Quote:
Originally Posted by Model "A" Fords
Brent, I found a drawing of the clip which dates 1927, 28 and 29. It shows the part made from 14 gauge Cold rolled Open hearth Carbon steel. No indication of polishing ( probably tumbled) with a Chromium finish as you mentioned, to stand a 50 hr salt bath without rust.
I don't have anything for 30-31 but looks like the same part. Makes sense, as Henry wouldn't make a different part if he could use an existing one to save money.
To restore this simple part, it has to have the rivets, Chromium and rust removed, replated and riveted back on. Sounds easy enough!
|
Thank you very much for the confirmation.
On a sidenote with regard to steel vs. stainless, I would be very curious if there is indeed any stainless retainers that are original. For the vehicle I am working on, it used an 8220-A retainer however on December 19 of '30 there was a revision made however the suffix was a C but no mention of a B revision. Was that because it never went to production? The A-8220 was likely the unfinished stamping, and then the 8220-A difference was the Chromium plated piece.
One other thing about these that may explain a reason why stainless was a problem. Yesterday Terry Deters and I were discussing these, and we both mentioned that the tang on many of these retainers (-which are made out of the 14ga steel!!) are worn so much that they allow the hood to creep forward too far. Both of us have remedied this by fabbing and inserting a spacer to correct the wear, however likely Ford discovered that stainless would be too soft and fragile for this application. Another thing that I have wondered about is that when Allegheny Steel manufactured the promotional 1930 Tudor, they used the Ford stamping dies however instead of 19 gauge sheeting, they reportedly used 22 gauge stainless. Was that because 19 gauge stainless would have been harder to stamp with the Ford dies, or was it some other reason?