The difference between "collective farm" and "military" bridges.

The so-called collective farm, as well as "military" bridges are traditionally installed on UAZ vehicles. What is the specificity of both?

What are "collective farm" bridges on UAZ?

The bridges in question are also referred to as "civil". These designs provide the transmission of torque through the differential and axle shaft directly to the wheel hubs. "Collective farm" bridges are characterized by:

  1. small mass;
  2. simplicity of design, low cost of repair and maintenance;
  3. the possibility of installing differentials with a self-locking function;
  4. low noise level;
  5. functionality assuming moderate dynamics of fuel consumption by a car.

According to motorists, UAZ with "collective farm" bridges provides a sufficiently high vehicle stability on the road, and also copes well with braking. These bridges allow to achieve good cross-country ability of the machine. A decent maximum speed of the car is maintained - about 100 km / h.

The “military” ones are most often the alternative to “collective farm” bridges. Let's consider their specifics.

What are "military" bridges on UAZ vehicles?

These mechanisms provide the transmission of torque using a special gearbox. Therefore, "military" bridges are often also referred to as gear bridges.

Their main advantages:

  1. functionality, which implies an increase in vehicle clearance by about 8 cm in comparison with "collective farm" bridges;
  2. higher torque when driving a car at low rpm off-road;
  3. even distribution of the load between the gearbox and the main pair, thereby increasing the reliability of the bridge.

However, the main advantage of the "military" bridge is the ability to guarantee extremely high cross-country ability of the vehicle. At the same time, this advantage is provided not only due to the clearance, but also due to a more efficient distribution of torque to the wheels.

A car with a "military" bridge goes better uphill. So, UAZ, on which the corresponding mechanism is installed, in principle, can overcome the rise with a slope of about 50% without any special problems. In turn, in a car with a "collective farm" bridge, it is better not to try to storm such obstacles.

Installation of a "military" bridge at the UAZ predetermines a slight increase in gasoline consumption by car - by about 1-1.5 liters per 100 km. In addition, there may be additional costs for servicing the machine. The maximum speed of the "iron horse" with the "military" bridge is slightly reduced - to 90 km / h.

UAZ with a "military" bridge also slightly reduces vehicle stability on the road and when braking. This is due to the increased run-in shoulder due to the presence of wheel reduction gears in the design of the mechanism under consideration.


The main difference between "collective farm" bridges from "military" ones on UAZ vehicles is that the former do not have a gearbox in their design. On the second, the corresponding mechanism is installed. Hence the difference between the key characteristics of vehicles on which "collective farm" and "military" bridges are installed in the aspect:

  1. speed;
  2. road stability;
  3. patency;
  4. ability to climb uphill;
  5. clearance values;
  6. gasoline consumption.

Having determined what is the difference between "collective farm" and "military" bridges on UAZ vehicles, let us fix the conclusions in a small table.



"Collective farm" bridges "Military" bridges
No gearboxWith gearbox
Provides vehicle speed of about 100 km / hProvides vehicle speed about 90 km / h
Ensure higher vehicle stability on the roadProvide less high vehicle stability
Provide good cross-country ability vehicleProvides very high cross-country ability
Does not always provide effective lifting of the vehicle uphillIt is quite easy to provide lifting of the vehicle uphill with an incline of about 50%
Do not significantly increase ground clearanceIncrease ground clearance by about 8 cm in comparison with "collective farm" bridges
Assume moderate consumption dynamics gasoline by carincrease in gasoline consumption by about 1-1.5 liters per 100 km