Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

1940 - 1941 BRC, MA, GP, Preproduction Prototypes. Knowledge Base NO EBAY or COMMERCIAL SALES.

Moderator: DavidA

Post Reply
User avatar
Fred Coldwell
G-Brigadier General
G-Brigadier General
Posts: 2408
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 5:12 am
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Fred Coldwell » Wed Dec 18, 2013 6:20 pm

Robinb:

Great information, great photos and a great eye for detail! Use of 6 cylinder engines in 1061 and 1062 would explain the absence of any 4 cylinder engine serial numbers for those two cars in Chester's BRC list. The absence of complete U.S.A. Registration numbers for 1061 and 1062 suggest they had not yet been accepted by the Army when Chester's hand written list was prepared (whereas the Registration number for 1062 was filled-in and completed in the typed BRC list). Moreover, no delivery dates are shown in Chester's hand written list for either 1061 or 1062, perhaps because these two cars had not yet been completed or delivered when Chester finished his list. And later delivery might explain why 1061 and 1062 had the later inner hinged windshields. Oh, I love it when the data comes together! :D :D
Happy Jeep Trails,

Fred Coldwell
1944 CJ2-09 - X33
1945 CJ2-26 - X50
1944 Dodge T233 CC
1945 Dodge T233 Utility
MVPA #283C


User avatar
Fred Coldwell
G-Brigadier General
G-Brigadier General
Posts: 2408
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 5:12 am
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Fred Coldwell » Wed Dec 18, 2013 6:59 pm

Robinb:

Thanks for posting the tune up sheet for Bantam models 60, 63 and export only model 65. This gets me thinking. Maybe the Model 60 designation for the first 69 (or 70) BRCs came from the fact the dashboard and cowl it used came directly from the model 60 civilian car design in 1937, as illustrated by Polar Roller. And maybe the Model 40 designation was based on the year in which Bantam was awarded the contract for an additional 1,500 BRCs having that name. That contract was awarded to Bantam by General Moore of The Adjutant General's Office on November 5, 1940. To me, the seemingly informal Model 40 name is more likely to be based on the year of the contract for those 1500 cars than the delivery schedule year, 1941. I also have a note in my PCJ book that Model 40 was derived from the 40 h.p. of its engine. Does anyone have the h.p rating for the engine used in the BRC 40 that might support or refute that theory?

However, the only rather poor photocopy I have of the Bantam Parts Book for the later BRCs calls them the 1941 Series model BRC, thus lending manufacturer support to the under-discussion name of 1941 BRC. I think I'll just sit here and spin my wheels for a while. :roll:
Happy Jeep Trails,

Fred Coldwell
1944 CJ2-09 - X33
1945 CJ2-26 - X50
1944 Dodge T233 CC
1945 Dodge T233 Utility
MVPA #283C

User avatar
Tom Wolboldt
banned
Posts: 8353
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 2:36 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Tom Wolboldt » Thu Dec 19, 2013 3:43 am

Hi Robin,

Great eye for detail !!!!

Looking at the photos of the short and long hood Bantams above it looks to me the difference is about 1/3 the length of the step / mud guard behind the fender. If the total length of the step was 12" than the long hood is about 4" longer. The piston in the stock Y112 is is about 3 1/8" so if a six motor was fitted the required added length looks to be 6 +". The Studebaker 170 was about the smallest 6 cyl. at the time and it also had about a 3 1/8" bore. I would op for 1061 and 1062 to have been fitted with a longer / larger 4 cyl. motor rather than a small 6 cyl.

To add 6 +"s to the hood the step would need to be about 18" long which seems a bit much looking at the photos. Even a 12" step may be too long for what was actually used.

ArmySailor
Sergeant Major of the Gee
Sergeant Major of the Gee
Posts: 291
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 6:15 am
Location: NW Ohio

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by ArmySailor » Thu Dec 19, 2013 4:39 am

I'm with Tom. IF, and it's still an if, the body alterations indicate a larger engine, it seems doubtful Bantam would have chosen a six. Sixes just weren't a part of their mindset, I don't think.

Since this was at the end of the 1940 BRC production, Bantam would be fully informed on the Willys engine. It would have been wise to have experimented with a larger four, if nothing else just so they could be ready to field a bigger engine if the trend turned that way. The aforementioned Hercs, one of the larger Continentals... something.They may have had some Hercs sitting around.

It's difficult to tell from the pics posted whether the long hood BRCs were a case of the cowl moved back a few inches or if the wheelbase was stretched for the extra length. From what I can see, it appears to be the former. IMO, for a six cylinder to be installed, the latter would have been the more likely option. Even with the extra engine compartment length on the standard wheelbase, it would seem that the radiator would have had to have been moved forward as well and that also doesn't appear to be the case. I compared the position of the radiator of the long-hood 1940 BRC crossed up in the dirt with some closeups I took of #007 and the radiator position appears to be the same. If we could get a good side view of one of the long-hoods and scale to the dimensions of a known part, the wheelbase could be reasonably accurately measured. Without a wheelbase stretch,or relocating the radiator, a longer six would have required, moving the engine/trans/t-case rearward and make an already short rear driveshaft very much shorter.
Jim Allen

Keeping the Good 'Ol Days of Four Wheeling Alive

Robinb
G-Master Sergeant
G-Master Sergeant
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:29 am
Location: Essex, England

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Robinb » Thu Dec 19, 2013 6:42 am

Hi Guys,

Yes I agree a larger 4 Cylinder is possible, I only made the assumption that they could have used a 6 cylinder as I have seen several larger 4 cylinder engines used in later BRC's without the dramatic modification of extending the hood/wings and shortening the body. I have used a vernier caliper to measure the wheel on the side shot of both the lengthened hood BRC and the standard BRC and the wheel bases are identical. However calculating the extra length of the hood using the known size of the wheel, I have found the hood to be 4 inches longer, the same as what Tom calculated. This means the body would have to have been shortened by 4 inches and the obvious position is the flat section of the door way entrance. Either way it would appear that the army or Bantam themselves were possibly looking for a bit more power out of the Bantam but the 1941 BRC was unchanged and had the same power unit as the 1940 model. Maybe after testing they were happy with the little Bantam with its original engine.

I believe the power output of the 4 cylinder continental is 45hp.

Regards,
Robin

ArmySailor
Sergeant Major of the Gee
Sergeant Major of the Gee
Posts: 291
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 6:15 am
Location: NW Ohio

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by ArmySailor » Thu Dec 19, 2013 7:09 am

I don't remember which Herc engine Bantam was considering but the next step up from Continental was the F124,124 ci about 50 hp in automotive form, the F135, 135 ci about 55 hp, the F140 140ci unknown power and the F162 about 65 hp. These power rating are NET, not gross, and remember the Willys was 54hp NET. The F-series engines weight about 415 lbs bare while the Y-112 Conti, the biggest of the Y-sereis engines , was 290 bare. Most of these engine saw use in agriculture, Massy Harris being one notable example.
Jim Allen

Keeping the Good 'Ol Days of Four Wheeling Alive

User avatar
Tom Wolboldt
banned
Posts: 8353
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 2:36 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Tom Wolboldt » Thu Dec 19, 2013 7:12 am

Looking at the short and long hood photos from the side the gap between the steering column and the dash and the flat of the door opening is what was shortened. The front seat and steering column seems to be the same in both photos.

User avatar
Joe Friday
G-Colonel
G-Colonel
Posts: 1229
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 10:28 am
Location:

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Joe Friday » Thu Dec 19, 2013 9:44 am

It appears that March 1941 was a busy time.

Willys was studying Bantam drivetrains in Modified Quad(MA?) and a 124 inch wheelbase MA.
L-10360 cropped.jpg
L-10360 cropped.jpg (135.21 KiB) Viewed 2689 times
L-10372 title block - 104 inch wheelbase MA.jpg
L-10372 title block - 104 inch wheelbase MA.jpg (172.95 KiB) Viewed 2689 times
2018 MVPA PIONEER AWARD - MVPA #419

Polar Roller
G-First Lieutenant
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

Post by Polar Roller » Thu Dec 19, 2013 11:23 am

Okay..here's a little clean up stuff from the forgoing INTERESTING discussion…thanks to all…

Fred was thinking about a number name form the civilian cars

Fred sez " Thanks for posting the tune up sheet for Bantam models 60, 63 and export only model 65."

I am pretty certain these numbers refer to the first two digits of the Bantam engines…starting with 60001 (an engine still in existence btw)…I had never heard of the Model "63", however some rooting around shows that there was a change in the engine enough to refer to engines in the 63000 series. The Model 65 comes up when the three main engine is introduced, and those engines start at 65,500 (an engine I am currently rebuilding for Bruce Lynch btw for the first production Hollywood)…I have seen at least one date in Oct '39 for the existence of the three main.

Okay..why start at 60? Well, this is theory, but I think it is because of the early, pre-production PR campaign, as the brochure attached,, or below elsewhere shows was based on 60MPG, 60,000 miles on a set of tires, and 60 MPH..hence the Bantam "sixty" (shoulda been 50! :wink: )…These are two different brochures showing how the number sixty seemed important…However these are PRE production "vapor ware" pieces..the pictures are not photos of existing cars, but are the work of perhaps John Gump (still alive in Butler btw) or maybe, and I lean towards Sahknoffsky himself with the signature "swirly" lines…(and who was the Style Editor at Esquire in 1937 right about then)..

I'll have to post the rest in successive posts because I am too stupid to figure out how to post more than one picture at a time like that brainy Robin B :)
Attachments
model 60.jpg
model 60.jpg (125.11 KiB) Viewed 2687 times

Polar Roller
G-First Lieutenant
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

Post by Polar Roller » Thu Dec 19, 2013 11:25 am

Okay, fwiw here is the break down of engine numbers…the 60 as performance figure works for the initial cars, but doesn't hold up for later cars being 65…they did not get 65 MPG for instance…However it DOES hold up on the engine number theory..the new model sixty- five (although now more commonly called the "Super 4" has engines with the 65 prefix
Attachments
Bantam engine#s.jpg
Bantam engine#s.jpg (134.97 KiB) Viewed 2687 times

Polar Roller
G-First Lieutenant
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

Post by Polar Roller » Thu Dec 19, 2013 12:00 pm

Okay…now back to the Bantam drawings of the jeep. There are three significant "sets" of drawings
1) the "cocktail napkin" drawing we are all familiar with which is Beasley's (Arty or Ord I can't remember ) drawing summarizing the conclusion of the first day at Butler (June 19) MISSING

2) The Spec drawings produced at Holabird which should have Captain Englers initials and which were the sum total of Infantry/QMC/Bantam thoughts on what the car would be in outline drawing. HAVE (a very faint copy)

3) There are the "bid drawings" produced in 18 hours which consist of three big sheets, I believe drawn at 1/8 scale and accompanying materials identifying the constituent parts. This would feature the Hercules engine. This drawing reflected the work that had been done at Bantam in laying out the car. MISSING (Since we know Probst's copy is gone, the QMC records could have the original .I have often wondered what kind of circulation these drawings got from the time they were presented by Bantam in mid July, when they won the bid. Three sheets would have been easy to copy. Query: If the final as built drawings were truly "the property" of the QMC, then what is the status of these bid drawings? Why would they be proprietary? Excluding the sort of back door delivery one suspects, to Ford and Willys who both had representatives on the ground at Holabird, what is the legal status? How would it be different handing out the Bantam woe product right off the bat, rather than wait for the as builds?

4) The actual build drawings. A set of these would be invaluable. We know Checker had a copy, but efforts to find it there have not been successful. Missing (Since there is some serious question about the Checker bona fides…they were bidding against Bantam with Bantams oewn car!..They may or may not still be there). In the FTC hearings in 43 or 44 Fenn himself "cannot find" these plans which seems disingenuous…but, by that time they had had to reconfigure the plant as a non auto plant, and maybe they just gave up on the jeep.

The last mentioned have real value for restorers..Here is one example, almost illegible thanks to the US Archives "riles" about copying…but, it is well worth posting here so that people would know what they are looking for, and to assure people that these were professional, detailed drawings since "little Bantam" is always under such a cloud. There is also a drawing I believe of the gas tank. You can see the level of detail…this is for some kind of Clutch part, drawn by one of Probts crew (King) and the date I can make out is 8-20-40 which wold be a little over a month before delivery. These drawings were made AFTER the car was built. Crist crew (who prided themselves in being "mechanics" not "engineers" would work all night putting the car together,, and the "engineers" (drafters) of Probst's crew would draw up what had been built. Drawings were of course required by the contract..they had to delver the car AND the drawings by the deadline.

So..start snooping around.
Attachments
BRCclutchpartsm.jpg
BRCclutchpartsm.jpg (90.13 KiB) Viewed 2682 times

Polar Roller
G-First Lieutenant
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

Post by Polar Roller » Thu Dec 19, 2013 12:13 pm

Okay..one more. I may have posted this before..but, it came to me from Butler..guy said he had a jeep drawing..what he had was an artillery carrier, but, it has Probsts initials and a Feb 41 date…it gives an idea of Probsts drawing style and skills…Maybe "Joe Friday" has some further examples? This might have to be pretty small to get it through the G filter
Attachments
Probst arty carriersm.jpg
Probst arty carriersm.jpg (72.6 KiB) Viewed 2682 times

User avatar
Fred Coldwell
G-Brigadier General
G-Brigadier General
Posts: 2408
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 5:12 am
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Fred Coldwell » Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:07 am

Polar Roller wrote:Okay..here's a little clean up stuff from the forgoing INTERESTING discussion…thanks to all…Fred was thinking about a number name form the civilian cars. Fred sez " Thanks for posting the tune up sheet for Bantam models 60, 63 and export only model 65."

I am pretty certain these numbers refer to the first two digits of the Bantam engines…starting with 60001 (an engine still in existence btw)…I had never heard of the Model "63", however some rooting around shows that there was a change in the engine enough to refer to engines in the 63000 series. The Model 65 comes up when the three main engine is introduced, and those engines start at 65,500 (an engine I am currently rebuilding for Bruce Lynch btw for the first production Hollywood)…I have seen at least one date in Oct '39 for the existence of the three main.

Okay..why start at 60? Well, this is theory, but I think it is because of the early, pre-production PR campaign, as the brochure attached,, or below elsewhere shows was based on 60MPG, 60,000 miles on a set of tires, and 60 MPH..hence the Bantam "sixty" (shoulda been 50! :wink: )…These are two different brochures showing how the number sixty seemed important…However these are PRE production "vapor ware" pieces..the pictures are not photos of existing cars, but are the work of perhaps John Gump (still alive in Butler btw) or maybe, and I lean towards Sahknoffsky himself with the signature "swirly" lines…(and who was the Style Editor at Esquire in 1937 right about then)..
Hi Polar Roller:

Thank you for posting the prewar adv. from Bantam showing its model "60", the same model number Lt. Hogan used in his magazine article in the September-October 1941 issue of The Quartermaster Review (mentioned earlier in this thread) to identify the first 70 BRC 1/4 ton 4x4 cars.

You make a good point about the engine serial numbers causing the tune-up chart to divide the engine tune-up data among engine models "60", "63" and "65". After all, the tune up chart is for different Bantam engines as opposed to Bantam cars, so the numbers rationally refer to engines models as opposed to car models per se.

Now I don't know squat about prewar Bantam car models names so I'm operating blind here. I would think the American Bantam Car Club (or Registry or whatever it is called) would have a list of Bantam car models from the late 30s and early 40s that could help us here. But if it doesn't, and if there is a paucity of Bantam magazine ads from that time to instruct us, then another place to look for such car model name information might be early 1940's used car guides such as the Kelley Blue book (or whatever it was called back then). These used car guides will reference complete cars as opposed to their engines, and may shed some light on Bantam model names as they were commonly known in the late 30s and early 40s. Does anyone live near the Detroit Public Library or any other large library that might have a collection of used car value guides going back to 1940, who could research this information?

In any event, it now appears Bantam had a prewar model "60" car and some of its parts were used to build the first 70 BRCs, so an actual factual connection to a "60" model name existed when the 70 BRCs were built in 1940. This establishes the model 60 designation did not arise wholly from automotive writer's imaginations in the 1980s, as suggested earlier in this very interesting thread. Progress continues to arrive one step at a time. :wink:
Happy Jeep Trails,

Fred Coldwell
1944 CJ2-09 - X33
1945 CJ2-26 - X50
1944 Dodge T233 CC
1945 Dodge T233 Utility
MVPA #283C

Polar Roller
G-First Lieutenant
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

Post by Polar Roller » Fri Dec 20, 2013 9:59 am

:D Well, as George Domer was always telling me in my early BRC investigations (pointedly), ...you can fill up a pail with water and put some soap in and stir it up real good and pretty soon you will have all sorts of beautiful bubbles. So, okay, there is a danger of developing a lot of vapor, but I think bubbles are a pretty good thing because they at least get you thinking about the problem, and once in a while they pan out.

For instance here, the discussion recalled me to the Hogan article which I hadn't read in a while, and that got me to rethinking the 1937 "jeep" problem. I mean, this guy is pretty definite about there having been one, and the Bantam history corroborates him because Harry Miller was reliably reported to have had a jeep like midget ruining around the factory. He was then Bantam VP for engineering, maybe the greatest automotive engineer in the world, and surely the one who had taken 4 wheel drive even up to todays 4wd road racing F1 cars…He had front and four wheel drive cars on the track at Indianpolis as early as 1932. He was working at Bantam on the "cars from Mars" the rear engined Gulf racers, and a 16cylinder 2twin cam marine racing engine. Also about this time he was collaborating with tucker on high speed tanks. In addition we have the weird sentence in Turners' account of him sawing up a Chevy Transmission for a transfer case…but why would he be doing that in 1940 when the Spicer unit was a done deal already? Was he talking about an earlier project? He says Crist recruited him in 1937 with the bait of making a fortune making a car for the Army.

Hogans article is only three short years ahead of this alleged 1937 effort, so, even I can remember something that long…And, there is a note that Todd Paisley found referring to a quarter ton 4x4 project in 1938. So, there are platy of shiny bubbles here, but, darn! I wish we could sort it out! Hogan says the 1940 car had the same body shape as the 1937 one…really? If so, why didn't someone like Captain Engler who had been at Holabird forever as a drafter remember it, or why didn't ANYONE make any reference to it anywhere else? Crist would have been there, why didn't he say anything about the prior experience? Well, maybe all the Bantam dashboards etc were in the 1937 drawings too…? They hadn't changed in the three years.Of COURSE HOgan gives QMC full credit for waterer it was…and Harry A. Miller s just chump change compared with the worthies at camp Holabird…? Also, Hogan calls this 1937 effort a "preliminary engineering model" ordered from Bantam. Is that a QMC term of Art? Anyway..this needs a lot of work because it could change the whole way we think about this whole story.
----
Civilain Bantam names. There we're dozens, but few beyond the Super 4 involved a number. Hollywood, Riviera, Playboy Roadster (!), Speedster, Coupe, Convertible Coupe, Convertible Sedan, station wagon, Pick up truck, Boulevard Delivery etc. These sound like names that Roy Evans the super salesman would have come up with. Seems like the new army car if given a fanciful name related to the Civilian cars would have been an advance from 60, 65, not a retreat to 60…but, what if the BRC 60 name had stuck in 1937 when the Banta WAS called the 60? I just don't see anything yet. They had very little in the way of big magazine advertisements (as opposed to the earlier Austin which had a wonderful and widespread ad campaign). I'll definitely keep your idea in mind as I look through these materials from time to time.

Just to show we still love all the other Bantam variations, her is a picture I found of an MA in Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, right on the main street where I have been many times on hockey tournaments. It was of course during the highway build..but, I have yet to find a GP or BRC assigned to this work.
Attachments
MAin whiotehorse.tif
MAin whiotehorse.tif (215.57 KiB) Viewed 2652 times

User avatar
Joe Friday
G-Colonel
G-Colonel
Posts: 1229
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 10:28 am
Location:

Re: Now to put the fox in the henhouse, BRC house that is

Post by Joe Friday » Fri Dec 20, 2013 12:14 pm

Yes, we do have samples of Probst's drawing work from 1942-1945 when he was working for the Probst Harger firm designing lightweights for Kaiser.

I hesitate to post editorial on the Probst contribution because as you know my position may be a bit controversial. (I believe Probst's contributions were... a bit overstated). A friend of mine published a Jeep book and immediately got a call from a Probst family member harping that they didn't give him enough credit. Of course, they had no 'original' documents or evidence to substantiate their claim. Same old gossip.

I've seen documents and pictures regarding the 1937 Bantam participation at Benning but I only recall sedans. Maybe we should look closer to see if they were 4WD???
2018 MVPA PIONEER AWARD - MVPA #419


Post Reply

Return to “BRC MA GP Prototypes”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests