1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

This 1932 Roadster was built in the early 80's. It has a 1932 title tied to the frame. The frame is right in every single aspect except it does not have the reveal. Does anyone have any idea why it would not have the reveal? One person told me that it may have been made in the UK or Germany and imported. Another person told me it was a truck frame. Another person said maybe it was an aftermarket frame, but I have confirmed it is not a Just A Hobby frame. It is absolutely correct in every way, just no reveal.

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

Pics

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

It's aftermarket. I remember those frames from the 70s.

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

Thank you Bassman. I do have a title, but let's not go down that path just yet. Do recall the name of the company that you are thinking of? It is not a LoBeck / Just a Hobby frame. I confirmed that.

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

Sorry, I just remember seeing adverts in rodding magazines.

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

This was posted on the HAMB. I told him to post it on the Ford Barn. The Hamb had along discussion and there were thoughts about pickup truck frames and first 32 Fords not having the reveal. I hope more people will respond to this question

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

Thank you Sturgis39.

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

Ok for those of us who don't know, what is a reveal?

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

I believe he's referring to the shape of the frame where the front fenders attach.

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

The accentuated line or profile on the frame sides that made it a part of the bodystyle unlike the Model A Ford that covered up this part of the frame above running board. You cannot mistake the beautifull 1932 Ford frame.

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

The small lip on the bottom of the frame rail.

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

It is definitely not a Deuce Factory or TCI frame. Are they one piece rails or are they 3 piece rails? Look inside the rails and see if they if the top and bottom are welded to the side.

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

I posted the question on The Early Ford V8 Club of America. I actually posted the question in the general discussion and the 32 Ford discussion.

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

Given that the cross members are bolted in and many bolt holes are missing, it's a real stretch to describe it as "right in every single aspect....". This is not an original '32 Ford frame.

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

Thanks for the explanation.

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

This may also be a modified frame. Someones attempt to "clean up" what they considered detail clutter on an orignial frame. Looking at the side view there is a little of the reveal line showing near the rear. Many of the early hot rodders did not have today's quasi religious worship of the "original deuce" and would trick out the car by changing things like that.

As to a 60's repro frame... I doubt it, I don't think anyone would do it. Original 1932 frames were readily available used until the early 1970's and it was a MAJOR investment for Deuce Factory to make the first stamped side rails. Lobeck/Just a Hobby rails were fabricated, not stamped.

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

A firm by the name of John Thompsons reproed '32 frames for the Allard Motor Car Co. when their supply of Deuce frames dried up in England. Similar, but not matching, they had no reveal, the crossmembers were different, the rear kick-up was higher, and the very front of the frame horns was square cut, not radiused like the '32. The front 'member was flanged both front and rear, kind of like a rear crossmember, the center was different and may not (don't know for sure) have had the K struts like original, and the rear had a deeper drop to it.
When I first saw Luckys frame I thought of the Allard but the frame horns on his frame have the radius. Next the Mike Martens frame came to mind, but his were done about forty years ago and I cannot recall if he put in the reveal or not. In any event it's not a Martens, as his were fabricated from three pieces and not stamped. Martens was in Mendota,IL and his stuff predated Just A Hobby which was started by Dave Gale. I think Martens got out when the Deuce Factory stampings came out, but while he was in business he did some Model 40 frames too.
Luckys photo seems to show rails that are not fabricated but stamped, other than that I don't know what they are. The mystery continues.

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

Thank you Fordors! Great info. I spoke to a gentlemen I met on the HAMB forum offline. He told me that he had a 1932 frame that he bought a few years back from a farmer that did not have the reveal. I asked again, it didn't have the reveal. He said no. He said I am a builder, I know frames and I had a 32 frame with the reveal and the one I got without the reveal sitting right next to each other and he said "they were exactly the same, except without the reveal". I spoke to another gentlemen that said he had heard the very first frames in non-US facilities did not have the reveal. As you said Fordors....."the mystery continues".

And yes, these are stamped.

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

Here's a scan of a page from Petersen Publishing's "Ford In The Thirties" published in 1976. The bottom of the page shows what the writer believed to be a Spanish prototype of a '32 Fordor. It is on a 112" wheelbase, has longer running boards, the European styled louver accents like a Model A, the hood side and the body extends deeper which hides much of the frame, and granted it is hard to tell for sure but there might not be a reveal there.
Other than this publication I have never seen, nor have I heard of any details surrounding this car. I show it to reinforce the statement that when it comes to Deuces no one knows for sure what was or wasn't. If something did not leave Engineering and see production it might have been spirited outside the company and hidden away. Ever hear of Warhoops, the scrap yard where GM sent their dream cars? The one's that were to be crushed but never were?
My gut feeling says the frame is a later repro, maybe someone will know who did rails like yours.

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

I'd be amazed if it were a Ford factory frame. Tell you what, take a real good close up picture of the factory ford stamped in frame number and it should be easy to judge if they are factory stamped or stamped by someone else after the event. The factory numbers are quite distinctive.

It is most likely a repro or a one off built by a skilled individual.

If you really think it is factory, show the number.

Mart.

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

I don't have our '32 frame at hand, but the shape of the very front of the rail, shown in the first picture, doesn't look kosher to me.

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

There are new stamps made that are EXACTLY like Ford's numbers. Yes, EXACTLY.

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

PeteVS,

You're absolutely right! Looking at that first photo, neither of the horizontal portions of the frame rails taper towards the front like an original. The bottom one is so oversize that you could not possibly install the U-shaped radiator apron between the frame rails.

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

DavidG - what does "taper towards the front like an original" mean? Also what does "the bottom one is so oversized" mean? I will post more picture if I know to what you are referring.

I still have the original stamped 1932 commerical truck grill that came on the car when I got it. This stamped grill only came with the 1932 truck.

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

From the front of the front cross member, the top and bottom side of the "C" cross section of the frame have a slight taper to them so that at the very front edge of the frame, these top and bottom sides are noticeably narrower than they are at the from cross member.

A fellow barner asked me to look at your thread posted on HAMB, I did so but I did not post a comment as things were already way out of control.

Ford did not use the word "truck" in concert with the word "pickup" in 1932. That's because the pickup was classified as a commercial vehicle along with the panel delivery, station wagon, and later in the model year, the sedan delivery. All of those vehicles have the same 106" wheelbase chassis as the passenger cars with the exception of the number leaves in the rear spring. Ford used the word "truck" solely in reference to the big trucks with either a 131 1/2" or 157" wheelbase. If you have a copy of the 1932 body parts catalogue you will notice this distinction in nomenclature between the pickups and "trucks" such as the one shown in the Ford Archives photo below.

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

Yes, understood on the truck vs. pick up. I think it is the angle of the photo. I will take another.

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

Is this what you are talking about?

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

There were a some replies on the Early Ford v8 Club of America. They said that all pickups and cars had the reveal. They posted a picture of Henry stamping one of the first frames and it has the reveal. One reply was kind of hostile. The 32 Forum has the picture of Henry and the general discussion has the hostile comment.

Post 27 on this forum seems to be a different area than what I thought we were discussing. The area I thought we were discussing was at the running boards

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

Sturgis39. That picture is of Ford with the first v8, not all 32's were v8's as you know. My car was originally a 4 banger. There has been some what I would consider hostile or bordering on hostile comments. Frankly, I don't understand the hostility. This is my car, I am seeking knowledge. Frankly I don't care if it is original or repo. I don't plan to sell it. I don't need to sell it. I am just trying to sort out several conflicting opinions. I have now spoken to 3 people who have owned 32's without the reveal. That said, I have yet to find what I would consider authoritative proof. If I never do, I don't care, but I will continue to seek.

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

While Ford's records indicate that some very early 32 frames differed between those used with fours and those used with V-8s to the extent of different front cross members, why rely on opinions? You can contact the source of authoritative information about Fords, namely the Benson Ford Research Center in Dearborn, MI and request copies of the original engineering drawing and engineering release forms for the chassis frame side rail. The part number is B-5105 for the right side and B-5016 for the left side. That drawing and the accompanying engineering release forms should tell you what changes, if any, were made to the side rails during the course of '32 model production.

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

DavidG - AWESOME! Thank you. I will do so indeed. I wish I would have known this before I bought $500.00 worth of books....oh well.

Mike

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

DavidG. I have had a couple of exchanges with the research center. It is very exciting stuff! I want to finish my conversation with them before I post all of the details, but for now, I will leave you with this quote (caps added by me). "....however, there was a stamped line following the fender & running board line added to the frame rail AFTER October 13, 1931." Stay tuned!

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

I am no Model A expert, but is it not more like Model A than V8?

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

Mike, I'm trying not to be negative, but wouldn't Oct 31 be pre production for a 32? I just had a search on google and one source says the new 4 cylinder engine was put in to production in Nov 32. (In 32's presumably). People had to wait until March for the V8's.

Not conclusive, but a little more info.

Mart.

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

No problem Mart, maybe technically, but it would still be a 1932 frame pre-production or production vs. another year (say 1931). Make sense? I will ask my Ford researcher when I get the response.

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

That's a bit early given that Ford's records show that the first production part orders to suppliers was for a January, 1932 Job#1, which were subsequently cancelled when the decision was made to delay vehicle production and the public introduction dates based on the availability of production quality V-8 engines (March 10 and 31, respectively). There is usually also a delay of varying amounts of time between when a drawing is made or changed (all noted in the upper right hand corner of the drawing) and when a part is released for production and then a further delay possible before production parts are available because of the time required to create or modify existing tooling. The creation of the dies involved in the production of chassis frame side rails would be a major undertaking time and money wise as would their modification or recreation to create the subject "stamped line".

It will be very interesting (at least to me) to learn what you come up with. The Archives are loaded with '32 parts drawings that never went into production or only into pre-production (for example, the first production V-8 engine, #18-1 was the 243rd one built, but only the first deemed suitable as a "production" engine. That's why the engineering release forms are a necessary adjunct to the drawings as they will indicate which parts were released for production purposes and at what design level those parts were when so released.

Good hunting!

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

DavidG. You are a wealth knowledge! The researcher didn't specify "production or pre-production" in the chain, but the context of the entire discussion is the 1932 frame. Initially the researcher was just speaking to me about the concept of the "revealed frame" verses the lip or the flare at the bottom of the frame rail. I clarified that in my follow up questions. I will clarify "pre-production vs. production" as well as I continue to correspond (which is happening slower than I would like). Beyond the obvious, in your opinion what would be the difference between pre-production and production? Meaning if my frame is indeed real and it somehow got out of the factory, what would it be? I definitely see the point on #18-1 being the 243rd built, my question would be, what happened to the 242 previous ones? I will also ask about engineering release form. Thank you for the well wishes. Once I get as far as I think I will get, I will post the email chain between myself and the researcher. Thanks.

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

Good morning. A good friend of mine who is familar with my "reveal" quest was in Las Vegas yestrerday with the owner of the SoCal Speed Shop there. He was discussing my frame and the owner said, "I have a friend that has one of those old 32 frames WITHOUT THE REVEAL". He is going to give my buddy his friend's phone number. My friend is going to call him and get pictures and get his story. This is now the 4th person I have spoken to or heard of who says they have "an early 32 Ford frame without the reveal". I will update you all when I speak to him and I hope to hear back from the reserach institute today.

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

Just for your further reading, I've posted lists of '32 and other early Ford patents on here somewhere. There are several patents relating to production and non-production aspects of the chassis design, none of them unfortunately actually relevant here.
Ford tended to get the patents out after stuff was already in production, but cranking through the patents of Model A--1936 period gives a lot of information on Ford tech thinking.
Ford also had a lot of wild-card patents, planetary tranmissions (not Model T!), pumpless oiling, rear engines and wild chassis designs...I think HF wanted to make sure that the Ford tradition of doing nearly everything differently from the industry at large carried on.

Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal.
 

With regard to your question about the destiny of the first 242 V-8 engines, think of them as test engines for durability purposes (or experimental engines trying out new or different ideas). Normally, they would be test run on equipment designed for that purpose until they failed, torn down to determine the reason for the failure, and either repaired and tested further or scrapped. Several of those pre-production or experimental V-8 engines ended up in a storage building in Greenfield Village in Dearborn and were eventually auctioned off along with other such engines from both before and after 1932 about twenty years ago or so. This was contrary for Ford's standing practice and their survival can likely be attributed to the fact that they had be donated the "The Henry Ford".

Someone earlier commented on GM's sloppy followup regarding the destruction of prototype and pre-production parts and vehicles and implied that Ford might have been similarly lax. It would seem that Ford had a better system as very few pre-production parts or vehicles over the years have survived unless they served a Ford purpose.

It is possible and remains to be determined via the engineering release forms that frame rails made before the reveals were added (which had to be very few given the 1931 date of the change) were released for general production use only on frames destined for commercial vehicles (like some other '32 parts which were changed early in the model year like manually adjustable shock absorbers, for example) rather than scrapped. Hopefully the surviving records will reflect that one way or the other.

Please be patient with the BFRC staff assisting you. They are not necessarily "car" people who have a basic understanding of historic automotive design and manufacturing practices but rather are archivists.

Lastly, no matter what you find at the BFRC, it would advance your case exponentially if one of the four fellows you refer to could come up with some photos of an original frame with flat side rails and all or at least two out of three of the original cross members still riveted in place and not having most of the original holes for the fenders and running boards eliminated, which seems to be the case in the photos of your frame.