Great War truck Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 I went to have a look at this local Jeep today. The chassis number dates it to March 1942 but it looks like it has been through a complete REME rebuild which has changed the machine which is a little bit of a shame but it is a super machine. Any comments or observations please: Why has a "B" been stamped here: British army canvas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon king Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 Still got the vertical footmen's loops on the rear panel for the Humber sidescreens, as well as those on the side below the hood bow mounting. There should also be an angled one on the outside in the general area of the driver's/passenger's hips. The Lucas horn push is often indicative or an airborne conversion as the standard horn push on the steering wheel was lost when the quick release mechanism for the wheel was fitted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gas 44 Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 Well for what its worth this is my take on things.... Ive had many talks with an MVT verification officer on the subject of jeep restoration and in particular re-tubing. His stance is simple, new tub, as far as he is concerned it should be a "Q" plate, of couse I am talking about registering for the first time. Now lets think about this, Mr Smith owns a 15 year old Land Rover, he has an accident its rolled,the body is damaged beyond economic repair. The insurance company,accept the rest of the vehicle is ok and agree a new body shell. So a major change, should it be re-registered as a Q plate or keep its age related plate ? I once went to a show, in the midlands, saw a very nice looking Jeep in US Navy colours (blue) I got talking to the owner he tells me that he "commisioned" this jeep to be built by a prominent jeep parts supplier ( he gave me NO name) He admitted that over 90% of the parts were new or nos, but insisted the speedo and milometer where were original. It was also its first registration. As far as I'm concerned original chassis, running gear, engine and gearbox, forms a very good basis for an original vehicle. Looking at a lot of jeeps if NOS or repro parts where frowned on then there would be a lot less on the road (good job I hear some say......) I have a jeep, and there are both repo and nos part fitted to mine, Im also lucky enough to own a GMC and Wc51 which have far less none original parts fitted. I really believe that some people get too hot under the collar about everthing being original, and to be honest I'm getting fed up with those people,claiming that the poor condition,worn out parts and overall tatty appearance, is in their words "patina" when in fact it comes down to (not in all cases) down right laziness. Sorry but you did ask !!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Ashby Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 (edited) That’s Interesting a VEP first contract March 42 GPW? going by the tooling holes in the rear cross member. My British operated GPW ( see here http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?44986-Just-when-you-thought-it-was-safe-another-one-turns-up) is the first week of April 42 and that showed similar additions/ modification to the one in your pictures including the 'B' punched into the spring saddle and I've no idea what it's for either. It’s got a green Sheler steering wheel which is correct for month, no black out driving light on the wing again correct but I can see I hole in the inner wing for a harness so it may have been welded up on the top face?. It appears to have been fitted with an ACM2 body at some point (like mine) and it’s lost it’s original spare wheel carrier and has a British army fabricated one by the look of it and it’s gained a latter grill along the way Both MB and GPW’s of this period should not have safety chain rings below the pintal hook. The windscreen outer frame is wrong for a early jeep it should have cast bronze locking catches and no rifle holder mounting brackets. The inner screen may well be Hotchkis as I can see a number of holes for brackets that take the large vacuum wiper units The engine bay shows the standard signs of age related changes ie positive crank case breather mod this was not fitted to early jeeps, it does seem to have the correct early standard air filter with the instructions embossed directly in to the body and not surprisingly it’s lost it’s original horn and gained a post war water pump. All in all not a bad job and with a little bit of TLC could be made very nice indeed, the hood is interesting I’ve not seen British made post war one like that before. Are we aloud to ask what the frame number is? at a guess I would think around the 10000 to 12000 mark I would hazard a guess it's one of 725 GPW’s and 175 MB’s withdrawn from US forces and re issued to the British in the late spring early summer of 42. Iv'e just looked at the pictures again particularly the dash photo and I can't see a cut out in the top center of the scuttle seam, could be Hotchkis or early reproduction Pete Edited April 19, 2015 by Pete Ashby additional comments in italics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony B Posted April 19, 2015 Share Posted April 19, 2015 (edited) Is it a decent price, and does it run OK? My Dodges, the chassis have a build date of the 4th February and the 24th October 1944. Are they 'Totally original' I doubt it, actually I know there not, the WC51 Ruby has a Norwegian Dynamo dated 1961. Katy the WC54 has a 1952 rebuild plate. Even modern military vehicles are repaired , rebuilt , subject to mid life upgrades etc. Does it detract? Not for me, Katy has repairs to the bodywork all over her, they are part of her individual history and why she is diffrent from all the rest. Edited April 19, 2015 by Tony B Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great War truck Posted April 20, 2015 Author Share Posted April 20, 2015 Thanks chaps. What a great amount of knowledge you all have. I think the originality issue will run and run, but it is not a concern here as the Jeep has been rebuilt no doubt several times and includes wartime parts from many different Jeeps and a Hotchkiss screen. it has lost its original identity but that is all part of its story. The chassis number was 22XX. One of the lowest that I have seen. I am sure the cut-out was there but it does not show in the photos. I thought that the body was all original. If it was not original then it was pre 1960 which seems a little unlikely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean N Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 Tim, I know nothing about Jeeps so I can't comment on originality, but one thing that does occur to me is the rust coming out under the spring saddle and on the axle tube adjacent to it. It also looks a bit sparse in a couple of other areas. For such an immaculate and apparently recent restoration it does suggest that the paint is a bit dry and / or lacking, perhaps even that it hasn't been properly primed. I wonder whether it's one of those that will start looking quite shabby in a couple of years' time when the damp gets into it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Ashby Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 The chassis number was 22XX. One of the lowest that I have seen. I am sure the cut-out was there but it does not show in the photos. I thought that the body was all original. If it was not original then it was pre 1960 which seems a little unlikely. Tim with a frame number that low it would put it in the first week of March for production the other thing that makes it really rare is that it carries that number on a Ford frame it must be one of the very first to be produced by Ford, prior to this ie No1 and for an unknown number in February Midland frames were used (same as fitted to the MB through out it's production run) I'm still not convinced about the body however I really can't see a cut out on the scuttle seam at best I think it's a ACM2 composite body (post January44) do you have any pictures of the inside the rear body area?. Having said all with a couple of ~£1k spent it could still be an excellent example Pete 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.