1940 merc rear end?

[V8COOPMAN]

Originally Posted by rockfla

I will get that measurement and photo's for you tonight when I get home from work. V8Coopman.....don't know IF it has anything to do with anything BUT this is an "early" Production Mercury, all the glass is bugged 10-38, the number is just at 10,000, the body is 1808. Ford/Mercury hub caps. There are also some details on it that are different than the later 39's so there were SOME running changes, with just how much of this car??? My still be finding out.

Thank you "rock"! I love that crew! DD

[rockfla]

Originally Posted by V8COOPMAN

Thank you "rock"! I love that crew! DD

Too bad I couldn't get the dogs to "help" me and the wife to "kiss me" while I was laying on the creeper!!!! Damn the luck!! But she did do a great job of holding the light and the end of the tape measure. The littlest "golden" is a new addition, she's learning the routine.

[rotorwrench]

Its the 99A version of torque tube. This was the 116" WB 1st Generation Mercury. It definitely does appear to have a sleeve roughly centered on the radius rod location. They may very well have extended the 112 " WB Ford torque tube pretty close to 3.5 to 4-inches. One day we can get an exact length on one of those torque tubes. At least we know what they look like and approximately how long they are. It makes sense to use a longer sleeve to extend the tube. Butt welding is strong but a longer sleeve is even stronger.

Those radius rods do look like the later Ford ones so that may be the origin of that shorter design.

I also want to thank rockfla for his efforts. This is quite informative.

[rockfla]

Back on the lift tonight for the front measurement, 40-3/4 to 41 from center of ball to center of axel, no load on the front end at all, pic #1. I also took measurements from center of ball to king pin pic#2 and #3. And I don’t know why it’s turning them on edge

[rockfla]

For those interested I shot some close ups of the “added” part of the tube.

[rockfla]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

And a few general shots & Oliver helped!!

[V8COOPMAN]

Originally Posted by rockfla

For those interested I shot some close ups of the “added” part of the tube.

Hey rock …...This shot shows much more definitively that the sleeve we were discussing last night is actually a one-piece affair instead of what appeared (to me) to be two sleeves butt-welded together.





It's obvious now that the weld bead I saw last night was actually the weld for the radius rod mount to the sleeve. That sleeve appears to be maybe 14" or 15" long. I'm really not understanding why Ford did it this way rather than just making a one piece tube to begin with. Clearly, Ford must have been capable of extruding or forming those tubes in any length they wanted. I also must wonder if there was a center bearing inside that thing like the Fords of the era had. And the front wishbone measurement is likewise much appreciated. You really have gone above and beyond for us! Now, this last picture.....who couldn't love a wooly schnoz like this one? DD

[rockfla]

Glad I could help the confusion. The struggle was real with blood shed from the new one biting my nose pic#2 (sharp puppy teeth) but all the "help" was happy when they got to go for a ride when I moved the Merc off the lift.

[rotorwrench]

With the reinforcing tube on the torque tube, it would be hard to say if there was any welding of the torque tube or not. A person would have to look inside to be able to tell. It may have just been a reinforcement for the radius rod attachment. The shorter radius rods were a new thing for Ford so maybe there was some concern about structural strength.

The other unanswered question is whether there is a damper bearing in the tube. We know that they used a solid complete pinion shaft all the way from the U-joint to the ring gear. They may not have used a damper bearing. I see no evidence of a grease fitting like most of the damper type tubes had.

[V8COOPMAN]

Man, if ANYONE has one of these critters out in the open and away from the car, PLEASE let us get a few pictures of this oddball so that we can soak-in all of the weird characteristics it has going for it. Many thanks again, rockfla! DD

[rockfla]

In response to the original question I measured from inner brake backing plate to inner brake backings plate and low enough to clear the bottom of the pumpkin and I measuring just about 51-3/8 was doing it by myself with a flimsy tape, hope that helps

[V8COOPMAN]

ROCKFLA certainly helped answer several questions about these oddball Mercury drive shafts and torque tubes. But I STILL HAVE QUESTIONS! I want to know "WHERE", and "WHY"? Where do those extra almost 4" in length actually fit into this picture? Keep in mind that more than one person has stated that the Mercs are WIDER! Are they? Is that inside, or outside? Is that wider body, or wider FRAME also?


Some have stated that the Ford & Merc bodies are the same...BEHIND the firewall. Well, they AIN'T! For one, the rear doors on a Fordor sedan are not the same between Ford & Merc. The Merc only has ONE exposed hinge...the Ford has TWO. The reason the Merc has no exposed BOTTOM hinge is because the whole upper front of the rear fenders is shaped differently between the two, the Merc resembling a teardrop. The Merc's upper fender sloping surface headed down toward the gas filler has a long, straight section below the stainless trim, before rounding-down toward the rear, whereas the Ford fender top line is a nice, pleasant, continuous arc from front to rear. And that Merc rear fender surely does appear to be longer behind the wheel opening than a like-yeared Ford. In fact, I believe that whole quarter panel is different between the two. Plus, that little quarter window front post slants forward on the Ford, and is straight upright on the Merc. And there's even more if you compare the two side by side. Whew!


The big question....a couple of you's guys stated rather emphatically that ALL of the 4" increase in wheelbase over a like-year Ford is "in front of the firewall". Well, if that were true, and keeping in mind that the transmission mounts BEHIND the firewall, WHY would the torque tube/d-shaft be 4" longer? DD

[rockfla]

V8coopman
What amazes me even more about the "difference" discussed here between the Ford and Mercury of like year IS how "different" just about "everything" on them is......Like floorboard seals, transmission cover seals, etc etc. you would think that in both an effort to get the Mercury introduced and on the market AND to save "some" money that little details like the above mentioned would be carry-over's from what was already in the parts bins but NOPE!!!! AND thus, nothing on the repro market!!!!

[V8COOPMAN]

Originally Posted by rockfla

V8coopman
What amazes me even more about the "difference" discussed here between the Ford and Mercury of like year IS how "different" just about "everything" on them is......Like floorboard seals, transmission cover seals, etc etc. you would think that in both an effort to get the Mercury introduced and on the market AND to save "some" money that little details like the above mentioned would be carry-over's from what was already in the parts bins but NOPE!!!!

Hey rock …...Even though it's YOUR car we're using as a guinea pig here, it's encouraging to see that you seem to have something of the same curiosities, as well as some surprise at Ford Mtr. Co about just how they did these cars. I've always been somewhat infatuated with Henry's old Ford chassis and suspension bits and pieces, along with their usage, cross-usage, updating and progression of parts for subsequent models, and especially how hot rodders have adapted and made use of these parts for just short of a century now. Changes, or differences usually have reason for such, especially when a huge automobile manufacturer has a bottom line to keep happy. THAT's a good part of my continued interest in all of this, and I appreciate your help toward that end. DD

[rotorwrench]

The design department at Ford was still young when the Mercury was developed. The book about Edsel Ford and Bob Gregorie tells a lot about the changing way that Ford was starting to adopt. They were making full size clay models for cars in order to 3D the production processes that followed. They used some Ford car stuff to make the first Mercury cars but it was still in a state of flux change wise during the production year. They weren't as worried about using Ford parts unless it made their job easier. I've seen transmission cases that had 99A casting numbers but it was the same basic transmission as the Ford so that changed pretty quick. They just modified them all to be the same. Column shift came the next year for all the cars anyway so they changed again.

Edsel managed to keep his father on board with this new stuff due to the hiring practice of bringing in students from the Ford School. Henry really liked that idea so he went along with it even though the design department basically took over his old dance hall at Dearborn. In order to use that hall they had to put up temporary partitions so that it could be put back the way it was. Henry had already had his first stroke in 1938 so his barn dancing days were over for the most part.

[V8COOPMAN]

As promised, I've submitted a new thread with all of the information that WE collectively have been able to compile on these old Fords and Mercs. Click this link! DD


https://www.fordbarn.com/forum/showt...84#post1896584

[rockfla]

V8Coopman


Wow, thanks for all of your efforts!!!!

[TomO]

The 39 and 40 Merc bodies and frame are completely different from Ford. The Mercury was designed to fill the price gap between the Ford Deluxe and The Lincoln Zephyr. The body was made bigger to give the passengers more room and the new frame design was much stiffer giving a better ride, quieter ride and better handling.



The Mercury body is wider, longer an more streamlined than the Ford body. The Mercury body extends over the frame more than the Ford body did and the running boards are much narrower. By the time that the 1940 models came out the "sleeve" was gone from the torque tube.



I did not see the center bearing zerk in the photos, but the 39 and 40 Mercs did have a center bearing for the drive shaft.


The "X" frame design of the Mercury was adopted by Ford in 1941 when Ford and Mercury shared bodies. The 41 Mercury has many unique parts and several running changes. It is probably the hardest Ford product to restore.