Choice of two holes for mounting rear spring?

[SoCalCoupe]

Looking at the rear spring mounts on my 1941 Business Coupe, there is a choice of two holes for mounting the rear spring to the axle. Any reason to pick one over the other. My spring is now mounted to the INSIDE holes on each side. What, if anything would happen if I mounted it through the OUTSIDE holes instead? The reason for asking is that I want to install a new axle housing that has only one set of holes and those correspond to the existing unused OUTSIDE holes.

[ford38v8]

Your spring is not mounted to the axle, it is mounted to the spring shackle, which needs the inner axle mount to allow it to swing in compensation of the spring's expansion/contraction of horizontal travel. If you change it to the outer hole, that position will not permit the spring to fully respond as designed.

[F1 MIKE]

That hole is for a Track Bar that they never had from the factory .

[rotorwrench]

1941 was a change year for Ford. They were changing the body and frame design that year and adding a new 6-cylinder engine as well. Ford would make changes or development purposes but they didn't always get some things in production for those types of changes. The panhard or track bar was eventually implemented but the housings changed again in 1942 when they decided to make them wider for the new bodies that came out that year.

[19Fordy]

My eyes may be fooling me but, that spring shackle mount arm doesn't look to be normal or stock. It appears to have been modified by grinding and poor drilling.

[Kurt in NJ]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Originally Posted by 19Fordy

My eyes may be fooling me but, that spring shackle mount arm doesn't look to be normal or stock. It appears to have been modified by grinding and poor drilling.

Looks like some modifications have been made to me too.
Post a picture of the other side, the left side should only have one hole.
The spring is dry and leaking rust dust, there should be a fitting in the center bolt —- not for grease,that will clog the passages, spring lube is thin, originally a mixture of ice machine oil and talc with a dash of asbestos,

[SoCalCoupe]

Originally Posted by Kurt in NJ

Looks like some modifications have been made to me too.
Post a picture of the other side, the left side should only have one hole.
The spring is dry and leaking rust dust, there should be a fitting in the center bolt —- not for grease,that will clog the passages, spring lube is thin, originally a mixture of ice machine oil and talc with a dash of asbestos,

The other side's the same. The downward pointing tab is a 1941-only feature I'm told. Some sort of spring-travel stop that turned out to be unnecessary?


I see the roughness around the empty hole. I don't THINK its related to modification, just manufacturing roughness. I have haven't found any other signs of any other modification at all, just a few parts that aren't perfect restoration parts. The roughness inside the holes is just dirt. The spring mounts aren't on my under-body cleaning regimen.


I'll check into the spring lube.

[Pete]

That is a torch cut surface and the spring is 2 inches too long.

[SoCalCoupe]

Originally Posted by ford38v8

If you change it to the outer hole, that position will not permit the spring to fully respond as designed.

Originally Posted by Pete

That is a torch cut surface and the spring is 2 inches too long.

Hmm. So if the spring is 2" too long and I move each shackle outboard 1" (to the un-used outer holes shown) the geometry should be closer to design and everything should be pretty much OK so long as there no binding or bottoming. Could be whoever rebuilt this car installed a '42-'48 spring. I understand the '42-'48 housing is wider. I've found other incorrect '42-'48 parts the re-builder installed on the car. Again, '41 is an odd-duck transition year, some '40 parts, some '42-'48 parts.

I'm very confident these are 1941 spring perches. Whether they're modified or not, the only evidence I have are these pictures and your comments. I seriously don't know.

I'm not terribly motivated to buy a different rear spring unless there's something important I'm missing. Maybe I am missing something; maybe I'm not.

I'm the only car show judge I care about and I won't deduct any points from myself for a spring that's 2" too long.

I am highly motivated to install my Zephyr Columbia axle housing on the passenger side (it's the same length and bolts right up,) keep the stock housing on the drivers side and move the driver's side spring shackle to the outer hole which would make it symmetrical with the Zephyr housing spring perch on the other side.

[cadillac512]

The spring is the correct length for a '41. Ford changed things and this was one of the changes for '41. It should have had a track bar but evidently they didn't get it done that year...subsequent models had one and it sure helps since the odd setup for '41 didn't keep the axle located as well as it should be. My '41 Merc was identical to what you're seeing on your car, but I retrofit the bar from a '46. The two hole deal was a '41 thing and outer holes were unused.



Terry

[Pete]

Whether the spring length is wrong or the housings are wrong, it is a mish mash of wrong parts. The shackles should NOT be hanging OUT at the bottom. They should be vertical or slightly in.
If the car rides ok and stays together, drive it as is. Triple A is there for you when it breaks.

I think torch hacked forgings are NOT safe to run without mag inspection and re-heat treating.

[F1 MIKE]

Like Pete says on a 41 Shackles should be vertical and that was was rear sway problem on a 41 with out a Track Bar.

[Bob C]

Here's a couple pictures of 41's for comparison.

[cadillac512]

Thank you, Bob C. '41 was the year Ford decided to go with longer springs to help the ride quality, and they did not follow the 45degree shackle angle rule. Unfortunately, the cars didn't handle as well due to the need for better axle locating devices (panhard/track bars) which were installed in subsequent years.

Your pictures show this change, and the front shackle angles are similar.


Terry

[petehoovie]

Originally Posted by Bob C

Here's a couple pictures of 41's for comparison.

[rotorwrench]

The springs are a one year only deal as are the rear axle housings. Parts for 1941 model can be a challenge to source in some cases. The 1942 models were very short lived due to the war but Ford brought it all back up with only a few changes after the war and continued thru 1948 on most things

The spring arms may have been modified or whittled on. I have an old 1941 rear axle and the arms on it are relatively smooth. Ford usually had pretty good forgings and castings but not all were perfect.

[fortyonerag]

Looks different to my 41 rear. The variations on 41's never stop to intrigue me.

[Mart]

Just an observation, but the perches seem to have a "stop" integral to the forging. Possibly a measure taken to limit axle sway. 41s are oddball, that's for sure.

The setup on 41rag's car looks like it would be very prone to axle sway.

[petehoovie]

Originally Posted by fortyonerag

Looks different to my 41 rear. The variations on 41's never stop to intrigue me.

[rotorwrench]

Most of the ones I've come across have the double barrel appearance but nothing surprises me about 1941 cars.