Hood fit with 29 cross member

[Russell Reay]

My huckster-to-be was originally a 1930 coupe with all original (I believe) front end sheet metal when I bought it, and the hood fit well. In the course of total disassembly I discovered that the front crossmember is 28-29. I modified the humps for the radiator support, installed a new Brassworks radiator, attached the rad shell, and got the hood to fit pretty well all around. Did a test fit for the fenders, and the shell fits only if I force it down tightly to the fenders. I have seen photos of cars showing as much as 1/4" between the bottom of shell and the fender. I can shim the radiator supports to raise it knowing I will need to adjust the long rods, but am I missing something else?

[Joe K]

Ford changed the 1929 front frame crossmember "lowering" the radiator mount landing points around October 1929. This was done in anticipation of the increased height of the 1930 radiator/shell/hood.

The pre-change front crossmember radiator pads were "level" with the top of the frame side-rails. The post-change front crossmembers were "sunk down" about 1/4" below the frame side-rails.

As an interim measure, Ford in the Octoberish Service Bulletins warned about maintaining use of "shims" at the radiator mount locations ONLY FOR THOSE 1929 PATTERN CARS produced between October and the production with the 1930 pattern body.

IIRC, the shims are reproduced and include a rubber "square" which apparently was part of the original Ford scheme.

I.e. It is possible to use a later version frame with the lowered radiator mounts with the 28-29 bodies by the use of these shims (or building up somehow.)

Ford was pretty good on "back fit" of later parts to earlier production. Not always, but this was one of the successes.

Joe K
Who owns frames in both details.

[Russell Reay]

Joe-- I just sent you a PM

[wuga]

We just removed an early 28 front cross member (totally rusted out) and replaced it with a 1930 cross member. We were aware of the rad mount, but the rivet holed don't line up. Did they move the holes about a half hole distance in either direction?
Warren

[Russell Reay]

That part of the project was a couple years ago, and I don't recall that hole alignment was an issue. The rivets had been replace with nuts and bolts, and I replaced those with grade 8 of the proper size ---I know, nuts and bolts aren't proper if rivets are speced.

[Joe K]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Originally Posted by wuga

We just removed an early 28 front cross member (totally rusted out) and replaced it with a 1930 cross member. We were aware of the rad mount, but the rivet holed don't line up. Did they move the holes about a half hole distance in either direction?
Warren

I have seen differences in the location of the rivets. I think the assembly modus was to clamp an "alignment jig" (which was possibly "loose" and at approximate location by the operator) then drill through the two thicknesses, then without moving the jig, rivet without moving any of the parts. This way they assured alignment and totally filling the rivet hole.

Thus frame construction was largely "hand work" albeit with powered tools, with the same actions repeated over and over until the frame and the rivet count were complete.

Repair today would likely best be done similarly except you might try for a "best fit" - and then fill the holes on both sides with MIG, grind flat, and then re-drill and re-rivet. There would be a possibility of mis-alignment and the MIG going through from part A to part B, and attaching the two together "spot weld" style. I don't look on this as a bad thing. And the rivets are still there for "show" and function.

Thus, those like me with a frame minus the center crossmember, it's not as simple as simply buying another crossmember on Ebay or somewhere, bolting it in place, and then one by one doing a bolt replacement/re-riveting. One may be forced to a more "basic" alignment/re-riveting like the original construction modus.

Joe K