4x4Founder

Ran across this shot in my files of an FWD Model B in front of FWD headquarters in Clintonville. The notation says it's a 1916 with a "British Body." I know they were being purchased for the war at that time but can anyone explain what constitutes the "British Body" and is this truly it? The wheels and radiator shell confirm the year of the truck. The body does differ from the American cargo body, earlier or later, but I just wanted some knowledgable Brits to confirm or deny that it's a British pattern. Anyone have any Militor pics to trade?

Best I can determine is that this company built engines in collaboration with International Harvester and they were used in some of IH's short-lived car lines of 1910 and 1911. I thought there might be a truck connection as well, namely the IHC Models F and G trucks used in WWI, but that does not now appear to be the case.

Apparently, the British-American Motor Company, possibly in Connecticut, USA, supplied engines to International Harvester for use in approximately 1,100 J-30 touring cars in 1910-11. Anybody ever hear of that company? Yes, the connection to prewar military truck is thin, but IHC did supply a number of trucks for WWI. I am just looking to pin down the details of these engines. Thanks!

Congrats! Too few Packards in GI livery so it will be nice to see one! It was a very well regarded truck in it's day.. but I guess you know that already.

I can't help id-ing the ground vehicles but that surely is a neat pic of old NK-211. I just watched the old Jimmy Stewart movie a week or so ago for about the 40th time.

The first two pics show a Corbitt 2 1/2 ton 4x4 from 1935, I believe. Can't recall the model... F-something. Third pic is a very cool truck, the Liberty B third series truck... basically an upgrade of the WWI Liberty B. I think they were converted in the early '30s and were in service right up t the beginning of WWII

I guess we need more closeup examples of both trucks to know for sure. The extant chassis looks considerably different than both the Palladium example and the ton and an half Acason in the ad... though that could be due to weight classification differences in both cases. Not the taper in the chassis members as they get near the front.

Interesting. The Acason seems to have the same axles and front frame horn design but, of course, is much less likely to be in Britain. Even more interesting is the use of an American engine and axles in a British built truck

A fairly obscure name, to be sure, but they were in biz from 1915 and 1925 with a 2-ton, 3.5-ton and 5-ton. Pics are few. I have some here and there in old books. The front frame horns and spring mounts are somewhat unusual in shape and design and I see that feature in all the pics of the Acason trucks I see. I will not put any money on my guess and it's certainly not a hill I wish to die upon.

My WAG is Acason. From what little photo evidence I have and can see on the net, they have several design features that appear in common. The Timken Detroit Worm gear axle. THe drop axle and hub design. THe front chassis horn design. Front hubs, etc.

And the Germans look so.... GERMAN! Great images, thanks for sharing.

Bob, Masterful work! I gather then you know Mark Ounan (I wrote the AutoWeek article and rode with him some of the time on the TMC reenactment). What a pity you couldn't have driven your Dodge on that event with him! Have you checked the serial number of your "real" car to see if it was one of the ones on the original TMC (Transcontinental Motor Convoy)? We checked Mark's because his had been surplussed out west and it wasn't a big leap to hope it might have been on the original as well. But, alas, no joy. I have a copy of the list of vehicles on the original TMC and I see one Light Repair Truck listed; hood #111422, chassis # 303822, engine # 351400. Again, superb work and thanks for sharing all the details! BTW that pic of his car was taken on a bridge that was built in 1919 and miraculously survives on a military reservation in Utah.

Gustaf: True, looking at it from a late '30s, early 40s viewpoint. In the '20s, the Model-T was the norm. Also, the Livingoods used a splitter to drop the overall gearing. It did lot's better with that gearing and used as the Light Patrol rigs were used, the 4-wheel drive would have been a big asset. And when you get right down to it, the WWII jeep was not all that low geared. The later civvy jeeps were geared lower with 5.38s in the axles and a 2.4:1 transfer case vs 4.88s and 1.97. To make myself more clear, the Model-T could have been the "jeep" of the 'teens or 1920s.

Yes, the Model-T or the Model-A could have easily been the first "jeep." I often wonder how things might have been different if Jesse Livingood had either come out with his four wheel drive conversion kit earlier or had done a better job of marketing it.

But, Roy, you neglected to give us their names! ( : < )

Thanks. The file in which I found it was marked 1925 but there were reasons to doubt it. I don't have much that details all the changes and years on the British Built FWD trucks. I actually forgot I had this brochure. It was in a "to-file" box from about 15 years ago when I bought a collection of old truck stuff.

Gents, could you help me put a date to this FWD England Brochure?

Very nice to see this old equipment hooked up to a horse. Thanks for posting the pics. Really brings it to life! What was the event? Looks like a large crowd. I used to work for Land Rover here in the States and had occasion to be at a lot of events. At one in the early '90s there were two Suffolk Punch draft horses putting on a demonstration of how they were used for logging in Virginia. Somebody posed the question of whether the horses could put out more drawbar pull than a SWB Land Rover. One thing led to another and soon the horses and a Rover were engaged in a tug of war. To everyone's amazement, the horses won several "heats" handily. I did see some money changing hands and it was evident the horse owner had enriched himself on previous occasions. Some people were concerned about the horses getting injured, but the owner said they were very well trained and had played this trick on many occasions. He claimed that because of leverage and training, these horses could put out more drawbar pull that their weight, versus a fairly light vehicle that can turn only a portion of it's weight into pull (a 3500 lbs. vehicle I saw tested could only produce 1800 lbs of drawbar pull, for example).

Yep, Standard Motor truck (aka Fisher Standard) is a possibility. The slightly boat-shaped from chassis crossmember is the giveaway. All the standard pics I have form this sera show this feature and several others similar ones.

Looks very much like a Lange truck (Lange Motor Truck Co, Pittsburgh, PA) at the front (radiator shell, hood front chassis, etc), but Langes were chain drive and this one isn't. Does look American but...?

Would like to see the horses for this.

I like it! Wouldn't mind having it on my place as a mobile office. To bad it's an ocean away! Can you imagine the cost of shipping that beast?

I'm with most of you regarding over-restoration. When I think "restored" I think back to original condition. If that meant brush painting, so be it. As it rolled off the assembly line or as it was used in service. I also don't personally mind seeing the effects of age on a truck. Nothing delights me more than to see a functional, original unrestored survivor... flaws and all. If I can stand see that in the mirror shaving, or next to me in bed, why not in a truck? So many people on the commercial side of this, both buyers and sellers, however, want to create some artificial perfect world where the paint on an axle housing exceed the quality of the the original coachwork. I can appreciate the craftsmanship involved and think that's an individual choice for the owner to make.... BUT... too many of those people have a tendency to sneer and look down upon "lesser" vehicles and their owners who choose a more honest and historic path. That spills over into judging at shows, where originality plays second fiddle to all this artificial perfection. I know a restorer here that researched for YEARS the proper way to restore prototype and prestandardized jeeps. The first ones he did for paying customers were exact reproductions of how they rolled off the line... flaws and all (all the flaws were carefully researched by having studied so many of the surviving vehciels and photos!). The high pitched whining from the customers soon put paid to the practice and he eventually had to develop a workmanship standard that met customer requirements but it chafed him personally that they were not necessarily the historical ones. Anyway, I was just wondering mostly about the mechanical aspects of doing it. I have since conferred with a fellow nearby that restores old farm tractors. On a particularly pitted casting, he just uses as much filler primer as he thinks it will carry and calls it good. After a coating of red oxide or zinc chromate (whatever passes for that these days of course). Never thought my simple question would generate such an interesting side topic on restoration ethics!

But is that what you guys use? lead is pretty toxic stuff. Surely there are modern things that will do the job as well?

Those of you with these old rigs certainly have knowledge of rust. Or soon get it! Fortunately, many of the parts used are heavy gauge materials so the rust damage is mostly cosmetic. I see some restored rigs where this metal is very smooth as if it's been filled and others where the parts have merely been painted and you can still see the pitting. I was wondering what those of you who fill the pitting do? I'm mostly taking about the hard parts here, like chassis runners, axle housings, suspension components, etc., not bodywork.