Talk:Willys MB

message: 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)
thread_title: Wranger

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Article title

message: 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)
thread_title: Half-Safe

message: 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)
thread_title:  Good 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Peep 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Successor 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: 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)
thread_title: split up

message: 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)
thread_title:  Powertrain? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  No performance statistics 

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

message: 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: , centimeters: , and millimeters: . 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Infobox 3 Dec 14 

message: 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)
thread_title:  tons 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Grille photos 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Photo or diagram of transfer case 4wd 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Too much detail/images? 

message: Per WP:DUPLINK,  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)
thread_title:  Too many duplicate links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  See also