![]() |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Thanks! Can anyone answer the fuel tank and pedal queries please? I can guess that the pedal was metal with holes in it for military boots...rubber pedals wear and can cause the foot to slip if the driver has wet, muddy clodhoppers. Potentially nasty!
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
It's the same situation as my early Dodges, which were much the same configuration.
Civilian trucks tended to have long thin tanks down the side of the chassis, and these tanks were also used on the 'militarised civilian' trucks like my WC 36 Carryalls. However, in military use all those tanks got wrecked very quickly, so they tended to be replaced with the rear-mounted tanks out of the 4 x 4 trucks. You wouldn't normally put a tank under the back of a 4 x 2 truck because that's where most of them slung the spare wheels, but on military trucks the spares couldn't be mounted underneath because they were normally also fitted with rear bumperettes which completely obstructed the underslung spare wheel. Still with me? good. My two WC36 chassis were made only 83 apart, and both were fitted with the longitudinal tanks, but both had the rear chassis drilled to take the small crossbrace which supported the leading edge of the rear-mounted tank. One had the cross brace on it - obviously unused, and the other had the holes but no brace. I have no details on the Chevrolet, but suspect it is much the same. Surviving military versions would be rare, so your correspondant might want to keep all the bits he takes off, all traces of the original markings, etc, etc. he should also check out the STOVEBOLT Forum for info on this age of Chev. Gordon
__________________
Gordon, in Scotland |
![]() |
|
|