1940 Ford Deluxe X member sheet metal original thickness

[cjtwigt]

Hi,

Does any of you know how thick the sheet metal of a 1940 Ford Deluxe X member is originally?

Kind regards,
Chris

[V8COOPMAN]

It's generally accepted that convertible and 1/2-ton pick-up frame rails were a nominal .110" thick while the closed car frame rails were a nominal .100". DD

[40larry]

I have found that the Station Wagon, Convertible and Pickup all use the heavier gauge x-member. This heavy x-member can be easily identified because the holes used for attaching the anti-chatter rods do not have the "doubler plate" spot welded to the original x-member. All the other passenger car models use the doubler plate......
40larry

[cjtwigt]

Originally Posted by V8COOPMAN

It's generally accepted that convertible and 1/2-ton pick-up frame rails were a nominal .110" thick while the closed car frame rails were a nominal .100". DD

Thank you for our response V8COOPMan!

Are you talking specifically about the X member?

I have a 1940 Ford Deluxe sedan. Its side rails are visibly thicker than the X member - everywhere. I think the side rails were originally 11 gauge.
Was the X member made from 12 gauge like you say?

You say it is "generally accepted" to be .100.
Does this mean it cannot be found in any books?

Kind regards,
Chris Twigt

[V8COOPMAN]

Originally Posted by cjtwigt

Thank you for our response V8COOPMan!

Are you talking specifically about the X member?

I have a 1940 Ford Deluxe sedan. Its side rails are visibly thicker than the X member - everywhere. I think the side rails were originally 11 gauge.
Was the X member made from 12 gauge like you say?

You say it is "generally accepted" to be .100.
Does this mean it cannot be found in any books?

Kind regards,
Chris Twigt

My statement of "generally accepted" came verbatim from Mike Kubarth (Kube) in another thread I found here on the FordBarn. ANYONE with any 1940 Ford affiliation should know that if Mike makes a statement, he can back it up with documentation from research he's done at the Benson Ford Research Center or others. Mike doesn't deal in "guessing", or maybes!


I honestly DO NOT know if the X-member metal was a standard 0.100" on ALL chassis, or if it followed suit at 0.110" like the side rails on the "heavy" frames. If you have a chassis handy, I should think a Vernier caliper would answer some questions right pronto. What body type are you dealing with? DD

[34PKUP]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Originally Posted by cjtwigt

I have a 1940 Ford Deluxe sedan. Its side rails are visibly thicker than the X member - everywhere. I think the side rails were originally 11 gauge.
Was the X member made from 12 gauge ?
Chris Twigt

You say you have the vehicle, what is preventing you from measuring what you have instead guessing by visual means and other peoples guesses ?

[Kube]

Originally Posted by cjtwigt

Hi,

Does any of you know how thick the sheet metal of a 1940 Ford Deluxe X member is originally?

Kind regards,
Chris

Chris,
I have spent years documenting how our '40 Fords were built. The information in regard to the frames is readily available.



* The "X" members on your car were a nominal .087" thick.
* The convertible "X" member had a different configuration to give it more strength. Basically, it had less holes - basically. To date, I have restored four 1940 Ford convertibles. The worst in the bunch scored 997. Two points deducted for over restoration and one point deducted for two small pits in one axle housing. In my experience, the "X" members were identical in thickness to all other passenger cars.

* The outer frame rails on closed cars were a nominal .100" thick. Convertible frame rails were a nominal .110" thick.
* The so called "doubler plate" - actually a frame reinforcement was merely a design change. The frames without that reinforcement were not thicker - they were simply an earlier design. The change was necessitated by the fact that the frames were cracking where the chatter rod was fastened. That design was supposed to have happened in mid 1939 production, around March if I recall correctly. Whether it in fact happened in a timely fashion is anyone's guess. Every 1940 Ford frame I have encountered has had the reinforcement plates.

* V8COOPMAN has apparently found an old thread wherein I had addressed frame thickness. I didn't bother searching for it. V8COOPMAN is one of a small group on the Barn that has earned my respect. If he quoted me, it must be true - I stated it. So, as I must have stated "generally accepted" let me expound:
I think it important to keep in mind that Ford built these cars in a hurry. They were mass produced and aimed at the low price end of the automobile market.

It is a documented fact that when one part may have run short on the assembly line, when practical, another was substituted. So, "generally accepted" could only have meant that closed car outer frame rails were DESIGNED to be a nominal .100" thick and open car frame rails were DESIGNED to be a nominal .110" thick.

Were thicker "X" members produced and installed? Perhaps. Any documentation? None that I'd uncovered. That doesn't mean necessarily it didn't happen, it simply means if it did, well, it wasn't supposed to or wasn't documented.
Considering the amount of documentation on the most seemingly insignificant pieces, I'd think something like changing frame member thickness would warrant a note on a drawing and most certainly an engineering release.

[ford38v8]

Originally Posted by Kube

...the closed car outer frame rails were DESIGNED to be a nominal .100" thick and open car frame rails were DESIGNED to be a nominal .110" thick.

Considering the amount of documentation on the most seemingly insignificant pieces, I'd think something like changing frame member thickness would warrant a note on a drawing and most certainly an engineering release.

Mike, the documentation on the outer frame difference? Can you copy your source to the forum please, and what years did it cover?

[cjtwigt]

Originally Posted by Kube

Chris,
I have spent years documenting how our '40 Fords were built. The information in regard to the frames is readily available.



* The "X" members on your car were a nominal .087" thick.
* The convertible "X" member had a different configuration to give it more strength. Basically, it had less holes - basically. To date, I have restored four 1940 Ford convertibles. The worst in the bunch scored 997. Two points deducted for over restoration and one point deducted for two small pits in one axle housing. In my experience, the "X" members were identical in thickness to all other passenger cars.

* The outer frame rails on closed cars were a nominal .100" thick. Convertible frame rails were a nominal .110" thick.
* The so called "doubler plate" - actually a frame reinforcement was merely a design change. The frames without that reinforcement were not thicker - they were simply an earlier design. The change was necessitated by the fact that the frames were cracking where the chatter rod was fastened. That design was supposed to have happened in mid 1939 production, around March if I recall correctly. Whether it in fact happened in a timely fashion is anyone's guess. Every 1940 Ford frame I have encountered has had the reinforcement plates.

* V8COOPMAN has apparently found an old thread wherein I had addressed frame thickness. I didn't bother searching for it. V8COOPMAN is one of a small group on the Barn that has earned my respect. If he quoted me, it must be true - I stated it. So, as I must have stated "generally accepted" let me expound:
I think it important to keep in mind that Ford built these cars in a hurry. They were mass produced and aimed at the low price end of the automobile market.

It is a documented fact that when one part may have run short on the assembly line, when practical, another was substituted. So, "generally accepted" could only have meant that closed car outer frame rails were DESIGNED to be a nominal .100" thick and open car frame rails were DESIGNED to be a nominal .110" thick.

Were thicker "X" members produced and installed? Perhaps. Any documentation? None that I'd uncovered. That doesn't mean necessarily it didn't happen, it simply means if it did, well, it wasn't supposed to or wasn't documented.
Considering the amount of documentation on the most seemingly insignificant pieces, I'd think something like changing frame member thickness would warrant a note on a drawing and most certainly an engineering release.

Hi Kube,

Thank you so much or you response!

I have a 4-door sedan. The chassis was rusty and has been blasted.
I did a number of new measurements today on the side rails and the X member:

- The best parts of the side rails are almost invariably 0.94" thick.
- The best parts of the X member are almost invariably 0.79" thick.

This difference in thickness is visible when you look at the rails from the center of the frame. It is visible everywhere.

The difference in thickness was worrying me. I thought that the frame might be composed of other frames which would be bad news. I'm restoring the car and in the end I need to pass a technical inspection and the frame needs to have a minimum thickness of 80% of the original frame by then. But I could not find any reference to the original thickness of the X member..

Thank you very much!

I do hope that the knowledge you have gathered over the years is written down for the next generations. I have been searching the Internet for weeks. Most of the time I was looking for "gauge". That is probably not a good keyword..

I just googled for your cars. They look real sharp!
I feel honoured to have received a personal response from you.

Kind regards,
Chris

[Kube]

Originally Posted by ford38v8

Mike, the documentation on the outer frame difference? Can you copy your source to the forum please, and what years did it cover?

As you probably realize, my research was confined to 1940. Even with that, it was often overwhelming.
I could probably find my notes but I don't recall making a copy of the frame drawings.

[Kube]

Chris, re your post #9... I am glad to offer advice when I am able.
Best of luck with your restoration.
Happy Easter!

[Mart]

So the X members are all the same but the convertible frame rails are thicker? have I got that right?

Do I remember the conv.s also have a couple of short braces between the x member and the frame rail?

Mart.

[rotorwrench]

The 1939 Deluxe Fords were the first ones to use the crankshaft mounted cooling fan and this carried over to 1940 and 41. This give them some difference from earlier frames. I would assume that the OP has confirmed that his frame ID number matches up with the model year. Folks have changed frames before so I thought I would just add this for the importance of confirmation.

Ford rolled and stamped most of there own steel and they held pretty close tolerances to their design. This allowed them to fabricate whatever thickness they wanted. I also know that there is room for exceptions with any manufacturer but Ford doesn't seem to have as many as some other manufacturers do. They stayed pretty well true to their designs.

[Kube]

Originally Posted by Mart

So the X members are all the same but the convertible frame rails are thicker? have I got that right?

Do I remember the conv.s also have a couple of short braces between the x member and the frame rail?

Mart.

Mart, Your memory is intact! The convertible utilized a piar of bolt in braces very near the cowl "feet". I have attached a photo of a pair I'd restored for the last '40 convertible I'd done.
The convertible frame rails were intended to be .010" thicker than the closed car frame rails.

[Kube]

Originally Posted by rotorwrench

The 1939 Deluxe Fords were the first ones to use the crankshaft mounted cooling fan and this carried over to 1940 and 41. This give them some difference from earlier frames. I would assume that the OP has confirmed that his frame ID number matches up with the model year. Folks have changed frames before so I thought I would just add this for the importance of confirmation.

Ford rolled and stamped most of there own steel and they held pretty close tolerances to their design. This allowed them to fabricate whatever thickness they wanted. I also know that there is room for exceptions with any manufacturer but Ford doesn't seem to have as many as some other manufacturers do. They stayed pretty well true to their designs.

Rotor, As always, you have added some very accurate and interesting information.
I tend to not use "gauge" when describing steel specified for Ford usage. They (Ford) did in fact hold very close tolerances.

[deuce_roadster]

My 40 wagon I restored had those same short braces Kube pictured also. The wagon cowl was pretty much the same as convertible except for the very top of it. Dash was same as convertible too.

[40larry]

Originally Posted by 40larry

I have found that the Station Wagon, Convertible and Pickup all use the heavier gauge x-member. This heavy x-member can be easily identified because the holes used for attaching the anti-chatter rods do not have the "doubler plate" spot welded to the original x-member. All the other passenger car models use the doubler plate......
40larry

After several later inputs which conflict with my above statement I went back and checked my 5 closed car frames and my wagon, conv, and pickup frames as well as friend Mike in WA two cars to confirm that the closed body cars all use the frame doubler and the wagon, conv and pickup do not. I have not been able to get a reliable measurement of the cross member thickness on the wagon, conv and pickup frame due to added paint when restoring. The closed model cross members all measure close to .086 which does agree with other members comnments.
40larry

[Kube]

Originally Posted by 40larry

After several later inputs which conflict with my above statement I went back and checked my 5 closed car frames and my wagon, conv, and pickup frames as well as friend Mike in WA two cars to confirm that the closed body cars all use the frame doubler and the wagon, conv and pickup do not. I have not been able to get a reliable measurement of the cross member thickness on the wagon, conv and pickup frame due to added paint when restoring. The closed model cross members all measure close to .086 which does agree with other members comnments.
40larry

Larry, I have never restored a '40 wagon so have zero hands on experience with them. The '39 wagon I'd restored was a very early (late 1938) example. It did not have the frame reinforcements.
The one '40 pickup truck I'd restored does not have the frame reinforcements.
All of the '40 convertibles also have them as well as one '39 convertible.
I'm not certain what to tell you in regard to your convertible frame.
We all know that not all assembly plants implemented design changes at the same time.
I did look through my notes this morning and the design change was approved in March, 1939.
I would hazard a guess that by September, when the first '40 Fords were beginning to roll off the line, all frames would have had the change incorporated.
Perhaps there were "leftover" frames for the convertible and wagons at one or more plants?

[40larry]

I would be interested in seeing the actual Ford factory design change document from March 1939 if it exists. These cars without the doubler were built over a year later.
40larry

[Kube]

Originally Posted by 40larry

I would be interested in seeing the actual Ford factory design change document from March 1939 if it exists. These cars without the doubler were built over a year later.
40larry

If it exists?
Well Larry, all I can tell you is that I ain't making this stuff up. If you need more proof beyond what I am conveying, the drawings for the frame are readily available at the Benson Ford Research Center.
Please understand, I didn't have copies made of every drawing I'd studied.
1) I didn't feel the need and 2) Considering the countless trips I'd made to the Center on my dime, well, I had to consider my total expenses.
While probably too far for you to travel, you can request copies. It'll probably cost you $100 or so but should be worth it to satisfy your curiosity.