Model B frame questions

[Uncle Bob]

I recently acquired a B chassis and I'd like some informed commentary from those who are in the know on these. I've heard/seen remarks about early vs. late, reinforced, etc. And now I'm looking at reality. I did a Bing/Google and only came up with a short thread on HAMB from '08. Aside from a picture and a clipping about the exterior repair reinforcement patch on the rear frame section it was somewhat vague.

This is an early frame based on the center member not having the angled legs going forward to form the famous K (no open holes to indicate removal). The frame has not enjoyed a pampered life though appears very repairable. The front cross member is bolted in with 7 hex head bolts each side. Is that original? It appears so, but not something I've seen before. The rear frame sections have cracked on both sides just behind the rear crossmember, and one side has a slight buckle just ahead of the center of the arch over the axle. Again, from what I understand these are the weaknesses of the early frames that caused the July '32 exterior reinforcement (presumably a dealer repair kit?), and the addition of the later inner reinforcement doubler. Again, the rear cross member is bolted in, but these bolt/nuts don't have a factory appearance like the front does. Again, would the early frames have a bolted in rear member? And of course any other particulars that would be worth knowing would be appreciated.

[deuce_roadster]

All x members should be riveted in, none came bolted. If the x members are a set and the "K" indeed is early without the legs, the front should be flat where the motor mounts go, no depression for the biscuit. Rails could be anything, if you can read a VIN number that will give you some idea on the rails as to when manufactured. It was obviously pieced together from maybe as many as 5 frames. Also, early "B" VINs started "AB" then the number.

[Mart]

Ditto above.

No factory crossmembers were bolted in. Early non reinforced frames did suffer bending and cracking. (I know, I have one).

So the rear crossmember has been removed and replaced, as has the front (or the original put back in)

Is the k-member still rivetted in? Did any frames make it into proper production without k-member legs?

There should be a serial number stamped in the left frame rail. What does it say? It may be repeated in two other pleces along the frame.

Everyone likes to believe they have some super early or super rare part. In reality the chances of that bare extremely slim. It's more likely to be something that has been patched up by a succession of previous owners.

The serial number will reveal all.

Oh yeah, it does have reveals in the side rails, doesn't it? I remember a thread on here that ran and ran without the serial number ever being revealed or pictured by the owner.

Mart.

[Uncle Bob]

Thanks for the questions, it helps (I hope) eliminate speculation from others later.

I haven't had time to do any dis-assembly yet and only part of a partial serial number is visible at the firewall foot. Once I get that removed I'll probably have to acid etch to bring up the whole number. The one that should be at the rear kick up is completely obscured by pitting. Yes the center member is riveted in as expected, and as mentioned there is no evidence that the forward K legs were ever there. Once I get the rad removed I'll take a pic of the front cross member. Like you guys, I've always believed the front should have been riveted. The thing that's made me wonder is that all 14 fastener sets are identical, and there are uniform spacers under the "feet" that attach to the bottom of the C channel. The side rails are pretty uniformly aged, and with the center member rivets looking "right" I doubt as many as 5 different "parents" are involved. The rear cross member could be a replacement (likely as the fasteners are hokey looking enough), and as it's cracked through one of the U bolt holes (not uncommon) will need to be replaced again with a nice one I've got on the shelf.

"Rarity" is of little concern to me or my thinking, I'm just curious to learn for learning's sake.

It's probably best to just let the reveal challenge slide.

[DavidG]

The super early frames without the legs on the center cross member were all supposed to have the legs added as a recall and if a dealer did not have access to riveting capability, they were to attach the legs with bolts. Nearly all of those frames would also have required the holes to be drilled for their attachment to the frame side rails and center cross member. Obviously the brake and clutch pedal bracket had to be replaced at the same time. According to Ford's records, approximately 500 of those leg-less frames were produced. How successful the recall campaign was is an unknown, but I know of five of them that escaped the recall and if yours was not recently purchased in either Michigan or Washington State, that would make six of them.

[Uncle Bob]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Yes David, as you can see I'm in Wa. State and this was purchased recently a few miles from my house, so could be one of the one's you're aware of. I was able to do a little cleaning of the serial number that is exposed and it does start with star AB (as deuce_roadster noted) then it gets tougher, but so far it looks like 3 zeros then obscured by the firewall foot. The center member is an easy shoot so here are pics of each side.

And as some might wonder, the engine has practically no wear and decent paint so is highly likely a latter day replacement, so it's serial number won't help.

[DavidG]

There should be the number 5 between the letters AB and the three zeros. If so, the engine would #999 or lower (*AB-5000999* or lower), which is sort of interesting as Ford produced over 45,000 engine and transmission assemblies before the first one was installed in a chassis and there is evidence to suggest that Ford did not withdraw those Model B engine/transmission assemblies on a first-in, first/out basis. Your stamped number suggests that it is likely your engine/transmission assembly was drawn from that inventory on a FIFO basis.

I'm betting that your center cross member does not have the holes in it for the usual V-8 steady rod mounting locations close to the opening in the center where the rear transmission mount attaches like the one shown in the photo below. (It has the exagerated recess on the top of the cross member for battery clearance like the one in the photo.) If so, I believe that this type of frame was used only with the Model B engine and not with the V-8 which used a steady rod that attached on the front of the cross member rather than through it as shown in the second photo below.

[deuce_roadster]

That pedal bracket looks a lot like the one on page 4-11 of volume 1 of the Restoration book David had so much to do with. I think you have one of those super early center members and since it is riveted in, the rails most likely are original to the member too. Pretty cool. If it only has steady rod mounting for the 4 cyl that is a clue too. Yes, 3 frames max now!

[uncle max]

Originally Posted by Uncle Bob

Yes David, as you can see I'm in Wa. State and this was purchased recently a few miles from my house, so could be one of the one's you're aware of. I was able to do a little cleaning of the serial number that is exposed and it does start with star AB (as deuce_roadster noted) then it gets tougher, but so far it looks like 3 zeros then obscured by the firewall foot. The center member is an easy shoot so here are pics of each side.

And as some might wonder, the engine has practically no wear and decent paint so is highly likely a latter day replacement, so it's serial number won't help.

Latter Day Replacements... aren't they a religious group in Utah?

[Uncle Bob]

Careful Max, you might get scheduled for extra door knocking..................

Yes, it only has the steady rod through frame mount as shown in the second picture David posted except the fasteners are oriented horizontally rather than vertically and there are no abandoned holes in that area, so must have left the factory that way.

David, you've not weighed in on the front cross member not being riveted. Does that mean you concur that it should be, or is there some possibility that this is an early aberration? I'm glad I asked these questions even though you've given this hot rod heathen some pause to think. I responded to Mart earlier that I'm not motivated by "rare", however, if this is some form of significant frame that has at least some level of significant value I'm not too motivated to erase it's existence by modifying it to suit the hot rod ethos. There are plenty more "pedestrian" examples out there to play with. On the other hand, plenty of restoration types had an equal shot at acquiring this unit and for whatever reason(s) chose not to step up. Is there anything I should look at with the other components (mainly axle assemblies) that might be unique to early production. I was told the firewall was acquired separately as an example, and very likely the radiator was too. Don't know how to judge the steering assembly and column drop likewise. After our earlier conversations I got down under the radiator and can say that the front cross member has had some welding done on it across the mid section, likely spring action fatigue. I take it, based on both comments, that the brake pedal assy is unique to this legless arrangement as well and would have been replaced in the service bulletin procedure? Any feedback is appreciated.

Oh btw David, your comment about the battery relief, you may have noticed that a block of wood held on with one screw through the top of the center member was used to take up that space. Dealer or owner kludge for stabilizing I would presume.

Hopefully I can make time next week on enhancing the serial number to help answer some of the queries.

[Mart]

Ok, Bob, I'll take it all back. I did say the chances are slim, but you seem to have one of 5 frames known to exist. That is a slim chance. If I had seen the pics you have now posted I wouldn't have been so negative.

I wasn't trying to be negative as such, but trying to advocate caution.

The frame looks genuine enough to me, the front and rear crossmembers must have been replaced at some time, as many have been over the years.

Please accept my apologies.

Mart.

[DavidG]

Bob,

Please double check my photos as what you describe how and where the steady rods mount on your frame' center cross member conform to the photo on the left. In the photo on the right, the steady rod does not pass through the center cross member, it is attached to the front face of the cross member.

I try not to pile on when questions asked are already answered, but since you've asked, I agree that all of the cross members were originally riveted to the side rails.

I had kept the photos of your frame when it was first posted for sale given its rarity, but with a couple of computer crashes they seem to have bit the dust along the way. As a result, I'd appreciate seeing a photo of your front cross member. Given that it has been replaced in all likelihood (they can be repaired without removing them), I'm curious as to which of the several versions it is and if it's consistent, time wise with the rest of the frame.

Thanks.

[Uncle Bob]

Mart, you sir are a gracious man, no apology really necessary, the internet can be a tricky place.

David, thanks again. As soon as I can make time to do some more dis-assembly I'll take more pics and maybe we can get this sorted to the best possible degree.

All the comments made have been of interest and much appreciated.

[Uncle Bob]

Okay, so a little time opened up this morning and more pieces of the puzzle to present.

Here are a few pics of the front cross member. Note the uniformity of the bolts mentioned as well as the spacer at the bottom, that's typical of the other three. You can see multiple welds across the top. The previous mentioned motor mount area doesn't appear flat, but rather has some, what I would call elevated pads, one side with a bit of a cobby weld. Not being real familiar with stock versions of these I'm at your tender mercies on those. And just for grins there's a shot of the rear member hokey install including at no extra charge some "farm boy" reinforcement.

[Mart]

The third photo shows a rivet still in the tab that sticks forward from the front crossmember. There is no sign of the rivet in the fifth pic, taken from outside the frame. The crossmember must have come from another frame as there in no rivet hole location in your frame that corresponds to that location. Maybe the extra rivet tab was a later running change to the front crossmembers?

Mart.

[DavidG]

I take back what I said about being able to repair the front cross member without removing it from the side rails. There's been a whole lot of fix'n going on with this cross member.

You can rest assured that the nice matching of the bolts is nothing but a coincidence as this is very likely not the original front cross member, nor the front motor mount bracket. With your legless center cross member, I would expect to see a front cross member and front motor mount bracket spacing on centers of 15 inches, not the 12 inch spacing in your photos. Given the extent of the modifications, including to the back of the cross member in the center, I can't say if it is an early so-called flat cross member (as opposed to the super-early, Model B only, 'flat' front cross member with 15" on center spacing.

Examples of the 15" and 12" spacing cross members and front motor mount brackets are shown in the photos below.

[Mart]

The rear crossmember may have come from a later frame that had the internal strengthening, as there appears to be a spacer on the bottom to take up a shortfall in the depth of the crossmember. Two times the thickness of the strengthener would account for that shortfall.

Can never be 100% sure about this stuff, just a hunch based on the photo.

The right hand tab (left in the photo) for the engine mount bracket looks like it has been welded on.

Mart.

[alchemy]

I'm gonna let out a little secret here: I'm a hot rodder. But, that said, I sure hope you don't hot rod this frame Uncle Bob. It's rarity deserves a restoration. Hold onto it until a restorer steps up to pay the price you need. There are plenty of other frame rails in the sea to use for your hot rod project.

I love collecting early '32 parts, and will use some on my projects. But your frame is too rare to cut up for a rod. I have a V8 frame in the 5,000's, but it shows none of the rare characteristics and therefore I don't feel too bad about putting a couple extra holes in it.

[Uncle Bob]

alchemy, you understand the quandary I expressed earlier in the thread, as Dave and the others have enumerated the rarity of at least the rails/center member/serial number I've had cause to pause. I have no immediate plans to rod the frame and bought it primarily as a rolling pile of parts. It's not like I had an exclusive on being able to buy this as it was advertised nationally. I just happened to be the one who valued it more than any of the other interested parties. Which just adds to my dilemma. Is there in fact any restorer out there interested enough in the frame at any price? I'll qualify that statement by saying if I were to sell the frame it would be for what, compared to recent transactions that have been visible, would be a realistic/reasonable not pie in the sky pricing. Since I haven't given a sale of it much thought I don't know exactly what that price should be, but I think I'm a reasonable guy, a car guy and not a speculator by whatever definition that might conjure. Since the serial number is legible a bonded title could be obtained raising it's value.......but only if there's someone out there that's interested in it.

I'm reminded somewhat of a few decades back when restorers were particularly hostile to rodders. Never mind that in many cases (as in not all for the argumentative) rodders were more willing to take lesser examples and invest more effort in resurrecting what were then considered "too far gone" examples. The restorers had had equal opportunity to rescue those examples but passed in favor of better preserved pieces. Nothing wrong with that, in fact it was a more sensible choice at the time. With time, the scale has slid some. But, is this frame really desirable, and worth something to a true restorer? I will tell you this; this is a very public forum, this is now reasonably well documented for what it is, I'm neither hoarding nor fishing, this is a sincere thread started to learn about a previously not well understood (to me anyway) feature of "early" frames. I'd be willing to bet, based on a few decades of life lessons, some think it's just junk, some probably think I'm some form of despicable character, and many don't give a rip. If there is someone out there that thinks this is a significant item, let me know. If that person doesn't exist it will be put to some good use by me or someone else that won't measure up to a fantasy. A lesson not always learned; rarity doesn't automatically mean value, desirability does.

[jerseyboy]

This thread provides some interesting history with out a lot of drama.

Uncle Bob,

Your statement above, is one of the more well thought out ones I have read on this site.

Keep V-8ing and 4-banging