Dodge Brothers Utility Line Thingmabobber

What the heck is the wheelbase I wonder ? Looks like they converted a 124" WB 3/4 ton down to around 100" or less...

Has anyone seen anything like this before from the pre-32 days in the DB line ?

Looks like a cut-down sedan to me. In New Zealand, there was a great shortage of vehicles after WWII and many "old" sedans were cut down ("trucked"). Tires were also impossible to get and many very nice cars were wrecked to provide tires for something else.

Looks like a pickup that was shortened by some utility bed/box company. Many companies had their vehicles altered to serve that company's purpose. In this case, to install a utility box and ladder.

I believe what you guys are saying is true but there are a couple things that are curious.

A.) Looks like a factory order/very professionally done, it doesn't look like an after thought in order to make it work for their use. There's very limited info available for the DB trucks so one is forced to refer to old Graham Brothers special package models such as fire trucks, and trucks for all types of work. I've seen GB utility line trucks before but they usually have a longer wheel base. I have never seen one nearly this short and is very intriguing.

B.) The short wheel base along with the weight of steel ladder in proportion to the location of the base of the ladder and the angle of the pitch once it's extended seems to me that physics would take over. In other words I would think the thing would get top heavy, and with no outriggers that had to make for a fun sensation when at the top. I would bet the front wheels had a tendency to lift off the ground at times, especially on a windy day.

In this photo I've highlighted the most practical base choice that the Utility Company probably chose for their conversion needs (3/4 ton Express). Just so curious why they would go through all that work to convert to such a short wheelbase when the Express would have been sufficient enough for the job.

I still think it is a cut down sedan, probably custom made maybe by a body-building company. Where were the seams in the roof panels in that sedan? Maybe they bought a two-door sedan minus the rear end? I wonder what the location was?

The ladder is unlikely to be steel at that period - more likely to be wood? It probably has a limited range of erected attitudes for balance, but of course occupational safety had little more than a nod in those days. Note side-mount spare is missing.

Did Dodge offer a chassis-cowl? Perhaps to the top of windscreen plus the roof panel behind the top of windscreen. In other words, what was offered to motor body builders?

I still think it is a cut down sedan, probably custom made maybe by a body-building company. Where were the seams in the roof panels in that sedan? Maybe they bought a two-door sedan minus the rear end? I wonder what the location was?

The ladder is unlikely to be steel at that period - more likely to be wood? It probably has a limited range of erected attitudes for balance, but of course occupational safety had little more than a nod in those days. Note side-mount spare is missing.

Did Dodge offer a chassis-cowl? Perhaps to the top of windscreen plus the roof panel behind the top of windscreen. In other words, what was offered to motor body builders?

Sure looks like the cab of the truck you high lighted on the sales brochure and not a modified passenger car.

The 29 DB "E" series offered a fire wall and cowl option. Do not know if this year did.

It is definitely a truck cab and not an altered sedan cab.

Hey guys, thanks for the feedback.... this thing is really messing with me.

Spinney,

I hear what you're saying but due to the lines and comparison photos I posted I don't believe it's a sedan that has been cut down. If there is a sedan of this paint scheme then show us but from what I have studied this is a truck paint scheme and it is specific to the 1930 version of trucks especially the 3/4 ton trucks.

I'm curious to know if Stakeside is onto something...

Did the 1930 models offer the same options as the 29's for the cowl/firewall options ? If so, I would love to see the evidence but as I said, the information that was available shortly after the DB take over of the GB's then the Chrysler takeover of the DB line sure messes with things... and where did that evidence go ?

Ahhh the same ole problem with the "gray area" of the DB/GB trucks from that time period that seems to be lost or just vanished from the historical record unfortunately.....

Trust me Spinney I want to believe it was as simple as you say (sedan converted) but all the evidence points to this as being a truck to begin with and converted into a "utility" vehicle.

My question is still related to physics.... Why the hell would they make such a risky/top heavy disproportioned vehicle for such a simple task ? I wonder if it is related to "Small compact storage space" for the price or bottom dollar somehow ..... but even still,,,,, that could have been incorporated into the "Express" base package in my view. There has to be some reason for this short wheelbase.... I sure as hell don't get it ! (Scratching my head).

If my assumption/guess is correct it would appear to be sufficiently engineered for their purpose. First I assume the ladder as shown is fully extended and unidirectional (only allowed to face forward as shown). In this case the base is behind the rear wheels and even at the top rung the weight would be just ahead of the rear wheels. Don't believe rear wheels and certainly not fronts would lift. If these assumptions are correct I would think the WB should be shorter (as shown) as a longer WB would stress/flex the frame between the front and rear wheels. I'm a retired accountant not an engineer so its only a guess. Bill

What the heck is the wheelbase I wonder ? Looks like they converted a 124" WB 3/4 ton down to around 100" or less...

Has anyone seen anything like this before from the pre-32 days in the DB line ?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]261319[/ATTACH]

In the 1929 Gratruck hm Brothers salesman hand book shows a Plymonth based 4 cyclinder chasie of 109 " wheelbase that looks like the truck . Book at work ,will post pic tomorrow and can compare the frame rear and gards to see if it is of likeness . Bob

What the heck is the wheelbase I wonder ? Looks like they converted a 124" WB 3/4 ton down to around 100" or less...

Has anyone seen anything like this before from the pre-32 days in the DB line ?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]261319[/ATTACH]

In the Graham Brothers 1929 salesmans hand book there is chassie/ cowl unit based on the Plymonth 4 cyclinder of 109" wheel base , the book is at work , will post a pic tomorrow and can compare the likeness Bob

The 1929 Merchants Express pickup was the first of the Dodge half ton trucks.

109 inch wheelbase with a 60 inch tray.

There a story at:

http://www.pickuptrucks.com/html/history/segment2.html

[ATTACH=CONFIG]261594[/ATTACH]

The 1929 Merchants Express pickup was the first of the Dodge half ton trucks.

109 inch wheelbase with a 60 inch tray.

There a story at:

http://www.pickuptrucks.com/html/history/segment2.html

WOW, I'm completely shocked to see that this morning. How many times have we all seen that photo,,,? I just never realized the wheelbase was so short on the 29 1/2 ton models until comparing it to the utility truck on topic. That answers the conversion question but even more amazed to see the utility was a 1/2 ton at the onset, seems even more risky.

I'm not an engineer either and I'm horrible with science, math and physics... but you couldn't get me up on that thing... no way !

And I climb ladders for a living...

Hopefully Bob finds something to compare it to.

The ladder will be fine along the vehicle axis, but across it is likely to be dangerous, depending on cross fall. You can not see, however, how much kentledge is loaded into the bottom of the box for stability purposes.

It looks to me that the ladder truck has bigger tires then the pickup picture. That 1/2 ton is good looking, wouldn't mind having one of those.

And there is less clearance between tire and mud guard = weight in the back. It is hard to say but the rear springs might be heavier too.

WOW, I'm completely shocked to see that this morning. How many times have we all seen that photo,,,? I just never realized the wheelbase was so short on the 29 1/2 ton models until comparing it to the utility truck on topic. That answers the conversion question but even more amazed to see the utility was a 1/2 ton at the onset, seems even more risky.

I'm not an engineer either and I'm horrible with science, math and physics... but you couldn't get me up on that thing... no way !

And I climb ladders for a living...

Hopefully Bob finds something to compare it to.

Sorry guys had a massive day to day boreing a set of rods for a 1916 Dodge Brothers motor ,will post tomorrow for sure Bob

Sorry guys had a massive day to day boreing a set of rods for a 1916 Dodge Brothers motor ,will post tomorrow for sure Bob

Well this is very annoying to me , the above said book has been in the same place on the book shelf since adam was a boy and now gone ! . I have spent half of the morning going through the entire work shop looking for it ,and no book .Please be patiant its got to sitting some where under my nose and either being blind or stupid one day it will jump out in front of me when I am not looking for it . Hope to find it soon ,its to valuable to us to loose . Bob