Very early V8 engine, later mounts

[RobbHelf]

To all the early 1933 owners and experts...
I'm in a quandary of how to explain my recent findings associated with my inherited 1933 Fordor. Having just acquired this Sept. after the passing of my dear dad, I've decided to do some needed research on our old family car. My dad had owned this since 1965 without doing any real checking into the originality and production history. It's a true survivor, original in every way, I assume, displaying 26,000 miles on the odometer when he bought it. Now, posting 42,000 after 50 years of our ownership.

Here's the question... she sports matching serial #s 18-178825, making it a Sept. '32 engine. Very, very early to my learned knowledge. The unusual thing is that the block has the combo motor mount/water inlet mounts attached. Could this engine have sat crated 6 months (March '33 was the documented date those mounts were introduced) somewhere before being dropped onto the chassis? The car also has the true '33 front fender brackets. (not the 2-piece 1932 brackets) Been looking for other telltale parts but not sure if this is turning into something less than I need to get anal about. Please HELP, you guys. Thanks... Robb

[JM 35 Sedan]

Some pictures posted here might help. A copy of the EFV-8C/A '33 - '34 book would help and also be a great investment. Also, someone like DavidG who posts here often could easily answer these questions for you. If he doesn't respond here, send him a pm. Good luck with your car and have fun .

[RobbHelf]

Hi John.
Thanks for your fast reply. I do have the EFV8 '33-'34 book and refer to it often.
The school of thought is that many of those early engines were produced and then crated for shipment to the production plants once passing all the tests. I understand there was a big slowdown on the lines due to the depression and things got backed up. Guess I'm searching for more expert opinions on how my early engine would have received those later motor mounts. Photos are kinda tough to take but can try if need be. I will try to contact your referral.

Thanks again.

[Walt Dupont--Me.]

It sounds like a 37 or later engine to me. That was the first year with the water pumps and the front mounts one piece. Is it a 21 stud? If so it's a 37 early 38, late 38 came out with 24 studs. The matching no. is on the trans and frame, no no. on the engine. Walt

[V8COOPMAN]

Originally Posted by RobbHelf

The unusual thing is that the block has the combo motor mount/water inlet mounts attached.

Originally Posted by Walt Dupont--Me.

It sounds like a 37 or later engine to me. That was the first year with the water pumps and the front mounts one piece. Is it a 21 stud? If so it's a 37 early 38, late 38 came out with 24 studs. The matching no. is on the trans and frame, no no. on the engine. Walt

Walt.......Carefully note that he said "motor mount/water inlet"....NOT water PUMP . DD

[Walt Dupont--Me.]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Originally Posted by V8COOPMAN

Walt.......Carefully note that he said "motor mount/water inlet"....NOT water PUMP . DD

Wooop, your right V8COOPMAN, I guess I'm all worn out from blowing my yard out form a snow storm last night. but isn't the 33 motor mounts and water inlet all one piece? I know the 32 has separate mounts. I guess I'll go lay down. Walt

[deuce_roadster]

It is possible the early style water inlet rusted out and were replaced by the more normal water inlet/mount after also removing the 32 style motor mount.
DavidG will have a theory.

[RobbHelf]

Hi Walt and Coopman,
I, too, am worn from blowing our snow this morning in frigid WI.
I hope I was clear on my query about my engine. The tran cover and frame numbers are matching. The 2 telltales that this engine is very early (1932) are...1) the drain petcock points down, not to the side and the front of the motor has no recessed areas, it's flat. These 2 things are documented to go with a 1932 engine. Where did these mounts come from?
Thanks guys.
Am very curious!!

[RobbHelf]

That would be one good theory. Was that common for the mounts and inlet to rust out?
Thanks Duece!

[Andy]

Something is crazy here. No 32 or for that matter, any flathead engines carried a serial number. The two places were on the transmission and the frame. If the numbers match and you have a 33, someone has replaced the trans and restamped the frame. Real early 33's had the seperate inlets and some motor mounts that looked something like 32 mounts. They quickly changed an the combo inlets and mounts continued thru 34.

[deuce_roadster]

Yes, it could very well have happened in the 30+ years it was under someone else's roof before your family got it. Very early 32s had cast water inlets but 99.9% of the 32s had tin ones that weren't much thicker then exhaust tubing.

[deuce_roadster]

Andy, the early 33s had a separate motor mount and water inlet similar to a 32. RobbHelf's car would most likely fall into that category.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by deuce_roadster

Andy, the early 33s had a separate motor mount and water inlet similar to a 32. RobbHelf's car would most likely fall into that category.

That is what I said. Ford may have used up stock into 33, so may have also had tha straight down petcocks. The early 33's had the flat front. His serial number is what is crazy. Something is not right. Also Ford would sell rebuilt engines and use any blocks handy. It is quite possible to find a 36 with a 32 block, etc

[DavidG]

For starters, what is the number stamped on the top of the left side frame rail where the cowl attaches. Is it 18-178825?

Next, is there any evidence that the front cross member has been replaced? I ask as the first version of the '33 cross member had the same 12" spacing between the motor mount insulators as the '32, whereas as the later '33 and '34 front cross members (which are different from one another) had 17" spacing. The combined water inlet/motor mounts that you mention can only be used with one of these later cross members with the 17' insulator spacing. The early '33 motor mount brackets and separate carryover '32 water inlets mentioned above were only used with cross members with 12" insulator spacing.

If your car's front cross member has not been replaced, then it is likely that your engine had been replaced with a re-built '32 engine sometime way back when. Prior to the development of the '37 engine, Ford's engine re-building program included '32 blocks and they show up in the pre-'37 promotional material for the program. As stated above, it is not unheard of to find one of those rebuilt '32 blocks in a '36. One of the '32 engines that I have did in fact come out of a '36.

1932 front fenders are supported by only a single bracket. Very early '33 front fenders (without skirts) were supported by a large bracket that is supported by a brace that attached to the hand crank guide (subsequently attached to the cross member itself). '33 (and '34) front fenders with skirts have an additional small brace that attaches the fender skirt to the chassis frame to keep it rigid.

[RobbHelf]

Hi DavidG,
Thanks for dropping in to this thread. First off, yes, the serial stampings on the frame and trannie cover match. They do not look forged or dicked with. That being determined, is it correct to say that this matched chassis and engine had no business becoming a '33 based on all the other telltales I've been able to find? I'm sorry for not getting the answer to you on the crossmember tonight. It's 3 degrees in my garage tonight but I will surely measure tomorrow morning if it warms up a bit.
My car does have skirted fenders and what appears to be the correct bracket for 1933, not the '32. Interestingly enough though, it does have the crank hole bracket with the 2 ears on it but no braces connected as you have discussed previously. I'll try to take some photos with my phone tomorrow. Just hope I don't get frozen to the garage floor! Hah.

[RobbHelf]

It's -3 degrees in my garage this morning but I ventured out anyway as I'm enthralled by this thread and overjoyed so many of you fellas are offering me help to figure out the story behind this early V8 power plant and the production details. Took some pix but could only get a couple of the mounting bracket that you all have seen many times. Guess this is just proof for you guys to see. The insulators are 17" apart on the X-member, and there is no evidence I can see that this would have been replaced. But, who knows? So many years of this cars' life has gone undocumented. Maybe it could have been in a few fender benders and lost the unskirted fenders. It has the crank brace with the ears but are clearly not being used. Lots of early surplus parts did show up on later cars, right? I still think the matching transmission and frame is a bit of a mystery though. Or am I still not getting it?

[JSeery]

Is there any way there was a typo or miss-read on the SN? If the number was 18-278825 and not 18-178825 it would seem a lot more reasonable.

[blucar]

A true experience from the shadows of my brain..
When I was a kid growing up in Idaho Falls ID, the was a auto garage in the downtown area that served as a parking structure, auto repair, and service station.
From the fuel island one could look into a big window and see a Washington Blue '36 Ford 5 win coupe.. The car belonged to a man that was a janitor at a local school. The car was maintained in perfect condition, always clean and waxed. The owner would only drive the car in perfect weather. In 1952 it only had 14k on the odometer.. The spare tire was original, probably never out of the mount. The interior was like new, the only mark was an area above the left arm rest where the knapp was depressed from coming into contact with the drivers elbow.
Knowing several of the guys that worked in the facility, from time to time I would go into the storage area, open the left door and fluff up the door upholstery above the arm rest.
In 1952 a friend of mines father told us that he had received word that the '36 Ford was going up for sale.. He had been notified about the sale because he worked for the local Ford garage, and had done most of the work that had ever been done to the car.
I told Mr Merrill that I would really like to have the car, what with only 14k on it, it would be a great car.
Mr. Merrill told me that it was not a good car, from lack of use the engine had been replaced three times with Ford rebuilt engines..
The car faded from sight.. In the mid 1970's the car was found in a barn to the west of town.. A cousin of mine, a local car dealer with a reputation regarding collector cars was contacted to document the low mileage car, still showing 14k on the odometer.
The car was auctioned off for a very high price. Sometime after the auction I told my cousin that the car was not an unaltered original car.. Of course Mr. Merrill was long gone, and I had not known about the auction until after the fact.
The point to this true story is that when it comes to old cars, even cars that have been under the same ownership for many many years, may or may not be what they appear to be..

[dean333]

Re Post 18: "....from lack of use the engine had to be replaced 3 times." What a bunch of baloney! Isn't that what we all wish for, a barn find original with low miles and hardly any use?

[RobbHelf]

Hi JSeery,

Nope. No typo. 18-178825 in both usual places.