35-36 Ford coupe anomaly

[blucar]

While doing some research through the 35-36 Ford Book I paused to look at the body drawings contained there-in.
Since I have a 5 window coupe, I took a hard look at the drawings of the 35-36 5 window coupes. My review picked up on the very obvious difference in the shape of the fenders, the 35 has a slight dip whereas the 36 is more tear drop shape. The difference in the rear fenders is very obvious when viewed from the rear.
The item that really caught my eye was the spare tire mount. The spare tire on the 35 is positioned much closer to the body compared to the 36. The 36 stands up at a greater angle compared to the 35.
In 1952 shortly after purchasing my '36 I installed '41 brakes on the car which required '41 wheels. In order to mount a '41 wheel on the spare tire carrier I had to use a '35 mount, in doing so I noted that the tire was much closer to the body. The tire being mounted closer to the body actually looked better. Many people asked me if I had altered the mount, I usually replied that I had not altered the mount. However, as time went by I honestly could not remember if I had altered the mount in order to give the tire a more custom look.
I could never figure out why my "August 36" tire cover would not lock onto the tire mount. It was not until 1961 when I changed the drums and wheels back to 39 drums, 36 wheels hub/caps that I discovered the lock extension in the 36 mount that accommodates the "Aug. lock"..
I also noted the difference in vehicle production numbers between Standard and Deluxe coupes, 78k standard vs 33/29k for Deluxe.. Very interesting because you very seldom see restored standard models. Hmmmmm?

[danliveshere]

Bill Bravo that you still have your coupe. Amazing. I bought my 35 roadster in 1986 at the age of 19. It's currently being restored and paintwork will be finished next month.
As for the spare wheel mount, I never noticed that difference in the drawings or even on cars at events. Always something to learn about our cars!! Thanks for sharing. Dan.

[VeryTangled]

Hi Everyone. A few years ago, I went through that section carefully. Just picked it back up while reading this, one of my copies is right next to this PC. There were two different (cast) mounts in '35 and FIVE (stamped) in '36! I'm glad I'm not looking to find the right one for a project!

This photo is from page 22.

Interesting thing I picked up. Which mount would the '36 trunk models use? I guess I interpret it to mean that all Deluxes, whether Tudor or Fordor (with and without trunk) all used the same spare tire mount. Hmmm. Also I wonder about the '36 Convertible Sedan with trunk?

Here's a tip for all users of these books from the EFV-8CA. It's not related to the spare tire mount question here though. There are published corrections (errata) available online here! Grab this and fix your book! https://www.earlyfordv8.org/Ford_Book_Corrections.cfm

[RalphM]

Hmmmm, this means my 35 three window must have a 36 spare tire mount. As somewhere along the line it was converted to 1939 hydraulic brakes and wide five wheels. The spare is also a wide five.

[VeryTangled]

Beauty!

[mercman from oz]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Here is an enlarged picture of the three window coupe in question. It is hard to pick out what kind of Spare Tyre Mount is fitted? It seems that a lot of body colour is visible? Is it just attached by a single bolt on the 35 Bracket mounted upside down? Really need a closer shot of the spare wheel and mount.

[mercman from oz]

Here are photos of two different 1936 Ford Spare Tyre Mounts. As you can see, they are completely different. All I know is that the Grey one is off a Phaeton. I don't know what Body Style the Green one is correct for? Maybe someone can identify it for me?

[RalphM]

Apparently I need a new mount, once I pulled the hubcap I noticed this. It has a home made plate welded on top of the old mount.

[blucar]

Originally Posted by RalphM

Apparently I need a new mount, once I pulled the hubcap I noticed this. It has a home made plate welded on top of the old mount.

You saved me the trouble of writing up a review of your pix in your original posting. Enlarging your pix I came to the conclusion that the 35 mount had been altered with a plate attached to catch the wide bolt spacing.
I have read that the '36 tire mounts vary from body style to body style, however I have never noted any difference except for the "August Mount" which has an extension to catch the lock, allowing for the shallow center of the August cover... Through the years I have gathered up every August cover and mount I have ever encountered.. Pix attached
I would surmise that the 4 dr open cars, trunk or trunkless would have a different spare tire mount.

[blucar]

I have always found it to be very interesting that the 35-36 Ford Book describes the tire cover I have referred to, August 36, as being a 1936 Standard wheel cover. The article on page 23 of the 35-36 book goes on to explain that the cover came out in late '36.. I assume late means August '36.
I have taken exception to the Standard phrase for the past thirty plus years because my car is a August '36 car, built during the last 300 + cars. I am the second owner of the car having purchased it in September 1952. It had the August cover and mount on it when I bought the car, it also had the correct mount on the body, the wheel is a normal 36 wheel with a 600 x 16 tire.
In the 65 years that I have had my '36 I have only seen four of the August covers, the one on my car, the two extra covers I have gathered up through the years and one I saw on a car in Salt Lake City on State Street in 1954.
I guess it is possible that the original owner of my car saw the August cover on a car in the dealers showroom and just had to have it on his car. Times were still quite tough in 1936, therefore the salesman/dealer might have figured "a bird in the hand is better than one in the bush".
My car is a deluxe car that has just about every accessory offered by Ford on it, only been repainted once and has all of it's original upholstery. Apparently the car did not have a heater of any kind until the '39 Ford hot water heater was installed, I would guess sometime in '39.

[mercman from oz]

Bill, I have never seen a Spare Wheel Cover like yours in the flesh. I have read that they were on the Standard Models, but if that was correct, there would be many more in circulation. I tend to agree with you that it was a late introduction? What do the experts have to say? Does the Ford Oval swivel to gain access to the Lock, like in pre 36 Ford Locking hubcaps?

[mercman from oz]

Here is a larger picture of the Spare Tyre Mount showing the centre extension that is required to attach and lock the "August" Spare Wheel Cover, as posted by Bill, fitted to a Touring Sedan. Thanks for posting. We learn something new every day.

[DavidG]

There are different mounting brackets in each of the '35 and '36 model years to reflect the different contours of the back of the bodies to which they are attached. For example, the coupe and roadster lower back panels are convex and therefore the spare wheel bracket has a concave surface on the back of the mount. The slope-back sedans and convertible sedans and phaetons have a slight concave surface where the bracket attaches and therefore the back surface of the bracket is convex. Those two brackets cited are not interchangeable and carry different part numbers for each model year.

[blucar]

Yes mercman, the Ford oval rotates counter clockwise to expose the cover lock.
I was not aware that my car had an "anomaly" until I read in the book "The V8 Affair", page 161, that my Deluxe car had what is described as a Standard cover. I find it to be quite interesting that the photo in the 35-36 Ford Book appears to be the same photo that is in the V8 Affair.
I tend to agree with your thoughts that if the August cover is in fact a Standard cover, they would be very common because the bulk of the production for 36 was standard cars..
I am going to get my extra tire mounts out, and check to see if they are convex, concave as it has been stated, it would appear from the pix in posting #7 that they are flat..
I have always felt that the tire cover on my Ford was neat looking, adding a certain flare to the car. During the mid to late '50's when the trend was to remove the external spare tire mount, I elected to keep mine, never regretted it.

[RalphM]

Love the Desoto rear bumper! I believe my rear bumper is off a 41 Ford(not sure).


So David, is there a positive way to tell the coupe rear tire mount from the sedan, etc?
Like a part, or casting number? I saw one for sale in classifieds, but want to be sure it's the right one.

[blucar]

Originally Posted by RalphM

Love the Desoto rear bumper! I believe my rear bumper is off a 41 Ford(not sure).


So David, is there a positive way to tell the coupe rear tire mount from the sedan, etc?
Like a part, or casting number? I saw one for sale in classifieds, but want to be sure it's the right one.

I took the Desoto bumpers off of my car in 1960, wanted a more stock look. About ten years later I sold the pair of Desoto's to a local EFV8 fan, he was going to put them on a '40. Turned out he never got around to it so I bought them back in about 2009.If you take a close look at the pix in my Avatar you'll note that the headlights on my car are from a '40 Chevy.. Took them off in about '62 in favor of stock
I don't believe there is actually that much difference in the '36 tire mounts, probably in the depth of the open car mounts as shown in the earlier contribution.
The body bolt holes for a '35-36 are exactly the same. The '35's I have seen, still have the one I used on my car for several years, is cast iron in lieu of stamped steel. the '35 and '36 do have different part numbers, 48 vs 68 and the special mount with the lock extension has a different part number.
It might be interesting to see an actual copy of a parts book that shows different mounts for each body style with the parts numbers for same.
As thrifty as Henry Ford was I doubt very much that he would have condoned a different mount for each body style that Ford made... A big waste of money..
It is easy to see why the '35 mount is cast iron whereas the '36 is stamped. The '35 wire wheel is heavier by five pounds compared to the '36 wheel.

[DavidG]

Ralph,

In Ford's way of thinking, all things pertaining to wheels were chassis parts and in the July, 1936 Chassis Parts List there are three 48-prefix 1433 carriers (brackets) listed and six 68-prefix 1433 brackets listed.

The three '35 brackets (48-1433-A,B, and C) are respectively for body types 700, 730, 740, and 750 (the sedans, convertible sedan and phaeton), body types 710, 720, 760, and 770 (the coupes, roadster, and cabriolet) and type 790 (station wagon).

The six '36 brackets were 68-1433-A,B,C,D,E, and F. The A-suffix bracket has the same applications as the '35 brackets with the A suffix except it excludes those sedans with a trunk, the B-suffix bracket has the same applications as 48-1433-B except that the listing erroneously also includes 790 (station wagons), the C-suffix bracket is unique for Club Cabriolets, the D-suffix bracket is for 790s (station wagons), and E and F-suffix brackets are for standard vehicles with 5.50 x 16" tires.

Apart from the error in the listing of the station wagon bracket for '36, the listings seem incomplete in that no bracket is listed for the humpback sedans with trunks for either year and no distinction for those body types' brackets for '35, nor for late '36 convertible sedans (likely because of the date of the catalogue relative to the release of the humpback version of that body type).

That's probably a lot more than you wanted to know, but it underscores your concern about buying a bracket that is correct for your application. I believe that most of the '35 brackets have cast-in part numbers, which would be a big help. Unfortunately, I also believe that the '36 stamped brackets largely were made without-stamped in part numbers. Your best bet is to insist on a side view photo of the bracket to determine if the back side that attaches to the body is concave or convex as that is a sure fire distinction between the A and B suffix brackets in both model years. While I am at loss to the explain the need for separate '36 brackets for the 5.50 tires (except to guess that they are slightly shorter front to back), the brackets for the humpback sedans are noticeably shorter and have less of an angle to them front to back when viewed from the side as in Trevor's photos above.

[willowbilly3]

Interesting thread but Bill,some of what ol thrifty Henry did just never made sense to me, like some years almost every body style had a different style of door handle. I'm sure some of the seemingly pointless running production changes just had to do with coming up with a cheaper vendor or finding a cheaper way to manufacture the part. Like the dizzying number of different factory jacks cars came with in certain years.

[VeryTangled]

Adding. Tudor sedan, trunk or no trunk is a XX-700, Fordor sedan, trunk or no trunk is a XX-730.

[blucar]

There has been some very good info about the subject of 35-36 spare tire covers/mounts by the various contributors. However, the main crux of the subject is correctness. The competition for correctness at the car shows is very intense, getting down in some cases to the style of valve caps on the tubes.
A friend of mine lost out on a first place trophy a few years ago on his '47 convert because the valve caps on his car were deemed to be incorrect for a '47 Ford.
I have reviewed the line drawings in the 35-36 Ford Book several times and have come to the conclusion that the '36 Cabriolet' , Model 760 and the '36 5 window, Model 770 use a tire mount that moves the wheel away from the body. Reputedly that is 68-1433-B, however, 1433-B is also the mount that is shown for all models 710, 720, 760, 770.
The difference in the position of the tire in relationship to the body is due to the rumble seat, which appears to be standard equipment on a Cabriolet and Roadsters in '35-36. The '35-36 open cars, model 710 & 760 do not have a tire that is positioned the same as the '36.
There is a strong possibility that the factory installed the "taller" mount on all '36 770 models due to the fact that most rumble seats were dealer installed.
The 35 model 720 & 770 do not show the spare tire positioned away from the body where-as both cars for '36 show the tire mounted away from the body.
My questions about the "August" cover have some credence to a judging issue. If the cover is in fact a Standard cover, then it is only correct for a Standard car built in August of '36. If the cover is just a special end of the year item, possibly intended for use on a '37 slant back, station wagon, then it is correct for any 36 model, providing it was built in August or later of '36.