Sean N

Radek, give Richard Banister a call. +44 (0)1797 253211 http://www.milweb.net/go/banister/ Nice guy, very experienced, very helpful and in my experience sensibly priced.

Injection on its own wouldn't really yield significant power, maybe a bit here and there where the mapping is improved. My guess is it's an economy thing - Chris? If changing engines you'd want to pay attention to required characteristics as well - for example, you might not fit a high horsepower, high revving engine in an application where flexibility and torque at low rpm was important.

Terry, if you were paying two bucks a litre for fuel and having to drive on our busy, trafficky, slow roads you might as well!

Although I guess that information might be of its time rather than current, so wouldn't have kept up with modern developments in LPG systems?

I'm with Clive - a marker so the front nearside corner can be seen from the driver's position.

Chris, which Rolls? B60? There are aftermarket injection systems used on performance and race engines which are very successful. A friend's 1970s vehicle, for example, overstroked from 2.3 to 2.6 and injected, will pull comfortably and cleanly from 20 to 120 in top (overdriven) gear. I can't see why they should be any less successful in your application. You are looking at a significant investment though, given purchase, fitting, rolling road tuning and mapping. It may not be economically viable particularly for an engine that perhaps sees limited use - the costs would buy a lot of petrol even at todays' prices. Alternatively if the concern is economy, LPG may be a viable option.

Hi Tamber, keep going, you're doing a great job. The cylinders should be fairly easy to come by as they were fitted to many Bedford applications right through to the 1980s. When re-greasing the bisectors don't use normal lithium chassis grease. With some brands at least you can get a situation where with age, standing or high brake temperatures the oils drop out of the grease and contaminate the linings. The original specification is General Motors 4613-M but I don't have a cross reference for that. You could probably find a grease specifically designed for moving parts of brake assemblies.

There's a very old joke there somewhere. Bear in mind I am only putting two and two together and may be making five...

So if you could find a post-1975 in service date stamp somewhere that'd say conclusively which one it is. I took some photos while it was at Steve's, if Andy doesn't mind my posting them:

Hey Neil, Should have gone to Specsavers! Is an FV11008 18' - I thought they were 16' ? Not that this one is, but I also thought there was a short GS cargo, FV11007 at 14' ?

Hello Wally, thanks for chipping in on the service registrations, I hoped you would. Point taken on the issue of large numbers of registrations, we have talked about that before and I'd temporarily forgotten. Having said that, there's still a conundrum there in the metal if not in the registrations. Where large batches of registrations were issued - for example BG registrations for that first batch of K9s - were there ever circumstances where registrations were issued out of sequence, i.e. an earlier truck could get a later registration or vice-versa? What a great photo. The bonnet isn't even slung in the cargo body, just wedged between the cab and tilt frame - which looks as though it's suffered an attack of your healing brush at the rear offside ;-) ! Difficult to know whether the K9 is abandoned or not. If abandoned, why are the camels in it - would they really have climbed aboard to find somewhere to sit? On the other hand, if it isn't abandoned, why is the bonnet - or a spare - just chucked behind the cab like that. Certainly looks like a civilian Libyan registration and appears to be in Arabic and Roman lettering? Didn't see the K9, unless it's the vehicle rear end just visible at the entrance to one of the further tents. The bowser partly out of shot to the right could be, I suppose, but it doesn't look K9. There's what looks to be one of those single axle generator trailers behind the furthest tent as well. To the Aldershot question, I'd be inclined to agree that 'Aldershot' is likely to have been a generic nickname applied to all portable shelters of that design irrespective of size. I fancy the ones Lizzie originally asked about are the 40' x 38' x 18' ones Richard suggested, though - using the truck and Ferret rear ends visible in the entrances to the shelters for scale puts them at around that size, certainly bigger than the dimensions Clive gives for SP2. Having said that, the one in the ARV image looks significantly smaller relative to the vehicles and scenery, so I wonder if that one is actually SP2? You could see that a stores lorry - an improvised binner - might have a Dexion structure like that in the rear, but the only reason I can think of for covering a truck cab like that is riot protection, or certainly protection against attack by those who might want to steal what's in the rear, unless Clive or Richard can think of other circumstances in which that's been done? My guess is the apparently shrinking tilts are in fact because the structures in the rear are a lot taller than a standard Hippo tilt frame, which aren't particularly tall. If I remember correctly the generic name for that sort of mesh is Expamet, a contraction of EXPanded METal, and I guess originally a trade name; so XPM for the Dexion version would fit.

It's an 8, Rob, it's still got it's MoS plate on. It's been shortened. On first glance the arches look artillery tractor but in fact they're a lot flatter, and in real life you can see they've been modified to fit so they're actually from something else. I didn't have a really good poke at it when I saw it, but did have more than a casual glance; if you look past peeling paint, the non-original body and general lack of love it looks like quite a decent solid truck.

Neil, it's an FV11008 and I don't think the rear arches are original. Body is MK.

Andy, no, sorry, I know nothing more about it than you - I just posted it up as I knew Steve was thinking of selling and those here might be interested. I know it came from someone over at Hurn Airport but that doesn't narrow it down as there are two big industrial estates over there. If you want the military history you could see if the Royal Logistics Corps museum people at Deepcut have got it; that's where most of the soft skin vehicle records that survived ended up. http://www.rlcarchive.org/VehicleSrch

This is the Militant a guy I know was selling, photo here: http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?53874-Karrier-K6-AEC-Militant-Dana-axles-Jeep-and-Dodge-D-M880-CUCV-parts-etc&p=475473#post475473 Well done Andy, I think from what I saw of it you've got a good basis for a restoration there; it's pretty solid and not too many issues, I think.

The OED and Collins both have it a deriving from a Cockney word generally given as 'Carsey' for little house, itself said to have derived from the Italian Casa (for house). Suspect it's one of those lost in the mists of time, though.

Clive, Had I known you had this lot I'd have been round to yours when you were 45 minutes away rather than four hours as you are now!

As no-one is biting on the K9s I'd better follow my own question! In my experience with K9s there are three main cab types. Early vehicles (early BG registrations) with a civilian Loadstar type cab and no roof hatch; main production vehicles with military cab, roof hatch but unvented bonnet; and late vehicles with uprated military cab and vented bonnet. In the first image, on the parade ground, I was thrown as the K9 ARN was earlier than the RL ARN, but the K9 appeared to be a later truck. The main reason I thought it was later was because of the bonnet with ventilation slots in the front, which only appeared on late K9s. I wasn't thinking about (the implications of) the specific ARN. In the colour image, I took the lead K9 to be our old friend 94 BG 06 again, as the first digit looked partly obscured; but although this was a later image, it seemed to have lost its roof hatch and gun mount brackets. Only the first few hundred K9s had the civilian type cab with no hatch. If the service registration of that lead K9 is 34 BG 06 it would make more sense as that would put it firmly in the early batch with the civilian cab, no roof hatch. And thinking about it, despite the apparent lateness of the bonnet, 94 BG 06 (or 08) is still quite an early registration for a K9 - in that first 1951 - 1952 contract that Wally mentioned, so it could be around the same age as the early RL. But - all the K9s irrespective of age have the late bonnet, typical of later contracts. Why? Did they have a habit of wrecking bonnets in Libya? I wonder if the answer is this. In my experience with K9s they tend to build up underbonnet heat which vapourises the fuel, making them difficult to restart hot. OK, my experience is with modern not 1960s fuel, but I wonder if they found it to be a problem in the desert and either changed the bonnets of vehicles going out there, or specified hot climate vehicles with the vented bonnet which later made it to all production vehicles? The master parts list has two bonnets listed, for WB and WD/D vehicles, but isn't clear on what the different vehicle or bonnet types are, and unhelpfully doesn't have drawings of the bonnet(s).

You should be able to flip the image in Photoshop. Image > Rotate > Flip Horizontal. I don't think the charger exhaust goes into the vehicle, just down the side. Ford Anglia in the background.

Clive, Wally, thanks. Wally, I hoped you would chip in. I said earlier I would be much happier if the registrations were BG and this is why. I felt BC was not possible, though I can't find my list of K9 ARNs, and also I still own a very early production K9 which is BG registration, again implying they could not be BC. So we have maybe 34 BG 06, 94 BG 06 and possibly 94 BG 08. Or maybe just 34 BG 06 and 94 BG 06. Or maybe just 94 BG 06. Although the thread has moved on I'd still like to be sure the one Lizzie is interpreting as 34 BG 06 is definitely a different truck and not 94 BG 06 again. I wish we had service history for these vehicles to pin it down. And there is still something odd about all of them though I think I have an explanation.

Curioser and curioser, said Alice. I can't see any wing mirrors and I have no idea what the thing underneath is. It looks slightly tapered and to have a slot in each side. A wooden step? I did spot the difference with the colour one, that's why I've been asking you about the differences. So we have 34 BG 06, 94 BC 06 and maybe 94 BC 08 (or 94 BG 08) though I'd go with what you think as you are looking at the original. I'd be happier thinking they were all BG registrations and there is STILL something odd going on even if they are different trucks! I will cogitate some more. BTW Peugeot 403 behind the K9.

Must admit I had it as 94 BG 08 originally then decided it must be 06 after Lizzie published the next photo. Even so there's still something odd about it. So we have 3 photos with what may or may not be the same truck. In the first photo, taken in 1960-ish the registration appears blurry to us. I originally read 94 BG 08 and Richard thought 08 or 09 but Lizzie says it is 94 BC 06. In the second photo, with the Ferret, taken in 1960-ish it appears to be 94 BC 06 allowing for a very curly C, which Lizzie agrees. In the third, colour photo taken in 1961 it looks like ?4 BG 06 - Lizzie, can you read the original more clearly? Whether one truck or two, there is still something odd going on with it or them!

A quick Google image search says that photo was on a Gumtree ad about 10 months ago, and the RL was in St George, Bristol for sale at £4,000. Nice truck - an early survivor and in pretty good condition.

I think we need photos of the moose, if not in this thread. Where in Calgary are you?

There is something odd going on with that K9 if it's the same vehicle. The registration isn't quite clear in the different shots - perhaps you could confirm from the originals that it's 94 BG 06 both times? Edit - my and your earlier posts about the MRA1 crossed as I was interrupted. Sorry.