Very early V8 engine, later mounts

[Mart]

From what I have read the early V8's were pretty unreliable and dogged with problems so it wouldn't be too much of a stretch of the imagination for the engine to have been replaced with a factory recon unit very early on. The fact that the origin of the recon motor was 1932 would not be unusual in the very early years.

Even with the new (older) engine the car is still numbers matching as the trans bears the correct number.

The bad news: The engine is incorrect for your car.
The good news: Genuine 32 motors are worth a lot of money to someone restoring a 32.

The other good news: No-one would be too upset if you just kept everything as it is.

The car sounds really nice, have you posted any pictures?

Mart.

[RobbHelf]

Here is 1 crumby pix I took this morning of the mounting bracket.

[JM 35 Sedan]

That is a '34 motor mount/water/coolant inlet. Pictures are worth.....well you know how the saying goes.

Two thoughts on the serial number you posted....
1. The number 1 could be an off or weak strike 4 that looks like a 1 and the serial number is actually 18-478825 or......
2. Maybe you are not seeing the last digit of the serial number, and the actual number is 18-178825X

Edit: Based on the picture added in post #27, the above thoughts are not valid. Pictures explain more than words in many cases. Would be interesting to see even more pictures of this car.

Do you have a title or some type of original bill of sale for this car that might have some reference to the serial number?

[RobbHelf]

Hi Mart,
I can agree with your scenario but am wondering why the engine would be incorrect? With the serial numbers matching putting this frame and transmission at a Sept. 1932 date, a wouldn't an early block as mine been correct in the fall of '32? The weird thing is that the front cross member that's in there doesn't jive with the early L-shaped mounting brackets.
Maybe the cross member was replaced for some reason (this sounds very very unlikely, though) Am I confused? BTW, I will be glad to post pix later!

[RobbHelf]

Hi JM,
I will look again and get a photo for all shortly? Thanks for your interest.

[RobbHelf]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Not trying to drive you guys nuts or come off aloof...but I'd like to correct myself since the very beginning of this thread. My brother is a master at anything to do with antique Fords. He restored a '25 Model T basket case when he was 16 years old. Since then he has acquired a 1911 T and a '53 pickup. Right after I acquired the '33 he started me in on this great hobby and I got the bug. He right away decided we need to get history on the car. He was the one that scraped off the frame and looked at the tranni to find matching numbers one day. OK. I knew what he gave me was without error.
Since Sept. I have recorded our serial# as 18-178825. The only thing was that just moments ago, I ventured out to the garage to double check for myself and you guys. Wiped away some grease and found my brother was correct....but...as the ensuing photo will tell, no 18-. Just the stars and number between them.
So, not to be too long winded, but on page 2-5 of the EFV8 Club book (last paragraph), this qualifies to be another odd case of early factory procedural error. Any thoughts?

[RobbHelf]

Here's the photo of the frame

[RobbHelf]

DavidG,
The more I analyze these scenarios and re-read them, especially yours, the possibility of the front cross member being replaced is the only logical explanation for my early frame to be able to accept those later mounts from March of '33. Kinda strange thing to happen. Agree? This way the very early block could still be in the car with the new mounts/inlet configuration. But then, why the newer fenders with one piece brackets?

[DavidG]

While it is somewhat unusual that the number in your photo above lacks the 18- prefix, it is not unheard of. Further, the stamped numbers conform to those used by Ford during the '33 model year (see below).

Assuming that your front cross member hasn't been replaced, I lean toward your original theory, namely that your decidedly '32 engine languished somewhere in the Ford system from the time it was produced in September, 1932 to when it was installed in your car likely late in the first quarter or early in the second quarter of the 1933 calendar year. All it took was to replace the '32 motor mount brackets and separate water inlets with the one-piece variety to match the insulator spacing of the front cross member and to substitute the '33-'34 clutch release arm for the '32 clutch release arm that likely accompanied your engine/transmission assembly while it was in hiding.

For those who may question how an engine/transmission assembly could have fallen through the cracks, so to speak, please consider the following. When I joined Ford in the fall of 1964 I struck up an acquaintance with the person responsible for handling the disposition of Company cars when they went out of service as I was seeking to acquire a 1964 1/2 Mustang as a used car under the Company's program for employees. I would often go out on my lunch hour to the lot where the cars were brought in from the southeastern Michigan area. One day during my visit I spotted what looked like a new 1949 Ford Fordor and I asked about its origins. It was indeed new with less than 5 miles on the odometer and it had been accidentally bricked up behind a wall in the Rouge for 15 years. (I confirmed the story with some colleagues at the Rouge.) If the Company could lose a whole car for fifteen years, losing an engine for six months was duck soup.

(I did get the Mustang. It was the 12th Mustang built and was sold as used with 22 miles on it -- it had been an airport display car.)

There are a couple of other questions that I have about your engine, please. Is the oil pan a steel stamping or is it cast aluminum? Does the oil dipstick pass between the left side exhaust manifold and the engine block or does it pass outside of that exhaust manifold? Does your car have the engine splash pans on either side? Is there a square hole in the top of the clutch housing portion of your transmission case (covered up with a stamped square plate retained with two round head screws)? Are the cylinder heads cast iron or aluminum and if the former, what is the thread size of the spark plugs? How is the generator mounted to the front of the intake manifold.

[RobbHelf]

Hi David,
The attachment you supplied is great. That nails those numbers exactly. I thank you for that!
I'm assuming too that the X-member is the original. The story is very paletable that you suggest. Crated engine, married to a frame at a far away production plant 5 months later.
I can definitely answer a few of your questions now, the balance tomorrow.
Oil pan: Steel
Dipstick passes between the manifold and block.
Heads: Aluminum
Generator: Post mount

Will certainly be interested in your conclusions !
Thanks, Dave
BTW, you still have the Mustang?

[Mart]

Rob, With apologies I withdraw my assertion that the engine is incorrect.

It is a head scratcher though.

One other thing: David, My 33 has the engine mounts in the front crossmember on 19" centers, is there another 33 iteration with 17" centres, or is the 17 a typo and should have been 19?


Edit: I just reread the whole thread and the scenario that is emerging is plausible.

Car is correct in that it has the skirted fenders and wider spaced mount type front crossmember.

In normal circumstances, the engine and trans would have been freshly built and have a serial number that would fall within the normally accepted 33 serial number range.

What might have happened is that someone found a batch of earlier built engines and transmissions and so they could be used up they were updated to current 33 spec and scheduled to meet the then 33 production line.

The engines and transmissions, now almost indistinguishable from the current units get dropped into the 33 frames, bolted in and the guy dutifully stamps the now out of synch serial numbers into the frames.

The batch of earlier units get used up and the rest of the 33s get stamped with 33 numbers.

I say batch of units because if there was just an odd one it wouldn't have been worth the effort of the rework. If there were a bunch of them, paying someone to rework them would make more sense.

Another scenario would be that the car may have been a prototype, built during the 32 production run and the build date matches the serial number. The fact that the car does not have many of the features normally associated with early 33s sort of argues against this, though, unless it was a prototype for the later spec of 33. (get my drift?).

All the above is pure conjecture on my part, I have no doubt at all that the numbers are completely genuine, but why the numbers fall outside the normal range is a mystery that I don't think anyone would be able to give a definitive answer to.

It's good fun guessing, though, isn't it?

Mart.

[RobbHelf]

Good morning Mart,
I like the way you think and totally agree that there is great fun in researching and finding out all about early Fords and their history. I guess you could say it's largely what makes this hobby so addicting. Scouring swap meets, garage and rummage sales for those elusive parts. The passion I'm starting to feel for this car is overwhelming.
Back to the adventure.... I'm feeling today like I've reached a sensible answer thanks to all who have help winnow this conundrum down. Both of your scenarios work for me. Conjecture, yes. We are all doing it based on info from all the great books out there and field experience from a lot of you veteran collectors. Like you said, no definitive answer can be found at this point, sadly since all those Ford production archives that were burned years ago in Detroit. What a shame!
If I had to chose a history story on my car I would lean heavily on your first idea where there were a batch of crates of early engines thrown into the mix around March of 1933 (when the new mounting bracket was available). I don't feel right about spouting around that I have a rare prototype with out any documentation. That's the kinda thing guys would raise their brows to. I'm not looking for any admiration, just the truth!
I'm still going to satisfy the rest of DavidGs questions when and if I get out in the garage today (it's -5 degrees here). I'm anxious to see what this evidence proposes!
Thanks very much for your interest Mart!!

[denson1932]

Another clue to investigate: is the front crossmember riveted in place as original or is it bolted in place and is it a late 1933 or 1934 crossmember? Also look at the clutch-brake pedal assy for early VS late characteristics...I have an early (but not the low-cut very early) pedal assy with 1932-style "cross-mount" pedal pads, i can post a pix of it...

[DavidG]

Robb,

I believe that the fire losses of archival production records experienced in the Rotunda fire and the subsequent fire at the Henry Ford Museum have become exaggerated over time. I do not believe that records of where and when individual engine/transmission assemblies (which carried the sequential production numbers that became the VINs) were placed in chassis and became whole vehicles existed beyond a few years past the end of any model year. (The factory warranties of the period were extremely limited in their coverage as to time and mileage.) Once the summary reports by month by assembly plant were developed in Dearborn (which survive) there really wasn't a valid business reason for maintaining those individual plant records in perpetuity.

I had unlimited access to the records that survived the Rotunda fire while they were kept at Ford's WHQ prior to their being donated to the Henry Ford Museum and as a far as paper losses in the fire at the Museum after that donation, those were minimal and did not include any production records. (I had previously asked the Archivists if there were significant losses in the Rotunda fire and they said that the losses were minimal, thanks in part to where the material was located in the Rotunda relative to where the fire was concentrated.)

Unlike like the experience with paper documents, the loss of photograph negatives in the Museum fire was very substantial. Not so much from the fire itself, but from water damage and the very limited amount of time volunteers had to pull material from the damaged area of the Museum before the area was literally bulldozed.

[blucar]

Originally Posted by 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?

Evidently you have never had the "misfortune" to actually purchase and/or own a very low mileage "barn find" vehicle..
I have owned three.. In 1962 I purchased a '36 Ford fordor sedan in a private garage in Burbank, CA.. The car looked great once we cleaned it up, however, mechanically it was a mess. The engine ran, barely, smoked like a freight train..
In 1989 I purchased a very low mileage '59 Ford F100 V8 w/OD from the daughter of the original owner. The daughter had paid a mechanic to get the truck running. It sounded pretty good, on the way home, a distance of less than 10 miles the engine started to miss and something in a wheel started to make a metal on metal noise.
The engine problem turned out to be low compression.. Every valve that had been open during it's many years of sitting had rusty stems and seats. Every cylinder that had open valves, had a light rust coating.. The metal on metal sound emitting from a wheel was metal upon metal, the wheel bearing grease had ran out of the bearings, solidified in the hub.
Lastly; in 2014 I bought a '65 Corvair Corsa coupe. The car had not been licensed since 1993, had 31k + on the odometer. The car was auctioned off from an estate sale. A "barn find" The reserve was 6k.. I passed on the auction, as did everyone else. A couple of days later I was contacted to make an offer on the car, I told the man I would give him $1,300. for the car, finally came up to $1,400. The seller wanted at least $3,000. for the car, I told him no way, I was all done at $1.400.,
Two days later the man called, told me to come get the car... Score, not really. The brakes were seized to the drums.. The fuel tank was rusted out, all of the engine wiring was junk, as were the four carbs.
I spent $2,500. on the brakes, fuel tank, wiring and carbs.. The engine ran great for 25 miles, then the engine/trans started to leak oil from many covers, etc.. Then the clutch started to make a grinding sound..
The complete engine assembly has to be removed, torn down and all new seals installed in every component. A new clutch assembly will be installed while the engine is out..
One of these days I'm going to learn that low mileage older vehicles are more trouble than what they are worth...

[Barn Junk]

This may have been mentioned earlier in this thread but will add here. If the frame is early 33, the X-member at the front does not extend all the way to the end of the frame rails. Also the 2 mounting holes for each set of front bumper irons are closer together on the early production.

[RobbHelf]

Hi Denson, Please post the pix. I would be interested in seeing your setup. The crossmember rivot vs. bolts is a good thought!!! Thanks much.

[RobbHelf]

Dave,
This info is extremely interesting and I really appreciate you sharing those details. I'm sure all you seasoned V8 vets here know about these details but it's all news to me and very enlightening. Someday I'll sit down with my dad's 50 year old collection of V8 Times
and try to accumulate some knowledge of the details and sordid history of Ford and these V8s.

[DavidG]

While awaiting your additional answer regarding the transmission case and front cross member, I took a closer look at the photo that you provided of your front cross member. While not definitive, given the limited amount shown, it appears to be a '33 front cross member and not the '34 version (which is what most replacements usually are given that Ford did not provide the '33 version for service after 1933). That suggests that you'll find that the member is riveted to the frame side rails and not bolted in, but that needs to be confirmed.

By replying that the engine has aluminum cylinder heads you've answered my question about the spark plugs (which was a roundabout way to determine if the heads were '32s or '33s). That response leads to another question. Do the aluminum heads have Ford script and/or part numbers cast into them? I'm hoping that the response is "neither" or at least if "yes", only part numbers and then without any suffixes after the four digit part number following the "40" prefix. The reason for asking is to hopefully largely eliminate the possibility that the heads have been replaced some time in the past.

Another question also comes to mind regarding the distributor on the front of the engine and that is where does the vacuum line from the intake manifold attach to the distributor? Does it attach to the middle of the large nut on the left side of the distributor (as do '32 distributors) or to a separate boss that is an integral part of the distributor housing casting also on the left side (as do run-of-the-mill '33 distributors). Your answer may prove helpful in concert with your response to my question above about Ford script and part numbers on your aluminum heads.

As for the spacing of the insulators, Mart, you're right, it was a typo, but likely a mental one rather than a physical one. I'm away from my cars for four months so I can't double check everything as I should before hitting the keyboard. Mea culpa.

[nospartsman]

1932 Distributor