Buying my G506. What advices would you guys give me?

[forestry4evr]

Julio,

Your truck is starting to look like an early 1942 model. The engine and transmission are almost too close in casting date!

The shock absorber number you posted is not the correct location, the date stamp is on one of the two round piston caps. The stamping has shock dampening numbers and a date stamp. The stamping is on only one of the two caps one per each shock, but I have forgotten which one.

Hope you had a wonderful Christmas.

Paul

[philbrinson]

Joel, (Bendover), has the correct transmission shifters with the reverse lockout and boot in NOS. I bought one from him last year. The lockout is not absolutely necessary I don't think, as the grinding you would hear in shifting from 1st to reverse would be an indication of what is about to happen, (as opposed to the normal grinding..). But is another thing to spend your money on in your quest.

Phil

[JulioMoc]

Your truck is starting to look like an early 1942 model. The engine and transmission are almost too close in casting date!
l

Paul, would it be an early 1943 or late 42 you mean? since both transmission and engine are marked December (L).

[forestry4evr]

Your truck is starting to look like an early 1942 model. The engine and transmission are almost too close in casting date!
l

Paul, would it be an early 1943 or late 42 you mean? since both transmission and engine are marked December (L).

Julio,

Yes my mistake, an early 1943 DoD truck. Your grille and front shock absorber links do not match that time sequence though.

The transfer case seems a little too off in casting date time leading me to think either the eng/trans or tcase were from a different vehicle. Most of the trucks I have had tend to have parts made relatively close in date (~within a couple of months). I am certain there were exceptions. With 70+ years, a lot of things can/did happen making these survivor trucks mixtures of parts from many years.

Have you looked at the shock absorber caps for dates yet?

Paul

[JulioMoc]

Guys, I'm a little worried with the number of holes casted in front of the cabin. I think there are too many of them. What do you think, should I end some of them? Which ones should I preserve?

ttt1.jpg (145.45 KiB) Viewed 1530 times

[retro-roco]

Julio,

Most of those holes look original. I'm wondering if this was originally a CCKW cab. The hole for the wiring harness is much higher in the corner than the Chevy cabs I've seen. There is a good picture of a Chevy firewall here (though from the inside, no the outside): viewtopic.php?f=25&t=223612&hilit=firewall&start=60

[42cargo]

Kirk,

The hole location was an early-war (high) vs. mid-, late-war (low) thing. Paul's '41 has it high. My '42 is low.

John

[retro-roco]

John, You're right! I should have remembered that from the 4112 photo comparison posts. throws even more question into what vintage Julio's truck is.

[cooler king]

I would not have sand blasted the engine. Hope it has good gaskets, valve cover oil pan etc.Sand goes everywhere when sand blasting. Was the cover on the bell housing? Sand could be in the clutch and throw out bearing . Sand does ugly things if it finds its way inside a engine.The vacume pipe on the firewall surely has sand in it.And the rag in the intake manifold.

[JulioMoc]

I would not have sand blasted the engine. Hope it has good gaskets, valve cover oil pan etc.Sand goes everywhere when sand blasting. Was the cover on the bell housing? Sand could be in the clutch and throw out bearing . Sand does ugly things if it finds its way inside a engine.The vacume pipe on the firewall surely has sand in it.And the rag in the intake manifold.

Hi, I did not sandblasted the engine. I covered it for the process. I just painted it grey.

[cooler king]

That is a good thing. In the photo it looks blasted.I spent several months sand blasting all day. And shot 100s of gallons of paint. Sand gets everywhere blasting. Good thing the engine was covered.
That sand blast and paint job , did make me handy with a spraygun.

[JulioMoc]

Another update!

Today I picked-up the replica of the right-side bumper tow hook that was missing from the chevy. When I bought it, just the left one was there, so I used it to make a replica for the other one. As I couldn't find a steel forgery nearby, I had to use a turnery shop. Pieces were made separated and then welded together. The result looks fairly good to me. What do you think?

ttt1.jpg (185.99 KiB) Viewed 1468 times

ttt4.jpg (164.84 KiB) Viewed 1468 times

ttt5.jpg (135.73 KiB) Viewed 1468 times

ttt6.jpg (170.12 KiB) Viewed 1468 times

ttt7.jpg (145.57 KiB) Viewed 1468 times

ttt11.jpg (145.34 KiB) Viewed 1468 times

[cooler king]

After welding up the spots of porosity on it. I would hit it with a soft disk, 4 inch grinder something around 80gr. Or better yet. A die grinder, fited with a 2 inch soft disk 80gr. rolex. It will clean up and remove, most of the grind marks and look just lovely.That is what i would do. If you dont have the tools thick primer.

[kelley]

Nice work Julio,
I think it looks great just the way it is, a 70 year old truck is going to have some Imperfections. You don't need flat washers in between the hook and the bumper though.

[forestry4evr]

Julio,

Interesting tow hook fabrication. It looks like you have a good source for future needs as the person who did the work looks like a metal artist . I think the original tow hooks were forged, so I would use your new one with great care, if at all. I second Jon's comment on the washers between the hook and bumper. I have never seen any originals with the washer.

Jon, good to see proof that you have not gotten lost in all of that snow..or maybe you have a Wi-Fi hotspot in an igloo?!

Paul