Dilemma: Which front crossmember to use???

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

I am assembling a late October/early November 1928 (S#: 585***) chassis for 'Show & Go' and so I am at a pivotal crossroads where I can use either a 2nd type solid-type engine mount crossmember, --or the 3rd style crossmember with the yoke-type front engine mount.

Now here is the dilemma for me in that most people who know me know why I do not like a Float-a-Motor mounting system because I feel the engine mounts are what the entire driveline pushes on, ...and any movement of the engine/transmission affects steering and braking ability. Adding to that, this engine will be correctly balanced and have a counter-weighted crankshaft inside.

What I am trying to embrace is exactly why Ford changed from the 2nd type mount to the 3rd style. Was it really an improvement to eliminate vibration, --or was it a cost savings measure for him? It would seem there would be added expense with forging & machining the yoke however draw stamping a one-piece crossmember was not an easy feat either. For those who have ever experienced a totally original engine, --or one that has been properly balanced (or counterweighted) knows that the vibrations that many think is normal for a Model A are just not there when everything is 'right'. So do we have any theories as to the reason(s) why Henry made the front crossmember change?

.

[Roadster62]

Was the yoke on the engine or installed on the chassis when the engine was mated to the chassis? Just guessing that there may be a a slight assembly time advantage.

[John LaVoy]

I would go with the assembly line time saving. The phaeton in the avatar is a May 28 with the solid front cross member. I have many thousand miles on it and never felt there was more vibration than other Model As that I've owned. But the time to install an engine is much less with the yoke.

[Tom Wesenberg]

With the 4 point mount, like my 9-27-28 has, it seems like the rear mounts would recieve more stress with any frame flex. This might lead to more cracks in the rear mounts.

[MikeK]

Originally Posted by BRENT in 10-uh-C

I am assembling a late October/early November 1928 (S#: 585***) . . . So do we have any theories as to the reason(s) why Henry made the front crossmember change?

.

Back in '28 paved roads were rare and frames twist-flexed a lot. With the relatively solid rear mounts a solid front cross-member mount probably fatigue cracked relatively quickly, hence the production switch to the yoke. If it were fine-point I'd think the solid mount would be a nice touch. Any other use, even with today's paved roads, I'd go with the later cross w/yoke. Potholes still exist, just not every 100 yards.

[Fred]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Go to any car show & you will find a front solid mount for sale.. look @ it real close & 99% of the time you will find cracks, or where it has been welded.. I have one in my 28 & it took a long time to find a good one as the original in it had been cut down.. I think there lies your answer...

[Richard Wilson]

Just to muddy the waters check out the November 1928 Service Bulletin. It states that the change was to help "prevent engine vibration from being transmitted to the chassis". It goes on to give detailed instructions and measurements on where to cut off the solid front cross member mounting plate so the spring yoke could be installed.

[Mike V. Florida]

I would go for the solid as it is more rare and uncommon.

[Poor Boys Garage]

Could always use the Model AA crossmember which is much more beefy and very little appearence difference.