Humber FV1600 - Page 10

Richard Coutts-Smith · #**271** 29-05-10, 01:39

Ok Keith, must admit they did look a little enthusiastic, I guess it may change on the day though, if they actually want to sell the vehicles.
Mind you, I saw the famous $36 000 Jeep last weekend (Now with 600 miles on the clock), and we have all been to Auctions and sales where prices have gone through the roof. (And very,very rarely, where the prices where rock bottom!!)
Rich

lynx42 · #**272** 29-05-10, 04:15

Auction started at 10.00am WA time and lot ( went up at 10.o7am. Sold to someone for $10,500.00 quite quickly(3 minutes). Too much for me when you add the transport costs to the East. It was interesting phone bidding, never done that before. I hope the new owner enjoys it as much as I would have. I don't know how they can anounce a reserve of $15,000.00 and then knock it down so quickly at a lower price.
Rick.

Richard Coutts-Smith · #**273** 29-05-10, 13:13

Thanks for the update Rick. Thought it may have got a little more than that. Did you really want another one? I guess it is understandable though...
Rich

warren brown · #**274** 28-06-10, 06:55

G'day everybody, I'm new to the site - (I'm a CMP, M3A1 and Willys MB owner). However I've always had a fascination with FV1600s. As a kid, on holidays, we went to Sussex Inlet about two hours drive south of Sydney where two Humbers were parked alongside a petrol station. From memory (I was about five and this was about 1970 mind you) my Dad said they belonged to the PMG for telephone repair work in the bush. i don't remember whether they were operational or just dumped there, but Dad called them -"Humber Radio Trucks".
Years later, when I was in the cadets, the Air Training Corps, a kid who was also in the ATC bought one and was learning to get his driver's licence on it!
I thought it was a hot truck! But I've seen only two or three since.
I've seen very few but I'd love to get hold of one. Here are two questions - How difficult is it to obtain a restored one - and what would one be worth?

warren brown · #**275** 28-06-10, 06:58

Aha! If only I'd read the past few pages before I wrote that previous post. Pretend I said nothing. Straight to the boofheads corner...

Lynn Eades · #**276** 28-06-10, 08:38

After you put up a post, you will see an edit option (bottom right) You can delete your whole post or change it if you wish.
If your quick enough, no one knows.

warren brown · #**277** 28-06-10, 12:04

Thanks Lynn - I'll keep this in mind for the future. I know very, very little about these vehicles - about five years ago I met a Rolls Royce collector who, believe it or not - had a fairly rough FV1600 as part of an otherwise amazing collection of antique RRs simply because of its engine and he called the truck a Commer rather than a Humber. Rather gingerly I tried to correct him, but he simply told me it was a Commer. I tried to correct him again, but he dismissed me as a dill and that the truck was a Commer. I pointed out to him - gently - that someone had handwritten Humber on the bonnet ( I think it was bought at an auction) and mudguard but he disregarded this and it was still a Commer.
However, sometime later, I read somewhere that in Australia - these trucks were actually termed Commers - is this true?

Richard Coutts-Smith · #**278** 28-06-10, 13:37

Hi Warren,
You have such good taste!
The 100 or so Humbers ordered by the Aust. Army were "badged" as Commers. The only difference is on the data plate which is found on the chassis behind the front left wheel, this has Commer stamped on it instead of Humber. In my experience they are called Humbers regardless. I would say that any imported by Archie Marshall in to WA in th 1960's would be stamped as Humbers anyway.
As for getting one, took me 12 years to find a nice one. Maybe 10 good condition roadable ones over here, they are very susceptible to rust as you will see if you go through the posts in this thread.
Nice one just sold in WA for $10500, thought it may have got a little more though.
If you want to do a restoration there are a few down Stawell (Vic) way that are saveable. If you are serious about getting a good one I can ask around.
You are more than welcome to have a drive of mine to see if it was what you really want, you just need to be travelling the Hume Freeway as you would go past our back fence.
Hope this helps
Rich.

warren brown · #**279** 28-06-10, 15:45

Rich, thanks so much for your offer. If I'm heading your way I'll let you know well in advance and definately take you up on the offer.

I'd dearly love an FV1600 but he only thing is that I'm not sure I am capable of maintaining - let alone restoring - post-war British vehicles like the Humber or a Champ in that they're another level above WWII vehicles like a Blitz or a Scout Car. I can handle them - easy.
That's why I reckon I'd be looking at a goer rather than a resto - I've restored quite a few cars over the years, but a ground up Humber is a serious undertaking. But what a good thing!
And thanks for the Commer info! I wonder why it was that they were badged as such? Do you know? Cheers and many thanks .

warren brown · #**280** 28-06-10, 15:49

BTW Rich - great looking vehicle - red hot.

Richard Coutts-Smith · #**281** 29-06-10, 01:31

Hi Warren,
Both Humber and Commer were part of the Rootes Group. It was a marketing decision to call them Humbers in the UK, based on Humber being a known name for military vehicles (eg.Humber Amoured Car). I expect it was a similar decision for Australia?? Maybe the Commer brand was recognised as more "Truck", with Humber more "Car".
A full restoration would be a serious undertaking, they are heavy and awkward to work on and takes a bit to get your head around the design. But this goes for all the British vehicles of that era, you should see the ones that did'nt go into production!
Mind you, there are advantages, you can talk while driving, and the ride is surprisingly good.
As for the much maligned Champ; buying one turned out to be the best thing I ever did. You just can't tell, can you.
Rich.

fv1620 · #**282** 29-06-10, 02:22

warren brown · #**283** 29-06-10, 06:13

There you go - the RR collector was probably right!

Richard Coutts-Smith · #**284** 29-06-10, 08:18

Hi Clive,
Thats a new one on me. Do you have the book or just the pic of the front cover? Wanted to know if it was released for the civilian market (that did not eventuate) as it does not look like anything I have seen released for the War Office.
This is the first time I have seen anything mentioning the Commer connection apart from the data plate, in the FVRDE Chertsey exhibition '54 & '56 the one ton 4x4 was clearly shown as manufactured by Humber, while Commer did supply various versions of their own 3 ton 4x4.
Most Interesting,
Rich.

Richard Farrant · #**285** 29-06-10, 09:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Coutts-Smith

This is the first time I have seen anything mentioning the Commer connection apart from the data plate, in the FVRDE Chertsey exhibition '54 & '56 the one ton 4x4 was clearly shown as manufactured by Humber,

Hi Rich,

Commer, Humber, etc., all came under the Rootes Group umbrella. It would appear that the FV1600 series built for the British Army, were badged as Humber, due to the success of the large range of wartime Humbers. In fact I understand that the vehicles were actually produced by Rootes at its plant in Maidstone, Kent, which was the Tilling Stevens works. Bart Vanderveen notes this in his book. It could be that exports, to Australia, were badged Commer because that name was already associated with trucks, where Humber was thought of as a car.

This sort of thing happened before, the Humber Armoured Car produced during the war, was actually built by Karrier, another commercial vehicle maker in the Rootes Group.

fv1620 · #**286** 04-07-10, 19:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Coutts-Smith

This is the first time I have seen anything mentioning the Commer connection apart from the data plate

Rich sorry for the delay, I never seem to get email notification of replies on MLU although my User CP is set to receive them.

Anyway it is the whole book I have. A number of interesting points.

250 - FV1601 Presumably the production figure for these Commers? The front cover is marked IB 250.

The front cover indicates 1953, so I first thought this was as a stop-gap before the publication of a User Handbook particularly in view of the Sgt who lays claim to the book.

But I have the provisional UHB WO Code No.17765 dated Feb 1953, so that was available early on. Although there is NO reference to "Humber" in it even the amended reprint still doesn't mention Humber.

The term Humber was in use in an AMTS Bordon publication dated July 1953.

The Commer book is A4 being an "Operation & Maintenance Manual" it contains details of servicing fluids which would be in the Servicing Schedule & not the UHB.

The layout of the books is quite different, most but not all of the illustrations are the same.

Richard Coutts-Smith · #**287** 05-07-10, 00:44

Hi Clive,
Your raising more questions than answers I think.
My "Commer" is plated 1953, same as the book.
Was this manual provided in each truck? I believe the Australian order was 100, and as the only export order that would mean only 100 Commers, so the 250 may not have anything to do with numbers produced.
Australian Army used the Humber Operation/User manual.
Your Commer manual was obviously released to the British Army (10th Light Horse).
Seems logical that this may have been for the planned civilian market.
I think it only fair that this manual be reunited with a genuine Commer One Ton as soon as possible......(Now which door pocket does it go in?)
Rich.

fv1620 · #**288** 05-07-10, 10:30

Rich. Ok that the Australian Army used the WO UHB. Maybe that's why there was no name printed on it. Whatever name was chosen it would confuse the soldiers of the other country?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Coutts-Smith

I think it only fair that this manual be reunited with a genuine Commer One Ton as soon as possible.

Yes you're probably right. When were you thinking of shipping it back?

Richard Coutts-Smith · #**289** 05-07-10, 11:41

Heading out to the shed with roll of brown paper and sticky tape, Have to find out how many stamps the dog will have to lick.
Rich<

Ryan · #**290** 17-10-10, 02:26

Is this a radio manual for the Above mentioned and loved truck?

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Wireless-Stat...item3a5f761856

Richard Coutts-Smith · #**291** 17-10-10, 05:54

1960, assuming it would be for the Humber Pig, not that there is a lot of difference.
Rich

fv1620 · #**292** 17-10-10, 11:17

Yes this is just for the Pig & of course is just the info for the User. The Data Summary is in EMER COMMUNICATIONS INSTALLATIONS J170 & the Technical Description in J172. The installation process itself is in WO Code No.12798.

The intended installations for the non-armoured Humbers were:

FV1602 WS19 or C42 or both
FV1604 R210 & C11
FV1621/2/3/4 C42

Richard Coutts-Smith · #**293** 28-10-10, 23:00

Anyone out there know what the Humber Jack looked like? Am assumuing it was quite short, possibly 3 stage screw type, with 2 piece handle. Is there a ferret Jack? are they similar? Heeelp.

Our recent rains have meant that each time we take the Humber out, this happens...
Rich.

fv1620 · #**294** 29-10-10, 01:12

The various CES quote for FV1602:

Jack, lifting, screw, 4 ton, triple lift, LV6/MT1 5120-99-943-0540
later amended to:

Jack, lifting, LV6/MT1 5120-99-943-0539

and for FV1611 & FV1612:

Jack, screw, hand lifting, geared, triple lift, 4 ton, 7in closed H, 18.1/2 in extended H, LV6/MT1 5120-99-201-4907

Richard Coutts-Smith · #**295** 29-10-10, 02:04

Thanks Clive,
Been feeling like Sherlock Holmes deducing what Jack was like from the mounting strap and the handle brackets. Have been scouring the swap meets for something along these lines but to no avail, good to know that I am on the right track, and will keep looking. Must be a short heavy sucker. None of the Humbers that I have seen or heard of over here have one.
Don't suppose you have a picture of one?
Best regards
Rich.

fv1620 · #**296** 29-10-10, 02:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Coutts-Smith

Don't suppose you have a picture of one?

Rich as it happens I do. It is an illustration in a 1960 VAOS. But I'm afraid it is 0143 now so I'll have to do it tomorrow, I mean later today.

fv1620 · #**297** 29-10-10, 15:10

As this is a 1960 VAOS notice that only a few items have so far been NATO codified. Although 4 ton jacks are codified the illustration still bears VAOS designation. The retracted height differs in the illustration, although on mine there is a thingy that slides on the top to extend the height a little & gives a narrower platform, which might explain the difference.

Richard Coutts-Smith · #**298** 29-10-10, 22:18

Fantastic,
Thanks Clive.
Good news is that I do not think I have ever seen one of these before, which means I have not picked one up and then put it back again. (Really hate that)
Bad news is that I have never seen one of these before, which means they are probably as rare as hens teeth. All I ever seem to find are those blasted Universal Carrier Jacks.
Regards
Rich.

fv1620 · #**299** 29-10-10, 22:23

Rich they are not that rare over here. What I like is that it is not dependant on hydraulic fluid or the integrity of oil seals, just old fashioned mechanical reliability.

Keith Webb · #**300** 29-10-10, 22:25

Richard, I trust you're doing the right thing with the carrier jacks and putting them in the scrap bin to make sure they become rare.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Coutts-Smith

Fantastic,
Thanks Clive.
Good news is that I do not think I have ever seen one of these before, which means I have not picked one up and then put it back again. (Really hate that)
Bad news is that I have never seen one of these before, which means they are probably as rare as hens teeth. All I ever seem to find are those blasted Universal Carrier Jacks.
Regards
Rich.