Quote:
Originally Posted by Kube
Chris,
I have spent years documenting how our '40 Fords were built. The information in regard to the frames is readily available.
* The "X" members on your car were a nominal .087" thick.
* The convertible "X" member had a different configuration to give it more strength. Basically, it had less holes - basically. To date, I have restored four 1940 Ford convertibles. The worst in the bunch scored 997. Two points deducted for over restoration and one point deducted for two small pits in one axle housing. In my experience, the "X" members were identical in thickness to all other passenger cars.
* The outer frame rails on closed cars were a nominal .100" thick. Convertible frame rails were a nominal .110" thick.
* The so called "doubler plate" - actually a frame reinforcement was merely a design change. The frames without that reinforcement were not thicker - they were simply an earlier design. The change was necessitated by the fact that the frames were cracking where the chatter rod was fastened. That design was supposed to have happened in mid 1939 production, around March if I recall correctly. Whether it in fact happened in a timely fashion is anyone's guess. Every 1940 Ford frame I have encountered has had the reinforcement plates.
* V8COOPMAN has apparently found an old thread wherein I had addressed frame thickness. I didn't bother searching for it. V8COOPMAN is one of a small group on the Barn that has earned my respect. If he quoted me, it must be true - I stated it. So, as I must have stated "generally accepted" let me expound:
I think it important to keep in mind that Ford built these cars in a hurry. They were mass produced and aimed at the low price end of the automobile market.
It is a documented fact that when one part may have run short on the assembly line, when practical, another was substituted. So, "generally accepted" could only have meant that closed car outer frame rails were DESIGNED to be a nominal .100" thick and open car frame rails were DESIGNED to be a nominal .110" thick.
Were thicker "X" members produced and installed? Perhaps. Any documentation? None that I'd uncovered. That doesn't mean necessarily it didn't happen, it simply means if it did, well, it wasn't supposed to or wasn't documented.
Considering the amount of documentation on the most seemingly insignificant pieces, I'd think something like changing frame member thickness would warrant a note on a drawing and most certainly an engineering release.
|
Hi Kube,
Thank you so much or you response!
I have a 4-door sedan. The chassis was rusty and has been blasted.
I did a number of new measurements today on the side rails and the X member:
- The best parts of the side rails are almost invariably 0.94" thick.
- The best parts of the X member are almost invariably 0.79" thick.
This difference in thickness is visible when you look at the rails from the center of the frame. It is visible everywhere.
The difference in thickness was worrying me. I thought that the frame might be composed of other frames which would be bad news. I'm restoring the car and in the end I need to pass a technical inspection and the frame needs to have a minimum thickness of 80% of the original frame by then. But I could not find any reference to the original thickness of the X member..
Thank you very much!
I do hope that the knowledge you have gathered over the years is written down for the next generations. I have been searching the Internet for weeks. Most of the time I was looking for "gauge". That is probably not a good keyword..
I just googled for your cars. They look real sharp!
I feel honoured to have received a personal response from you.
Kind regards,
Chris