Adam Elsdon Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Just been up looking at a Matador with Croc (from this forum) I have known about it for a long time, but this was the first time we have pulled its tarpaulin off and had a good look at it. Its chassis number is 08536901 Its Engine number is 7602. If anybody would like to pontificate over the numbers and tell me what its all about, it would be much appreciated!! We have noticed a few things that are different, but we'll see what you think... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Elsdon Posted July 31, 2009 Author Share Posted July 31, 2009 More pics.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willyslancs Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 looks like a nice truck mate........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
private mw Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 yes nice find :coffee: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Elsdon Posted July 31, 2009 Author Share Posted July 31, 2009 A couple from inside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 (edited) At a very quick glance something doesn't look right. RAF matadors generally had the rear towing spring mounted on a sub frame, hung below the chassis rails. This doesn't look right in the photo. RAF Matadors generally also has vacuum brake connection for towing the many vacuum braked trailers the RAF had, yet no sign of this (ie no vacuum guage on the dash, by the look of it) My guess is it is an Army Mat that may have transferred to the RAF or it may be someone has just repainted an Army Mat as RAF, even though it never was. Could be wrong, wait to hear more. Also from photo looks like rear Roundel is actually a transfer, Air Bubbles, seems to span the Bevel on the T&G. surely at the age this Mat appears to be this should be painted on (yes I remember the thread that went into roundels on the rear of RAf vehicles, before I get reminded) Edited July 31, 2009 by antarmike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony B Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 More there than most turning up. I'd get it whilst it going! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Elsdon Posted July 31, 2009 Author Share Posted July 31, 2009 At a very quick glance something doesn't look right. RAF matadors generally had the rear towing spring mounted on a sub frame, hung below the chassis rails. This doesn't look right in the photo. RAF Matadors generally also has vacuum brake connection for towing the many vacuum braked trailers the RAF had, yet no sign of this (ie no vacuum guage on the dash, by the look of it) My guess is it is an Army Mat that may have transferred to the RAF or it may be someone has just repainted an Army Mat as RAF, even though it never was. Could be wrong, wait to hear more. Also from photo looks like rear Roundel is actually a transfer, Air Bubbles, seems to span the Bevel on the T&G. surely at the age this Mat appears to be this should be painted on (yes I remember the thread that went into roundels on the rear of RAf vehicles, before I get reminded) I wouldnt get to hung up about the originality of the paint job! its an old restoration, its been green and yellow, possibly a local council vehicle at some point, it fits their scheme, and then it got the RAF Blue treatment. The winch has been removed, and the original air tank disconnected and an alternative tank fitted where the winch was. The rear crossmember has been modified and the fairlead rollers removed. Also the rear canopy isnt what it seems, its been made up to fit and look the part, and the steps up into the rear bed are different. But apart from that it seems reasonably straight, it hasnt been desperately hacked about, and its still a Matador! Pic of the rear crossmember;- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormin Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Driving postion looks awkward to say the least. Pick a gear and stick with would be the order of the day unless you have very skinny legs. Is the handbrake meant to be applied after the driver has left the cab? Looks like there's a link missing from the cooling system between the heads! Apart from the above looks a very good truck, buy it now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philb Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Go for it! There aren't many left looking that good. That would make a very practical vehicle for you and Croc to drive down to GDSF some year.:-D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbrtcrowther Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Driving postion looks awkward to say the least. Pick a gear and stick with would be the order of the day unless you have very skinny legs.! Crikey!! you must have eagle eyes! I never spotted his leg jambed on the gearstick. Must have been the camo pants! Near invisible you know!:-D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Elsdon Posted July 31, 2009 Author Share Posted July 31, 2009 Driving postion looks awkward to say the least. Pick a gear and stick with would be the order of the day unless you have very skinny legs.Is the handbrake meant to be applied after the driver has left the cab? Looks like there's a link missing from the cooling system between the heads! Apart from the above looks a very good truck, buy it now! Its not a bad driving position, im a big bloke and dont find it too bad, apart from getting past the levers/pedals on the way in with size 11 boots. The gear lever is easy enough to operate in any position, you can push it over to the left with your leg to select a lower gear or reverse. And that is indeed the cylinder heads cooling crossover that is missing between the heads, we have found it, one of the studs is bust, but not end of the world to fix. So Croc and I for GDSF next year, creeping down in our Geriatric trucks! Any takers on the age of the thing, going by the S/No's??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Batchelor Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 I'm 6'3" and once I'm in mine its not too bad to drive, negotiating the handbrake is another story though. Nice looking truck, is it running 7.9 or 6.25 diffs, or like mine one of each! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefano Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 If you've got room for it buy it! Whatever issues it may have (and I'll happily admit to knowing nothing about Matadors) it's way better than most that you see for sale. And my view is that if it's not RAF it's even better. Just think of it with Royal Artillery tac marks and mickey mouse camouflage... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Batchelor Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Or a jib and anchors...if you find a winch for it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 (edited) O8536901 was H5470111 later 18YZ41 early to mid 1944 at a guess (O853 7289 is June 1944) So yes definitely Army Edited August 1, 2009 by antarmike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 6892 to 6902 were in the range H570102 to H5470112, 6906, poss 6919, 6924 were all RAF, RAF had another batch in the range 6980 to 6999. so at that time AEC were building for the RAF but this one is Army, this one being towards the end of an Army batch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Driving position is typical matador. I find it good. The drawback of a Mtador is a sprung seat base and a fixed backrest, which chaffs your back as you bounce up and down. Getting out the cab would be worse if the winch was still fitted because the winch brake lies alongside the Hand brake, and reduces the room for you to place you foot in the doorway as you scramble out. The rope to haul youself in still hangs on the nearside, can't see if the drivers rope is still there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Elsdon Posted August 1, 2009 Author Share Posted August 1, 2009 (edited) O8536901 was H5470111 later 18YZ41 mid 1944 at a guess (O853 7289 is June 1944) So yes definitely Army Mike, Thats more than i could of hoped for! :thumbsup: It still has its winch lever in the cab etc, the winch gear inbetween the chassis rails has been removed. As far as i can tell the rear sprung cross member and fairlead rollers have been unbolted, and the present state of affairs bolted/welded on, so reasonably straight forward to return to standard. Another question, the windscreen opens differently from others i have seen, the top half doesnt open, the small part of the split screen is hinged and opens up and outwards, and the door glass is raised lowered using a canvas strap with holes in that go over a peg to set the height, are these a late in the war cheaper faster to produce "Austerity" modification? Edited August 1, 2009 by Adam Elsdon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smithy Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 So Croc and I for GDSF next year, creeping down in our Geriatric trucks! He has enough to play with already when he is down there!!! :-D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Adam - BUY IT NOW!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matador Steve Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 You should definately buy it, asuming its not silly money, I think you would go a long way to find another Matador with such restoration potential ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 (edited) Oh and front axle looks like Tracta joint 7.9:1 ratio Edited August 1, 2009 by antarmike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abn deuce Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Seems from the driving position that they must have been built for drivers with a left leg amputation above the knee, even if the shift pattern is strictly in a motion front to back only that lever and knob have to be uncomfortable even for short periods of time. Is the engine free or has it seized ? it would look to be a good investment except for the driving position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
croc Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 There is nothing wrong with the driving position, just like any other Mat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.