1940 merc rear end?

[rotorwrench]

Ford went from 112" to 114" wheel base in 1941 and the Mercurys were 116" from the beginning. I've also read several owners mention the 4" plug welded into the Ford type torque tube to lengthen it for the Mercury cars. Mercury went to 118" in 1941 and stayed that way through 1948. I still can't find an exact torque tube length for the 39 & 40 Mercury models. Engine mounting must have always been firmly connected to the front cross member. Sheet metal length changes may have stopped at the firewall but it looks like that wasn't the case for the drive train. Edsel always wanted longer frames to work with but he couldn't get his Dad to change.

It seems that Ford wanted to keep the Mercury 4-inches longer than the Ford cars.

[V8COOPMAN]

Originally Posted by rotorwrench

Engine mounting must have always been firmly connected to the front cross member. Sheet metal length changes may have stopped at the firewall but it looks like that wasn't the case for the drive train.

Well……..NO! This pic shows a Mercury frame. Look at the frame junctures just behind the front crossmember. You'll see two Rube Goldberg motor mount extensions which would move the engine BACK about 4" or so from the crossmember. Also note the wishbone ball mount extension bracket. Strange stuff be's happenin' in Merc-ville! Looking at the brake drums, this is likely a '42-'48 frame. DD

[tubman]

That's a great picture Mr. Coopman; shows it perfectly.

[rotorwrench]

That looks like the 118-inch WB frame. That's 6-inches longer than the old Ford 112" WB of 1940. I need to get a parts catalog or catalogs for the 41 through 48 Mercury cars. They may have extended the front from 116" to 118" WB but left the engine at the 116" WB location. That would require those adapters at the front cross member. Mercury information in those years is harder to find than most other years. Ford may have also kept the 116" WB drive train components for the Mercury when they went 118" but I can't verify that without the later Mercury references. If the engine didn't hit the firewall, they could have used the Ford 114" WB components to get commonality. I still have a lot to learn about the early Mercury cars. My books only cover them through 1941.

[Aarongriffey]

The Mercury cars in those years were two inches wider.
I am sure the rear end was wider. Check/compare track width of Ford and Mercury of that Year

Aaron Griffey
Hayward, Ca.

[V8COOPMAN]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Originally Posted by Aarongriffey

The Mercury cars in those years were two inches wider.
I am sure the rear end was wider. Check/compare track width of Ford and Mercury of that Year

Aaron Griffey
Hayward, Ca.

Aaron.....You're kind of making MY point here! Lots of supposition going-on with this Merc dimensional stuff, and none of us seeming to know for sure. I, FOR ONE, am really curious about the identities and dimensions of these running gear parts, JUST BECAUSE!


Stating all that, I'd be surprised to ACTUALLY find that the rear ends are wider on the Mercs (even though the interiors WERE wider). Looking at the pic below might be a clue as to the rear ends NOT being wider than the Ford counterparts. Those rear wheels were really TOO far inboard, appearance-wise. DD

[V8COOPMAN]

Truth be known, our friend rockfla is probably watching all this, just laughing his butt off. He has that pristine green Merc, and a fancy lift in his shop, and could PROBABLY easily raise that Merc up, measure a few parts, and even take a couple of pics for us. Where is rockfla? DD

[rotorwrench]

The cars were all wider in 1941. The 39 & 40 Mercury were the first generation. Everything changed in 1941. It took the commercial pickup a while to change in 41 but it eventually did so that it could accept the G series 6-cylinder engine. It 1942, most everything changed again but most of that was continued after the war to a certain degree. Only minor styling changes happened to the cars. The pickups were about the same.

I'd love it if we have a 1st generation Mercury owner among us that could take some time to check this stuff out. We would all be indebted to them.

[deuce_roadster]

All you have to do is look at the Ford Chassis parts book to see that for 39 and 40 112-116 (meaning Ford and Merc) uses the SAME rear axle shaft 81-A 4235 so how could the 40 Merc rear be wider?
While the book shows for the torque tube the 112 39, 40 use 68-4504 and the 116 39-40 uses 99A 4504-A but doesn't give a length but they are obviously different.

This info from Ford & Mercury Chassis Parts and price List
38,39,40 Passenger car and Trucks
Ford Motor Company printed February 20, 1940

[TomO]

The 39-40 rear axles and housings are the same as Ford. The front axle is the same as Ford. The track width is the same as the Ford.The torque tube and drive shaft are longer. The frame and bodies are completely different from Ford. The 41-48 Merc used the Ford body and the extra length was in the front fenders.

[Bored&Stroked]

I have a 40 Merc coupe in my storage barn - if somebody really needs to know the TT length, could crawl under there and measure it. The engine and trans are out of it, so it would be easy to measure the overall TT length to the flange of the banjo.

I'll probably die of black widow spider bites in the process.

[V8COOPMAN]

Originally Posted by Bored&Stroked

I have a 40 Merc coupe in my storage barn - if somebody really needs to know the TT length, could crawl under there and measure it. The engine and trans are out of it, so it would be easy to measure the overall TT length to the flange of the banjo.

I'll probably die of black widow spider bites in the process.

B&S....I honestly do NOT have a "NEED" to know, but I surely would "LIKE" to know, profusely! With that trans out of the way, a "person" could get a very accurate length on that torque tube. Maybe you (or a "person") could also note any oddities, like the previously-mentioned "welded-in" 4-inch extensions, or spacers. A dimension for the distance from the rear that the radius rod mount is located would maybe give us a clue about which radius rods were used. A picture or two would be HUGE! Have "that person" watch-out for creepy spiders!! DD

[bobH]

It will be interesting to see results of post 31. I'll be real surprised if there are not a couple errors in posts 30 and 32. My restoration experience suggest such. But, as Coop says... what do I know.

[rockfla]

Originally Posted by V8COOPMAN

Truth be known, our friend rockfla is probably watching all this, just laughing his butt off. He has that pristine green Merc, and a fancy lift in his shop, and could PROBABLY easily raise that Merc up, measure a few parts, and even take a couple of pics for us. Where is rockfla? DD

V8Coopman
SORRY, I haven't been following this till now, Funny as I had it up on the lift yesterday.......I will be happy to put it back up on the lift and give you all the measurements and pictures you want, just let me know what you need??? Can do it tonight IF you let me know by 5p 6/1 420pm est or give me a call at (904) 704-3564 and I'll throw it up on the lift.

[V8COOPMAN]

Originally Posted by rockfla

V8Coopman
SORRY, I haven't been following this till now, Funny as I had it up on the lift yesterday.......I will be happy to put it back up on the lift and give you all the measurements and pictures you want, just let me know what you need??? Can do it tonight IF you let me know by 5p 6/1 420pm est or give me a call at (904) 704-3564 and I'll throw it up on the lift.

Hey rockfla…...Very nice offer you make here. It would be great if you could raise the car up and take a measurement for length of the entire torque tube INCLUDING the thickness of the bolt flange at the rear. I know that you cannot see the "bell" at the front of the tube because of the clamshell. But...if you can measure rearward FROM the grease fitting on the clamshell, the length should be fairly accurate. As seen in one of the pictures below, the BELL stops just about even with the zerk fitting hole. It would also be good to note any "oddball" characteristics on the t-tube itself, like this possible 4-ish inch extension in the tube that some have alluded to. If so, pics please? One more measurement please...distance on center of the radius rod mount bolt hole to the rear of torque tube bolt flange, so that we might determine which radius rods Ford employed, long or short. Thank you MUCH, and be careful!! Dick D (DD)

[rockfla]

Okay, I put the Mercury up on the lift and I cannot get the tape all the way to the zerk fitting on the clam shell, it’s just too tight in that area, I did however get to the very back of the clamshell to the flange....see pic #1, 72-3/4 with the flange looking to be 3/4 of an inch. The radius rod to the back mounting flange bolt to the tightest I could measure is 47-1/4 bolt center front to bolt center back mounting flange pic#2. I laid on my creeper and took some general shots of the whole Shabang, hope those help? I left it in the slot SO if needed I can raise it up and shoot more pic,s or more measurements with maybe some better lighting from underneath. Also thanks to my wife and to the shop dogs for help and licking me while I laid on the creeper! Let me know what else you need. Sorry for the sideways shots can redo if needed

[rockfla]

Second set of photos

[rockfla]

The third set , the helpers

[V8COOPMAN]

rockfla …… WoW! I couldn't have asked for much more, and I can't begin to thank you enough for your efforts, AND the puppy kisses! Anyway, right there in your second set of pictures, something akin to this mysterious welded extension or plug that I've been hearing about in a Merc torque tube is not only obvious, but it appears to be over a foot long. What it actually appears to be is something like a 6 or 7" sleeve or collar in front of the radius rod attach fitting, with a second 6 or 7" sleeve or collar behind the radius rod attach fitting, with a weld bead running around the circumference of the entire torque tube, joining the front and rear sleeves. Gotta wonder what the hell Ford was thinking! 73-1/2" or so is pretty close to what a couple of us were thinking it might turn out to be. Interesting when a '40 Ford torque tube measures 70", and a '41-'48 t-tube measures roughly 71-3/4". Yours' is roughly 2" longer than that! Even though most don't think it has anything to do with the 4" greater wheelbase on the Merc, the question remains.....WHY does the wheelbase increase correlate closely with the torque tube's increase in length? Also of interest, the radius rods appear that they may be the same as the later "SHORT" rods on the '42-'48 Fords.


Could I please ask you for ONE more measurement? I'm curious which wishbone was used on your Merc. Would you measure straight forward from the CENTER of the front wishbone ball to the middle of the front I-beam axle, centered in the middle of the axle? If you would, please measure to a center point (fore and aft) on the bottom of the axle....in other words, directly below the vertical part of the I-beam.


You can easily see the sleeve-looking pieces and the welding bead in the two pictures below, on either side of the radius rod attach bracket.


Again, thank you so much for helping to sort-out this strange design feature on the Mercs. Now, we can only wonder if the torque tube grew even more in '42 when the wheelbase got even longer still. Your efforts much appreciated! Dick D (DD)








………...

[rockfla]

Originally Posted by V8COOPMAN

rockfla …… WoW! I couldn't have asked for much more, and I can't begin to thank you enough for your efforts, AND the puppy kisses! Anyway, right there in your second set of pictures, something akin to this mysterious welded extension or plug that I've been hearing about in a Merc torque tube is not only obvious, but it appears to be over a foot long. What it actually appears to be is something like a 6 or 7" sleeve or collar in front of the radius rod attach fitting, with a second 6 or 7" sleeve or collar behind the radius rod attach fitting, with a weld bead running around the circumference of the entire torque tube, joining the front and rear sleeves. Gotta wonder what the hell Ford was thinking! 73-1/2" or so is pretty close to what a couple of us were thinking it might turn out to be. Interesting when a '40 Ford torque tube measures 70", and a '41-'48 t-tube measures roughly 71-3/4". Yours' is roughly 2" longer than that! Even though most don't think it has anything to do with the 4" greater wheelbase on the Merc, the question remains.....WHY does the wheelbase increase correlate closely with the torque tube's increase in length? Also of interest, the radius rods appear that they may be the same as the later "SHORT" rods on the '42-'48 Fords.


Could I please ask you for ONE more measurement? I'm curious which wishbone was used on your Merc. Would you measure straight forward from the CENTER of the front wishbone ball to the middle of the front I-beam axle, centered in the middle of the axle? If you would, please measure to a center point (fore and aft) on the bottom of the axle....in other words, directly below the vertical part of the I-beam.


You can easily see the sleeve-looking pieces and the welding bead in the two pictures below, on either side of the radius rod attach bracket.


Again, thank you so much for helping to sort-out this strange design feature on the Mercs. Now, we can only wonder if the torque tube grew even more in '42 when the wheelbase got even longer still. Your efforts much appreciated! Dick D (DD)








………...

I will get that measurement and photo's for you tonight when I get home from work. V8Coopman.....don't know IF it has anything to do with anything BUT this is an "early" Production Mercury, all the glass is bugged 10-38, the number is just at 10,000, the body is 1808. Ford/Mercury hub caps. There are also some details on it that are different than the later 39's so there were SOME running changes, with just how much of this car??? My still be finding out.