Go Back   The Ford Barn > General Discussion > Model A (1928-31)

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-07-2020, 02:25 PM   #61
Purdy Swoft
Senior Member
 
Purdy Swoft's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Alabama
Posts: 8,077
Default Re: Dumbest Reproduction Parts

Ricks has been out of business for quite a while . About the only problem that I had with Ricks was that they didn't have a lot of the parts that they advertised . After having so many of my orders back ordered I changed vendors . I don't remember any real problems with the parts that I actually got from Ricks in the 70s . I think that a lot of the people didn't have a lot of experience fitting parts back in the day and blame it on Rick .
Purdy Swoft is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2020, 07:29 PM   #62
Oldbluoval
Senior Member
 
Oldbluoval's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Signal Mtn, TN (SE TN)
Posts: 850
Default Re: Dumbest Reproduction Parts

Except for some early mechanical parts that were provided by western auto, Sears et al most early parts were junk
Thanks to a very few (Al Lepore comes to mind) parts have evolved due to quality demands and folks catching on to what is junk. Unfortunately a lot ot $$ has been spent on the useable.
There are currently are folks making quality parts. Modern techniques with CNC etc are helping
One big hinderance is break even quality to produce. If the demand is maybe 100 and the break even quantity is 1000 there's a problem! Underlying answer is a $100 valued part would have to cost $1,000. Won’t happen!
Oldbluoval is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)
Old 07-03-2020, 10:59 AM   #63
alexiskai
Senior Member
 
alexiskai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Mebane NC
Posts: 635
Default Re: Dumbest Reproduction Parts

Quote:
Originally Posted by SSsssteamer View Post
In 1972, after buying a $12 fire wall mounted sediment bowl that wouldn't seal at the tubing flares because of a shifted mold, and after buying a genuine A roadster front seat upholstery that was none returnable (it looked like a hot stamped vinyl rain coat) for $79 from Rick's, I mentioned it at our Bellingham Antique Auto Restorers Club meeting about how bad a rip off that Rick's parts really were. My report accidentally went down in the meeting minutes and they were printed up in our monthly club bulletin, The Spokesman. One of our members, who also was also on a rant about Rick's parts, sent Rick's our Bulletin as a testimony of how bad Rick's parts really were. Rick call me one evening and chewed on my butt for saying such bad things about his business... I threw the sediment bowl into my scrap barrel. The hot stamped seat covers I gave away to a member that had a rat rod type of a model A roadster, and he wouldn't even use them either. I am still pissed off at Rick's.
Had to bring this thread back because I'm watching Hagerty's new YouTube series, in which a guy is doing some basic repairs on his dad's '30 coupe, and what should appear but a Rick's spindle bolt kit from 1972. We'll see if it works!
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Screen Shot 2020-07-03 at 11.54.53 AM.jpg (10.6 KB, 74 views)
alexiskai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2020, 12:42 PM   #64
john charlton
Senior Member
 
john charlton's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 939
Default Re: Dumbest Reproduction Parts

I too have the beloved Ricks Restoration Manual it really wasnt that bad !!! Mine was well read you actually will read anything when you are towing an oil rig for weeks on end .Mine is disintergrating as maybe the spine binding glue was also made in Taiwan !!! . I keep it as it is nostalgia as well. I remember all those terrible repro parts in the seventies luckily the quality is vastly better now . Junction boxes ,rubber grommets which broke up when fitting to a rad shell etc etc and those headlight sockets .

John in windy Suffolk County England and congratulations on Independence Day . I blame the King he didnt have Skype to make it easier for both parties !!!
john charlton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2020, 01:12 PM   #65
Y-Blockhead
Senior Member
 
Y-Blockhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
Posts: 4,296
Default Re: Dumbest Reproduction Parts

Ah, yes. Vintique. Here is a set of '30 cowl light arms Vintique made and sold thru a major name vendor (and it wasn't Mac's) Not only this but they don't even point the light in the correct direction.



__________________
Y-Blockhead
'30 Briggs Town Sedan
'55 Ford Ranchwagon
_________________________________
And once again that is just my 1 worth.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51ufACHJMfU

Last edited by Y-Blockhead; 07-03-2020 at 01:26 PM.
Y-Blockhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2020, 05:55 PM   #66
ed thibodeau
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Pinckney, Mich.
Posts: 147
Default Re: Dumbest Reproduction Parts

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)
Back in the 50s there was a Ford dealer in Croswell Mi that I could buy genuine parts
for my 29 tudor that he still had in an attic store room, mufflers, brake linings, dist.parts
etc.
ed thibodeau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2020, 10:37 AM   #67
jimalabam
Senior Member
 
jimalabam's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Lee County Alabama
Posts: 811
Default Re: Dumbest Reproduction Parts

You are right ericr, In the 1960s, NOS was to be had at most any old Ford dealership. Even today, I know of a building in Georgia FULL of Argentine parts, but not worth a drive to me. Jim...
jimalabam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2020, 09:55 PM   #68
dansluck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Nevada
Posts: 110
Send a message via AIM to dansluck Send a message via Yahoo to dansluck
Default Re: Dumbest Reproduction Parts

I miss Mal's Model A sales and parts in Pacheo Calif. He sold quality and was willing to help. Late 1960's
dansluck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2020, 11:32 PM   #69
Tom Foster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 140
Default Re: Dumbest Reproduction Parts

I bought lots of stuff from Tommy Traylor's Specialized Auto Parts in the '60s when they were available and a trip to Houston was not out of the question. We began to see that a lot of their stuff 'wasn't quite right' but used it anyway. I probably still have some on my coupe... We used a set of Western Auto pistons that were still in the car 40 years later, though.
Mercifully, I seem to have been spared the Rick's debacle as we were not active with the coupe again until about 1990 or so, and by that time Traylor had gone down the river on a drug bust. I never heard of Rick's until now.

Last edited by Tom Foster; 07-06-2020 at 02:44 PM.
Tom Foster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2020, 01:31 AM   #70
RandyinUtah
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ogden Utah
Posts: 231
Default Re: Dumbest Reproduction Parts

When I first started in model As Rick was all I new.
When I found my first Snyder catalog and placed an order I was in heaven when I saw the difference in quality.
RandyinUtah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2020, 08:26 AM   #71
Licensed to kill
Senior Member
 
Licensed to kill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Alberta
Posts: 880
Default Re: Dumbest Reproduction Parts

"The dumbest reproduction parts" IMO are all the ones that don't fit. Seriously, I just don't get it. When someone reproduces a part, it should be just as easy to make it right as to make it wrong. Like bolt holes that don't line up. You gotta put the holes SOMEWHERE, why not put them in the RIGHT location. The only exception that I can think of off the top is castings. If you are using an original part as the pattern, any reproduced casting will be a bit smaller. However, even then, since we all know that the reproduced casting will be a bit smaller, it shouldn't be THAT difficult to build up the original with a heavy paint or something to allow for the shrinkage. I guess another would be stampings like fenders where the dies wear and it is cost prohibitive to make new ones. Then there is bolts and screws that are sold as "reproduction" when, in fact, they are just hardware store fasteners that will work but are NOT like the originals.
Licensed to kill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2020, 10:04 AM   #72
Y-Blockhead
Senior Member
 
Y-Blockhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
Posts: 4,296
Default Re: Dumbest Reproduction Parts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Licensed to kill View Post
"The dumbest reproduction parts" IMO are all the ones that don't fit. Seriously, I just don't get it. When someone reproduces a part, it should be just as easy to make it right as to make it wrong. Like bolt holes that don't line up. You gotta put the holes SOMEWHERE, why not put them in the RIGHT location. The only exception that I can think of off the top is castings. If you are using an original part as the pattern, any reproduced casting will be a bit smaller. However, even then, since we all know that the reproduced casting will be a bit smaller.
I aree with everything you are saying. But in the case of the junk cowl light arms made by Vintique the repro part is actually bigger!! 2nd picture in post #65. Not only do the holes not line up but whole part is physically bigger, the arm is thicker.
__________________
Y-Blockhead
'30 Briggs Town Sedan
'55 Ford Ranchwagon
_________________________________
And once again that is just my 1 worth.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51ufACHJMfU
Y-Blockhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2020, 06:25 PM   #73
Greg Jones
Senior Member
 
Greg Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Aiken, South Carolina
Posts: 614
Default Re: Dumbest Reproduction Parts

I didn't read through this whole thread to see if anyone mentioned this, but how about the crap roller bearings being sold for the transmission? The ones Tom Endy has posted about and I also fell victim to? Yes, most of the better vendors are still selling them. If you use them, be prepared to tear down your transmission in less than 500 miles.
Greg Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2020, 02:16 PM   #74
noyo55
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 64
Default Re: Dumbest Reproduction Parts

Backin 76 when I went through my coupe for the second time I bought new mushroom bolts for the running boards from Ricks. I'm not sure about the material but each snapped when tightening' Looking at the break it looked like they were pot metal. Good think I have kept all the "A" nuts and bolts I've taken off cars over the years(56) I've had mine.
noyo55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2020, 10:58 AM   #75
SSsssteamer
Senior Member
 
SSsssteamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sedro-Woolley, WA
Posts: 1,007
Default Re: Dumbest Reproduction Parts

From Rick's in 1969, I purchased four new outer bumper clamps. They were pretty chrome and with their blue enamel paint already on them, they really looked nice. I proudly installed them onto our 1929 Tudor's bumpers. Later, the front bumper I found laying on the ground and there after I found one of the rear bumperettes was hanging from just it's rivets. With in a month, three of the bumper clamps had pulled their embedded hex headed capscrews out of their chrome plated CAST ALUMINUM faces. There after I searched out the original Ford "all steel" outer bumper clamps and I had them re-plated. Our Tudor is still wearing the "all steel" clamps today. Just another example of the poor quality reproduction parts that we fell victim to.
SSsssteamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:38 AM.