Ford Dingo Fuel Tank Bungs

[maple_leaf_eh]

Originally Posted by David Herbert

I suspect that you are just seeing manufacturing tolerences. As long as they both fit the hole there would be no reason to reject the thicker one as it would serve its purpose just as well and possibly better than the thin one which I can see though would look neater.

These sort of low tech parts were often sub-contracted out to very small companies and I have seen a lot of variability in production of such parts from the UK, Canada and Australia.

Of course you are quite right, it could just be a verson for a better armoured vehicle.

David

The British had a different view of standardization than I perceive of the Americans. No.4 Lee Enfield rifle parts were made by dozens of subcontractors, using the equipment they had already. Each part tended to be made by one particular firm, such as Slazenger made walnut stocks instead of tennis rackets. There are some variations, rear sights especially, but the objective was to deliver. Look at an American M1 Garand, and you'll see only a few variations across a range of parts. Those differences were controlled by drawing numbers. Winchester for instance was always a few revision sheets behind Springfield. Look at M4 Shermans and the blur of variations. As long as parts installed without additional fitting, they got onto the assembly line. Perhaps that tolerance was born of British craft workshop attitudes versus the standardization practises of US assembly lines.