Chevrolet 1533X2 30-cwt trucks

[Andrew H.]

Thanks again for your help.
No, ours doesn't have that spacer, but we could always make and insert one, if necessary. We do have that type of smaller mount here as well (see new photo attached) as it came off another engine, but until now we have assumed a rubber mount would be better, which is why we purchased the rubber type from the USA. We don't have the springs or bolts that connect that smaller mount to the chassis, but could soon find or make them if necessary. Do you think that smaller type is the correct mount to use? Is that the same mount as the "Blitz" type of Chevs use?

[motto]

For what it's worth,

I've just been out and looked at three L/L Chev chassis and none of them have the tube spacer. For all the years I have been around these trucks I have never come across one with a spacer tube. Perhaps they have all been discarded along the way but they are obviously not a real necessity. The reason for this is that the bolt used is stepped adjacent to the threaded section and a thick washer is used that is pulled up against the step. This gives the right amount of compression on the spring and makes it impossible to crush the cross member. I can see the necessity for the tube if there was no spring to compress and you were merely tightening a bolt to clamp a bracket into place.

Also I have only ever seen the small steel bracket mount with the bolt and spring on these trucks as in Phil's drawing. I believe this is the same set up as used on the Chev Blitz. I have never seen a rubber mounting on one of these vehicles and didn't know they existed until looking on this thread. I suspect the rubber mount to be a post war innovation. Rubber was a precious commodity during the war.

David

[Andrew H.]

Thanks David,
So to be authentic there is only one type of engine mount we should be using and that is the small one with the bolt and spring and no rubber at all!
Correct?

[motto]

Yes Andrew, I believe that to be the case. I do however shy away from making definitive statements because of the frequency with which somebody turns up with conflicting data. I can only go on what I've seen and I don't know it all.

I will say this though. You can't go wrong in using the small bracket with bolt and spring, that was definitely used on wartime trucks. The rubber mounts I would be doubtful about. It is possible that the rubber type rear mounting was used on lighter vehicles, I am not familiar with those at all.

David

[Lynn Eades]

Gentlemen, it seems to me, that the answer can be determined from the parts list posted by Phill.
Do we know the series of the truck?
Do we know the year it was built?
Who has the steel mounting brackets, and what part numbers if any are on them?
The one in Phill's drawing showing the bushing and washer is a #602787 this number does not appear in the other list which mostly identifies (earlier?) numbers in the 59xxxx range.
Is the 602787 one, an improved (stronger?) model?

Andrew, yes, the spring and steel mount is the CMP style (I recall someone posted about the way the bolt is fitted)
As David states. this arrangement can be used, with no harm done, and if more info comes to light later, then so be it.

[Andrew H.]

Thanks Lyn,
I don't know the "series" of our truck but the data plate says it is a 1945 model and the attached two photos show it before we dismantled it. I think the engine number might also be relevant but its away being reconditioned at present.

And thanks also David,
I had to chuckle at your comment, as I also sometimes confidently make definitive statements which are subsequently proved wrong But in this case, I think you are correct and we will probably use the spring type of mount. As stated before, we do have a set of those mounts here, but don't have the springs or special bolts to go with them. Can anyone provide a photo of them?
Cheers,
Andrew

[Lynn Eades]

Andrew, you can probably scale the bolts from Phill's drawing. The springs are primarily there to allow the "rigid" engine assy. to move away from the chassis, which will flex in a cross country situation. The spring specs are probably not that critical.

[Phil Waterman]

Hi Lynn

There is a problem with the perfectly logical of working back from the parts sheet number to the Canadian Parts Book part numbers. The Parts Sheet was US and for some very strange reason not all the part numbers back and forth across the boarder are the same.

I have both master parts books covering period of the pages I posted, both Canadian and US an it often drives me crazy to find visually identical parts one Canadian one US with two different part numbers.

The best use of either parts book these days is to find those parts which were common to a particular time to a particular vehicle and then go looking for parts that way.

Just to add to the fun the Chevy CMP Part numbers sometimes match the civilian parts book sometimes they don't.

As I have not installed the engine mount I posted pictures of I can easily provide dimensions.

Cheers Phil