[David_Hayward (RIP)]

The answer is that they could have been 4 x 4 Maple Leafs, Model 1663 2½-tonner trucks of 133¼ in. wheelbase although in 1939/40 GM of Canada made available GMC 9433 and 9533 4 x 4 chassis 133 inch wheelbase trucks for export. The reason we know is because Canadian Department of National Defence archives state that in the summer of 1939 4 x 4 GMCs were demonstrated to various parties that were intended for the 'Malay States'. GM Java supplied the Malay States, Singapore and NEI. Canadian GMC and Chevrolet/Maple Leaf were clones of each other so the GMCs just mentioned had Chevrolet 216 engines. General Motors-Holden's in Australia assembled some 4 x 4 Maple Leafs in 1940 Model Year and these must have used an imported system, most likely the General Motors Truck 4 x 4 Timken axle and transfer case.

In addition I can say that GM Truck in Pontiac, Michigan, sold 4 x 4 GMCs from 1936 onwards at least which were assembled in GM Continental, Antwerp for the Dutch and Belgian Armies. The 1939-40 GMC 4 x 4 was the ACK-353 Model 4930, and they were definitely assembled in Antwerp. Right-hand drive versions were then shipped off to General Motors Java Handel Mij Jakarta for supply to the NEI forces. GM Java opened in May 1927 had Plant Code XQ but was incorporated 3 February 1927.

In addition there were the Dutch DAF 'Trado' conversions: DAF converted Chevrolet chassis to 4 x 4 for the Dutch Army in 1940, and had provided all-wheel drive conversions since 1935. The last batch of 1940 Models were seized before they could be shipped, and were taken over by the Germans.

You might like to know that after the Japanese invaded Chevrolet assembly was moved out of the port, with a view to providing vehicles for the Army. When the Japs finally took over they seized all the vehicles, assembled or not, and then used them for their own forces. The GM Java Plant became a Toyota [?] truck factory producing military trucks. Post-war it was resuscitated having beeb slightly damaged but had a short life, becoming the Batavia Branch after 1947 until liquidated 1955. General Motors Corporation made a War Damage Claim in 1966-67 for the losses suffered.

On Tuesday, 30 May at G.M. of Canada, Oshawa, Ontario, Colonel Carr was shown two 4 x 4 trucks destined apparently for the Malay States. ...... The company informed him that they also had orders for two more such trucks for Australia, one for India and one for Egypt. The front axle on all of these trucks was a ‘Timkin’ [actually Timken], product that was similar in all respects to the Marmon-Herrington system, which was also produced by Timken. The two trucks seen had 7.50 x 20-inch tyres with dual rear wheels, and 13.50 x 20-inch single wheels all round. The wheelbase in each case was the standard 133-inch, which coincides with some Chevrolet and G.M.C. 1939 Model trucks. The exhibited trucks looked abnormally high in the front because of the straight axle and the fact that the mudguards for the standard drop-axle were being used, exaggerating the space between tyre and mudguard. They were fitted in front with a screen over the radiator and headlights identical to those used by the U.S. Army. The whole design was evolved in Pontiac, Michigan, and all parts were at that time being imported from the U.S. ...... It was stated that the production of the front axle in Canada would not be very difficult, though the transfer case would give more trouble and unless production warranted it, the creation of facilities in Canada would hardly be justified. An estimate of six months was given as the time to get quantity production of the transfer case in Canada. It was afterwards admitted that this referred to mass production, and as a tool-room job a fair number could be produced before the end of six months. Carmichael, the G.M. of Canada General Manager, was present at the trials and he advised that the company were anxious to produce two units for testing by the D.N.D., and that they could be made to any specification laid down. No mention of purchase was made and it was afterwards intimated to [Colonel N.O. ]Carr by Kirkhope that there was no intention of selling the units to the D.N.D. Carmichael was informed that Carr was ready to lay down a specification which in his opinion was the best to follow for two experimental vehicles; that he could see no special advantages in the designs then being called for if they were regarded from the viewpoint of the War Office and the knowledge he possessed in regard to the latter’s aims, but he felt that it might be better to draw up a specification after consulting other possible consumers. Carmichael waved aside this proposal and intimated that the D.N.D. should produce what they thought was the best vehicle and left it to them to try to sell the idea abroad. He took him at his word, he said, and discussed in detail with the Chief Engineer, Armstrong, and Kirkhope the design to which he thought the two vehicles should be produced. This was that both vehicles were to be of minimum wheelbase, estimated to be approximately 108-inches. Both vehicles were to have the front end redesigned to admit of the driver being placed as far forward as possible. Armstrong suggested that he thought that by using the widest track available the driver could be positioned so that his feet were well up beside the engine. If this worked out satisfactorily then the loading space behind the driver should be equivalent or very nearly so, to that of the 15-cwt. Both vehicles were to be fitted with cowl and windscreen only and bucket seat. One vehicle was to be fitted with the standard Chevrolet [216] engine, and the other with a larger engine, which had only recently been developed, namely the 248 cu. in 6-cylinder . One vehicle was to be fitted with 13.50 x 16 tyres and the other 9.00 x 16 tyres, single wheels all round. These specifications were presented to Armstrong as an ideal to be aimed for and a formal response in writing was promised. However, Carr envisaged a difficulty with the production of the wheels for the 9.00 x 16-inch tyres as the offset required on the front axle was very large. The double-flanged wheel as produced by Kelsey [Kelsey Wheel Company Limited, Windsor, Ontario] would not meet requirements. There was however a possible solution as India had ordered on their truck the fitment of 13.50 x 16-inch tyres and had told G.M. that they were to proceed with the obtaining of this equipment. This item had held up the production of the truck for India for some time as it was thought initially that the fitting of a wheel of this diameter would be impossible. The standard brake drum was about 14-inches in diameter, though after further study in conjunction with Timken, it had been decided to fit an 11 to 12-inch brake drum that would take a 16-inch wheel. If the spider of such a wheel was produced then in order to convert it to use with a 9.00 x 16-inch tyre would simply require the importation of the rim from [Dunlop?] England. It was further understood that 13.50 x 16 tyres were by then obtainable in the U.S. and that the Dominion Rubber Company Limited were also about ready to start Canadian production as well. G.M. were then busily engaged on the 1940 Models [launched 20 October, engine production for 1939 Models stopped in June, and 1940 started in August], hence Armstrong though that it would be most unlikely that these two experimental trucks could be produced before the end of August, but ‘he would do his best’. Carr rode in the truck bound for Malaya, apparently around Durham County, which had been fitted with 13.50 x 20 tyres, and about 20 miles were covered on a back country road with a maximum obtained of 43 m.p.h. The truck was said to be very unstable as the final front-end geometry had not been set-up. However, the G.M.C. truck, for that is what it was, allowed the disengaging the front axle and had an auxiliary gearbox [2-speed] providing for a total of 8 forward speeds and two reverse. Caldwell, the M.G.O. [Master-General of the Ordnance], commented in handwriting on the original note that he found the information ‘very interesting’. He was of the opinion that it was advisable to go ahead on ‘our own design’ based on known British trends and concurred in Carr’s action in the matter. He commented ‘anything we produce on these lines which is satisfactory to us is likely to be at least generally satisfactory to other Empire countries’. ...