1932 ford frame differences

[evobuilder]

How many different Ford frames were available in 1932?

I’ve heard three, but not sure what each would be and what the differences are.

I know the most common is the frame with the scallop design on the outer frame rails. What are the others?

I searched here and online for answers but haven’t found the answer yet. Anyone have some knowledge on this?

[VeryTangled]

Originally Posted by evobuilder

Anyone have some knowledge on this?

I wonder... 1932 Fords... Hmmm.

[evobuilder]

VeryTangled.... your comment makes no sense, are you being a smart ass or just did not finish your thought? My question is worthy of feedback from those with knowledge on Ford history.

[Andy]

I have only seen one 32 frame without the roll on the bottom. The owner had beat it flat because he though it was from damage.
David can elaborate about all the running design changes. The rails stayed the same but with reinforcing plates late. The front and center crossmembers had a few changes. They all looked basically the same.

[evobuilder]

Thanks Andy.... I cannot locate David G (?) in search, any idea how to add him to this thread?

[deuce_roadster]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Andy pretty much covered it. All 3 crossmembers had differences throughout the production run. I believe the K member had the most changes, maybe 4. I think the rails did not change. DavidG literally wrote the book on this subject and hopefully will chime in.

[evobuilder]

thanks deuce_roadster.... hopefully this caught @DavidG's eye.

[qmdv]

Originally Posted by evobuilder

How many different Ford frames were available in 1932?

I’ve heard three, but not sure what each would be and what the differences are.

I know the most common is the frame with the scallop design on the outer frame rails. What are the others?

I searched here and online for answers but haven’t found the answer yet. Anyone have some knowledge on this?

I have never seen a 32 frame without the scallop. Model T's and A's had the bodies above the frame and running boars below the frame. The frames were hidden behind splash aprons. In 32 there were no splash aprons so the frame was exposed to the public. So the scallop followed the flow of the fenders.

[DavidG]

It depends on how you define 'difference'. Apart from the differences between LHD and RHD frames, there were three distinctly different front cross members, three different center cross members, two different rear cross members, and three different sets of side rails (not counting the undocumented side rails without the ridge above the running boards). Some of those changes took place at the same time, so the net number of different frame configurations is at least six for LHD frames that I can document.

[Newc]

The original post did not specify car or 1/2 ton? I have the big trucks 'BB' and they use passenger fenders/hoods , and are curved toward the front half. Newc

[DavidG]

'32 passenger car and commercial vehicle (pickup, station wagon, panel delivery, and sedan delivery) frames were the same at any given time during the model year depending on assembly plant inventories.

[evobuilder]

OK, I am trying to understand the different frame options for 1932 passenger cars, specifically, the frame rails and what the differences are in the 32 frame rails (with scallop design, without scallop design. Length and overall width differences.

[deuce lover]

Here is a chassis a friend has and the frame has no scallop

[Mart]

The rear crossmembers were changed to accommodate the strengtheners fitted over the rear axle.

[DavidG]

The overall length and width of the passenger car/commercial vehicle frames were unchanged from job #1 to last job.

I'll amend my statement above to confine it to North American production as the photos Sheldon has provided are of a European frame.

Mart,

There were two versions of those reinforcements (in North American production). The first were attached outside the frame and could be fitted post production and the second were spot welded to the inside of the frame rails necessitating a shortening of the rear cross member. The first versions were used only very briefly and are rarely encountered on surviving frames.

[glennpm]

Hi Evobuilder, do you get it now? ;-)


"I wonder... 1932 Fords... Hmmm"



DavidG Rehor is our expert! Buy his books if you want to know everything about '32s He ALWAYS helps on this site.


https://shop.efv8.org/collections/fo...tbound-all-new

[woodiewagon46]

As David mentions there were probably dozens of small changes to the '32 frame. When people say all Model A frames were the same I have to laugh. There were four major changes and over two dozen minor changes such as added and deleted bolt holes, changes in bolt hole sizes, etc.

[Kube]

Originally Posted by DavidG

The overall length and width of the passenger car/commercial vehicle frames were unchanged from job #1 to last job.

I'll amend my statement above to confine it to North American production as the photos Sheldon has provided are of a European frame.

Mart,

There were two versions of those reinforcements (in North American production). The first were attached outside the frame and could be fitted post production and the second were spot welded to the inside of the frame rails necessitating a shortening of the rear cross member. The first versions were used only very briefly and are rarely encountered on surviving frames.

Dave, you continue to amaze me.

[DavidG]

Thanks, guys!

[bluardun]

Ah no: THANK YOU DAVID. Your knowledge and taking time to share it is always appreciated.

[VeryTangled]

Originally Posted by evobuilder

VeryTangled.... your comment makes no sense, are you being a smart ass or just did not finish your thought? My question is worthy of feedback from those with knowledge on Ford history.

Sorry, my post was to indicate you indeed asked in the right forum, even if I didn't know your answer.

[evobuilder]

So DavidG.... so what you are saying is that.... all 32 frames in the US would have had the reveal design on the frame rails? Just making sure I am following - and thanks to all for chiming in on this. It's greatly appreciated.

Originally Posted by DavidG

The overall length and width of the passenger car/commercial vehicle frames were unchanged from job #1 to last job.

I'll amend my statement above to confine it to North American production as the photos Sheldon has provided are of a European frame.

Mart,

There were two versions of those reinforcements (in North American production). The first were attached outside the frame and could be fitted post production and the second were spot welded to the inside of the frame rails necessitating a shortening of the rear cross member. The first versions were used only very briefly and are rarely encountered on surviving frames.

[evobuilder]

Apologies.... I am always a little jumpy since soo many "attack" on the HAMB for just asking questions.

Originally Posted by VeryTangled

Sorry, my post was to indicate you inderd asked in the right forum, even if I didn't know your answer.

[Mart]

The only other thing I can think of is a very small number of frames without the K member legs.

But the vast majority of frames are run of the mill, swaged rails, k members fully equipped, various strengtheners at the rear.

It's worth mentioning that for most frames, there is no difference between a V8 and a 4 cyl frame, either motor is compatible.

Just ask away, good people here, with a lot of knowledge.

Mart.

[JSeery]

Originally Posted by evobuilder

Apologies.... I am always a little jumpy since soo many "attack" on the HAMB for just asking questions.

This is a little different environment than the HAMB! I like the HAMB, but some can be a bit abrasive over there, LOL.

[DavidG]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Mart,


The initial leg-less center cross member was one of the three major versions that I cited in #9 above. There was a service campaign to add the legs, but it wasn't 100% effective as a handful of frames survive without them, including the two shown in the photos below.

[evobuilder]

A welcome change and I will definitly mind my Ps and Qs as ironically, I was being abrasive - won't happen again

Originally Posted by JSeery

This is a little different environment than the HAMB! I like the HAMB, but some can be a bit abrasive over there, LOL.

[JSeery]

Oh, and welcome to the Barn!

[evobuilder]

in the end, I am most interested about the length, width and whether or not all 32 frames had the reveal on the frame rails or if some did not have the reveal design.

[JSeery]

As David and others pointed out, no dimensional changes except minor stuff like the addition of the reinforcement on the outside of the frame (not common, so a non-issue). All U.S frames have reveal.

[TJ]

Originally Posted by evobuilder

in the end, I am most interested about the length, width and whether or not all 32 frames had the reveal on the frame rails or if some did not have the reveal design.

if you are a '32 guy it would probably be very helpful to you if you purchased the two volume set of the 1932 Ford book published by the Early Ford V-8 Club of America. It is authored by Dave Rehor who is also known as "David G" on this forum. It's a fact filled set of books that will probably answer many of your current and future questions. You can purchase the set at; www.earlyfordv8.org.

[bluardun]

Evobuilder; To answer your question. Yes all '32 passenger, pick-up, and station wagon basic frames are identical it length, width. They all have the lip on the bottom, and the reveal where the front fender bolt to the frame.
As all the discussion about early, mid year and late frames are correct, but the dementions remained the same. The 4 cylinder cars vin numbers began with B-500,001. The V-8 cars were stamped beginning with 18-000,001. But the frames were identical. Welcome to the Ford Barn.

[DavidG]

bluardun,


A minor difference; the V-8 engine numbers in production vehicles start with 18-1, which Henry Ford stamped himself, complete with an upside down figure 8.

[Fortunateson]

David, I think I may have asked you this once before but the old memory isnt up to OEM standards...

I have an early frame which has been "farmer engineered" after having the frame crack over the rear axles. Can I make up reinforcing plates and then spot weld and perimeter weld them to the inside? Can they be flat or would they need a top and bottom flange? The car will be full fenedered slightly rodded so could outside reinforcements be ok as well?

Thanks in advance...

[DavidG]

Fortunateson,

Boy, I sure can relate to your OEM memory reference!

Both the short-lived outside and the subsequent inside reinforcing plates were formed with flanges, top and bottom. Necessarily, the rear cross member was shortened slightly to accommodate the thickness of the inside reinforcement plates.

[PeteVS]

Were differences in the steering box holes considered? (More upright steering column in pickups.)

[DavidG]

For most of the '32 model year the three bolt holes in the frame rails for the attachment of the steering sector housing were round and the hole location in the steering sector housings differed to accommodate the two different steering column angles. Late in the model year the need for two different sector housings was eliminated by slotting the three holes in the frame rail. The sector arms remained unique for the two different column angles.

[Fortunateson]

Thanks David. Now what was it I was asking about....? LOL. If I make my own would the flanges be required? Considering our modern roads and not the old roads/farmers fields would plates be ok? Also thinking of Boxing the frame over the rear axle as an alternative.

[JSeery]

As your not concerned about being 100% original, boxing might be the best approach.

[hb32]

Originally Posted by bluardun

Evobuilder; To answer your question. Yes all '32 passenger, pick-up, and station wagon basic frames are identical it length, width. They all have the lip on the bottom, and the reveal where the front fender bolt to the frame.
As all the discussion about early, mid year and late frames are correct, but the dementions remained the same. The 4 cylinder cars vin numbers began with B-500,001. The V-8 cars were stamped beginning with 18-000,001. But the frames were identical. Welcome to the Ford Barn.

I disagree with all having a “ lip “ on the bottom. I have one under my pickup, that is original with K member and rear cross member still with rivets, dimensions are bang on and has no reveal. The attached picture is from the 32 Ford Deuce by Tony Thacker page 17

[DavidG]

The Thacker photo is interesting, but since it is not a production chassis, it doesn't necessarily reflect production practice. A lot happened to the '32 chassis between October, 1931 and Job #1 in March, 1932. Assuming that your pickup's of Canadian origin, perhaps that's where the few that were manufactured ended up and in the U.K. along with the raised hood side panels and their dies.

[DavidG]

Mart,


Up until very recently I would have agreed that at any point in time in production the same frames were being used interchangeably with either fours or V8s. I encountered an unaltered frames with all of the original cross members intact and riveted in place that without modification can only be used with a four cylinder engine. There are no holes in the center cross member for the V8 engine steady rods and the holes for the four-cylinder engine steady rods are incompatible with the ends of the super-early V8 engine steady rods for so-called flange block engines. Ergo, it's only suitable for a four-cylinder engine unless one adds the holes for the V8 steady rods inboard of the holes for the four-cylinder steady rods.

[hb32]

I also have an early frame with the outside frame reinforcements

[petehoovie]

Originally Posted by hb32

I also have an early frame with the outside frame reinforcements

[DavidG]

Why do you characterize that frame as" early" given that its center cross member appears to be typical mid-year production with different placement of the holes for the four-cylinder and V8 engine steady rods?

[hb32]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Was more thinking on the external riveted support plates at the rear kick up

[hb32]

Originally Posted by DavidG

The Thacker photo is interesting, but since it is not a production chassis, it doesn't necessarily reflect production practice. A lot happened to the '32 chassis between October, 1931 and Job #1 in March, 1932. Assuming that your pickup's of Canadian origin, perhaps that's where the few that were manufactured ended up and in the U.K. along with the raised hood side panels and their dies.

Not sure David and to the best of my knowledge, researching the vin, it was manufactured in Seattle. The chassis I have, came from a pickup with AB…….. as the vin. So many variables when it comes to 32’s as I am sure you know as well

[DavidG]

Knowledge not shared is knowledge lost.

[Zeke3]

Originally Posted by DavidG

Knowledge not shared is knowledge lost.

Amen to that. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with the rest of the forum.

[DavidG]

The outside reinforcement plates were offered through service as well as being used briefly in production. Some have been encountered installed with bolts and nuts rather than with rivets, it depended on a dealerships capability.


As for the Seattle Assembly Plant, which was closed midway through the '32 model year, there seem to be a fair number of odd combinations of components on vehicles produced there while it was still operating. I have heard of all sorts of oddities on cars allegedly built there. I have a cabriolet that likely was built there and it has its very own set of quirks.

[Harold Degand]

Is there difference between frames all over the world ?
I mean about the holes for body mounts widths.