Ford Supplier list SNL G540

[Wingnutt]

The G540 is not just G8T trucks but rather it is the family of all 1 1/2 Ton 4x2 trucks made by Ford for the war effort of which 2G8T ( P1 and N1 etc.) and G8T ( P6-P7, N7-N8 etc ) are parts of all the models making up the G540.

Right. Which is what I said earlier on page 10 of this thread. The salient undeniable point in answering Gordon's question, and in clarifying your answer, is that G540 trucks (2G8T's) were indeed being made in 1942, were being issued the same hammer as the hammer issued to the GP and GPW at the same time, and the SNL G540 tells us the supplier was Heller. And this is not data that GPW collectors had prior to the SNL G540 or the SNL G658.

it was not made clear that since this error was found everything in this document and any document made from it need to at first be treated as a error before claiming it as fact and stating conclusions .

I suspect that it was not made clear because Fred does not share your logic. Again, I certainly do not. Again, an error does not mean we cannot reach conclusions about other data in the document or the document as a whole. In fact, it doesn't mean we can't reach conclusions about that part, which is no doubt the GEM, not Gemmer, oiler.

What do you make of the grease listing in the Ford Master Parts List dated Feb. 29, '44 right below the hammer listing in relation to the lever type grease gun starting in Dec, '43 ?

Nothing conclusive yet. As I said, it is one of many little data points contained by the SNL G658 that I am looking deeper and harder at.

Posters in this thread have taken a few clues and made statements of fact.

Again, without specific examples, Tom, accusations like this are meaningless.

[Chuck Lutz]

Here is one of those G-540 Ford family of vehicles from early 1942:

Ford 1.5 Ton 4x2 Truck.jpg (36.89 KiB) Viewed 2511 times

We've learned not to give 100% faith in the RAPD photo layouts....so trusting them comes with a grain of salt..
I'm not speaking for Tom, but I think that ALL the Ford/Willys/SNLs/etc. have mistakes, ommissions and photos that will steer you up a creek. So leveraging data found in an SNL for one vehicle being interpreted to mean it is viable for a different vehicle with nothing else to support that might need to stand the test of time and supportive data...

For instance, early GPW TMs were basically just copied from early MB TMs. Early MB TMs could be copied from the MA manuals. Using photos to stake a claim based on that is not good research without confirmation and support via other documents, etc. That has caused changes to opinions over the years when new evidence surfaces or an explanation of the incorrect opinion is resolved.....choosing which tool mfgers is an on-going learning experiece, caution in a rush to judgement based on parallel data may not be enough.

"Trust...but verify!"

PS...since Ford identified a tool after the first vehicle to use it and then put that inventory number behind it (GP and then 17042 for instance) and that is evidenced by the GP tools and the GPW tools and even the 0A1 (or was it 01A?), then we might infer that the 11TS in Ford Speak tells Ford workers that this item originated with a vehicle that had the Ford designation of "11TS".... what application the "11TS" indicates is unknown for the moment....

[Fred Coldwell]

I am not questioning that the oil can entry was not a mistake but rather trying to show if mistakes are found then all data in that document / manual has to be treated as mistakes until the data in cross checked in other documents and I don't mean using documents that may have been generated from the suspect one to do the cross checking.

Hi Tom:

Wingnutt is correct when he states I do not share your approach to research by assuming the presence of one mistake in a document renders all other information in that document presumably mistaken too. I do not believe OMC and ORD asked Ford to compile ORD 7-8-9 SNL G-540 dated 14 July 1944 but instructed Ford to completely fill it only with mistaken data. "We want it thorough but totally inaccurate, with not a single correct fact included." I don't buy that approach for a second. To the contrary, I believe in the opposite corollary: the presence of one correct fact in a manual renders all other data in that manual presumably correct until proven otherwise . . . with obvious caveats, of course, as Chuck notes. I believe the U.S. Government wanted military vehicle manufacturers to compile Parts Lists that contain correct facts, while recognizing that any such task would likely include a few human errors in data entry.

Have you found any correct data in any of the Ford Master Parts Lists published in 1942, 1943 and 1944? When will you completely cross-check them? And against what?

Your follow-up statement that "I don't believe I have dismissed any information out of hand but rather I am trying to show WW2 vehicle data should be heavily questioned before taking it at face value" directly contradicts your first statement "if mistakes are found then all data in that document / manual has to be treated as mistakes. ". So which is it?

Finally, I note in your earlier posts in this thread where you refer to data present in SNL G-540, you did not preface each post with: "DISCLAIMER, all data presented in ORD 7-8-9 SNL G-540 dated 14 July 1944 is mistaken until proven otherwise". Why not?

[Chuck Lutz]

Whoa...I seriously doubt Tom W. meant that every single item/number/reference is wrong in ANY manual, but ANY manual that has known mistakes in it should probably NOT be used to substantiate anything unless there is some additional data that supports the entry.

I look up stuff in two or three GPW TMs and the G503 SNL to crossrefernce numbers, etc. and if I find they all have the same corroborating data then I'm onboard with it. If I find three sources say one thing and the fourth says something different....then there is a reason for that and it may be a change or...it may be a mistake!

Likewise...if you have ONE manual and it has known mistakes in it...should you find backup data for things in that manual?

Well....a researcher would and then he would look for peer review to see if others agree with his data.

Using ONE source when that source has proven to have mistakes in it is....well, it's a mistake too!

[Wingnutt]

Using ONE source when that source has proven to have mistakes in it is....well, it's a mistake too!

Well, now I can see where some of the comments on the oiler thread come from. I hadn't notice this until now...

I have no interest in dissuading you from your opinion on this matter, Chuck.

For others who may be reading, note that the “mistake” in question is identifying the vendor for GEM-1804 (where GEM seems to be indicating the Pittsburgh oiler maker, and 1804 a Gem part number – corroborated by period ads) for GP-17038 as Gemmer Mfg. Co. in the vendor list. If you think this mistake has no bearing on the veracity of a document in which many other part numbers and vendors are correctly listed, you have company. If you think this mistake makes you question the veracity of the entire document, you also have company.

For others who may be reading, note also that four (4) different wartime sources were used to formulate the correlation in this thread, first used by Jim Gilmore, wrt wrenches only, and with the help of only the SNL G540, now expanded by Roger, myself, and Fred to the majority of the other toolkit tools. Those documents are the ORD TAC ES 422 series c through f, SNL G540, SNL G503, and SNL G658. Only one of those documents extensively cites vendors for tools with Ford part numbers, but the others prove that the toolkit tools considered "Common" (as opposed to "Special") by the QMC and then the ORD, having identical Ford part numbers as those tied to a certain vendor, were issued to many Ford vehicles being built at the same time. On top of that, the Bizal NOS GPW kit confirms the vendors in the SNL G540, precisely. If you think all this means that Ford used the same vendors for identical parts on multiple vehicles at that time (at least as early as July 1944), you have company. If you think there's a possibility that Ford may have used different vendors for the same tools being put on other (non G540) Ford vehicles at the same time, you also have company.

Hopefully we can leave it that and move forward with more research.

[Wingnutt]

I’m still tracking some things down, still working on updating my table (pg 2), but as I mentioned upthread, I had found some interesting odds and ends in the process of analyzing the 15 July 1944 ORD 7-8-9 SNL G540 and the 29 Feb 1944 SNL G658.

Here’s one of the odds I would like to get thoughts on:



That was extracted from the 15 July 1944 SNL G540 ORD 7.

Note that the FSN (41-W-488) and the nomenclature are a correct match (according to the March 1945 ORD 5). What doesn’t match is the Ford part number. GP-17021 is the Ford part number for a 41-W-449, WRENCH, adjustable, 11” long auto type.

What’s interesting about that to me is that Ford’s supplier for the 11” long auto wrench – as evidenced by RAPD 322889 on pg. 221 of the January 1944 SNL G503 (which shows a Mfgr’s marking on it), and the contents of the Bizal kit – was Moore. And, the fact that Moore’s auto wrench was 12” long.

The entry in the 15 July 1944 SNL G540 ORD 7 could be a simple mistake, in which any other incorrect Ford part number could’ve been mistakenly used instead of the correct one.

Except for the fact that there may not have been a 12” crescent type wrench issued to any Ford vehicles. (Tom?)

The ‘Group 2301 – Tools’ part of the Maintenance section of the July 44 SNL G540 shows Qty 8 GP-17023 8” crescent type wrenches issued per every 100 Major Items for assembly and 1st year spares. The earlier 29 Feb 1944 SNL G658 Ford Master Parts List shows an 8" adjustable crescent wrench, GP-17023, being issued to the GP, GPW, Sedan, 2G8T, G8T, GTB, and GPA. It does not include a 12” crescent type adjustable wrench.

Maybe one was added later. (Tom?)

Then again, the Feb 44 SNL G658 does show a GP-17021 11” adjustable auto type wrench being issued to the GP, GPW, Sedan, 2G8T, G8T, GTB, and GPA.

So maybe the ORD 7 part of the SNL G540 got the FSN (41-W-449) and nomenclature (crescent type) wrong, and the length and the part number (GP-17021) correct.

The SNL G540 vendors’ list for GP-17021 shows Moore. And note that there are other vendors on the list (notably, Barcalo and JP Danielson) who made 8" and 12" crescent wrenches. No 8" or 12" crescent wrench is listed.

Not much significance for jeeps, and as I said, just an oddity.

[Wingnutt]

Here’s another one...

I searched here and on the Technical Knowledge board, and while there are several threads about the tire pump retainer brackets, I could only find one where the date of them being added was discussed, and it was about the MB.

If the date when the tire pump retainer brackets were put on GPW’s has been established through other sources, apologies for wasting space. If this is a helpful data point, here you go...

[Hartofoak]

Is this relevant to your research Greg as there appears to be more confusion about the '488. Look at Chuck's posting within this thread ....
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=123491&hilit=auto+wrench+488

[Wingnutt]

Hi Cliff,
That whole saga is between two different suffixes (-448 and -449) used in different documents for the same tool - the 11" auto. The error here, is a little different. Either they used the wrong FSN (41-W-488) and nomenclature (12" crescent) with the intention of specifying the 11" auto wrench (with the correct Ford part number), or they intended to specify a 12" crescent wrench and used the wrong Ford Part number. I think they meant to specify the 11" auto wrench and had the Ford part number right.

[Hartofoak]

I added an edit to my posting Greg. Chuck actually mentions a '488 dilemma as well, in the thread about the '448.
RE-EDIT (!!) Having re-read the posts myself, it now looks like Chuck got confused.

[Chuck Lutz]

Perhaps a check of the specifications of the 11" Adj. on the WO drawing and a comparison to the specifications on Greg's listinfg for the 12" 41-W-488/GPW-17021 would indicate they are not just a longer handle but different jaw specs? Beyond that, maybe a Ford drawing would indicate some reference to an additional wrench along the lines of the 12" jaw specs?

Again, another clue to the 11"/12" issue is the appearance of that wrench on the 1941 MB BOM as "41-W" and a check of the note on the Willys Drawing that indicates a CHANGE was made on 6/7/45 that "41-W-449 was 41-W" and that it had to conform as of that date to ES-442-G.

Then you can check page 213 of the January 15, 1944 SNL G-503 and find:
"41-W-448 GP-17021/WO A-377 WRENCH, auto type, 11 inch"

or...Page 49 in the Feb 1944 TM 9-803 that calls for an 11" Adj. 41-W-449....

Why one might conclude that the manual guys couldn't tell one number from another!

[Wingnutt]

Not the same issue as the -448/-449 issue, Chuck. The SNL G540 ORD 7 entry is mixing two DIFFERENT tools. The FSN and the nomenclature are both describing a "WRENCH, adjustable, crescent-type, 12 in." The Ford part number is describing a "WRENCH, adjustable, auto-type, 11 in." Either the FSN and the nomenclature are correct. Or the Ford part number is. The other evidence (no Ford vehicles got a 12" crescent wrench; several Ford vehicles got an 11" auto wrench) suggests the Ford part number is correct. I just think it's interesting that it seems like the length of Ford's choice (Moore 12) seems like it could've been part of the confusion.

[Tom Wolboldt]

Hi group,

This should fill Chuck's request in a different thread and help ( or not ) as well in this thread. Remember Spare Parts books and Service manuals are not factory build documents. I am under the weather so I may not have anything to add for a few days.

[Chuck Lutz]

So....while we don't have EVERY Ford TM for the G540 series....the one posted does not list Ford Wrench Vendors.....pending other TMs for the other G540 family...one might have to ask the question...."Where in HELL did the manual geeks who printed the G540 SNL get those three references to mfgers of wrenches from? "
Thanks Tom and Joel!)

[Gordon_M]

"Where in HELL did the manual geeks who printed the G540 SNL get those three references to mfgers of wrenches from? "

Parts List or Master Parts List maybe? If it is anything like the Dodge stuff, the Master Parts List might have a lot of supplier codes and details in it that there was no reason to shoehorn into the manuals.