The Ford Barn

Lucky Mike · 01-31-2013, 03:00 PM

DavidG, thank you again for all of the time you spend responding to me and sharing your knowledge with me. I am eating it up and truly appriciate it. Your comment on an early commercial vehical is spot on. I have spoken to the gentlemen who originally built this car and he told me that "I got the starter vehical from a farmer down the road from me, it was his 'farm truck'". As I mentioned earlier, the grill that I took off the car when I got is was a 1932 commercial, stamped truck grill. I still have it. I also know from that same gentlemen that is was originally a 4 cylinder vehical. Also as far as the holes that are missing from my frame. They are there, the gentlemen who built that car that I refer to above also told me that he filled the holes where the fenders were attached. He said when he got the starter "truck" it had fenders. BTW, I am only using "truck" as to quote the original builder. I understand the difference between truck and pickup.

I will indeed be patient with them at the BFRC, I am very grateful for their help.

I agree on the advancement of my case, I am working on pictures. I have messaged the 3 gentlemen and they have not got back to me yet and the guy in Vegas is going to get in touch with my friend.

Hopefully more soon.

Lucky Mike · 02-01-2013, 04:23 PM

Update everyone. I spoke to the Ford reseracher and they said it is going to be a couple of weeks as they are doing a write up. I will let you know.

VeryTangled · 02-01-2013, 05:51 PM

Awesome discussion everyone, thanks for all the time and knowledge you fellas are contributing. I know zero about '32's so am trying to follow closely and am learning a lot.

Sorry if I missed it, but I can't figure out the exact item that is a "reveal." I think it was stated that this photo shows it, but my question is where? Can some helpful 'Barner direct me to the place in this photo that shows the reveal?

-VT/Jeff

Edited, 8-30-2014 to add photo of blue car, see the 'flare' as it goes towards the ground, or the running board, originally.

http://www.earlyfordv8.org/forum/fil...otos%20215.jpg

DavidG · 02-01-2013, 07:18 PM

It is the flared area running horizontally along the bottom edge of the frame side rail between the front and rear fenders. Its presence (plus a class A finish on the side rail) eliminates the need for separate running board aprons such as were used on Model As.

VeryTangled · 02-02-2013, 04:57 PM

Awesome DavidG, I went and read again from the beginning and now I'm understanding better. If it had been on Lucky's frame it would be visible in picture 3 of post 2. It is visible in post #11's photo.

-VT/Jeff

32 Model B · 02-03-2013, 09:57 PM

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Didn't Ford also stamp the number in the rear axle area on top of the drivers side rail?

Lucky Mike · 02-03-2013, 10:06 PM

yes, 3 spots. Firewall, mid-frame and rear frame.

Mart · 02-04-2013, 04:38 AM

Mike, have you personally witnessed these stamped numbers on YOUR frame?

If you have, why have you not at least given an indication of what the number approximately is?

There is a lot of ifs, buts and maybes here, but the one crucial piece of evidence has been omitted or avoided.

I hope you do have what you think you have, but without a meaningful number stamped at the ford factory, it would be hard to prove they were made by Ford.

Mart.

Lucky Mike · 02-04-2013, 09:08 AM

I understand your sentiment Mart. Please remember I did not build this car. I have never seen the frame without the body let alone bare. At this point, I have decided to wait for the Ford Researchers rather than add further to the chain with partial information and personal speculation. When I hear back from the researcher, I will do a full write up. Depending on what they say, I may indeed remove the body from the frame as part of my quest. At this point, though, I think it is prudent to just wait. I am as eager as everyone else, but clearly based on what the researcher initially said there were / are frames out there made before Oct. 13, 1931 which did not have the "line" that was added thereafter.

vulture · 02-04-2013, 12:26 PM

I have seen a few Martens frames and all of them had reveals but like you said they were 3 or 4 piece rails and the reveal was on the side but came to a sharp point. We have not come across a non revealed

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fordors

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.

Lucky Mike · 02-04-2013, 03:04 PM

Farm "truck" or better said, "pickup". To reveal or not reveal, that is the question.

Lucky Mike · 02-06-2013, 02:39 PM

This pickup has the reveal.

DavidG · 02-06-2013, 05:49 PM

It would be astounding if it did not given the number of late production features.

Lucky Mike · 02-06-2013, 08:34 PM

Agreed. According to the VIN is was made in July 1932.....BUT, I will bet if you think about it you will know why I bought this truck and what my plans are as relates to the Roadster frame without the reveal. Any guess's?

1932 V8 · 02-06-2013, 08:49 PM

Just my opinion but it would be a shame to take that truck apart . It is very cool as it sits . Just my 2c

Lucky Mike · 02-06-2013, 08:55 PM

trust me, it will be what it was when it was originally made. I am goign to bring two things that were meant to be together, back together. It will be original, beautiful and perfect.

Lucky Mike · 02-18-2013, 09:21 PM

I heard from the Ford Research Center. I should hear back later this week or early next.

Mike

alchemy · 02-26-2013, 12:20 PM

I was reading my copy of Thacker's "Deuce" book last night, and saw two different archival pics of an October '31 produced prototype chassis. It has a lot of peculiarities, including no reveal on the side. But I did note it did not have the notches on the top for the cowl band bolts. Yours does.

This proto chassis also had a very odd K-member, and yours is regular, correct? The proto K is actually a whole lot like a '49 F-1 center crossmember, which hangs down below the tail of the transmission.

So, since your chassis has the cowl band notches, and the October '31 proto pic shows none, I'm guessing your chassis is still unexplainable (so far).

Curt Cummings · 03-25-2013, 01:10 AM

There was also a outfit out of Beaverton Oregon that produced aftermarket frames for Model A, 32 or a 32 frame pinched for a Model A and a 33-34 frame. They were Hi-Tec Products. I purchased the frame that is under my 31 coupe from them. The 32 frame they offered did not have the reveal. They also stamped the serial # for your title into the frame so it would match the car. I still have the invoice for it in my file.

deuce_roadster · 03-25-2013, 10:54 AM

I would think the picture of Henry stamping 18-1 on a frame with the reveal is all you need here. I would bet a lot on the frame in question being a remake. While they were mocking up prototypes they probably had frames made out of oak but that doesn't mean they ever sold one.

01-31-2013, 03:00 PM	#41
Lucky Mike Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Windsor, Colorado Posts: 63	Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal. DavidG, thank you again for all of the time you spend responding to me and sharing your knowledge with me. I am eating it up and truly appriciate it. Your comment on an early commercial vehical is spot on. I have spoken to the gentlemen who originally built this car and he told me that "I got the starter vehical from a farmer down the road from me, it was his 'farm truck'". As I mentioned earlier, the grill that I took off the car when I got is was a 1932 commercial, stamped truck grill. I still have it. I also know from that same gentlemen that is was originally a 4 cylinder vehical. Also as far as the holes that are missing from my frame. They are there, the gentlemen who built that car that I refer to above also told me that he filled the holes where the fenders were attached. He said when he got the starter "truck" it had fenders. BTW, I am only using "truck" as to quote the original builder. I understand the difference between truck and pickup. I will indeed be patient with them at the BFRC, I am very grateful for their help. I agree on the advancement of my case, I am working on pictures. I have messaged the 3 gentlemen and they have not got back to me yet and the guy in Vegas is going to get in touch with my friend. Hopefully more soon. __________________ Lucky Mike Lucky Bones Motor Club (303) 887-8313 [email protected]

02-01-2013, 04:23 PM	#42
Lucky Mike Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Windsor, Colorado Posts: 63	Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal. Update everyone. I spoke to the Ford reseracher and they said it is going to be a couple of weeks as they are doing a write up. I will let you know. __________________ Lucky Mike Lucky Bones Motor Club (303) 887-8313 [email protected]

02-01-2013, 07:18 PM	#44
DavidG Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: southeastern Michigan Posts: 10,670	Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal. It is the flared area running horizontally along the bottom edge of the frame side rail between the front and rear fenders. Its presence (plus a class A finish on the side rail) eliminates the need for separate running board aprons such as were used on Model As.

02-02-2013, 04:57 PM	#45
VeryTangled Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: (Not far enough...) Outside of DC Posts: 3,400	Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal. Awesome DavidG, I went and read again from the beginning and now I'm understanding better. If it had been on Lucky's frame it would be visible in picture 3 of post 2. It is visible in post #11's photo. -VT/Jeff

02-03-2013, 09:57 PM	#46
32 Model B Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Bethlehem, CT Posts: 133	Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal. Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements) Didn't Ford also stamp the number in the rear axle area on top of the drivers side rail? __________________ You are only as good as your last mistake.

02-03-2013, 10:06 PM	#47
Lucky Mike Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Windsor, Colorado Posts: 63	Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal. yes, 3 spots. Firewall, mid-frame and rear frame. __________________ Lucky Mike Lucky Bones Motor Club (303) 887-8313 [email protected]

02-04-2013, 04:38 AM	#48
Mart Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Solihull, England. Posts: 9,240	Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal. Mike, have you personally witnessed these stamped numbers on YOUR frame? If you have, why have you not at least given an indication of what the number approximately is? There is a lot of ifs, buts and maybes here, but the one crucial piece of evidence has been omitted or avoided. I hope you do have what you think you have, but without a meaningful number stamped at the ford factory, it would be hard to prove they were made by Ford. Mart.

02-04-2013, 09:08 AM	#49
Lucky Mike Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Windsor, Colorado Posts: 63	Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal. I understand your sentiment Mart. Please remember I did not build this car. I have never seen the frame without the body let alone bare. At this point, I have decided to wait for the Ford Researchers rather than add further to the chain with partial information and personal speculation. When I hear back from the researcher, I will do a full write up. Depending on what they say, I may indeed remove the body from the frame as part of my quest. At this point, though, I think it is prudent to just wait. I am as eager as everyone else, but clearly based on what the researcher initially said there were / are frames out there made before Oct. 13, 1931 which did not have the "line" that was added thereafter. __________________ Lucky Mike Lucky Bones Motor Club (303) 887-8313 [email protected]

02-06-2013, 05:49 PM	#53
DavidG Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: southeastern Michigan Posts: 10,670	Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal. It would be astounding if it did not given the number of late production features.

02-06-2013, 08:34 PM	#54
Lucky Mike Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Windsor, Colorado Posts: 63	Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal. Agreed. According to the VIN is was made in July 1932.....BUT, I will bet if you think about it you will know why I bought this truck and what my plans are as relates to the Roadster frame without the reveal. Any guess's? __________________ Lucky Mike Lucky Bones Motor Club (303) 887-8313 [email protected]

02-06-2013, 08:49 PM	#55
1932 V8 Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Windsor California Posts: 496	Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal. Just my opinion but it would be a shame to take that truck apart . It is very cool as it sits . Just my 2c

02-06-2013, 08:55 PM	#56
Lucky Mike Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Windsor, Colorado Posts: 63	Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal. trust me, it will be what it was when it was originally made. I am goign to bring two things that were meant to be together, back together. It will be original, beautiful and perfect. __________________ Lucky Mike Lucky Bones Motor Club (303) 887-8313 [email protected]

02-18-2013, 09:21 PM	#57
Lucky Mike Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Windsor, Colorado Posts: 63	Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal. I heard from the Ford Research Center. I should hear back later this week or early next. Mike __________________ Lucky Mike Lucky Bones Motor Club (303) 887-8313 [email protected]

02-26-2013, 12:20 PM	#58
alchemy Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: middle of Iowa Posts: 1,001	Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal. I was reading my copy of Thacker's "Deuce" book last night, and saw two different archival pics of an October '31 produced prototype chassis. It has a lot of peculiarities, including no reveal on the side. But I did note it did not have the notches on the top for the cowl band bolts. Yours does. This proto chassis also had a very odd K-member, and yours is regular, correct? The proto K is actually a whole lot like a '49 F-1 center crossmember, which hangs down below the tail of the transmission. So, since your chassis has the cowl band notches, and the October '31 proto pic shows none, I'm guessing your chassis is still unexplainable (so far).

03-25-2013, 01:10 AM	#59
Curt Cummings Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Camano Island, WA Posts: 97	Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal. There was also a outfit out of Beaverton Oregon that produced aftermarket frames for Model A, 32 or a 32 frame pinched for a Model A and a 33-34 frame. They were Hi-Tec Products. I purchased the frame that is under my 31 coupe from them. The 32 frame they offered did not have the reveal. They also stamped the serial # for your title into the frame so it would match the car. I still have the invoice for it in my file.

03-25-2013, 10:54 AM	#60
deuce_roadster Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Shelton, WA Posts: 4,043	Re: 1932 Ford Chassis without the Reveal. I would think the picture of Henry stamping 18-1 on a frame with the reveal is all you need here. I would bet a lot on the frame in question being a remake. While they were mocking up prototypes they probably had frames made out of oak but that doesn't mean they ever sold one.