deadline

The length of the shackle, and the TRS have *NOTHING* to do with the springs settling. The TRS has NOTHING to do with the spring other than it's mounted to it. The TRS prevents the axle from rotating during braking. If you like (and are careful during the test drive) take it off and hit the brakes from say 30MPH. You will feel the steering wheel fight you as the linkage is moved by the axle. If you are ready for it its not a big deal. If you are not you will swerve pretty violently. There is still a bit of a mystery as to why the jeep leans... most say its because the fuel and driver are all on that side. Others say the engine is slightly offset to the left. Its rare to find a jeep leaning to the right. I hope this clears it up. The main concern is the jeep in the first post... that is not right and I'm not sure how you'd figure that bending 1/4in steel is the solution to this problem. New TRS are fairly inexpensive.

I believe the AUGUST 43 issue of Army Motors that discusses the TRS.

No part of that TRS is is correct. Please refer to the SNL page I references. There is no bend at all. Also, in a correct assembly the TRS linkages are to the REAR of the spring bracket, not the front. Now the links could be 'forward' due to the incorrect length/bend of the TRS, but nothing in any TM shows a TRS with a bend. There is no way an axle puts torque on a spring to 'flatten' it. Springs lose their set by, well, springing. Most springs fail because the shocks (whose only purpose is to dampen the springs oscillations) are bad and allow the springs to fatigue. Look at how the TRS is connected to the axle and frame, and explain how any support to the spring is supplied? I can quite easily explain how it provides anti-roll support to the axle. In a modern muscle car, these type of TRS are mounted to the rear axle and are known as 'slapper bars'. Again, the job it to prevent axle roll, not support any spring.. even though they are mounted to the springs. You can bolt all the steel plates you want to a jeep spring and it will still lose its arch and cause the 'lean'. No amount of 'jeep special vendor' linkages will alleviate that problem. Simply because the TRS is not about the springs, its about the AXLE and not allowing it to rotate during braking and cause the previously mentioned 'brake turn'. This is all very well explained in an issue of Army Motors, IIRC. The real one. And if I may, who are these vendors that sell special jeep spring un-flattening links?

SNL-G-503 page 191 is the proper assembly.

INCORRECT. The torque reaction spring is the alleviate the turning of the jeep inherent in the axle mounted steering joint. Without the TRS, when the brakes are applied the axle rotates in relation to the steering linkage and causes the wheels to turn. The only way they could alleviate the brake induced turning is be either redesigning the axles and steering linkage or try and eliminate the axle roll. That particular jeep is FUBAR. The TRS is a flat bar, no bend to it. Seems like they cobbled it together because they are missing some parts of the rear spring shackle/mount. The *ONLY* way to correct the jeep lean is to re-arch all the springs to the correct eye to eye distance. Done all the time. It appears that this jeeps TRS is either to short, or the spring hanger/shackels are assembled wrong.

The January 45 edition of Army Motors has the dope on stake pocket holes. Evidently the original issue was stuck bows.

Its the easiest way to tell the composite beds from the steel ones without looking at the flooring. I have gone through all the 'big name' books (the GMC A Universal Truck, The French CCKW book, the Tankograd CCKW book, SNLs, and even SUP/TUP and cargo bed construction manuals) none show the wire loops except on composite beds.

The mod was done late war because the stake pockets were rusting out. I will post the source as soon as I can dig it up... IIRC it was either a late Army Motors or a TB from GM. There were two methods. One was the common stake pocket notch, but later construction beds have a hole stamped into the sheet metal in the pocket itself. Here are some pics of my composite bed with the 'bottom drain holes'. Note this is also the only type of bed that has the 'wire loop' tie downs. I have not seen any other bed save composite ones with the wire loops. http://www.tm9-801.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=145 The Yellow Lab is TJ, my Motor Sargent and all around pooper on the lawn. I also believe it was the Netherlands that moved the headlights to under the front fenders instead of behind the grill. To be honest, I've not seen a picture of them mounted that way, and I have a Dutch CCKW TM that I can look over.

There are some common mods done to the trucks to keep them running and maintained. Most are universal... some are more country specific. Stake pockets would be notched for drainage (this was actually a Wartime mod, but new bed made post war (German ones have been definitely ID'd) would have them. The grill bar in front of the radiator petcock was bent out of the way. Data plates (I have a set in french off a 45 tipper) Gauges replaced with KM/h, Celcuis, Liters as required. A battery cut off switch was added by the Norwegian or Dutch (I have a TM that in Dutch that shows this and its labeled as such). Some parts would be made in Europe (I have a set of split axles with 'made in France' cast into them). Mirrors on the outside are larger, and one is added to the right side. Tires are not NDT. Thats about all I have seen.

Depending on what the Sn of the truck is a wooden bed is a 60/40 possibility.. they started in September 1942. I do believe a complete, ready to bolt on wooden bed would also be quite a find.

The stamped and bent vs the 'bent wire' loops are a bit of an enigma.. I have a late composte body with wire loops (stencil says its a generic replacement body) and and a 43 wooden body with the stamped steel. Of the two trailers (MBT and Ben Hur) and two bodies (composit and wooden) only the composite was the wire loops. As I said, the stencil on the composite body indicates its a generic replacement (it references REO, GM and IH in the stencil) and the PN is not a GMC one. Maybe that is another topic in itself? I do not recall a TM showing anything but the stamped tie downs. As for the drain holes in the stake pockets, some may have been rudely done, but I've seen some that are very nice and even... would be hard to tell that they were done by hand.

I just saw on of those in July at a show. Had the data plate on it and all. Looked OK.

'Deuce' can also refer to a bodily function... ie 'I gotta drop a deuce' (aka #2) Do I win the way off topic award ?:-D:cool2::nut:

For a wooden trailer any hardwood would suffice.

By composite do you mean steel with wood floor? If so then I have one too. :-D This is where I get in trouble by pointing out that its not the correct bed for a 42 if it has a wood floor. You should have the very early, and very rare all steel welded bed as opposed to the late all steel bolted bed). I have not seen many of either.

Old GMC trucks are usually referred to as 'Stovebolts' (the special bolts used on the engines... sort of like a bolt with a phillips head on it. I never heard of a 'Stovebolt' but one of the forums I read dedicated to old GMC trucks makes that distinction. Also, as posted previously, 'jeep' did not originate from 'GP'. GP was Fords designation for a vehicle with an 80 inch wheelbase. A 'jeep', as told by AAW Vol 1 was a character in a Popeye comic strip.

My name is Paul and I live in Gordon, PA, USA. I am currently working on a proper restoration of my 1943 GMC CCKW. My web site is http://www.tm9-801.com and I invite you to look it over.

I have approx 20 Army Motors and I see jeep used frequently... one even mentions 'seep' (GPA) but alas, no 'Jimmy' While the term 'jeep' appears to have many possible origins (and legal battles, too) its almost certain that the myth of 'GP' as its beginnings has been disproved. All American Wonder Vol I goes into a few pages about the matter. I do recall the GMC Jimmy (a smaller version of and a competitor to the Bronco from Ford). Remember, the 2 1/2 ton trucks were originally 'Yellow Coach and Cab' a Division of General Motors Truck (I will admit to not know the intricate corporate links but Yellow Coach was bought by GM, but it took a while to lose the Yellow Coach off the data plates). While the TMs were adorned with the GMC logo (and the brush guard logo) After April 1943 the logo and 'GMC' it was stripped from almost all TMs and vehicles. The Early TMs did have 'General Motors Truck' in fairly large font, but the logo in the center simply said 'GMC' and circled by 'Gasoline Diesel Trucks'. Not a lot to get 'Jimmy' out of.

The Notman article was rather circular... "I know that Military Vehicle Magazine was looking for (even running a contest) evidence that during WW2 the "Jimmy" or GMC 2 1/2-ton truck was ever referred to as a "duece-and-a-half" during WW2. As far as I know no evidence has been presented." It claims that the 'Jimmy' was never referenced as a 'duece-and-a-half'... it appears that it was never called a 'Jimmy' either. I completely agree that 'duece' et al is not a WWII reference, but the new task would be to prove or debunk the 'Jimmy' reference. Its not in the TMs, and Army Motors would be the next, best place to look (not the MVPA one).

Does anyone have a reference to the term 'Jimmy' being used in a US Army WWII document? I have read over a dozen Army Motors (WWII editions) and never saw the term 'Jimmy' applied. They use GMC, 2 1/2 Ton truck, etc, but never 'Jimmy'. When they reference the Ford GPW or Willy MB they do use 'jeep', '1/4ton reconnaissance car' etc. Some books (the Tankograd CCKW book) makes note that the term 'Jimmy' was never used in WWII, and I am starting to agree as I have found no references supporting it. Does anyone have a reference, a story, a limerick that would explain the origin of the term and how/why it is applied to the GMC 2 1/2 ton truck?

The information so far is somewhat correct. The Army decided in mid 42 that no manufacturers logos should appear on contract vehicles. Up till then jeeps (tailgate), Chevy's (engine side panels), GMC (Brush guard logo) and others had some prominent logos (the Ford script jeep probably being the largest). Some manufacturers complied immediately.. others used up available stock. GMC was most likely the last contractor to comply, finally stopping all brush guard logos in early 43 (as late as April/May). Spares would still be in supply, and I don't think units were in a rush to add to their workload to remove them. The statement that after May 43 no GMC rolled of the production line with a logo plate is correct, but if they got a older production guard from supply (doubtful) , or off another, earlier vehicle is the only way you would see it on a post May 43 truck. I highly doubt that any brush guard with the logo made it over to the ETO via supply. The logistics would put new production parts on the boats first, then whatever extra was available in depots. But like unpainted wooden steering wheels and right side mirrors, brush guard logo's are something we must tolerate.

Cloth braided wire and asphalt loom is readily available. I've used http://www.riwire.com (USA) and have been happy with the quality. The hard part is some of the correct terminal ends are no longer made. The CCKW uses a flag type terminal on many harnesses and unless you salvage the original nothing I have found is close. The custom harnesses (Vintage Wiring of Maine) start at $900+ for a complete set.. but I don't know if all the terminals are proper (there are flag terminals on the regulator, genny, and under the dash). I've been able to make a replacement genny to regulator harness for about $10US but was able to salvage the original flag terminals. The originals were sent through a braiding machine and have tell tale 'tails', but fishing the proper wires through a 3/8th inch asphalt loom is proper enough.