What would the judges say about this?

[George Miller]

Originally Posted by WardAZ

My chassis is matching numbers 656XXX, which would put it about the third week of Nov. 28. It has the pistol grip emergency handle in front of the gear shift.

Close to my 1928 sports coupe. 10-8-28 It has the 3 styl brakes, it does have adjustable brake rods. But I'm sure they were changed. I first saw this car in 1960, the guy took it all apart, it stayed that way until, I got it in 2000

[Gary Karr]

Even with 42,000 miles, I question the condition of the frame and chassis paint. The pictures show almost fresh black paint which I have never seen on an original unrestored Model A. Even Dave Lopes' 4000 mile original Fordor doesn't have a chassis and frame in this condition. This car and frame have been monkeyed with somehow.

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

Some pix of the late Dave Lopes along with his Fordor undercarriage...

.

[George Miller]

Originally Posted by Gary Karr

Even with 42,000 miles, I question the condition of the frame and chassis paint. The pictures show almost fresh black paint which I have never seen on an original unrestored Model A. Even Dave Lopes' 4000 mile original Fordor doesn't have a chassis and frame in this condition. This car and frame have been monkeyed with somehow.

Me to plus look at the castle nut and cotter pin, like new.

[Tom Wesenberg]

Thanks for the great pictures of Dave's car Brent.

I think it was stated that the restoration on the car was started some time ago, so I assumed that the frame in question was a recent repaint as part of the restoration.

[John Stone]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Originally Posted by Gary Karr

Even with 42,000 miles, I question the condition of the frame and chassis paint. The pictures show almost fresh black paint which I have never seen on an original unrestored Model A. Even Dave Lopes' 4000 mile original Fordor doesn't have a chassis and frame in this condition. This car and frame have been monkeyed with somehow.

Post #27 explained that restoration was started before my buddy got sick so it has set for a few years in that shape collecting dust. I know the frame has not been "monkeyed" with. Only cleaned and painted. My friends name was Galen Lutz and I think he contacted Marco about it several years ago. Not sure on that one. Maybe Marco can remember.

[Tom Wesenberg]

Originally Posted by d.j. moordigian

The hole in the frame for the rod, from the brake pedal, through the center cross
member. Is that hole in the same location for a 3 piece brake system as the late
version?

I would answer this my self, but all I have is e-28s.

I just looked at my 2-23-29 Tudor frame and the hole for the brake rod is in the same spot as the hole in my 9-27-28 Phaeton. I should have measured both crossmember holes to see if they are the same diameter. I was thinking my 29 looked a bit larger, but I better measure them to be sure.

My 2-23-29 crossmember has brake rod holes on both sides, so the same crossmember can be used for LHD and RHD.

Also my 2-23-29 crossmember is flat on top and only has one hole in the center about 1" x 1 1/2". What is this hole for? Also what is the round hole for on the top right of the 1928 crossmember in Wards first picture in post #57? Thanks

[d.j. moordigian]

Thanks Tom

Marco and I had a discussion some time back about frame rails. He said the holes
in the rails were punched prior to forming. From my experience in forming, you need
alignment pins for the part, if no flash is to be removed, after forming.

Best guess on that.

[THE "A" FAMILY]

wow. i have learned so much about frames. just from reading this post. thank you for sharing all your knowledge.
nick

[Tom Wesenberg]

I just went and measured my 9-27-28 brake hole and it's a 1.15" diameter round hole. The hole on the top right of the crossmember is 5/8", but I'm not sure what that hole is for.

I also measured the holes in my 2-23-29 crossmember and both the brake holes (for LHD and RHD) are 2" but they are also both flat on the top, so the top to bottom measurement would be less. The center rectangular hole (on the top side) is 1" x 1 1/4" and I don't know what that hole is for either.

[JoeWay]

Originally Posted by Tom Wesenberg

...The center rectangular hole is 1" x 1 1/4" and I don't know what that hole is for either.

Henry had a habit of getting bits of metal, such as the brake rod spring mounts, from some place that didn't matter on a stamping the right thickness. Maybe that 1" x 1-1/4" piece got folded or bent or drilled and is somewhere else on the chassis.

Joe

[Mike V. Florida]

Originally Posted by Tom Wesenberg

This is a real "who dunit" mystery!

It's got my brain smoking also, but so far I agree that it must have been done outside the factory. So far the only thing I can see for sure is that the center crossmember started life as a RHD.

Real auto forensics!

[Tom Wesenberg]

This thread has certainly led to some interesting questions and observations.

In post #1 you can see the pockets on the top side of the center crossmember used as pivot points for the split brake system, which was used until the new one piece crosshaft was introduced in November 1928. So this frame, or at least the center crossmember started life not only as a RHD, but maybe as an early brake system also. How long did these pockets stay in production, even though they weren't used? My 2-23-29 doesn't have them.

[Tudortomnz]

I found this post most interesting & thought the 'rhd' crossmember explanation somewhat improbable. All of the early & maybe most Model A chassis are set up for RHD & LHD. My RHD has all the LHD holes.
My first thought was that the car started with the early brake system & it had then had the later system installed either at a Ford Dealer or the local garage. I admit that I am not familiar with all the brake changes throughout Model A production, so I looked up that most excellent reference, 'The Model A Ford As Henry Built It', by DeAngelis, Francis & Henry.
On page 41 of my 1971 edition, is a factory drawing of the crossmember holes 'enlarged' to adapt an early chassis to the later system. Thus, with this drawing, if 'official', the car can then be judged as having a factory approved modification?? I believe this is what has happened to this car, without the original owners knowledge of 'enlarge holes in crossmember sufficiently to clear rods'.
I would put up the diagram, but my pc will not do it at the moment. It is within the 'chassis' section at the front of the book.
This may not be the full explanation of what happened to this car, but it could help to clarify it.
Tom

[Tom Wesenberg]

Tudortomnz, But the crossmember ONLY has the correct holes and pockets for RHD. Notice the hole on the right rear of the crossmember in the first post, but none on the left side, same for the 2 pockets on the top side.

My 9-27-28 is set up ONLY for LEFT HAND DRIVE, while my 2-23-29 crossmember has holes so it can be used for either LHD or RHD.

[Steve Plucker]

Originally Posted by Tudortomnz

I found this post most interesting & thought the 'rhd' crossmember explanation somewhat improbable. All of the early & maybe most Model A chassis are set up for RHD & LHD. My RHD has all the LHD holes.
My first thought was that the car started with the early brake system & it had then had the later system installed either at a Ford Dealer or the local garage. I admit that I am not familiar with all the brake changes throughout Model A production, so I looked up that most excellent reference, 'The Model A Ford As Henry Built It', by DeAngelis, Francis & Henry.
On page 41 of my 1971 edition, is a factory drawing of the crossmember holes 'enlarged' to adapt an early chassis to the later system. Thus, with this drawing, if 'official', the car can then be judged as having a factory approved modification?? I believe this is what has happened to this car, without the original owners knowledge of 'enlarge holes in crossmember sufficiently to clear rods'.
I would put up the diagram, but my pc will not do it at the moment. It is within the 'chassis' section at the front of the book.
This may not be the full explanation of what happened to this car, but it could help to clarify it.
Tom

TRUE...ONLY if the frame was MINUS the center crossmember.

The addition of the center cross member determines if the frame/chassis becomes an RHD or LHD because of the placement of the holes for the brake cross shaft assembly as Tom has stated above.

This frame was originally set up for a RHD vehicle and I am to the belief, as with others, that there is no way FORD would of just put this frame on the assembly line knowing that all vehicles within the assembly plant were LHD, UNLESS it was actually going to be an RHD vehicle which I bet it was BUT changed sometime after the fact to a LHD vehicle by removing all RHD items and thus the conversion to LHD at some point in the last 80 years thus the hacked-out hole.

John says this vehicle has been in the family since new...That leds me to think that the change-over was done by the dealer BEFORE the sale to John's family OR it was bought by them as an RHD and was also changed early in its life.

IMHO!

So...are you saying that you have three (3) holes on the top of your center cross member to accept either the RHD or the LHD set-up as far as the placement of the brake cross-shaft assembly???

Pluck

[MrTube]

I've been watching this thread and finally felt I should chime in with my opinion. I find it amazing many people seem to think everyone at the FORD plant was perfect and never made mistakes such as putting the wrong frame on the line.

I also do not understand why people think they wouldn't stop the line and quickly cut a hole with a torch to make the partially assembled thing work rather then pull it off and waste more time disassembling it.

Honestly I have no idea other than people who worked at the plant were not perfect and mistakes happened. I am also sure that after these mistakes happened people would try to hide them whenever possible.

[Marco Tahtaras]

Originally Posted by Tom Wesenberg

Tudortomnz, But the crossmember ONLY has the correct holes and pockets for RHD. Notice the hole on the right rear of the crossmember in the first post, but none on the left side, same for the 2 pockets on the top side.

My 9-27-28 is set up ONLY for LEFT HAND DRIVE, while my 2-23-29 crossmember has holes so it can be used for either LHD or RHD.

Tom, Does your Phaeton frame have steering mount holes on the right side? I'm thinking that it would have the large hole but not the two bolt holes.

Another thing interesting is that everything I've read indicates that the new single plate clutch was in full production on LHD cars by mid November 1928. The number John provided indicates the engine was stamped either 11/30/28 or 12/3/28 and it has a multiple disk clutch.

[Marco Tahtaras]

Originally Posted by John Stone

Post #27 explained that restoration was started before my buddy got sick so it has set for a few years in that shape collecting dust. I know the frame has not been "monkeyed" with. Only cleaned and painted. My friends name was Galen Lutz and I think he contacted Marco about it several years ago. Not sure on that one. Maybe Marco can remember.

I don't recall the topic coming up in the past. I had a couple notes back and forth with Galen back in 2002 but he was focused on paint schemes for his car.

[Steve Plucker]

[QUOTE=Tom Wesenberg;351280]Tudortomnz, But the crossmember ONLY has the correct holes and pockets for RHD. Notice the hole on the right rear of the crossmember in the first post, but none on the left side, same for the 2 pockets on the top side.

My 9-27-28 is set up ONLY for LEFT HAND DRIVE, while my 2-23-29 crossmember has holes so it can be used for either LHD or RHD.[/QUOTE]

Tom,

Are you saying here that you have three (3) holes for the brake cross shaft assembly that are stamped into the top of the center cross member?

Pluck