Thought About The 190A

[Bob Bidonde]

I did some research about the Murray Body Company and I came across this interesting article:

http://www.coachbuilt.com/bui/m/murray/murray.htm

In places where the article talks about the Model A era, it gives an indication that the changeover to the Steel-Back was likely due to the genius of James Vehko. In my opinion, it was Mr. Vehko’s patented deep-draw body die design that made the Steel-Back possible.

"A former C.R. Wilson employee, James Vehko, became Murray’s chief manufacturing engineer in 1931. Vehko is credited with the engineering of the first all-steel body made using a deep-draw die. By that time, Murray’s principle customers were Cleveland, Essex, Ford, Hudson, Hupmobile, Graham, Jordan, Marmon, Reo, Studebaker and Willys-Knight. Vehko later became successful in his own right as an independent consulting engineer for Ford and Studebaker."

I conclude that James Vehko was held in high esteem by the Fords. The article mentions the power Henry Ford had over the Murray Body Company. So connecting the dots, I think that Henry & Edsel Ford had embraced Mr. Vehko's all-steel body design for the 190A Victoria Coupe because it was less expensive, quicker to manufacture and it was a more durable design than the Leather-Back.

Taking into consideration Mr. Vehko's accomplishments, it could be that he designed the 190A Steel-Back body late in 1930, and that it went into production by Murray early in 1931. So my guess is that Ford Branches would have Steel-Backs during the first quarter of 1931. I further guess that Leather-Backs and Steel-Backs commingled at various Ford plants perhaps in January through April, but by the end of April the Steel-Back was prevalent. The predominant number of surviving 190A Victoria Coupes (about 400 to 500) are Leather-Backs (from Association records). Considering that production of Model A’s was waning in 1931, and that Model A engine production was all done in November, Steel-Backs are rare finds.

Study the article and connect the dots. I would like to know your thoughts about this.

One more comment. There is substantial evidence collected by the Victoria Association to make it clear that the information in The Ford Model “A” As Henry Built It about the 190A is not accurate. There is no evidence that Briggs built a production 190A, and it is purely coincidental (not a Ford design) that a Victoria buyer had a choice between the Leather-Back and Steel-Back.

[Vern]

Bob, that is an interesting article. I don't have much experience with leatherback Victorias. is there that much difference in the body panels shape from those of the steelback? I know the wood framework is different, there are more pieces that I assume serve as backing for the fabric top.

Until reading the Murray article, I always just assumed that Ford dropped the leatherback as it had to be easier to produce the body panels without all those holes used to attach the fabric around the belt line & windows. On top of that, eliminating the extra fabric & the steps necessary to install & finish it would also seem to reduce costs.

Thanks for doing this research. Vern

[Marco Tahtaras]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Hi Bob,

The Coachbuilt site is a great site having assembled information from hundreds if not thousands of authors over the decades. It's easy to find yourself immersed for hours.

Along with other models, I've been studying Victoria information for decades. I have the Victoria Association records as of about 10-12 years ago. I was one of the 'early' ones to point out that all Vickys were built by Murray.

I don't see that the steel back Vicky had any deeper draws in the side quarters than the Briggs steel back introduced in 1929. It's also fun to note that the very first prototype Victoria was built in early 1930 (photographed mid-March) and was a steel back! It had a slightly larger bustle, no provision for a rear mounted spare (like the 180-A and 400-A), but most interesting is that it had a straight windshield. It had no visor and used the same, familiar header front face cover as the production models.

As far as leather back versus steel back, there was definitely a direct transition from one to the other and it was pretty swift under the circumstances. Keep in mind that leather backs were still in the pipeline as the transition was occurring. The overlap in the transition realistically could have been as much as six weeks but more likely as little as four weeks (late April to late May) with maybe a few stray leather backs shipping out beyond that.

As a final note, I learned a long time ago that Ford's engineering records often reflect both intended changes ahead of realization as well as 'catching up' the records with things that have been changed on the fly. Most if not all the records pertaining directly to the leather back show it as obsolete 3/21/31. We know for a fact they were produced as late as the end of May.