N.O.S.

abn - post of the year prize for you!! :thumbsup: You MUST watch this video past the point where the tyre explodes to understand WHY it is so dangerous. I've always known it was dangerous, but not for the right reason :wow: The really frightening thing is the revelation that removing the valve turns out to be a totally inadequate precaution.

Andy - looks more like an Antar with Deutz (air cooled)! But maybe the radiators are behind the cab??? Must be a diesel lump in there as I can't see the support bowser :-)

Oh bother - I understand from TTM the problem of installing an intercooler is more one for the older style trucks (pic is of series 4) where the radiator sits very snugly within the contoured radiator cowl at the front end of the bonnet. Mark's truck, an M1A1, uses a rectangular radiator which sits 'under' the front of the bonnet - so they've got it a bit easier...... Hopefully all other aspects of the conversion should apply to both models (at least I'm banking on it!).

Thinking about this idea more, I've no idea what air pressures are involved - the charge air must be highly compressed by the turbocharger (maybe 20 - 30 psi?), perhaps higher than a conventional water matrix could withstand (typically work at 12 - 15 psi?). So these ideas may be a non-starter?

Ah - perhaps you do get what you pay for! To get the most benefit of the engine's high H.P. rating requires charge air cooling. Normally the air core would be in front of the water core in a truck installation (?). But in order to keep the truck's original looks we were playing with the idea of using the original WLF radiator as the air-to-air core, with a high efficiency slim-line water radiatoir hidden behind. Only drawback being extra £££! What does the ERF radiator pack look like? Can you use any of it? Another idea was to modify the radiator top/bottom tanks to allow say 20% of the core for air and 80% for water. But how would a conventional water core compare to a (presumably higher efficiency) air to air core when used in this way? Of course the engine may well give a good enough output without air cooling and without smoking too much through overfuelling. But can anyone think of any other :banana: ways to cool the charge air without spoiling the front end looks? That's the mechanics well on the way to being sorted Mark - great move, and I guess a practical necessity if you are going to road her hard. How about letting Boyd Coddington have a go at that M1A1 styling next? But of course that would be the M1 series 1 - 4, wouldn't it? :cool2:

Interesting, Richard. I've some pictures somewhere of the Marshall TL cabbed 6x6 which did sell to one army I think. The civilian Marshall phaser-powered 4x4s I've seen (utility companies) also had a change to 8 stud axles.

The Marshall-built ones maybe? - last of the line :cry:

Anyone had any luck obtaining parts from, or even contacting, Army Cars recently?

Let's try again :-) Some large MVs do not fit any description of vehicle types used in the Special Types and other Regulations governing road use and exemptions. Here is a section of the Regulations which could offer the owners of such mvs the opportunity to secure a fixed term (5 years) exemption for certain vehicles or types of vehicle. Must be worth checking out before you scrap / sell that cherished vehicle? :-) www.vca.gov.uk/vehicle-special-orders/vehicle-special-orders.asp I have copied the entire content here (I believe that is pemitted Mods?) - Vehicle Special Orders under Section 44 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 On 1 April 2009 VCA became responsible for the issue and maintenance of individual Vehicle Special Orders under Section 44 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. This was formerly the responsibility of TTS Division in the Department for Transport. Section 44 orders may be either... (1) Vehicle types contained within The Road Vehicles (Authorisation of Special Types) (General) Order 2003 (Statutory Instrument 2003 No. 1998) (STGO); This can be viewed on-line at: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20031998.htm or (2) Individual Vehicle Special Orders (VSO) produced for applicants by VCA. Please note that no individual order is required for vehicles meeting and operating under the permissive requirements of the Special Types General Order (1) above, as the conditions to be met are set-out in the Statutory Instrument and any subsequent amendments. When will an Individual VSO be issued? Individual VSOs (2) are not issued simply because a vehicle cannot comply with C&U Regulations. An order is only issued when: a) suitable information has been provided by the applicant that sets out the processes that will be in place to ensure that appropriate safety issues and requirements are met; and b) When and if the reasons for non-compliance with C&U regulations are justified and supported. The applicant must provide full details as requested to enable VCA to make a valued decision. Individual VSO are required to allow the use on roads of a small number of vehicles, which are special by type or purpose. Most orders are made to allow vehicles outside the scope of the general order types (1). These vehicles may for example be for tests and trials, abnormal load movements or "one off" specials. How to apply Please apply to us in writing at the address shown below with the following initial information. a. Name and address of person / organisation making the application; b. Details of persons / organisations who will be using the vehicles, if different from (a); c. The number of vehicles involved; d. Type of vehicles involved, their make, model, registration and/or chassis (serial) numbers of motor vehicles or trailers. These will be listed on any order issued; e. Details of the vehicles e.g. number of axles, individual axle weights, and gross vehicle weights (both in kg), plus dimensions (in metres); f. In the case of vehicle combinations, overall weights (in kg) and dimensions (in metres); g. Details of the C&U Regulations with which the vehicles do not comply and the reasons why they cannot comply: The Regulations are specified on an Order and it should be made clear that failure to comply with non-specified Regulations, or supplying incorrect data would invalidate an Order. On receipt of your application VCA will evaluate your application and contact you should further information be required. Various organisations including the Police, Local Authorities and other interested parties - both within and outside of the Department of Transport may be consulted - especially in respect of the conditions to be imposed. Following receipt of all information, and assuming that there are neither any technical reasons, nor objections from any of the parties consulted, an Order will be prepared and issued within 10 working days. Once an Order has been issued Orders are issued for varying periods of time and the discretion of the Department for Transport. Typically, they are issued for a period of up to 5 years. Please note that the Secretary of State may revoke an Order. Address for applications: Vehicle Special Orders VCA Midlands Centre Watling Street, Nuneaton, Warwickshire CV10 0UA. Telephone: 02476 642797 Fax: 02476 329276 E-mail: vso@vca.gov.uk

"That'll keep Wayne the mechanic scratching his head for long enough - come on, off to the theater!"

I forgot to renew my GMC disc within the alloted time one year while she was hibernating - cost me £90 penalty :mad: Only myself to blame though.

Although if they could link the use of the vehicle to use of Historic tax, that would automatically resrict those vehicles affected by the wording to pre 1973. Of course it is easy to suggest these things - I understand that they may be tightly restricted in what they can alter without making the consultation process far more complicated.

Yes, it's looking very good. Just one suggestion - this based on the implication from your wording above that all pre-1960 vehicles which fit the classification of Locomotive (e.g. Diamond T, Matador gun tractor) will also be affected - If you subdivide the 'Locomotive' members into those who use them laden and those who only use them unladen, then - given their emphasis on not wishing to affect pre-1960 historic vehicles - you should have a very good case for requesting an exemption from testing for those vehicles pre-1960 and used unladen. I'm still not sure why such vehicles if used unladen have to be defined as locomotives, and why they cannnot be more simply defined as > 3.5t large vehicles. I'm sure they have no intention of pulling in any pre-1960 large vehicles used unladen under Historic, so you may also stand a very good chance of securing some wording in the Regulations which makes this exemption explicit. Do you see any mileage in trying for an exemption for 1960 - 1973 'special types' used unladen and taxed Historic (e.g. AEC Coles crane, Antar)? This could be beneficial to a larger number of restored civilian vehicles too. I also note in the AILV legislation that some types of AILV are restricted to movements solely in connection with movement of oversized indivisible loads, i.e. not social domestic and pleasure. Does this restriction apply to any other categories of vehicle?

Goran - he is expanding his range! Someone on here recommended him for really good quality plates a year or so back, but when I contacted him he was doing Jeep plates only.

If you go to the U.S. eBay site and look for the shop of Lt. Horne you'll find him.

Snap - that humble pie tasted quite good with loads of custard poured over it........it did taste mainly of custard though :blush: It does beg one question though - why were wire cutters needed? I've always thought of the Great War as a face-off between entrenched armies, with the barbed wire in No Man's Land where only men and tanks could operate. You wouldn't expect a car like this to get anywhere near this terrain. So it must imply the threat of sabotage teams operating well behind enemy lines, laying single strand wire traps for unwary motorised 'brass'. Which surprises me a bit.

I thought that was meant tongue-in-cheek (as in one of these cars going 'over the top' into the wire and mud above the trenches). If not, I do apologise :-) (Looking at it that way it was very funny though) :-D (edit: Well actually not funny at all if you think of the horrors that awaited them as they went over the top. No - my mistake :embarrassed:) This was an advert from one of a large batch of the 'Great War Magazine' which I recently picked up. Some very graphic photographs and sketches of the front line, and some interesting reports of actions as they took place, rather than written many years in retrospect.

Eyesight problem - what eyesight problem?

:rofl::rofl::rofl:Pretty good for a first post - looking forward to the next 1,000.......

Very strange :??? - wonder what that is about, but as you say could turn out to be a lifeline. Good call Cosrec! :thumbsup:

Was this the first vehicle-mounted wire cutter I wonder? Looks a bit more stylish than the jeep version!

Here's the one I'd like - having spent a while last year looking around this looks to be good blend of quality and value but I cannot justify it at the moment. How long is it till Christmas? :-D http://www.ridgidseesnake2.com/ Also I keep looking at the more expensive models and thinking the smaller diameter head would be so much better, so I'll probably end up never having one at all!

Are we still hung up on the idea that a vehicle can only ever be classified or described as one type? You say there is no category for 'out of width goods vehicles' other than AILV. But why does Stalwart have to be regarded as a goods vehicle? Is the solution for such vehicles to look at how that vehicle type might legitimately be considered as something other than just one type of vehicle? I have suggested the Stalwart could be used as a Locomotive, in which case (if I really wanted to use it as such) couldn't I register it as a Locomotive, so long as it complied with all the regulations which apply to Locomotives? Here's an example - in exactly the same way that a heavy haulage company uses a specialist tractor (Locomotive) to haul trailers, they could also legitimately use a bog standard HVG 6 x 4 26 tonne tipper as a Locomotive - ballast in back and a good drawbar, and tax / test / operate it as a Locomotive. They would not be able to use that vehicle for locomotive work one day and bulk gravel deliveries the next unless of course the vehicle complied in all respects to the taxation / testing / C&U requirements of each specific use, in which case they could. Given the restrictive definition of Locomotive I don't think this example is valid Am I talking complete scribble here? It's just that I see it as a wholly legitimate solution to the problem you've raised. I very much hope that this shake-up will not result in overwidth vehicles like Stalwart having to come off the roads - but if my reasoning above is flawed then 'continued use of existing overwidth vehicles' should form a major discussion point in any respresentations.

Another thing which confuses me (not difficult nowadays but bear with me) - You say Stalwart has a load platform and drop sides so clearly is load carrier not locomotive - what is the difference between Stalwart's body and the big box thing on the back of many locomotives designed to carry a load (e.g. ballast weights)? I would have thought it was quite reasonable to legitimately use a Stalwart as a locomotive. After all wasn't it also used for pulling a gun, with the ammo acting as ballast? p.s. please don't read any antagonism or similar into my posts - we need to get this right and I do appreciate the way you are very sensibly trying to tie everyones' comments back to a piece of legislation for clarification.

I'm confused now - So what is to prevent a Stalwart being taxed and used on the road outside the Construction & Use Regs? Why is there a restriction on 'Special Types' - a category specifically created for vehicles such as the Stalwart? Just because that category might not have existed when the Stalwart was born, why does that stop it being placed in any current category that fits? This is important, so you can establish which vehicles will be affected by the changes proposed. The WIDTH thing is coming back to bite us again - in the interests of clarity should we be establishing exactly what the width limit is, for the following: large vehicles currently able to operate as a test exempt class (e.g. locomotive) same vehicles should they be required to have a test a vehicle pre-1960 operating under Historic tax with no clearly defined clasification on V5