Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)
Both the production numbers in #4 above and the U.S. domestic production numbers that I cite in #2 (which are found in the DeAngelis/Francis book,"The Early Ford V8 As Henry Built It, A Production Facts Book 1932-38") are derived from the same Ford documents, namely the "Monthly Assembly Record" of Ford's Production Department. Accordingly, they can be considered as the one and only accurate record on the subject. However, they are calendar year figures, not model year figures and they do not distinguish between '33 model 40s and 1934 model 40s.
As a result since we know that the U.S. public introduction day of the 1934 models was December 9, 1933 (likely the same date in Canada as well) it follows that a fair number of '34s are included in the 1933 calendar year production figures. It gets messier when you look at the details showing the production by assembly plant as we know with certainty that Job #1 for the '34 models was not the same for all of the U.S. assembly plants. Nor do the available records show what the Job #1 date was in 1933 in Canada for the '34s. Further compounding the mystery is the fact that while the Dearborn Production Department data includes the production figures outside of the U.S., including Canada, there is one glaring exception as absent are the production figures of Ford of Canada's largest wholly-owned subsidiary, Ford of Australia, which produced a fair number of roadsters and phaetons with their unique body construction in both 1933, 1934, and on into early 1935 given that during that period of time Australian Job #1 dates lagged behind those of the U.S. and Canada by about four months.
So, leaving aside the question of the production figures for the unique Australian '33-'34 open cars, what little we can conclude is that unless some heretofore undiscovered documentation turns up in the Ford U.S. and Ford of Canada archives that delineates the distinction between '33 and '34 models' production (which is highly unlikely given the amount of time that I have already spent in both those archives trying to find such a delineation without success), we will never know just how many of any of the various body types produced were '33s or '34s as all we have are calendar year figures.
uncle buck,
I imported a fair number of '33 and '34 roadsters and phaetons from South America (primarily from Argentina) back in the mid-1970s and again in the early 1990s. All of them were of U.S. manufacturing origin and with the exception of those from Brazil, always a LHD country, unlike Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay which switched from RHD to LHD in 1948, the floor pans had both battery openings in their floor pans, which of course was necessary for RHD vehicles as the battery was located on the left side in four-cylinder cars and on the right side for V8 cars because of the different routing of the exhaust system (always on the right side in fours, on the left in RHD V8s, and on the right for LHD V8s). That your Canadian phaeton has both battery location holes is consistent with that practice since the majority of Ford of Canada exports were to RHD Commonwealth countries.
mvee33,
The only way to confirm whether or not the late '33 wood-grained dash was carried over to '34 standard open cars or they were painted maroon like the rest of the '34 standard models would be to find the relevant engineering releases at the Benson Ford Research Center to provide the answer. I'll put it on my to-do list, but since the BFRC remains closed to the public, who knows when I'll be able to do so.