Ford Model A compared to cars that came before it and after it

[Model A Canuck]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdHpEsM8X9k

[Hitman]

What’s at the link? Descriptions help for archiving.

[trulyvintage]

Paul Shinn video showing Model T and earlier …





Jim

[jrelliott]

My neighbor, Dick Headmon, is repairing a '31 Chevy 4-door which had a bad gas tank that is original in every way. The Chevy is a much nicer than the '31 Ford. The engine has never been overhauled and still runs very smooth. Now understand Ford had to get the V-8 in production soon as other vehicle manufacturers were more modern.

[Bob Bidonde]

The Chevy of the Model "A" era are better riding cars, but of inferior design. The dependence on structural wood in the bodies, the fuel pump on the engine, the bent spoke wheels and other things made the Chevy much less rugged than the Model "A". Time has proven this. Considering Chevy outsold the Model "A" except in 1929, why is it that so many many many more Model A's have survived?

[AzBob]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Originally Posted by Bob Bidonde

The Chevy of the Model "A" era are better riding cars, but of inferior design. The dependence on structural wood in the bodies, the fuel pump on the engine, the bent spoke wheels and other things made the Chevy much less rugged than the Model "A". Time has proven this. Considering Chevy outsold the Model "A" except in 1929, why is it that so many many many more Model A's have survived?

X2 on the Chevy's of the Model A era. In the 1970's I once owned a running 4 cylinder 1928 Chevrolet 2 door Coach which I purchased for $175. Even back then most of the wood was rotten and the body was beginning to fall apart. I didn't have the skills, or equipment to re-wood the body and decided to remove it and make a speedster instead. After awhile, I lost interest and traded for '26 Model T.

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

Originally Posted by Bob Bidonde

The Chevy of the Model "A" era are better riding cars, but of inferior design. The dependence on structural wood in the bodies, the fuel pump on the engine, the bent spoke wheels and other things made the Chevy much less rugged than the Model "A". Time has proven this. Considering Chevy outsold the Model "A" except in 1929, why is it that so many many many more Model A's have survived?

Originally Posted by AzBob

X2 on the Chevy's of the Model A era. In the 1970's I once owned a running 4 cylinder 1928 Chevrolet 2 door Coach which I purchased for $175. Even back then most of the wood was rotten and the body was beginning to fall apart. I didn't have the skills, or equipment to re-wood the body and decided to remove it and make a speedster instead. After awhile, I lost interest and traded for '26 Model T.

Geez guys, the logic that both of you use regarding the Chevrolet's Body Wood doesn't make a lick of sense to me. So, are we to assume the Model-A Fordors, the Cabriolets, the Station Wagons, 180As, 190As, et/al were inferior too just because they had lots of wood in them??

Furthermore, no one would ever make the comment that a 1928 Packard, a Peerless, a Fleetwood-bodied Cadillac, nor a Pierce Arrow of the same era was an inferior automobile to a Model-A in 'Design'. Hell, even the Duesenberg's had similar wooden Body infrastructures, as did many Rolls Royce & Bentley custom bodied vehicles of that era. Surely you see how I am struggling with understanding your mindset on this.

Regarding why so many Model-As survived is because the Chevrolets of the 20's & e30's were a better vehicle than Ford, ...and were typically owned by more affluent families however when a Chevrolet became worn-out, they were discarded and scrapped. The more affluent family man did not park a discarded junk car in the backyard. Often times, outside of scrap drives, the Model-A was hardly worth hauling any distance for scrap.

Riddle me this, why are so many Volkswagen Beetles still remain today when compared by percentages to the same era Porsches? Are we to assume that because there are still many old VWs around is because the VW was superior to a Porsche ...even compared to the 914??

[AzBob]

Hey Brent, Just wanted to point out that the '28 Chevy wood didn't survive the elements very well. I have also owned a 1926 Buick with Fisher body composite wood and sheet metal construction. It appeared to be of a more robust construction than then the Chevy. Probably had seen better storage through the years as well. Comparing a Fleetwood bodied Cadillac or Rolls, Bentley, Duesenberg not even in the same class with superior construction and no doubt seen better care and storage than run of the mill Chevys. Regarding the wood bodied composite Model A's, I have no experience with them.

[ronn]

Brent I am with you on your thesis. completely valid.............lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The chevy cost a good bit more then the A and it outsold the A in 1931. It was a bit more advanced.


My Pierce is loaded with wood- as duly noted. 1931.................

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

Originally Posted by AzBob

Hey Brent, Just wanted to point out that the '28 Chevy wood didn't survive the elements very well. I have also owned a 1926 Buick with Fisher body composite wood and sheet metal construction. It appeared to be of a more robust construction than then the Chevy. Probably had seen better storage through the years as well. Comparing a Fleetwood bodied Cadillac or Rolls, Bentley, Duesenberg not even in the same class with superior construction and no doubt seen better care and storage than run of the mill Chevys. Regarding the wood bodied composite Model A's, I have no experience with them.

But let's think this thru a tad more. The Buick Body wood and Chevrolet Body Wood likely came from the same stand of trees, therefore one really shouldn't have an advantage over the other body.

We have rewooded many different marques of bodies over the years, and surprisingly the same basic construction is found between a Chevrolet Coach, a Model-A Fordor, or a Packard 626 Sedan as they are all basically the same in design however different in lengths.

If we were to choose a reason why one could be more robust, one could likely use the rigidity of the metal Frame as the reason it lasted longer ...however then theoretically the Model-A Frame would allow less structural support for the Body over the heavier Chevrolet Frame, or the beefier Buick Frame, -or the 'truck-like' Packard Frame.

[rotorwrench]

The Chevy had the OHV engines early on so it had an edge until Ford finally introduced the V8. To me, they're apples and oranges. Ford's popular Tudor Sedan, Coupes, and the lower priced open cars were mostly steel with ecception of the tops and interior fastenings so they were simple cars that most folks could maintain themselves. There were a lot of other good cars on the market but the depression put a damper on eveerything. Model As stayed in service longer than most in the years before the war and imediately after. They were the spare car that the kids ended up with. There's a lot of nostalgia for them when compared to others. I've always had a soft spot for the cars that Edsel Ford put his efforts into. He did the best he could under his dad's constraints and I like all of them. Harley Earl did pretty well too.

Ford stuck by the flatheads longer than they should have and Chevy did the same with the stove bolt 216 but I still like them anyway.

[alexiskai]

Any design must be judged in the context of what it was meant to achieve. GM's designers weren't trying to make a car that would last 100 years, so the fact that they failed to do so is not a failure of the design. For that matter, neither was Ford!

Ford's emphasis was always on efficiency. To make a steel-bodied car, you have to invest in huge presses that make very complex shapes, and if you want to change those shapes, that would make your fixed costs very expensive. The only Model A sedan body that was all-steel was the Tudor, which represented 30% of all domestic Model A production. Those two facts are related!

Wood-bodied cars could use a wider variety of designs with lower-cost tooling. Full stop. It's not any more complex than that. GM outsourced its body construction to Fisher, which also made bodies for other makes. Fisher wasn't about to buy multi-million-dollar presses for GM. But what that allowed GM to do was iterate its designs annually, going from the AC models in '29 to the AE models in '31. If you search for pictures, the AEs are a much better looking car than the ACs, and the mechanicals got better each year as well. In 1931, Chevy finally sold more cars than Ford. Contemporary consumers clearly preferred the Chevy design, so the use of "inferior" to describe the design of '31 Chevys vs '31 Fords is wrong for the simple reason that the market disagrees with you.

BTW, the fact that a '31 Chevy motor is smoother than a '31 Ford motor isn't surprising. A straight-six has inherently less vibration than a straight-four, and Chevy adding a damper in '31. The '31 Chevy cabriolets topped out at 85mph. '31 Chevys were more stylish, faster and roomier than '31 Fords. It's just a better car. Maybe not a better 100-year-old historical artifact, but that wasn't what GM was going for.

[gdmn852]

Hello, maybe part availability may have something to do with the Model A longevity, also some of the features on Fords aren’t found on other cars ,such as the transverse springs, touque tube .If you have a chance work on another make car of the same era ,quickly find out Fords are a car into themselves.