Richard Farrant

Geoff, The Q4 4x4 was also available commercially and a large number were supplied to British Civil Defence, but there were differences in electrics, etc. As you say yours has sign of desert paint scheme, etc. there seems no doubt it was an ex-British Army truck, but one of the plates may be leading you astray. I bet there is a number in the chassis somewhere, my parts list does not mention a location, but yours apparantly did.

The trailer pump is a Dennis, and buildings are a War Deprtment design, so has to be in England

Neil, The FV430 series predates the launch date of BMP1 by a long way. The first prototype 432 was built in 1961, with development taking place in the late 1950's. Production started in 1962.

Dougy, The M denoted 4x4, the 4x2 Bedfords with same GS body were TK. I built hundreds of Bedford 330 diesel engines ( also 300 and 214 petrol, etc) on a reconditioning line in Army workshops. Around the time you mentioned, we had a batch of new MK trucks ( might have been MJ) come in and all the bottom oil rings had to be removed and the oil consumption, etc was to be monitered by the operating unit. Think the likely outcome was not to fit the bottom ring when new and only fit it after a certain mileage..........if it ever reached that point !

:sweat::sweat::sweat: oh............apologies to Nikki and yourself. Just that having worked on these vehicles for many years for the Army, I have never known one have a turn of speed such as that, hence why I wondered if the speedo reading was mistaken, sorry :-(. Has it had a B81 fitted by any chance? Just a point though, if a tracta joint had seized at that speed, the consequences do not bear thinking of........and it was not uncommon for it to happen due to "wind up" on road work.

Geoff, Strange that the chassis numbers on your parts book, fall between the two groups of numbers in my book, is there a Contract number and body types on the book cover? Going by photos seen from Maralinga and Woomera, there were a number of different in-service British Army vehicles over there at the time. A Contract number is not a chassis number, it is a reference number for a block of vehicles. If you can photo your plates or copy all details down we might be able to decypher more for you. There may be a WD number on the Ministry of Supply plate, which could help identify the vehicle.

Geoff, It did not have a body when I saw it, sadly I did not take a photo. When being shown around, I mentioned having worked on these types to one of the museum guys and they thought it was a wartime Q4, but as I explained, those were not 4x4, different cab and sidevalve engine, totally different except confusingly same model number, yours would be early to mid Fifties. I thought then that it was likely to have been left behind from British missile and bomb tests. According to the parts book, the Contract plate with vehicle number was fitted to the left hand chassis member adjacent to spare wheel carrier, if this helps.

Hi Geoff, I am looking at Rootes parts list no 437A, it covers British Army contract 6/VEHS/7878/CB27A for Chassis no's 38A0001 - 38A3499 and 38A5000 - 38A5200, with body types, Cargo, Command Workshop, Predictor, Recovery, Tipper, H.P. Recuperator, Radar Repair, Telecom Repair, Fuel Injection, Electrical Repair, Instrument Repair, Armourer, Cypher, Signals Office, S.D.O., Crystal Main. Note your 38A number does not fall in to these chassis numbers. The first number you quoted was 31A, if this was a mistake, and should have been 38A, then it is part of this contract. It would be interesting to know where these two plates were fixed to your vehicle. Any photos? There is another of these, unless it is the same one, in the South Australian MV Museum, at least it was when I visited it in Port Adelaide in '95. Museum has relocated now. regards, Richard

Another difference between MK and MJ was the later had the more modern plastic air pipes throughout, replacing the old steel ones which were prone to rusting. Also the electric fuel pump on the MK was done away with going back to the conventional lift pump on the MJ.

Neil, Sending you a PM

Martin, If you download the entry form for next year on W&P site, the IMPS concession is still on it, so long as you have been a mmeber for two consecutive years.

Adding diesel to petrol is likely to wash the bores and get premature wear, not worth contemplating. Same with adding paraffin, unlikely to get a B Range engine hot enough as the inlet manifold is opposite side to the exhaust, making it nearly impossible to vapourise. Take a look at any old TVO tractor and you will understand.

What about the three M3 Stuart's that Mike Stallwood took over?

To add on to John's good suggestions, I have to say, that toggling-up can sometimes be a waste of energy as the adjustments are so far out the toggles are not coming in to contact with the bolt head. Only sure fire way of checking this operation is to remove the tin lid off the top of the gearbox and operate each gear in turn checking operation. Also check to see the position of the adjuster nut on the thread, if it is near to the top of the nut, or through it, the band is worn out. I am very sceptical about a Saracen doing 60Mph, are you sure you girlfriend was not reading the Kph scale on her car? A Ferret Mk1 tops out at 60Mph and is half the weight of a Saracen with 75% of its engine size. You did mention something about uparmoured, if yours is, then it is even less likely to make this speed..........I am happy to be proved wrong though . Has the governed rotor arm been "doctored" as well?

Hi Tim, Good to see you on here at last . It is the place to be ! There are several others on here that you know as well. regards, Richard

Clive, I had seen that drawing somewhere before, it actually explains better than words. Chris, look at the way the wire is pulling the screws, and pipe nut in the direction of thread tightening. Thanks Clive :thumbsup:

Assume you mean twisting the ends together? Not sure it makes a difference, I have one of the special pliers and that winds the wire clockwise. What does matter if wiring bolt heads is that he wire is placed so it is in effect pulling the head clockwise, ie. tight, that way it holds it in position.

As one of our Antipodean members is on his travels at present, I will point him out, Rick Cove is near the centre, in desert camo waistcoat and walking stick.

Mark, I am last on the right with my brother Robert (in green fleece), next to me.

Mark, This is probably done as a matter of neccessity to get the vehicle out of a situation back to where repairs can be done. Good thing to practise, in case it happens in action. Apparantly CVR(T) vehicles have had a recent spate of rear idlers coming detached from the hull, due to the mounting bolts used being too short and the hull surface around the threaded hole, scabbing. This is from info put into the Army's information booklet, Kit magazine.

Les, The QL in that programme had Faroes registration number on it. Also it was an early one, noted by a slight difference in the rad grille. Not common on existing ones over here. So I think it was a local one.

Here is a Guy Ant that was at W&P this year. According to the information sheets it was fitted with a full cab as it was originally destined for Norway ( I think ), and was originally fitted with a Wireless body

I am afraid you obviously know nothing about the CVR(T) armour and its development, it is not a Coke can. It was designed in the mid-1960's with ballistic protection of frontal arc against 14.5mm Anti-tank rounds and with all round protection against 7.62mm armour piercing ammo at all ranges.. All over protection from 105mm HE shells detonating on the ground or in the air at 30m. Protection from mines exploding under the tracks. The fact that these vehicles have been sold to countries around the world and used successfully by British Forces, speaks for itself. I was involved in repairing and maintaining them for some years for the British Army, so have first hand technical experience of them.

Time for development was not on our side, and with factories being bombed, supply shortages, etc. it has to be said we done very well in the circumstances. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Don't forget that although tanks came into service in WW1, though the mid-war period very little development was done as they were not seen to be of use. Companies like Vickers built them on a commercial basis exporting around the world, the War Office did not influence their designs as far as I am aware.

I was going to suggest it was a car jack, the name "deluxe" is not the sort of term used on military equipment normally. Prewar cars had heavy bumper irons on the chassis ends and jacks could be placed under them. The Humber Snipe has a plate welded to the iron to locate a similar jack.