3-ton GS body mounted flush with rear of chassis frame?

[Hanno Spoelstra]

This topic came up in another thread.

Does anyone have more info or photos of wartime examples that had the body mounted in the forward position i.e. flush with rear of chassis frame? The wheel wells on the 3-ton 5F-series body seem to have been designed to accommodate both mounting positions even tough examples mounting them in the forward position was very rare.


Here are two photos to compare the look of a standard F60L and one with the body moved forward. The latter is a F60L in postwar civilian service working on the beach. Note the GS body has been moved forward after removing the spare wheel holder behind the cab.



In Drive to Victory I found some references of 5F-series bodies with a spare tyre carrier inside the body, allowing the body to be mounted flush with the rear of the chassis frame.

[Alex van de Wetering]

Hanno,

Attached picture shows up in the NIMH archive; "Chevrolet C60L 3-tons 4x4-accumagazijnauto" (battery storage truck). I presume this is the 5F body. The spare wheel is more in line with the GS bodies fitted to the Dodge D60L, which also had the spare tyre under the right front corner of the body, presumably because of the longer civvy cab, when compared to the cab 11/12/13 cabs.


source: https://nimh-beeldbank.defensie.nl/f...%22Foto%27s%22


Regarding the normal GS body and the long wheel wells and two positions.....
I seem to remember there was a description about this one of Bill Gregg's publications(?)........ and it had to do with the style of tyres; If a truck was fitted with Run Flat tyres, no spare was needed and the body could be mounted behind the cab directly. If it had normal tyres, the body could be mounted backwards leaving room for a spare tyre carrier behind the cab.

[Alex van de Wetering]

Originally Posted by Hanno Spoelstra

Does anyone have more info or photos of wartime examples that had the body mounted in the forward position i.e. flush with rear of chassis frame?

Bending the rules a little bit here, Hanno........not really wartime, but attached pictures also show up in the NIMH archive. Is it just the angle of the pictures, or do these show 3 Ton trucks with the body mounted in the foward position?



source: https://nimh-beeldbank.defensie.nl/f...2&filterAction

source:https://nimh-beeldbank.defensie.nl/f...2&filterAction

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by Alex van de Wetering

Bending the rules a little bit here, Hanno........not really wartime, but attached pictures also show up in the NIMH archive. Is it just the angle of the pictures, or do these show 3 Ton trucks with the body mounted in the foward position?

Great find, as far as I can tell these have the bodies mounted forward indeed. Although these are wartime trucks, they are not in civilian use where they could be modified beyond recognition. So these ones fall within the "rules" as far as I am concerned.

[Harry Moon]

I read somewhere at some time that the spare tire and carrier was shipped in the back of the truck to make them shorter for transportation and often the winch equipped trucks were more likely to store the spare in the back and have the winch equipment more readily accessible. which is what I have done with my winch truck. My winch truck did in fact have the tire carrier mounted when i got it.

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by Harry Moon

I read somewhere at some time that the spare tire and carrier was shipped in the back of the truck to make them shorter for transportation and often the winch equipped trucks were more likely to store the spare in the back and have the winch equipment more readily accessible. which is what I have done with my winch truck. My winch truck did in fact have the tire carrier mounted when i got it.

Thanks Harry, would be great if you could find back the source of that.

Would you say the load in the truck with the body moved forward would be better distributed?

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by Alex van de Wetering

Attached picture shows up in the NIMH archive; "Chevrolet C60L 3-tons 4x4-accumagazijnauto" (battery storage truck). I presume this is the 5F body. The spare wheel is more in line with the GS bodies fitted to the Dodge D60L, which also had the spare tyre under the right front corner of the body, presumably because of the longer civvy cab, when compared to the cab 11/12/13 cabs.

The body in the battery storage truck is a flat floor 5E-series by the look of it, generally fitted to 4x2 trucks like you noted.

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by Alex van de Wetering

Regarding the normal GS body and the long wheel wells and two positions.....
I seem to remember there was a description about this one of Bill Gregg's publications(?)........ and it had to do with the style of tyres; If a truck was fitted with Run Flat tyres, no spare was needed and the body could be mounted behind the cab directly. If it had normal tyres, the body could be mounted backwards leaving room for a spare tyre carrier behind the cab.

I looked up Volume 5 - Bodies and Non-technical Vehicles of the AEDB Design Record, and found references to 3-ton GS body with 54" wheelhouse which came both in all steel and composite construction. It is clear it was designed so it could be fitted in two positions: either with a 14" overhang or flush with the chassis, although I could not find a reference why/ when the body should be mounted in each position.




See the attached pics of examples of Chevrolet C60Ls with Cab 11 - with runflat tyres hence no need for a spare like you noted Alex?

[Alex van de Wetering]

Originally Posted by Hanno Spoelstra

The body in the battery storage truck is a flat floor 5E-series by the look of it, generally fitted to 4x2 trucks like you noted.

Attachment 132915

That drawing looks spot on, Hanno, so I agree....the NIMH picture shows a 5E body.

[Alex van de Wetering]

Originally Posted by Hanno Spoelstra

See the attached pics of examples of Chevrolet C60Ls with Cab 11 - with runflat tyres hence no need for a spare like you noted Alex?

That's what remember reading somewhere.....and to me it makes sence. I also saw Phil mentioning the same things in another thread.....he also couldn't remember where he read it!

As always, new info and new pictures also raise new questions.....I always thought the wood/metal composite body was a mid to "late" war development, so I am surprised to see it on a Cab 11 here (?)

[Jordan Baker]

Hanno

Sometimes the answer is right in front of you.


“The body is mounted with 14” overhang on the 158” W.B. short frame, and flush with the rear of the chassis on the long frame”

[Lionelgee]

Originally Posted by Hanno Spoelstra

I looked up Volume 5 - Bodies and Non-technical Vehicles of the AEDB Design Record, and found references to 3-ton GS body with 54" wheelhouse which came both in all steel and composite construction. It is clear it was designed so it could be fitted in two positions: either with a 14" overhang or flush with the chassis, although I could not find a reference why/ when the body should be mounted in each position.


See the attached pics of examples of Chevrolet C60Ls with Cab 11 - with runflat tyres hence no need for a spare like you noted Alex?

Hello Hanno,

Thank you for attaching the diagrams and the photographs. So the difference is a 14 inch overhang over the rear of the chassis - as the most common configuration. The less common alternative is the rear of the body being flush with the end of the chassis. The diagrams made it clearer. With most of the photographs being at a 3/4 angle it was hard to tell the difference. Well to someone who is not very well schooled in things CMP. I am more in the MCP camp.

Kind regards
Lionel

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by Jordan Baker

Sometimes the answer is right in front of you.
“The body is mounted with 14” overhang on the 158” W.B. short frame, and flush with the rear of the chassis on the long frame”

Jordan, thanks, I’ve read that. This suggests the 158” wb chassis came in a long and short version. As far as I know there was only one type of chassis frame. I did read about frame extensions, I think Keith Webb photographed some on a survivor in Australia.

[Harry Moon]

the extended frames move the trailer hitch back the 14 inches to the rear giving a better tow geometry.

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by Harry Moon

the extended frames move the trailer hitch back the 14 inches to the rear giving a better tow geometry.

Thanks Harry. Are those extensions bolted onto the standard chassis?

[Phil Waterman]

Hi All

Years ago when I wanted to put an S56 radio box on the back of my C60S Pattern 13, I made up a extension that used all of the existing bolt holes for tow hook assembly. Consist of inner frame rail, outer rail that buts to the normal frame and rear cross member. All the steel matches the regular frame.

The it has turned out to be very rigid. I'll take pictures and post.

Cheers Phil

[Harry Moon]

Originally Posted by Hanno Spoelstra

Thanks Harry. Are those extensions bolted onto the standard chassis?

the one I saw and the pictures I've seen suggest factory.

[Ed Storey]

I found these pages in the wartime CMP Data Book, I hope they are relevant to this thread.

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by Harry Moon

the one I saw and the pictures I've seen suggest factory.

Factory bolted (as an add-on kit) or welded?

[Harry Moon]

Originally Posted by Hanno Spoelstra

Factory bolted (as an add-on kit) or welded?

riveted it looks like

[Keith Webb]

This dates from December 1943 and the intention was to reduce the turning circle of a long wheelbase vehicle whilst towing a trailer.