My Willys 3A and 3B Community
3A, 3B, DJ Technical Knowledge Base => "Original"-- Technical Questions, Answers, Observations => Topic started by: stony on October 10, 2019, 01:23:26 AM
-
There seems to be something a little strange with my hood block spacing. I KNOW the blocks are in the original spot because the hood has original paint. I had read that the early 3As had asymmetrical hood blocks like the 2As, but my very early (49, #1159) has symmetrical blocks. I have also read that the distance from the center seam is 13”, but mine are 9 7/8” from the seam to the edge of the block. It might be kind of interesting to see what measurements you folks come up with.
-
There was a short period of time when the hood blocks were narrow spacing but symmetrical from the center.
-
Cool, thanks Bob! Now I have another question. My outside rear view mirror appears to be original but it is also different from what appear to be new old stock mirrors. The ball and socket are offset and only two tensioning screws. Again it appears to have original paint so I think it is original. What do you think?
-
Doing a search, I found a difference in location between the 2A and 3A blocks. The 2A wipers were mounted at the top and would interfere with the blocks so they aren't symmetrical.
These posts may help with picking a location for the blocks:
https://cj3apage.com/Forum/index.php?topic=3042.msg25379#msg25379
https://cj3apage.com/Forum/index.php?topic=3713.msg31437#msg31437
-
Yeah Rus, that is one of my questions, the post says 13” from the seam, but mine are only 9 7/8. Looks kinda like the early 3As may be narrower than the later ones.
-
My '51 measures 12 7/16 " from the seam to the inboard edges of the blocks, both sides. I think the blocks are supposed to be 1" thick...so that would make it pretty close to 13" seam to mounting hole center......
-
I think not original on the mirror and arm, they don't look right and they would have been black originally.
-
Thanks Bob, it’s kind of interesting though. Here is the body mount, this should be original, bot I have been wrong before.
-
The mounting brackets look original, as does the arm. I'm not sure what I was seeing before. I don't think the mirror head is original. All these items would have been black originally.
-
This might also shine a light on why you're having issues determining which grey color was used on your 3A. It may have gone through an early repaint. Maybe at the request of the original buyer. The headlight bezels are also painted grey. These were originally chrome.
-
Yeah at, some parts were repainted, there is a little chrome showing under the gray paint, and some things, like the mirror arm and mirror back appear to be slightly different than the body paint along with one or two spots on the body. Here is a close up of the ring (I think they were rusty) and it is pretty clear that they were repainted, but the other 95% of the body is one layer of original paint. I don’t know where that mirror came from, but I think it is pretty cool because it is offset. You have a keen eye my friend.
-
I was sent a picture of 2A's that are on a rail car I believe stacked one on top of the other. One facing North and one facing South.
I got to thinking about this and have come to the conclusion that the designers and also engineers designed these vehicles so they could be shipped one on top of the other.
The rear tire of the jeep on top, sits on the front flat fenders of the bottom jeep and the front tires rest on the top of the rear fender wells. Also the fact that the windshield folds down is for this reason to be able to stack the jeeps. Also I believe the steering wheel had to be removed, so there fore the design of the flat fenders and folding windshields.
D Williams
Spokane Wa.
-
Good thinkin' D, but probably not true. First, those are MB's, not CJ2-A's. Second, the photo does not show the timbers that support the rear of the jeeps apparently sitting on the front fenders of the jeeps below. Movement was more important than minor damage at the time.
I think you've got it backwards - I think the shipping method was devised to fit the material, not the material devised to fit the shipping method. BW
-
I don't think it matters weather they are MB's or 2"s the body design looks like it was intended to be that way for the reason you see in the picture. Even the 3b"s are of the same design, but not the round fenders. Shipping them was not an issue like the war jeeps. I don't think the railroad would have come up with the idea to stack the jeeps.
I have since noticed that they actually removed the windshield from the bottom jeep and it is stored on the top jeep windshield. And probably the steering wheel cleared the undercarriage of the jeep above, without being removed by design.
I just thought that this photo was interesting info.
I have other photos too.
D. Williams
Spokane Wa.
-
I'm somewhat surprised the front fenders can support the wheels above. I wonder if its blocked somewhere to support some of the weight like maybe bumper to bumper.
-
I'm somewhat surprised the front fenders can support the wheels above. I wonder if its blocked somewhere to support some of the weight like maybe bumper to bumper.
As I said, " the photo does not show the timbers that support the rear of the jeeps apparently sitting on the front fenders of the jeeps below. "
I've seen this photo before, as well as others showing the same or a similar load from different angles. BW
-
If the MB's or all flatfenders weighed in at 2000 lbs then there would only be 5oo lbs on a front fender from the jeep above. But at the rear of the jeeps there is less weight, most would be at the front on the rear fender wells of the bottom jeep. I still think that the engineers and designers figured this out based on the Military's request.
I own a 1954 cj-3B and the front fenders are quite strong, they have a hat section brace under them. Also the hood width is such that the space between the rear tires clears the hood design width.
These jeeps were also transported in aircraft during the war. So they had some other design requirements too. Not just to be 4 WD.
Getting more info on the flatfender jeep design is interesting.
D. Williams
Spokane Wa.
-
I've been in the jeep hobby for about 24-25 years now, and the history of our little vehicles is very interesting to me. I have read and studied everything I could get ahold of on the history of the G503's and the early CJ's. This is the first speculation that I've ever heard on the idea that the jeeps were required to be built so that they could be stacked. And that's all it is, speculation on your part. If you want to convince me and others, you're going to have to do some serious research, and produce documentation that shows that the Army required the 1/4 ton 4X4 to be stackable on rail cars.
As I have said, I have seen this photo before, as well as others that show the timbers that support the rear of the upper jeep. Look at your photo - something is obviously holding the rear of the upper jeep, as the rear suspension is in droop, evidenced by the space between the fender opening and the wheel. The front fender of the lower jeep is only holding part of the weight of the rear axle of the upper one, if that. The springs are likely holding most of the weight of the axle and wheels. BW
-
Here are two different pics I found of stacked Jeeps. One you see is being lifted and bringing the lower one with it suspended with wheels off the ground. You can see the windshield and steering wheel of the lower one is removed. The second pic shows the "blocking used"... see attached.
-
I have to agree with Bruce on this one.
There just no way the front fenders will hold up to a man standing on them let alone well over 500 pounds bouncing up and down.
Steve's pics tell the story.
-
So if they were shipped this way and timbers were used to support the upper jeep on the lower one, to me it still says that the engineers and designers came up in their design for this to happen fo shipping two jeeps in the space of one. Like I said I don't think the rail road came up with the idea to ship jeeps this way.
I was only two years old then so I have no first hand knowledge, but have been a mechanical designer for 30 plus years and those kinds of things are part of your job. Especially if it is suggested by somebody, like the Military.
I think I can stand on my flatfenders on my 54 cj3b, they are pretty stout and again the rear of the jeeps are lighter in the rear. I don't think they were allowed to bounce up and down. Vehicles shipped today on the rails are not bouncing up and down.
Lets just keep investigation the issue. I like it.
D. Williams
Spokane Wa.
-
This link will take you to a document written on June 22, 1940 by the War Department. It lists the specifications desired by the military for a new 1/4 Ton reconnaissance truck. There are no provisions discussing ease of transport on rail cars.
That said, there were many people involved in the development of the 1/4 Ton truck. Transport was clearly part of the discussion, but I could only find a reference to dropping them from aircraft...including gliders.
The spec evolved also. The weight was discussed frequently in these documents. Original requirement was no more than 1,300 lbs. Willys Overland was essentially eliminated from consideration at one point because they couldn't meet the weight requirements.
http://www.willys-overland.com/documents/19400622%20-%20'Light%20Infantry%20and%20Cavalry%20Vehicles%20-%20Development%20of',%20Sub-Committee%20on%20Automotive%20Equipment%20to%20The%20Ordnance%20Committee,%20Technical%20Staff.htm