No, I'm saying they are referring to the later BRCs simply as '1941.' There is no reference to the number '40.'
I'm probably not explaining it well and complicating the matter.
I should probably further state that there are other parts cross references in this file that list Bantam 'BRC' Ford 'GP' and WIllys 'MA' and 'MB.' The Bantam sheet is the only one with a designation of '1941' after the wheelbase reference.
Bill
Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is
Moderator: DavidA
- Bill Norris
- G-Major
- Posts: 819
- Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 5:20 am
- Location: Troy, MI
- Fred Coldwell
- G-Brigadier General
- Posts: 2408
- Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 5:12 am
- Location: Denver, Colorado, USA
Looks like a Spicer document to me.
Bill:
The way I read the one page American-Bantam Conversion List you posted earlier today, it was prepared by and came from the Service Division of Spicer Mfg. Corp. in Toledo, Ohio and cross-references Bantam part numbers to Spicer part numbers. I don't see it as either an American Bantam Car Co. or U.S. government document.
Nevertheless, it does support Michael Brown's thread-starting observation, reposted on Jan 27th, 2018, that contemporary prewar references he has seen occasionally identify the BRC as a "1941" series 4x4 1/4 ton truck.
The way I read the one page American-Bantam Conversion List you posted earlier today, it was prepared by and came from the Service Division of Spicer Mfg. Corp. in Toledo, Ohio and cross-references Bantam part numbers to Spicer part numbers. I don't see it as either an American Bantam Car Co. or U.S. government document.
Nevertheless, it does support Michael Brown's thread-starting observation, reposted on Jan 27th, 2018, that contemporary prewar references he has seen occasionally identify the BRC as a "1941" series 4x4 1/4 ton truck.
Happy Jeep Trails,
Fred Coldwell
1944 CJ2-09 - X33
1945 CJ2-26 - X50
1944 Dodge T233 CC
1945 Dodge T233 Utility
MVPA #283C
Fred Coldwell
1944 CJ2-09 - X33
1945 CJ2-26 - X50
1944 Dodge T233 CC
1945 Dodge T233 Utility
MVPA #283C
-
- G-First Lieutenant
- Posts: 640
- Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 11:25 am
- Location: Juneau, Alaska/Carmel Valley California
- Contact:
Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is
Well, at the risk of being accused of “fanatical bias” I should point out that the year 1941 was only a relevant distinction for the Bantams because of course, there were no 1940 Willy’s or Ford Jeeps...so, by making this distinction between a 1941 and a 1941 Bantam, Spicer might be merely saying, hey, don’t confuse these numbers with the 1940 Bantam for which the our parts were all pretty much hand wrought...
By all this Bill...please do not be put off for your initiative in trying to shine evidence here...I think it is great, it I just wasn’t bright enough to figure out what you were driving at...
By all this Bill...please do not be put off for your initiative in trying to shine evidence here...I think it is great, it I just wasn’t bright enough to figure out what you were driving at...
- Bill Norris
- G-Major
- Posts: 819
- Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 5:20 am
- Location: Troy, MI
Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is
Bill,
That was my take on it too- don't confuse the two different Bantam models, but no reference to '40' or '60' just '1941.'
Fred,
I should further clarify the context of this document. I agree with you that it was produced by Spicer. it was part of a larger government document that was compiled for General Boatwright regarding a possible spare parts shortage in 1943. They wanted cross references between the Jeeps.
Bill
That was my take on it too- don't confuse the two different Bantam models, but no reference to '40' or '60' just '1941.'
Fred,
I should further clarify the context of this document. I agree with you that it was produced by Spicer. it was part of a larger government document that was compiled for General Boatwright regarding a possible spare parts shortage in 1943. They wanted cross references between the Jeeps.
Bill
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests