Vendors selling wrong fuel pump (jeep?)

[pfarber]

This site appears to have some good parts:

http://www.jeepest.com/index.php?page=s ... =2&lang=en

But buyer BEWARE!!!! They are passing this pump off as a GM1537714!!!!! 5 seconds to spot the errors!

DING DING DING

The primer arm is on the wrong side!!! You are gonna be hitting the oil return line!!!!

Also, the bail on the pulsator is wrong. CCKW fuel pumps mount the bail perpendicular to the engine... check your SNLs!!!

BAD VENDOR! BAD!

[pfarber]

They DO sell the more uncommon 6 valve pump:

http://www.jeepest.com/index.php?page=s ... =2&lang=en

Looks OK to me but I have no first hand experience with the 6 valves (they are late 45+ war SN 523570 and on)

[milspec]

Pfarber wrote:
“……….I have no first hand experience with the 6 valves (they are late 45+ war SN 523570 and on)”

I think you might be confused……..The number you listed, 523570 is incorrect. I think you mean 523270. In fact the correct number is 270-523270 and this is an engine serial number.

ORD 9 SNL G-508 dated 15 July 1945 page 130 lists the 6 valve fuel pump as being “Originally installed on Model CCKW chassis No.394577 and after”

This would indicate the 6 valve pump was installed earlier then “late 45+ war”. November 1944 according to Bryce Sunderlin’s article “The Jimmy’s Ancestry” in Army Motors (Part 1, page 21, Table IV)

[pfarber]

Correcting a typo is completely acceptable... dyslexia is my second language. But to say 'confused' and not have solid information to be reviewed and discussed??? That's not how we do things here.

Why would they specify both a chassis and engine number?

About the Sunderlin dates...

If we take a look at the frame numbers and dates submitted to cckw.org as accurate (I know mine is) we see that the last CARGO BODY frame number for 44 is recorded as:

353 A2 353 447593-A2 1944 Closed

There are higher SN's but they are specialized body types, and could have been taken out of order, but for giggles the highest frame number for 44 is reported as: 353 500549-H1

If we assume that Sunderlin is right and CCKW production was a steady 12,000 units per month, and IF SN 394557 IS a Nov 44 SN then there were (447593-394557 = 53035 additional SNs in 44, divide that by 12,000 = 16 months in 1944.

My point? Short of a data plate with DoD I take all CCKW dates with a grain of salt, and figure +/- 3 months on anything that unless there is a period dated annotation. And that goes for the dates that I give also.

If you have a pic of a data plate close to that date/number please post! It would be GREAT to confirm the date.

[milspec]

Pfarber Wrote:

“But to say 'confused' and not have solid information to be reviewed and discussed??? That's not how we do things here.”

Sorry, I should have posted ORD 9 SNL G-508 dated 15 July 1945 page 130 lists the 6 valve fuel pump as being “Originally installed on Model CCKW chassis No. 394577 and after or engine serial No. 270-523270 and after”

[JGilmore]

I might be able to answer a few of your questions.....

The manuals list a motor number and a chassis number because motors and chassis did not have the same numbers like.... for example ...Ford Motor Co. vehicles where all the numbers matched.

Also, don't forget that motors were being made for CCKW's and DUKW's at the same time so it was a motor number that would actually determine the change. The motors were assembled then they were installed in the vehicles so it could not be determined which vehicle it would be for in advance.

Now, as for the motor number listed ...270-523270..this would have been a motor made about the beginning of October, 1944.

I base this on my original GMC documents for the DUKW which are very specific. The change over to the 6 valve pump for the DUKW came at motor number 270-524701 on 10/15/44.

It should also be remembered that motors were not necessarily built in numerical order (ie. #270-3000 then #270-3001 etc.) Some higher motor numbers were built before lower motor numbers. Motors were also built for replacements and these will also skew the figures.

As for the chassis number given...353 447593-A2 1944 Closed... (closed cab ??) as a late one in 1944...

Actually, this would be a 1945 vehicle......about late March or April 1945. This would be from my listing of CCKW's that I have gathered over the years (from the data plates). I believe a late 1944 would be around chassis number 422xxx-A2 or earlier.

It must be remembered...the DOD on the data plate is not the day the vehicle was built...only the day the Govt. accepted it. It could be days or weeks before the acceptance was made and the data plate stamped.

Of course this is from observed existing data plates which are not the best thing to base data on but it will have to do until I find the SN listings at GM or NARA.....


Jim Gilmore

Jim Thorpe, PA.

"....I am as happy to be proved wrong as right...it's the correct data that I seek...."

[pfarber]

The generally accepted rate is 12,000 CCKW per month.... that jives with the chassis number/Dods that are know.

But read this and see how it adds up:

The 15 July 45 SNL G508 lists engine pn 3431 as the engine with the new cast iron carb and air cleaner (p54). This is CHASSIS SN 321078.

GMC Service bulletin G-98 put the new cast iron carb 'in production' as of Feb, 1944

The GMC engine part number 3731 which incorporates the 6 valve fuel pump is CHASSIS SN 394577 (p55). Your reference puts this as NOV 1944.

Thats only 73,499 SN's. Divide that 12,000 per month that's only 6 months of production *Maybe* 7. Feb + 6 months = 8 = August 1944.

Whats this mean? Well, its useless to nail anything down do a day, or even month. At best we can talk quarters.

My understanding is that unless the discussion is about a SPECIFIC event, I use 3 terms to describe a year. Early (Jan-Apr) Mid (May-Aug) Late (Sept-Dec). I do believe that I made two errors... first I saw the engine SN and assumed that a 500,000+ SN would in fact be, a mid to late 45 SN (if it were a CHASSIS sn, which it was not). Seeing that there was a chassis SN listed (I must have simply missed it) it would put the 6 valve pump in mid to late 44. I also assumed that an engine SN would (like the jeep) be the same as a chassis SN (aka the 'matching numbers').

It would be interesting to see if any CCKW chassis SN/engine SNs match up. Mine don't (chassis sn 2372312 engine SN 270-351136)

[JGilmore]

You wrote,

"....The generally accepted rate is 12,000 CCKW per month.... that jives with the chassis number/Dods that are know....."

Well.... this is just guessing...best to use actual facts and figures.
It is difficult to give totals on "CCKW" as there were so many different trucks assembled at the same time. These are usually listed separate in the OCD-D statistical sheets and it is necessary to compile them to determine total production figures.


Example: deliveries for April 1945:
4.954 cargo wo/w LWB airborne,
4,015 cargo w/w LWB airborne,
268 cargo w/w SWB,
321 cargo 17" body LWB,
75 chassis LWB wo/w,
834 chassis w/w LWB ,
1,772 dump LWB w/w airborne,
27 tank gas 759 gal,
0 tank water 750 gal
= 12,226 units. (this does not include specialized vehicles)

Now this is near the 12,000 figure but some months it was over (as this is) and some it was not. This skews the figures if you are trying to determine a MFG. date.

It should be noted that all production was ended in August 1945.



".....But read this and see how it adds up:
The 15 July 45 SNL G508 lists engine pn 3431 as the engine with the new cast iron carb and air cleaner (p54). This is CHASSIS SN 321078.
GMC Service bulletin G-98 put the new cast iron carb 'in production' as of Feb, 1944
The GMC engine part number 3731 which incorporates the 6 valve fuel pump is CHASSIS SN 394577 (p55)...."

Note that these are replacement motors. Also note that they only list the chassis number and not the motor number.

"....Your reference puts this as NOV 1944....

I did not reference the date on this chassis number...Milspec did. I did note the motor number and date for the DUKW change to the 6 valve pump and it is exact... motor number 270-524701 on 10/15/44. That said......he is correct that chassis number 394577 would be late October or November 1944.

I should note here that just because the ORD 9 shows a motor number and a chassis number for the change to the 6 valve pump on the CCKW it does not mean that the motor and chassis were in the same vehicle!

Remember..it states “Originally installed on Model CCKW chassis No. 394577 and after or engine serial No. 270-523270 and after”

These numbers are the first chassis and the first motor to use the 6 valve pump. As GMC was making motors for truck, amphibian and replacements the motor may have been made and not gone into that chassis....could have been a replacement motor.

Crazy..yes? This is why the manuals must not be taken as gospel....only as a guide.



".....Thats only 73,499 SN's. Divide that 12,000 per month that's only 6 months of production *Maybe* 7. Feb + 6 months = 8 = August 1944.
Whats this mean? Well, its useless to nail anything down do a day, or even month. At best we can talk quarters...."

I would disagree....your calculations are a "best guess" as they are not based on hard data. My production totals that I listed for 4/45 are an example of hard data with precise figures.

I don't think it's useless.....I think the more exact we get the better.

I could, given enough time and motivation, compile the total and monthly production/delivery figures for each and every type truck built. I already have the monthly and yearly totals for most of them but I would have to add the specialized types to get a total CCKW production figure by the months.

"....My understanding is that unless the discussion is about a SPECIFIC event, I use 3 terms to describe a year. Early (Jan-Apr) Mid (May-Aug) Late (Sept-Dec)...."

Fair enough..but a four month span between each is a big gap......it would be better to "firm" them up to a much closer date when possible...as I have done for the switch to the 6 valve pump.

".....It would be interesting to see if any CCKW chassis SN/engine SNs match up. Mine don't (chassis sn 2372312 engine SN 270-351136)...."

99.9% of CCKW's will not have a matching motor and chassis. I would be surprised if any did. Usually the first one or two of the new (270) motors assembled would be run tested by the Engineering Dept. and when done they would have been scrapped as the Govt would not accept a used motor in a new vehicle.

As production got underway the gap between the motor number and the chassis number increased as motors were built for spares as the contracts required.

Also..motors were sent to the assembly lines in no particular order...."first in - last out" as they were picked at random for the line.

BTW...."...chassis sn 2372312.." seems to be too many numbers....could you check it and post this again?


Jim Gilmore

Jim Thorpe, PA.

[pfarber]

I don't address individuals... it takes to much time to match up each point with each poster and adds significant clutter to a discussion that is already full of numbers and dates.

How are you dating that DUKW motor? You are putting a specific date on a specific motor... how? To be honest, unless you can relate DUKW production to CCKW production I think its best not to mingle the SN's and dates of one with another. If you want to make the point that there IS a correlation, then please start a new thread as it is off topic.

I'm still not convinced that 12,000 CCKWs per month is not a valid average. Even a fuel tanker is still a CCKW, but with a different body. Of the 1942 TM10's that list contracts and #'s of vehicles, they are ALL listed as CCKWs. Remember CCKW is not a truck, but a design specification. So tanker, cargo, tipper or 'None' they are ALL CCKWs.

Remember 12,000 is the AVERAGE production per month. You really can't say that ONE month has MORE than the average, so the Average is wrong. That's NOT what an average number represents. And even if you totaled production by month you would have to have some significant deviations to affect an average of 40-50 numbers to get it to move significantly.

One HUGE problem with using the Sunderlin articles is that he rarely gave the source for his numbers. The MVPA should not allow historical articles to print without a bibliography. Where exactly did he get NOV 44 for CCKW chassis number 394577 ?

Math, estimates and conjuncture aside.. all we need are a few (3-5) data plates that show SN and DoD and that would put it to rest.

Chassis number is 237321... typo.

Why do you believe that chassis and motor SN's would never match up? Jeeps do. They would have the same acceptance standards as CCKWs. If we accept that 11/44 puts motor SN at 270-523270 then the Army was buying approx 2x the number of engines? At best I could see a 20% stock of new motors (and even that is a wild guess)... but as many an OD GMC 270 will attest, they were rebuilt at depot and put back in supply. I can't see a 4th Echelon shop taking more than a few days to turn a motor around.

I can agree that, as I explained before, made a mistake when I used the engine SN and used chassis SN dating information to put the 6 valve fuel pump into 1945 when it was put in service sometime around the end of 44. Unless some data plates show up to put chassis SN 394557 in NOV 44 this is a moot point. 'Late 44' for the introduction of the 6 valve fuel pump will suffice.

Unless you do have something else concrete to add???

[JGilmore]

Humm....so many questions.....I will try to answer them all....


".....How are you dating that DUKW motor? You are putting a specific date on a specific motor... how? ...."


Hard work ...very hard work....

.....I have been a researcher of military vehicles for over 30 years and have done a great deal of research in the National Archives, Military History institute , Ford Motor Co. and other Archives.
In this research I have uncovered thousands of pages of documents and copied thousands more.

The documents I used to give the exact date are original GMC produced ones in the National Archives. The data on the DUKW motor comes from:
"MTER Record of Production Changes"
"GMC Truck and Coach Division "
"General Motors Corporation"
" Pontiac, Michigan, August 23, 1945.

Each and every change made in production is recorded with Motor Number (if motor change) Chassis number and USA number (if vehicle change).


"....To be honest, unless you can relate DUKW production to CCKW production I think its best not to mingle the SN's and dates of one with another......"


I am not mingling SN's......I am talking only about motor numbers ...and motor changes in DUKW motors are done at the same time as CCKW and AFKW as all these motors were made at the same time and same motor production facility.
A change in one was a change in the other and the date for the DUKW changes prove out the date of the CCKW motor numbers listed in manuals such as the ORD 9 for the G-508. Motor numbers for DUKW's were not in a special number range nor did they start with # 1 for the first motor put in DUKW SN 001. ALL motors used in the CCKW and DUKW were made on the motor assembly plant lines at the same time. That means X amount of 270 motors were made on day Y....and these were used in CCKW production and DUKW production.

Example of what I am saying here....the production figures I gave for April 1945....12,226 vehicles produced would equal 12,226 motors .....plus....you must add the DUKW production for that month of 600 vehicles (600 more motors) and it would equal 12,826 total motors produced for the assembly line. This does not take into account replacement motors made at the same time.

These motors all have numbers in the same number range with no differentiating between them and this is why motor numbers rose disproportionately to vehicle Chassis numbers.

This is also why if DUKW motor # 270-524701 was assembled on 10/15/44 then CCKW motor # 270-523270 would have been made 2 to 3 days earlier so it would be 10/13 or 10/12.

( using your figure of 12,000 vehicles/month = 12,000 motors divided by 21 working days average month = 570 motors a day ...524710 - 523270 = 1431 divided by 570 = 2.5 days)

Now...to this we must add the average of DUKW production for 1944 (11316 divided by 12 = 943 vehicles per month = 943 motors divided by 21 working days = 45 motors per day so our total motors (CCKW + DUKW) = 615 motors per day .....divide 1431 by 615 = 2.3 days.

Note that this is just the CCKW and DUKW motor production...I have not added motors for export, replacement motors or motors used in other vehicles such as AFKW/AFKWX which will reduce the days to about 2.

Now you can see why the DUKW motor numbers data is completely relevant to CCKW motor production and helps us to date CCKW motor numbers !

BTW...the motor number for the first DUKW.....#270-121725...........




"....I'm still not convinced that 12,000 CCKWs per month is not a valid average. ..."


It may be an average but it is not "tight" enough to use to date vehicles.


"....Even a fuel tanker is still a CCKW, but with a different body. Of the 1942 TM10's that list contracts and #'s of vehicles, they are ALL listed as CCKWs. Remember CCKW is not a truck, but a design specification...."


Oh,..OK..... I thought it was a GMC model..ie 2-1/2 ton 6x6 CCKW......at least that's what my GMC master parts list says........


"....So tanker, cargo, tipper or 'None' they are ALL CCKWs....."


Yes, of course but....only to GMC...the Govt. (QMC/ORD) considered them as to what they were ...ie. cargo truck, fuel tanker truck, machine shop truck, Bomb service truck... etc. This is the way they are listed in the QMC/ORD reports


"...Remember 12,000 is the AVERAGE production per month. You really can't say that ONE month has MORE than the average, so the Average is wrong. That's NOT what an average number represents. And even if you totaled production by month you would have to have some significant deviations to affect an average of 40-50 numbers to get it to move significantly...."


Actually..if we are using this to determine how many of what or to date a vehicle......it does make a difference. Why not just use the actual figures? Why round it off or average it when we can use the correct monthly figures?


"....One HUGE problem with using the Sunderlin articles is that he rarely gave the source for his numbers. The MVPA should not allow historical articles to print without a bibliography..."


While I agree with you on the need to document the sources for data...I think the articles have enough information to be of great help with anyone with a GMC 6x6 truck..... would it be better to not have printed the articles at all? Bryce is a friend of mine and I think he did us all a favor by writing those articles.


"....Where exactly did he get NOV 44 for CCKW chassis number 394577 ?..."


Did he? Was it not Milspec that gave that date?


".....Math, estimates and conjuncture aside.. all we need are a few (3-5) data plates that show SN and DoD and that would put it to rest....."


Well...this is not the best to use to determine exactly a date as most CCKW's that exist do not have this info or ....on many, many it is wrong....... it is OK for "close enough".


"....Chassis number is 237321... typo...."


Right...I though so...my listing has your CCKW as 237321-A1...which is not correct as it is actually 327321-1...see what I mean about using existing numbers as "gospel"? They must always be verified to be sure they are correct.


".....Why do you believe that chassis and motor SN's would never match up? Jeeps do...."


Jeeps? Well ...yes and no!
Willys MB's do not have matching motor numbers and for the same reasons that GMC's do not...extra motors, generator sets add motor numbers to the mix.

Ford GP, GPW, GPA do have matching numbers (motor, chassis and data plate) because at Ford, the motor number was the vehicle VIN number. I should say...when a Ford motor was assembled and mated to a clutch and transmission it became a vehicle and was given a motor number.... the motor number was then stamped in the frame and data plate when it was assembled into a complete vehicle. Replacement motors did not have a GP/GPW/GPA motor number.

This was not the norm with other MFG's...Studebaker for example, used motors in the Weasel that did not match the MFG or ORD number.

".....They would have the same acceptance standards as CCKWs...."


This has nothing to do with the motor matching the chassis or vice versa. QMC/ORD contracts did not require the motor number to match the vehicle SN.


".....If we accept that 11/44 puts motor SN at 270-523270 then the Army was buying approx 2x the number of engines? At best I could see a 20% stock of new motors (and even that is a wild guess)... but as many an OD GMC 270 will attest, they were rebuilt at depot and put back in supply. I can't see a 4th Echelon shop taking more than a few days to turn a motor around...."


As I said earlier....the GMC motors were built for the CCKW, CCW, AFKW, DUKW and even the T-17E1 and T-17E2 Armored Cars (2 motors each!) by the same plant at the same time with no difference in motor numbers. To GMC a 270 motor was a 270 motor no matter what vehicle it was to go in. This is why the 270 motor numbers go higher than CCKW chassis numbers.

And....I am not sure that 270 motor production started at motor # 270-001......


"....... 'Late 44' for the introduction of the 6 valve fuel pump will suffice....."


OK, but I like the actual date....2nd week in October... better as it is more correct.

Oh...I almost forgot......the figures that I have quoted here for CCKW and DUKW production ....they are from:

"Summary Report of Acceptances, Tank-Automotive Material, 1940-1945 Army Service Forces, Office Chief of Ordnance - Detroit, Engineering - Manufacturing Division, Requirements and Progress Branch. (National Archives)

and......

"Statistical Work Sheets, Army Service Forces, Office Chief of Ordnance - Detroit, Engineering - Manufacturing Division, Requirements and Progress Branch. (National Archives)


Jim Gilmore

Jim Thorpe, PA.

[pfarber]

Thanks for those references.. I'll have to look them up.

I'm still not sure I agree with the DUKW<-> CCKW engine match up. Only 4% of motors would have went to DUWKs (21,000 produced vs 528,000) so AT BEST you can claim (21,000/528,000 = .039) sample rate... and DUKW production would have been slower and more sporadic than CCKW.

You have not made a case for motor production averages. You are simply taking a DUKW motor, a date and saying CCKW motors are the same date/SN.

Or do those reports show much more detail?

[pfarber]

Yeah unless you have a special annotated version of ""Summary Report of Acceptances, Tank-Automotive Material, 1940-1945 Army Service Forces, Office Chief of Ordnance - Detroit, Engineering - Manufacturing Division, Requirements and Progress Branch. (National Archives)"

It tells you nothing of monthly production.

I'm going to scan in and post the 2 1/2 ton GMC production numbers...

And DUKW production started in 1942, as they accepted just over 200 units in 42.

CCKWAcceptTitle.jpg (42.84 KiB) Viewed 18792 times

The pertinent pages for DUKW, CCKW, and 1 Ton trailers are in the Technical Publications section.

http://www.tm9-801.com/CCKWAcceptanceSummery/index.php

[JGilmore]

"....Yeah unless you have a special annotated version of ""Summary Report of Acceptances, Tank-Automotive Material, 1940-1945 Army Service Forces, Office Chief of Ordnance - Detroit, Engineering - Manufacturing Division, Requirements and Progress Branch. (National Archives)"...
....It tells you nothing of monthly production...."

Right, because it's a "Summary Report".

The actual reports are month by month. They are in various forms at NARA...worksheets, corrected worksheets, monthly reports and monthly contract deliveries.

Most are by contract and by months and years.

The report you posted appears to be the 1945 one that I also have . There was also a 1944. There is a correction to the 1945 one at NARA as well which corrects the mistakes in the 1945 one.

Jim Gilmore

[pfarber]

You quoted two sources saying that they were the references for the monthly production. I was able to quickly locate one. It did not say what you said it did:

"Oh...I almost forgot......the figures that I have quoted here for CCKW and DUKW production ....they are from:

"Summary Report of Acceptances, Tank-Automotive Material, 1940-1945 Army Service Forces, Office Chief of Ordnance - Detroit, Engineering - Manufacturing Division, Requirements and Progress Branch. (National Archives)

and......

"Statistical Work Sheets, Army Service Forces, Office Chief of Ordnance - Detroit, Engineering - Manufacturing Division, Requirements and Progress Branch. (National Archives)"

That's why I asked for a scan of the document, or some sort of ID number to locate the source. The first source gives only annual information.

Please be clear when citing sources. Spiting out documents that you then call irrelevant is not a good thing.

[pfarber]

The report you posted appears to be the 1945 one that I also have . There was also a 1944. There is a correction to the 1945 one at NARA as well which corrects the mistakes in the 1945 one.

Jim Gilmore

The Army History Museum in Carlisle has them both. The 45 report was chosen because it showed production through 45. It also had the addendum... which only dealt with tanks/carriers.