nonsense is being added again, based on recent fanboi sources. Can anyone show any extensive contemporaneous use of this?  If not, I will be reverting the foamerism shortly. Anmccaff (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was bored and like military sources.


 * Doyle (2011) p. 36-40 says "Work on the M151 MUTT (Military Utility Tactical Truck) series of vehicles began even before its predecessor, the M38A1, had been produced." There is no other use of MUTT.


 * nusam.org has "Begun in 1951, under a program known as the Military Utility Tactical Truck Project (MUTT)".


 * The other Doyle looks like it sources "MUTT".


 * Military Trader is a blog written by one person.


 * US Vet. Mem. Hosp. uses MUTT in title and once in short text. It does not say they were called MUTT.


 * Military Collectors, a blog written by one person, supports "Mutt".]


 * Quarter Ton & Military, a blog written by one person, uses MUTT in a title only.


 * Global Security shows MUTT in title, which also uses "jeep". MUTT is not used in text.


 * Army TMs don't use "MUTT".


 * I do not see any paper source (here or elsewhere) for MUTT other than maybe the other Doyle. I do see individuals, often veterans, using both "MUTT" and "Mutt". OR: I knew the name "Mutt" in 1972. Not who used it (I didn't drive them), just that it was a nickname. For what it is worth. Sammy D III (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * There are a few more sources, and it was rarely, almost vanishingly rarely, used a few times, mostly in Ford PR releases around 1960. No adoption officially, and no widespread use as a nickname.  The earliest good cite -even though it is wrong- is Bart Vanderveen's from 1983; the later stuff like Doyle seems to be a ripoff of tribute to him. Anmccaff (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello. I don't care about this truck, you do. It's NPOV sources to me. This is fun, right in the lead. Frankly, I was surprised. Just a thought: you have "MUTT" not used at the time but commonly used now by the amateurs, the target audience. Something like: "commonly referred to as "jeeps" or "quarter-tons" in service, they are now also known as MUTTs"? (I have no grammar). Ignore "Mutt" completely? For what it is worth. Sammy D III (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ignorant use a a target audience - hopefully the readers are more than just foamers and fanboiz - might justify a redirect for searches, but little more than that. Anmccaff (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

YOU HAVE TO BE SHITTING ME!!! Not one single use of "MUTT", not even as a program??? Not as a new nickname? You KNOW that the punks use it, even if it is wrong. You don't think that you have to give the new guys SOMETHING that they can recognize? ANYTHING? It IS used and you know that! Say it with a disclaimer at least.

Maybe you are over the hill, and are trying to hold on to the past? The punks use MUTT, and they will be around longer than us. Language evolves, maybe we should try to evolve too? Sammy D III (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Growler
This USA Today article suggests that, at least in 2005, there was a plan for the US Marine Corps to buy rebuilt M151s, which were called "Growlers". They are small enough to fit inside the V-22 Osprey cargo aircraft, whereas the standard Humvee is too wide. There's another mention of the Growler here, although it says anothing about its connection to the M151. Sadly the USA Today article is poorly-written and hurts my brain, and I have no idea if it's true or nonsense. -Ashley Pomeroy 18:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrangler Live Axles
The Jeep Wrangler lost it's live axle in 1996 with the "TJ" model and went to coil springs at that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.212.43 (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Remains in military use, but only in some poor countries
This vehicle remains used by armies of third world countries, such as Peru, Paraguay, Brazil,etc.Agre22 (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)agre22

Kinda like torpedo boat
So basically, when equipped with a TOW missile, this is sorta like a PT boat. Lacking armor, it can easily be destroyed, but the brass don't care very much because since it's pretty expendable, it's worth the risk of loss to obtain the chance to destroy a more expensive and powerful unit. Yev Yev (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Ford?
Unlike, say, the Mustang, this was a project in which Ford executed a design made after a great deal of back-and-forth work with the owner, who had paid for the design work, reviewed it, made design changes, and did most performance testing...and retained rights, itself to the design. You could just as well say it was Taradcom's...or whatever they were calling themselves that week... design. We don't say "Fore River USS Massachusetts."

Next, Ford never managed to capture publicity for the work, quite unlike Willy...and there is little doubt that was partly deliberate on their part, distancing themselves from rollover liability, and the aluminum body fiasco. Anmccaff (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Origin of "1/4 ton" label
Why do they call it a "1/4 ton" truck when its curb weight is 2400 lbs? That's > 1 whole ton. Does it refer to the cargo capacity rather than the vehicle's weight? Both this and the article about the earlier M38 jeep use that label but give no explanation. Ytpete (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The same reason almost every similar vehicle does -it's the off-road capacity, rounded roughly to the nearest 1/4 (unspecified type of) ton. Most military tactical light trucks, and most civilian utility light trucks, use this system, although the civilian rating in on-road, not off it.  Anmccaff (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Flipping.
If memory serves, there's some pretty conclusive stuff on DTIC showing that an m151 without the snubbers was a real hazard; why use the word "claim?" Anmccaff (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * PS: here's an exceprpt from a disposal reg:

DoD 4160.21-M g. Public Safety. In some cases, public safety concerns require the estruction and/or mutilation of certain types of  vehicles. The following vehicles have been determined to require special disposal processing: (1) Ml51s. The term “Ml51 vehicles” as used in this subparagraph includes M151, M151A1, M151A1C, M151A2,  and M825 utility trucks and M718 and  M718AI  ambulances in both serviceable and unserviceable condition. The rear suspension system on M151 vehicles was designed for rough terrain usage by stabilizing  the stock. Military personnel operating theM151 are given special training in use f the vehicle. On paved roads, where the general public would normally use a vehicle, these vehicles are readily subject to rollover accidents. The Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. DoT, identified theMl51 vehicles as a hazard to the safety of public highway users. (a) The only authorized dispositions of both serviceable and unsewiceable Ml51 vehicles are for DoD users, for sale to friendly  foreign governments under Security Assistance Programs, and to qualified DoD and private museums for static display, under 10 USC 2572. Quasi-DoD activities such as CAP, MARS, and all NAF activities, are not authorized to acquire these vehicles. M151 series vehicles are not authorized for issue to the USCG.


 * That's from a '97 document, but I remember this being the case in '76, when I tried to acquitre an M151 for a CAP unit for an LRT, and in '86 or so, when I tried to acquire one for meself when a 'serving o' the Reagan. Notice it does not claim this was a DoD decision. Anmccaff (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Why Was This Page Renamed?
I question the reason for doing this, but I am all ears. Tystnaden (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC) I renamed it because I wanted the article's title to be complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlo71201 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

no need for an aka
The following sites use either "Mutt", "MUTT" or "Military Utility Tactical Truck" incorrectly but since they are "just foamers and fanboiz" they should not be corrected, just ignored:

































These are just in the order of a simple Google search. Of course the "for sale" sites (for people who actually buy and sell M151s) will go "404" almost immediately, but there will be just as many new ones going up. More "foamers and fanboiz". Sammy D III (talk) 22:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yep, by the look of it. Framers (Damned Apple autocorrect) Foamers and fanboys and people who obviously sourced to old versions of Wikipedia, and you’ve got a nice little collection of that right there. So? A google-dredge will always pull up something, even if it’s just bottom mud. Qwirkle (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yea, there sure are a lot of ignorant people out there, aren't there? I take it that "fanboiz" are people who are interested in the vehicle, they could even be children. They may not of operated one, or even have been in the military! They think that "MUTT" is correct, but they want to know more about the vehicle itself. So they come here. But they are not worth informing because, being ignorant, they are "Bottom mud". I don't know "Framers" but it doesn't matter, they are probably ignorant too. Is a "Foamer" a rabid "fanboiz"?


 * It is very important that we don't let the "Bottom mud" know they are wrong with a simple sentence in the lead. And if there were a paragraph or two in History about the program (which should be there anyway) they might find out how and why they were wrong. Nobody else needs a paragraph in "History", anyone who should be reading the article already knows about it.


 * If we are not careful the knowledge that only we deserve might get out and the "Bottom mud" might be accurately informed. (Shudder). Sammy D III (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Let’s take these one point at a time. There are...what, about two billion, that’s Billion with a Molly-floggin’ B, people on earth with the ability to somehow set up something that can impersonate a website, and it sometimes seems like every one of them has. If the subject isn’t actionable, or outside whatever Goo-goo’s current level of net-nannying is, you can find sources that agree with any point you wanna make. That’s the problem with tendentious searches, they tell us what we want to hear, not what we need to know.


 * Next, if you wanna insult a bunch of readers, knock yourself out, but don’t pretend someone else is doing it. The comment was on bad sources, not their believers victims. If that was a mistake, you can strike it; if not, we can take this up at ANI.


 * Finally, there are plenty of ways to cover ignorant usage beyond festooning the lead with them. Qwirkle (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you can't follow or are trying to steer away from the point. This discussion has never been about RS. The first line is "The following sites use either "Mutt", "MUTT" or "Military Utility Tactical Truck" incorrectly". The entire point is that they are wrong. Instead of telling readers that they are wrong you want to ignore their common mistake.


 * I was quoting you posting "it’s just bottom mud" and "just foamers and fanboiz". There are quote marks around those phrases. You post "if you wanna insult a bunch of readers" when I am quoting phrases that you called them?


 * I did no such thing, though, and your continuing to repeat yourself doesn’t help your case. When someone writes about googling, that’s a pretty big clue that the conversation is about sources, not readers. Qwirkle (talk) 23:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "that’s a pretty big clue". Another "pretty big clue" might be reading the first line of the thread: "The following sites...incorrectly...". Sammy D III (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The four sentence long lead has room for "Commonly referred to as "jeeps" or "quarter-tons"" but not another sentence to de-bunk a common mistake. "festooning"?


 * No room in history either?


 * ANI? Really? Sammy D III (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yep. If someone says “Bob is wrong about this” and someone else responds “Why are you insulting Mary like that?!” They should, when it is pointed out to them, either say, “Oh, yeah. Bob. Lemme change that” or show some path by which a DFO reference to the source somehow reflects on the readers. Otherwise you are lying about misrepresenting someone, and that makes the Baby Jimbo cry. Qwirkle (talk) 23:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if you are talking over me or talking gibberish over me. I am going to say "you do not think I have the right insult attached to the right person at the right time?" Agreed. I will get to work attaching insults with diffs.


 * The places where you call names are often where people have added incorrect content. There was nothing in the article to start with that dealt with the issue so they damaged the article with their lack of knowledge. I think I should diff them in too, it is sort of the same thing. You react to this lame stuff without letting something good in there to start with. You won't admit it is a real problem while you are beating them off with a stick.


 * What is with RS? I give a list of incorrect sites as an example of what is wrong and you talk RS?. Why do you say that this list has anything about RS other than showing what it isn't?


 * Well, I have a project. If we are done here I'll ping you when I have something. Later. Sammy D III (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

This stuff about MUTT has been going on forever, both at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ford_M151_Truck,_Utility,_1/4-Ton,_4%C3%974#MUTT? MUTT] and here. This excellent post from 2007 explained the problem and it's history. Unfortunately the readers have never been told that so they remain ignorant a decade later.

I believe that the readers should be told that MUTT is the wrong name. One sentence in a short lead could do that. There are already nicknames there, MUTT could easily be corrected there.

I believe that the MUTT program should be in "History" (I have sort of a COI here).

An edit warish started here partly over a paragraph explaining the program. It started at History, then the lead, then back to History. It was last removed here. There was more involved.


 * There seems to be some confusion about who insults readers who are ignorant of the correct name.


 * During the edit warish Anmccaf (Qwirkle) used the terms "fanboi sources" (his opinion only and not discussed) and "foamerism". (Anmccaf and Qwirkle are the same editor).


 * I described the "target audience" as "amatuers". In the next edit Anmccaf (Qwirkle) calls them "Foamers and fanboiz".


 * Because of Anmccaf (Qwirkle)'s use of "Fanbois" and "foamers" I used those phrases and in quote marks about a list of incorrect sites (neither sources nor readers, but later sarcastically about ignorant readers) to start this thread. At that time Anmccaf (Qwirkle) had not actually called those sites "Fanbois" or "foamers. In the next edit Qwirkle called them Fanbois, foamers, and "just bottom mud".


 * I seem to have called readers "readers","individuals", "amateurs", "the target audience", "punks" (about age), "new guys", "ignorant people" (about MUTT), and "people". I have referred to incorrect sites as "fanbois", "foamers, and "bottom mud", three insults in quotes used by Anmccaf (Qwirkle) to readers.


 * Qwirkle posted "if you wanna insult a bunch of readers". I don't think I have insulted any readers. When I posted to Qwirkle: "I was quoting 'you"...phrases that "you" called". Qwirkle replied "I did no such thing".

Qwirkle posted "Otherwise you are lying about misrepresenting someone". I do not think I am lying about misrepresenting someone". I believe every comment I have made is good faith (Edit: nah, too much scarism) and I stand behind them. Sammy D III (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)