Chevrolet 1533X2 30-cwt trucks

[Phil Waterman]

Originally Posted by Andrew Honeyfield

G’Day from NZ ,
Three of us here are creating replica of a 1942 LRDG Chev 1533X2 30cwt truck (the long-nosed kind with the “art deco” grille). Ours is based on a 1945 truck, which we assume was partly built in Australia as it has GMH stamped on some parts. We are having frustrating problems obtaining t... Both types from the US are made of steel with a vulcanised rubber pad inside.

...This is very strange, because if we use the new US engine mount as supplied, it will be a metal-to-metal connection and the rubber part will have no cushioning or damping effect at all. In the attached photos of our original mount, the red "male" piece fits inside the black "female" piece as shown...

I have searched the forum and seen a diagram in another post showing one kind of engine mount that has no rubber, but uses springs instead. However I am not sure whether that is suitable for our truck.

It would be great if someone could put us on the right track.

Hi Andrew

Finding CMP parts or Militarized Civilian Truck Parts is an interesting challenge as you well know. Don't know which US parts supplier you are dealing with but most if not all of them really are geared to dealing with cars and pickups.

The following is out of the Canadian Chevy Truck Parts Cataloque 1938-1951 it gives information on engine mounts parts # and which trucks they fit as a starting point.

Could you post a picture of where the mount bolts on to the transmission and the cross member that it sits on?

Is this the engine mount you found "I have searched the forum and seen a diagram in another post showing one kind of engine mount that has no rubber, but uses springs instead. However I am not sure whether that is suitable for our truck. "




The following is out of the Canadian Chevy Truck Parts Cataloque 1938-1951 it gives information on engine mounts parts # and which trucks they fit as a starting point. (I had to post this off MLU and link it to get it so you can read the part numbers.)









From the note at the end of mount section I would take it that they routinely replaced the rubber mounts in rough service with the spring units.

Hope this helps.

Cheers Phil

http://www.mapleleafup.net/forums/sh...ghlight=engine

[Andrew H.]

Thanks everyone for your prompt response!

Lyn: There are no markings on the original mounts (so maybe they are not original?).

Cliff: Our truck is definitely made in Canada as the data-plate says so. However some parts are stamped "GMH" indicating parts were added in the Holden factory in Australia before being shipped to NZ. It is the militarised version with the wooden steering wheel and army instrument panel.

Phil: Thanks for your helpful and very comprehensive reply. Yes your diagram is the one I was referring to. Am I correct in thinking that that type of mount was used in trucks used for "heavy duty"? If so, then the LRDG trucks would surely have used that type of mount? The attached photo shows the cross-member with the original(?) "male" mount at right and one of the new (female-only) US mounts at left.

[Phil Waterman]

Hi

In the drawing it is hard to see but there is a tube spacer between the top and bottom of the cross member to keep the rear engine mount from crushing or deforming the cross member. Dose your have this spacer and the reenforced bottom?

Cheers Phil

[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 (RIP)]

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 (RIP)]

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.