TooTallMike

Safety first, all other considerations are secondary. (Unless it's a gate guardian or a static museum piece) - MG

Just been sorting out brakes on a radio pod RB44 for someone locally. When you take it for test either load it up or, if that's not practical, tie up the load proportioning valve when you get there. This is allowed for test but you must release it before going back on the road. We had 97% imbalance on a rolling road with the valve engaged and about 10% with it tied up. Also the self-adjusting rears didn't - they had to be adjusted manually. Both front and rear seem very sensitive to adjustment. Give me WW2 truck brakes any day :cheesy: For all my hatred of it, it stops really well - in an emergency stop with no hands on the wheel it holds a straight line. It even holds its servo vacuum overnight which astounded me! - MG

This is a question I have been asking myself with regard to my Autocar restoration over the last couple of years and I have decided that parts will be blasted and then just re-painted unless their condition renders them unfit for service in which case they will be repaired or replaced. For example there is some corrosion of the chassis rails but they are largely uncompromised, however I have cut out and replaced a few sections which were too bad to be structurally sound. I agree with the sentiment that corrosion can be part of the vehicle's history, but so are the civilian modifications which I have gone to great pains to delete. Am I a hypocrite for this...? I am a huge fan of 'preserved' rather than 'restored' vehicles, but this is frequently not possible for a vehicle that may have sat unloved for decades. The decision is ultimately for the owner as they alone know how what they want to achieve and what they intend to do with the finished article. I am always pleased when I see or hear of an owner 'leaving a dent in' because it had that dent in a photo dredged up from thirty years prior. As Richard suggests, most military vehicles were far from our modern idea of 'perfect' when issued because they were assembled hastily by unskilled personnel under huge pressure and in poor conditions. Paint overspray was common and stencils were not ruler straight! - MG

Hi, Just to be clear, this vehicle requires an MoT if it was built before 1st Jan 1960 and has a GVW of less than 3,500kg. Assumign this is the case, your truck needs to meet the Construction & Use requirements that were in force at the time. Essentially this means that if the truck is preserved or restored to factory standards of braking, lighting etc. you should be fine. Emissions will be 'visible emissions' only so as long as it doesn't smoke, you're ok. With regard to removing the rear body, you will probably be required to fit simple spray protection in the form of wheelarches and mud flaps. If the rear lights were mounted to the body you will need to move them to the chassis. Don't forget rear red reflectors. With regard to the test in general I'd suggest you find yourself a few friendly local MoT stations, explain the situation and take their advice. You will probably get a wide variety of advice, some of which will be based on fact, and some of which will be opinion. You do not require indicators or seat belts. Screen washers are only required on non-folding windscreens so you should be ok there. - MG

Really sorry to hear your sad news. Our thoughts are with you. - MG

This kind of thing? http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/tag/jeep-fc/ - MG

I saw that but I feel it's a bit pricey, considering it has a Corbitt bonnet and cab. 'Original' is a much abused term :undecided:. - MG

Engine has been stripped of ancillaries for painting. New rear chassis crossmembers have been drilled and test-fitted. Donor GMC rear bumperettes being re-drilled for the Autocar chassis mounting holes. Question - does anyone know what material the bumperettes were made from? They drill really easily for the first 3/4 of their depth from the outside (as shown), and then the rotabroach just refuses to bite further. - MG

The army still have a couple of DUKWs in service. They appear every so often in the magazines and on line. Someone with a quicker memory will no doubt be along with the full details. Regarding the Gypsy auction, I was there too with a group of friends. None of us especially wanted one but we assumed that as a widely derided vehicle we would get a few cheap ones and have some fun with them. We turned up and paid our refundable deposit and then the first vehicle went to bid and fetched some stupid amount of money like £4.5k. A lot of people in the 'audience' rapidly got very pee'd off because only then did we realise that a) they were not going to go for £500 a pop as they should have and b) we could only get our deposit back once the entire auction had run. There was some quite vocal annoyance registered! I think a lot of the vehicles were bought speculatively and even now they appear for sale quite frequently - some still being sold as 'never registered', 'low mileage' etc. etc. They were in good condition but with effectively zero interesting history they were only worth what a good-condition Gypsy should be worth, which was about half what people were paying. - MG

Well done for saving these trucks. I have a few rear body brackets and rear pintle hitch I saved from a post borer/pole setter I scrapped last year if you are interested? See link below for photos and details of the truck I scrapped. http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?22824-Breaking-Chevrolet-G506-based-K43-telephone-maint-truck&highlight=g506+pole Regards - MG

Thanks Nudge, The Lightweight question was from back in 2007 but it's certainly interesting and useful to see that Exmoor have such a wide range. Regards - MG

Thanks Mike, I'm aware of the law and the usual dribble that the govt and child seat vendors come out with in relation to this, but as an example the quote above is inaccurate: "...vehicles without seatbelts, like classic cars." - well, plenty of classic cars have had seatbelts retro-fitted and therefore children can be carried so they are wrong to generalise. I am minded to fit belts to some of my vehicles to comply with this ruling but I would like to see how others have approached this. I'm interested to know what is happening in the real world where people are satisfied that what they are doing is safe and legal. I imagine this will be self-selecting as only those who believe they are legal are likely to post anyway . I'd also be interested to know whether one can fit just one seatbelt, i.e. to the seat where the child will then be carried? - MG

Hi folks, I'm re-awakening an old thread to see if any of our newer members have any thoughts on solutions to carrying small children in older vehicles which don't have type-approved mounting points for seat belts. Has anyone ever been prosecuted or cautioned for this type of offence? Has anyone ever had their own 'engineered' solution subjected to scrutiny by any officialdom? - MG

Would this be the one out front? (photo thanks to Rosco, I think) On Google Earth I can see a yellow 'something' out back with what looks like a red crane. - MG

Any chance of seeing a few of those photos on here? We all love to see pics of these trucks at work. Cheers - MG

Looking at the photo into the top of the radiator I would also give the whole system a thorough flush. This may well solve all of your problems! - MG

All UNC thank you very much - and at great cost! I have established that Bonda Primer bites well into the BZP so there's no concern about using shiny bolts. - MG

Hi Neils, The entire chassis frame was originally bolted together so in theory you could dismantle the whole thing to its component parts. I considered this but it was not really necessary. - MG

Ross (Rosco) kindly spent the day cleaning rust off parts with an angle grinder wire brush and the blasting cabinet. Among other things he cleaned up the crossmember from the donor chassis that is going to serve as the new crossmember behind the rear axle, that supports the spare wheel under the chassis. This has now been painted ready for fitting tomorrow. He also started stripping the old dash of its smashed gauges. Meanwhile I welded up some more corrosion in the chassis rails and then fitted one of the newly-manufactured crossmembers and its reinforcing plates which go just behind the rear axle. The old ones were rotten beyond repair. - MG

We converted it back to points at W&P last year as the elec. ign. module failed. - MG

Hi Chris, Bart Vanderveen's Wheels and Tracks no.3 has an extensive article on WLF and Kenworth Heavy Wreckers. It includes a lot of information on build dates and chassis nos. but admits these are vague as the information varies depending on source. For Ward laFrance the first two digits are the year of manufacture so eg. chassis no. 43XXXX would be 1943. From Series 5 the first digit of the chassis no. is a 5. For the vehicles you list the build dates are therefore as follows: Ward LaFrance (2nd number is the chassis number) 1943, 535364, M1A1 Model 1000 Series 5 - 1943 1943, 422090, M1 Model 1000 Series 2 – 1942 1943, 545315, M1A1 Model 1000 Series 5 - 1944 1943, 434370, M1 Model 1000 Series 4 - 1943 Kenworth 1943, 52287, Model 570 (1941) – agree 1941 As for the month, the only thing you can do is take the series of chassis nos. and the period in which they were built and do a little maths to work out approximately when in that period a particular truck came out. You are unlikely to get this any more accurate. I would thoroughly recommend the Wheels and Tracks article as an authoritative source of information on these trucks. Regards - Mike

Chris, We enjoyed the series of photos showing you taking the chassis off the TK and hiding it in among a load of old junk behind a fence... - MG

Inside the engine is just as good as outside and with a little oil down the bores it was persuaded to rotate easily. - MG

Thank you John, I'll be in touch once I know which ones I need. - MG

Nope! It was believed to have been an ex-Italian army rebuild but there are no indications on the unit that it's anything other than NOS. Happy days - MG