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.

[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

[denson1932]

Here attached pixs of (3) versions of 33-34 clutch-brake pedal assys. I assume Left to Right is early 33, 33, 34. Also pixs of front crossmember in 33 frame but bolted in and front crossmember in 34 frame rivited in.

Looking for 33-34 3WC body even 'glass is fine...

[denson1932]

Assuming that the frame VIN number was stamped to match the transmission housing VIN stamping, can you post a picture to show the transmission (clutch housing) VIN stamping and the style of clutch inspection cover?

[DavidG]

With respect, your photos do not show a '33 front cross member as both the bolted-in one and the riveted-in one are '34 front cross members. Please note that in both instances the cross member flares to the rear outboard of the motor mount insulators whereas on a '33 front cross member the rear edge follows the insulator around and then directly toward the frame side rail (like in Robb's photo). This is why true '33 V-8 engine splash pans are longer at the front than true '34 V-8 engine splash pans.

The photo below is of an unaltered '33 front cross member of the later version Robb's car was likely built with that required the use of the one-piece water inlets/motor mount brackets. Note the difference in the cross member's leading edge in its center and the different gussets on each side in the front. While not as clear as desired, the difference on the sides on the back of the cross member does show.

[JM 35 Sedan]

What has been missing from the beginning of this thread are pictures posted by Rob. I asked for this in post #2 and finally in posts #22 & #27 we have two pictures that helped explain a lot about this car, but it would have helped tremendously to have some key pictures of many other areas in question. A guessing game is fun, but I am wondering what is the reluctance on Rob's part to post more pictures here?

[rockfla]

As I have followed the thread, I read that weather conditions were somewhat prohibitive to taking pictures (JM35). But agree that "pictures are worth 1000 words!"

[RobbHelf]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Hi Guys,
Can't tell you how appreciative I am for all your comments and helpful knowledge. I need to do 2 things to clear up some of this guesswork and help you guys.. Take better pix of the crossmember this time and tear apart the floorboards to get at the trannie and pedal assembly for some pix. Give me a few hours and you'll have pix tonight. The Temp here is -6 below zero, so I have to work fast. Stay tuned.

[RobbHelf]

David G,

Great photo and terrific reference for what I'm need to look for.

[denson1932]

Thank you David for the 1933 VS 1934 front crossmember info...if you look at my pixs you can see that the bolted-in crossmember in my '33 frame does indeed have the correct 1933 "diagonal" gussets instead of full "triangulated" 1934 front gussets but... as you pointed out, the crossmember itself is a '34 replacement crossmember...

[RobbHelf]

I'm back with new photos that I hope solve the frame/X-member query. On the left photo the 3 rivets in a row are evident. Also, I checked my pedals and they are bolted on. It is so damn freakin' cold out in my garage I won't be able to take out the wood floor tonight for pedal/arm pix and transmission cover shots. Stay tuned for those tomorrow. The distributor question still needs answering, too
Also, on the aluminum heads...
on the right side 40-??49, on the left side 40-??50.
The ?? stands for: indecipherable, as the stamping is so light it's worn off. And I really mean stamping. These numbers are not raised as if they were cast. They are stamped as very thin font. No other numbers after.

[David J]

Definitely a 33 crossmember and RIVETED IN . Rivets look gennie and that says a lot about this car to me . The heads you describe are one of the early types DavidG mentioned . The other type is in a post of mine in your thread at the V-8 club forum . In your second pic the 33 only dimple in the inner fender has a hole in it - does the fender have this hole also ? This hole is for the early type fender brace that goes on the crank guide casting with ears . On the pedal pads is there a nut under the pedal ? Early 33's take pedal pads like 32's . Late 33's are like 34 and up and the pads just screw in . Dave

[RobbHelf]

Hi Dave,
That is great to know. '33 X-member! Yes, the pedals are bolted on with a nut. I'm not sure I know what you mean and see in that second photo referring to the dimple? Can you explain a little more. (Sorry for the bad picture)
BTW, I do have the the crank casting with the ears on it.

[DavidG]

Great photos for the purpose at hand. The front cross member is the one the car was built with; it has not been replaced. Both shock absorbers are originals and the front fender braces are round in cross section, like they should be for a mid-model year '33.

Those part numbers on the cylinder heads are cast in despite not being raised. As long as they do not have suffixes they remain as likely of '33 origin.

One unfortunate aspect of your photos is that your engine splash pans on either side of the oil pan (attached to the chassis frame rails) are long gone, which is not unusual as they tended to be left off if any exhaust system or starter motor repairs or replacements took place in the past.

Personally, I wouldn't bother with the pedal details given the weather as their version will not add materially to your knowledge of your car's origins.

The transmission case remains a question, but given your engine number it could be either a run-of-the-mill '32 V-8 case with only a grease cup for the clutch release bearing or the late '32 V-8 case with a square inspection hole in the case with a stamped steel cover over the hole with the grease cup in the upper center of the cover. This change in the cases took place gradually starting in September, 1932 and wasn't 100% until engine #18-198978 built on October 19, 1932.

I also remain curious about the distributor as the '32 variety was designed for use with cast iron heads, but could be used with aluminum heads by replacing the shaft and centrifugal weight assembly with the '33 version.

In addition to the changeover from cast iron heads to aluminum heads, it would appear from your first photo that the longer head studs used with aluminum heads have been installed on your engine. In the one example shown, both the stud and thick washer beneath the nut on the stud are correct for a '33 with aluminum heads.

The list of things changed from a stock '32 engine to what you have has grown considerably.

[DavidG]

David,

Good spotting on the dimple hole! I missed it. Here's one you missed. The radiator-to-front cross member bolt heads are upside down suggesting either a not unheard of factory screw up or that the radiator had been removed for repairs or replacement.

Most of the wiring in the photos is original and in poor condition. It should be replaced as it is unsafe as is.

[RobbHelf]

Hi David, I'm convinced that you may know this model year like the back of your hand.
It's fascinating to hear all the knowledge spew out and level all conjecture and mystery with such conviction. I'm humbled by all you guys.
I'm doing my best to uncover the telltales for you all in hopes of gaining a true idea of the history of my car. You are doing this because you are all passionate and generous folks. Thank you so much!
A few questions still remain...I'm now confused about the heads. Are you thinking that based on my serial # (sept. 1932) that these aluminum heads replaced cast iron ones at some point later? Also, what are these suffixes that were added on following the part number forged on the heads?

[David J]

Originally Posted by RobbHelf

Hi Dave,
That is great to know. '33 X-member! Yes, the pedals are bolted on with a nut. I'm not sure I know what you mean and see in that second photo referring to the dimple? Can you explain a little more. (Sorry for the bad picture)
BTW, I do have the the crank casting with the ears on it.

First pic is 33 with hole like yours . I'm talking about the dimple above the slot for the newer type fender brace rod . Second pic is next generation 33 with dimple but no hole in it . Notice the slot for the newer style fender brace rod is at a different angle . 33 front fenders have this dimple also . Third pic is common 34 and it has no dimple and is different in many ways . There are at least 7 variations of these 33-34 . The nuts on the pedal pads eliminates the need to dig further there , Yours is as it should be .

[David J]

Originally Posted by RobbHelf

Hi David, I'm convinced that you may know this model year like the back of your hand.
It's fascinating to hear all the knowledge spew out and level all conjecture and mystery with such conviction. I'm humbled by all you guys.
I'm doing my best to uncover the telltales for you all in hopes of gaining a true idea of the history of my car. You are doing this because you are all passionate and generous folks. Thank you so much!
A few questions still remain...I'm now confused about the heads. Are you thinking that based on my serial # (sept. 1932) that these aluminum heads replaced cast iron ones at some point later? Also, what are these suffixes that were added on following the part number forged on the heads?

First pic is a dash A without Ford script or a gen two of this type . Second pic is a no suffix like yours or a gen one of this type . Guess the pic isn't the best - sorry but you get the idea The longer studs and gen 1 heads on yours tells me the heads may well have been switched BEFORE the motor was put in your car . Just a guess of course . This is one car I would like to hear tell it's story . Car itself is shaping up to be normal earlyish 33 production . Hey David If I would have known I would be critiqued by the master I would have been more attentive . David J

[DavidG]

Robb,

Thank you for your compliments, but despite his modesty, David J is the thespian and I am but a neophyte. We both seem to be cursed with being more observant than is good for us. Hopefully one day he and I will collaborate to create something to make up for the short shrift that '33s receive in the Early V-8 Club's current book on the topic. I agree wholeheartedly with his (educated) guess that the cylinder head studs and heads were changed before the engine was first installed in your car. We don't always agree, however. For example, my examination of the original engineering releases for '33-'36 aluminum cylinder heads suggests that an aluminum head with any suffix at the end of the part number is a post-'33 head.

Back to your car; when it warms up enough to venture forth for more photos, please add a photo of your fuel pump to the list.

Thanks.

[RobbHelf]

To both Daves:

You guys are great. Thanks again for your help and interest. Based on your comments here today, I'm pretty sure we can come to some conclusions and start to wind down this tread a bit, then of course, only if you are tired of this speculate thinking. I still want to get some shots today of the trannie box as this will answer all of the questions that have been flying around this posting.

I can see now that pictures do stimulate and solve most everything when it comes to production mysteries. After I post the trans. box photos I would like to come up with a solid statement about the production of my car. Maybe that can conclude this thread. Out to the frozen tundra of a garage I go...

[RobbHelf]

To no avail, I was not able to take out the wooden floor in the '33. Got all the screws out but it seems like the upper tan cardboard and fasteners needed to come out too. Way too cold and labor intensive to do today. Maybe you guys feel you nailed it as far as dating this power plant and chassis. Sorry for no pix!
Nevertheless, if you allow me to draw up a plausible scenario from all the expert opinion shown here...then you guys can do a final edit and I would be ecstatic.

Sept. 1932: Production lines are slow. A 1932 engine block goes to assembly. Passes tests. Transmission case tamped 18-178825 and crated.
Oct. 1932: production slows down, engines are at a surplus.
Nov: 1932: First 1933 comes off the line.
Winter 1932: Production slows way down.
Jan-Feb 1933: Production picks up
March 1933: Old cache of stored engines starting to be used. (First crated in storage area would be last ones out, right?). Frames with new X-member to accept new motor mounts now in plants.
18-178825 gets new aluminum heads and new chassis stamped 178825 (no 18- prefix).
All else on the car in its current state seems to signify a March 1933 production date.
How'd I do? Please feel free to add or correct my short synopsis.

[DavidG]

Robb,

You may be able to reach up and feel the upper part of the transmission case and by touch determine whether or not your case has only the grease cup (as shown in the photo below -- ignore the shift lever housing as it is strictly '32) or the steel hole cover plus the grease cup.

As for your list of sequence of events, no '33 model production took place prior to January, 1933. I don't know where the November, 1932 idea comes from except perhaps that since the first engine designated as a '33 was produced in November the thought was that it went directly into a vehicle. (That is contrary to how automobile companies normally operate, but it did occur at the start of the '32 model year because of the delays experienced in producing a production quality V-8 engine.) There was no reason in November, 1932 not to revert to the normal practice of building a substantial inventory of components before Job #1 of the 1933 models; recall that nearly everything at that time was manufactured in southeastern Michigan and had to be shipped to the network of assembly plants across the U.S., including both coasts, by rail.

According to the Rouge Engine Plant (the only plant producing engines in the U.S.) log, the first '33 model V-8 engine was #207867 on November 14, 1932. The first '33 model V-8 engine with aluminum cylinder heads was #208788, also produced on the same day. Some '32 engines were still produced that day as well with their numbers falling in between the two numbers above. The engine plant was shut down at the end of that day and no additional V-8 engines were produced until the plant started up again on December 19, 1932. An oddity that David J has already mentioned is that those first '33 model engines carried the prefix "40", not "18", a practice that was short lived as the use of the "18" prefix was soon reinstated.

There is a fair amount of evidence that while FIFO inventory control likely was the objective, the actual practice of Ford, even in the Rouge complex, did not conform to that objective. I do not believe that your conjecture in that regard is supportable by archival evidence, but rather I recommend that you ride with a temporarily "lost" engine scenario. Given that your chassis frame is not the earliest '33 version thereof, the first in, first out scenario is not a very good fit.

I should add that your '33 is not alone in likely having been produced with a '32 engine as I've heard of several others over the years and I was reminded this morning in going through some photos that I once had a '33 roadster with a '32 engine in it. Unfortunately I am far away from the paper work which would have its engine number.

[RobbHelf]

I will try that! Thanks!

[RobbHelf]

Here ya go Dave... cell phones can be useful sometime! In a tight spot, turned out OK!
Serial number (has the 18- prefix, unlike the frame) is clearly on a intentionally cast flat spot. No plate to be felt or seen. Hope that makes a point to the final analysis.
Thanks again for your devoted interest. This was really fun! Hope it was for you?

[RobbHelf]

I'm understanding all of this much better now. I misunderstood the Nov. '32 startup date as the Job#1 car. The chart in the EFV8 '33-'34 book just pertains to engines. Very well.
Like I mentioned early on, I never once thought I have something really rare, just odd, and wanted to get down to the bottom of how this car all came together and when. Great fodder for when I start going to The V8 Club meetings in a few weeks. My dad never did any of that club stuff and didn't care about originality and history all that much. I love it!!!
Two other points... When I said First crate in LAST one out I meant if there was a stockpile of these '32 engines, and I'm presuming there was, those low number engines could've been buried for months. Again, fun to guess. Your lost theory works for me too.
Last point, I hate typing! Would it be agreeable to you to speak sometime on the phone?
Would relish a conversation with you (not to mention all the other guys that know their stuff) sometime soon. Please consider!!??Would love to hear about some of your cars of old and current ones!

[David J]

Here is what your fuel pump should look like . Don't let DavidG fool you - he is definitely the master . Anywayz David I do agree on the heads - I posted a dash A as he asked about suffixes and it was handy . Aluminum heads are a study in themselves as you well know .

[RobbHelf]

That's the one I have with cold weather anti-condensing wrap. All the gear on top of the intake manifold is off now as it is all in dire need of cleaning and tuning. Nice winter project for me now!!! Especially the Detroit Lube.

I hear ya about the heads. Crazy!!!

[RobbHelf]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

As I sit here now I feel we've pretty well exhausted this posting and I thank you all for your ambition and willingness to help out a novice in this great hobby! As the winter passes here in Wisconsin, I will get my refurbishing done on the engine and thorough cleaning. Photos will be abundant. Again, thanks to all who have offered their time, patience and energies toward helping me develop a history of sorts of this great V8!

Best regards,

Robb Helf

PS. If you still have anything to add, especially photos, please do so! Enjoying them immensely.

[Mart]

It's been a very interesting read, I learnt a lot from it.

Thanks to all the contributors.

Mart.

[Bored&Stroked]

I enjoyed the whole archaeological dig you guys just went through - fun and fascinating.

I would love to know what distributor is on the front of this engine as well. It could easily be a replacement block - as it is not like any 33' block that I've heard of. Folks put all sorts of engines in these cars - including the dealer, the mechanic down the street, etc.. I'm currently rebuilding an original 32 engine, it has the aluminum pan on it . . . and a 49-53 oil pump in it, still STD bore. Somehow it was still running up into the 50's.

Would be fascinating to see the INSIDE of the block . . the valley area and see if it has all the characteristics of a 32 engine.

Since you'll have the intake off, take some pictures of the valley area and also the distributor itself.

Fun stuff!

Dale

[RobbHelf]

Hi Dale,

Thanks for adding an interesting question. Yes, the intake manifold is off and I can get photos of the innards of the block as soon as it warms up a bit. Distributor looks very old but I'm pretty sure my dad had it gone through a while back as it was acting up. Stay tuned for pictures to clear up this mystery of how a very early V8 block ended up on this chassis.

[Bored&Stroked]

Originally Posted by RobbHelf

Hi Dale,

Thanks for adding an interesting question. Yes, the intake manifold is off and I can get photos of the innards of the block as soon as it warms up a bit. Distributor looks very old but I'm pretty sure my dad had it gone through a while back as it was acting up. Stay tuned for pictures to clear up this mystery of how a very early V8 block ended up on this chassis.

Keep it coming . . . this is a fun 'sleuthing' post to say the least!