|
Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements) |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
10-10-2014, 01:27 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 105
|
33 Wheelbase ? 4 cyl. shorter than V8 ?
Hi all,
I'v been reading on a few web sites that in 1933, the 4 cylinder cars were 106" wheel base and the V8s were 112". Is this incorrect information ? Surely, cars with the same style of body (the slanted grill) couldn't have used 2 different chassis ? |
10-10-2014, 01:46 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 530
|
Re: 33 Wheelbase ? 4 cyl. shorter than V8 ?
That can't be right? Where would they remove 6 inches out of the frame and body?
|
Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements) |
|
10-10-2014, 01:50 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 105
|
Re: 33 Wheelbase ? 4 cyl. shorter than V8 ?
Precisely ! I have been advised by another senior member that all 33's were the same wheelbase 112"
The info out there is wrong. Someone has posted the incorrect info on Wiki and every one else has copied it including MAC's http://www.macsautoparts.com/ford_me...specs/#especs9 |
10-10-2014, 02:26 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Solihull, England.
Posts: 8,750
|
Re: 33 Wheelbase ? 4 cyl. shorter than V8 ?
That's rubbish.
32's are a 106" wheelbase. 33/34 are 112" Where people may be getting mixed up is because the torque tubes are longer on a V8 than a 4. The wheelbase is the same, but the gearbox has to be further back on a 4 than a V8 because the 4 cyl engine is longer than the V8 in the 33 application. People may have thought that the difference in torque tube length meant a difference in wheelbase, but that is not the case. 33/34 are all 112" regardless of engine or passenger car body style. Edit: From what I can see, Wiki has it right (or has been corrected) and Macs has it wrong. Mart. Last edited by Mart; 10-10-2014 at 02:45 PM. |
10-10-2014, 04:03 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: East Shore of LAKE HOUSTON
Posts: 11,111
|
Re: 33 Wheelbase ? 4 cyl. shorter than V8 ?
As usual, Mart is spot-on! DD
|
10-10-2014, 06:51 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: southeastern Michigan
Posts: 10,101
|
Re: 33 Wheelbase ? 4 cyl. shorter than V8 ?
Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)
|
10-10-2014, 07:18 PM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,005
|
Re: 33 Wheelbase ? 4 cyl. shorter than V8 ?
Quote:
note the 4cylinder B motor is actual longer than the v8 and enfine compartment has slight modification to fit the 4 cylinder motor in! I saw the mistake in MAC's. |
|
10-10-2014, 07:42 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 10,365
|
Re: 33 Wheelbase ? 4 cyl. shorter than V8 ?
For 1933-1934 Fords, regardless of what engine they had, 4 or V8, they were both built on exactly the same chassis & wheelbase. The difference in length is only in the Drive Shafts, to accommodate for the longer 4 cylinder engines.
The length of the Drive shaft in the V-8 = 60 5/32” while the Drive shaft in the 4 cylinder = 58 7/16” It follows that the Tube on the 4 cylinder was shorter by same amount. |
10-11-2014, 12:46 AM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 105
|
Re: 33 Wheelbase ? 4 cyl. shorter than V8 ?
http://restoreyourford.com/1933pcinfoid.shtml
This web site first quotes 106" wheelbase for 4 cylinder in the text and then says 112" in the table just below !! just goes to show that not all the information on the internet is correct ! |
10-11-2014, 03:16 AM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Solihull, England.
Posts: 8,750
|
Re: 33 Wheelbase ? 4 cyl. shorter than V8 ?
At least if people come to the Barn for info they'll get the straight dope.
Mart. |
|
|
Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements) |
|