List of Very Early Rouge Built Passenger Vehicles (Three Digit)

[d.j. moordigian]

Steve,

The rivet would be nice to know....but look at the LF shock, I don't see it, or is it
the angle, or is it the one with the shock in the front? Also the string on the
windshield arm nut?

Dudley

[dlshady]

Originally Posted by Steve Ciccalone

Anybody ID that car in the background?

The radiator shell on that one looks very 28 Lincoln-ish to me.

Something else that I just noticed is the rumble seat step plate on the left rear fender. I didn't realize that those were installed on the opposite side for non-North American vehicles. New one to me!


Deron

[Fred]

It also looks to have the flat style radiator cap & the dome type gas cap ??..

[Rich in Tucson]

Frame black is right, all 50 shades of it!

[Roadster62]

I noticed the step plate location too. Must be a safety feature, since that is curb side on a RHD car.

Originally Posted by dlshady

The radiator shell on that one looks very 28 Lincoln-ish to me.

Something else that I just noticed is the rumble seat step plate on the left rear fender. I didn't realize that those were installed on the opposite side for non-North American vehicles. New one to me!


Deron

[Bick in New Zealand]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Brad, was there a date associated with this showing?

These pictures are from 'The New Car' 1928 by Brown, UK, England. they show some early RHD setups.


Jutin 'Bick' Bicknell

[Steve Ciccalone]

I'm thinking that this car is UK built (Manchester) rather than a US built export. I got a magnifying glass on the photo and it appears the radiator cap is also domed. I think I can see a faint shadow of the LF shock cover as well. The body rivet at the bottom of the coupe pillar is too pronounced to be recessed. This change appeared about April 1928 on US bodies from what I've noticed. The Dunlop's wouldn't have been mounted in the US. I'm not surprised about the open bumpers. The overseas plants probably didn't receive all US part plan revisions or at least not in a timely manner.

[Bick in New Zealand]

Interesting comment about receiving revisions in a timely manner. I have original service bulletins, etc. here, that were date stamped when they were received. Most are stamped 3-4 months after issue.

[Ron in Quincy]

Steve,

It also appears to have the 2nd generation landau arm mounting bracket at the bottom, dome shaped rather than "L" bkt. ?

Ron

[Steve Ciccalone]

Ron, donate those eyes to science.

[Ron in Quincy]

Steve,

Pluck verified that the brake shoe pins with one side flat came into being 12/9/27 and continued until 3-1-28. On 3-3-28 the required amount of 16 pins was changed to 8 and the flat side was eliminated. The adjusting shaft clevis thickness was reduced, and the shorter pin came into being for the adjusting end of the brake shoe.
A1276 has the 16 pins with flat side and the thick clevis end on the adjusting shaft.

I don't know why I worry about things like this, just curious I guess, they can't be seen unless the drums are removed.

Ron

[Marco Tahtaras]

Originally Posted by Ron in Quincy

Steve,

Pluck verified that the brake shoe pins with one side flat came into being 12/9/27 and continued until 3-1-28. On 3-3-28 the required amount of 16 pins was changed to 8 and the flat side was eliminated. The adjusting shaft clevis thickness was reduced, and the shorter pin came into being for the adjusting end of the brake shoe.
A1276 has the 16 pins with flat side and the thick clevis end on the adjusting shaft.

I don't know why I worry about things like this, just curious I guess, they can't be seen unless the drums are removed.

Ron

Ron,

This is a change of subject, but it's important that researchers looking at the Ford records also be familiar with actual use of the parts being researched. Many redesigned items were planned and recorded long before actual implementation while others were redesigned and changed before the engineering department was able to "catch up" and record the change. A good example of the former is the radiator shell. The records show the radiator shell was changed to the riveted lacing 11/7/27. This doesn't mean much to the masses here but for us familiar with the early '28 cars it's obviously WAY off actual implementation.

I'm not suggesting that Steve's info is incorrect as I'm confident it's very close in this case. This just seemed to be an opportune time to bring up something that many researchers don't understand.

[Rowdy]

Seems there were many on the fly changes, that were not documented til after the change. I had issue with 2 of them on the May of 28 rdstr pu. One being the humpback carb with the false boss and the other being the type 3 starter. Only would have been a couple of weeks too early per the current standadrs, but still close enough to be contestable in judging and likely a loss of points. We have had this discussion before so I won't go into the details again. I know the commitee does the best research they can per the records and not enough original examples reamin in this short time frame to change the JS. It was just a frustrating part of the rdstr pu that is now elsewhere, although I did keep the humpback carb that was rebuilt by Ben and runs great on the delivery for now. Rod

[Steve Plucker]

Originally Posted by Marco Tahtaras

Ron,

This is a change of subject, but it's important that researchers looking at the Ford records also be familiar with actual use of the parts being researched. Many redesigned items were planned and recorded long before actual implementation while others were redesigned and changed before the engineering department was able to "catch up" and record the change. A good example of the former is the radiator shell. The records show the radiator shell was changed to the riveted lacing 11/7/27. This doesn't mean much to the masses here but for us familiar with the early '28 cars it's obviously WAY off actual implementation.

I'm not suggesting that Steve's info is incorrect as I'm confident it's very close in this case. This just seemed to be an opportune time to bring up something that many researchers don't understand.

Also on this note and to add to Marco's statement...

If one does see a change in just one part on such and such date on a Part Release, it may not mean that that was the specific day of change.

One must also look at the other associated parts of the assembly itself as they may or may not have been changed also.

If the associated parts have also been changed somewhat, then the assembly itself would, in most cases, be "brought up to date" at a much later time therefore indicating a better window of change in the production line.

Maybe???

Pluck