impdb.org

IGCD

[ Login ]

1943 Chevrolet G-7107 [G-506]

1943 Chevrolet G-7107 [G-506] in Chowoo, Movie, 1966

Class: Trucks, Simple truck — Model origin:

1943 Chevrolet G-7107 [G-506]

Minor action vehicle or used in only a short scene

Comments about this vehicle

Author	Message
Lateef ◊ 2020-02-09 23:24
JB ◊ 2020-02-10 00:33	1943+ GMC CCKW 353 Cargo [G-508].
eLMeR ◊ 2020-02-10 03:51	A GMC CCKW would have a tandem rear axle: this truck is a 1941+ Chevrolet G-506. The 1943+ soft-top cab makes it a 1943-45 G7100: (Excerpt of The observer's fighting vehicles directory, World War 2 - Bart H. Vanderveen, 1972) Most probably a G7107 (cargo body without winch). -- Last edit: 2020-02-10 06:17:40
Lateef ◊ 2020-02-10 17:18	I thought it was a Chevrolet too, however the extended bonnet louvers and connecting fenders bothered me. What about a single-rear-axle GMC CCK 353?
eLMeR ◊ 2020-02-15 07:35	@ Lateef: according to the page you linked, "they made them in 1941 under 2 orders. One for 12 vehicles and the other for 20 vehicles". If I understand correctly, these 32 vehicles were made for the British army, and some were sold after WWII in Commonwealth countries. But this one is in South-Korea: such a travel is not impossible, but it seems unlikely that out of such a small number, one managed to leave the Commonwealth... And why would the British army or a later owner have changed the 1941 cab into a (less comfortable) 1943+ soft-top one? Moreover, the page says "The wheels [have] 8 vent-holes and 5 bolt-holes". But I count 6 bolts, on "our" truck. If I'm not mistaken, the Chevrolet and GMC hoods are interchangeable, so a GMC hood side on a Chevrolet truck is not impossible (see here, here or here, this latter with a homemade post-war cab). The bar between the fenders (which disturbs me, too, I have to admit ) could be a later addition, maybe for some street legal reason (the plate is fixed to it). This said, these 4×4 CCKW are an interesting find, thanks.
Gag Halfrunt ◊ 2020-02-15 11:23	@elmer: The British Army fought in the Korean War.
eLMeR ◊ 2020-02-20 05:31	Thanks for that information, Gag Halfrunt. I always thought that the Korean war was just a US "adventure", but the Commonwealth got involved in it, too, so... This said, and as I explained above, the technical details apparently rule out a "British" GMC model, here.
4x4peru ◊ 2020-02-20 20:13	Any more pics of this truck? I think this is a CCKW converted to single axle post war. Please entertain these points of the GMC CCKW vs 1.5 ton Chevy. 1. It has the smaller GMC non-winch bumper (the Chevy is much larger). 2. It has the Timken split front axle of some GMC rather than the Banjo style of the Chevy. Both could have the Chevy produced Banjo but only the GMC had the split type Timken. 3. It has the standard military open cab of which I do not think was available for the Chevy except the no-cab Bomb trucks and very limited models. The passenger side support bracket of the M36 machine gun mount is still present. 4. Full panel louvers on the engine side covers, where the Chevy is only partial. 5. The cargo bed is consistent with the GMC by the passenger side fuel access notch directly over the GMC style fuel tank. The Chevy would have a filler neck rising between the cab and bed. All these clues point toward a GMC except for the single rear axle. 6. Appears the rear axle has been replaced. The drive flange can be seen easily and is not GMC nor Chevy. The axle end has a smooth raised cap that extends farther out than it should for either truck. Too much axle end cap is visible in the center of the wheel from the side views. The GMC end cap would be flat across the face. There may be more than 8 bolts securing the axle to the hub which may help research the origin? I feel this is a GMC CCKW 353A1 that has had the rear axle/suspension replaced with a single axle setup. Or a Chevy 1.5 ton with a GMC bumper, front axle, engine side covers, open cab, cargo bed & fuel tank that also has a replaced rear axle??? The only suggestion of Chevy is the single rear axle which does not appear to be correct for either truck. Thoughts?
andrepa ◊ 2020-02-21 01:41	Reasonable arguments considering the twin-wheel axle seems to be a replacement by protruding to far to be original.

Add a comment

Advertising