1940 merc rear end?

[banditomerc]

What does a 1940 mercury rear measure from drum face across to the other...?..60" guessing.

[19Fordy]

I know you didn't ask but a 40 Ford distance is 59 1/2 in WMS to WMS.

[banditomerc]

Are 1940 fords the same?

[19Fordy]

I don't know if 40 Fords and 40 Mercs are the same.

[V8COOPMAN]

For one thing, I'm remembering that the drive shafts/pinions are of a one piece design on the Mercs. Doing a little research on the H.A.M.B., the '39-'41 Mercs AND 1941 6-cylinder Fords had this goofy 1-piece drive shaft/pinion gear. I never understood the reason for that. That fact alone would make me question whether they're the same width. Wonder if Kubarth might have a clue?


Maybe someone can look at one of the parts books/Green Book. IF the axles and bell housings are different lengths on the Mercs, their part number would likely begin with a "99A-" prefix. Otherwise, they should match the '37-'41 Ford prefix of "78A-" for bells and "81A-" for axles.


The '39-'41 Mercs had a 116" wheelbase whereas the '39-'40 Fords wheelbase was 112". I'd bet that Merc torque tube measures close to 74". The '39-'40 Ford t-tube is 70".


So banditomerc …..If you're possibly thinking about substituting a Ford rear for a Merc rear, it won't work....EASILY! Even if the widths are the same, that goofy pinion/driveshaft is longer than the Ford counterpart. Using a Ford rear, the t-tube/drive shaft combo will be too short. And there will be no EASY way to lengthen the torque tube and driveshaft/pinion to match the Merc length. DD

[1931 flamingo]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

I believe the Merc's is one piece pinion/driveshaft and longer...............
Paul in CT

[banditomerc]

If i can't find the right rearend ill just swap out for something else

[V8COOPMAN]

Originally Posted by banditomerc

If i can't find the right rearend ill just swap out for something else

banditomerc…...What exactly is wrong with your rear end? Depending on what the problem is, we MAY be able to come-up with a parts solution. DD

[flatjack9]

I do have a 40 Merc rear end.

[bobH]

Merc & Ford are externally dimensionally the same. Yes, to the above comments about different driveshaft/pinion. And, the difference in WB has nothing to do with the rear end. The 4 inch difference in WB is entirely forward of the firewall.
To the original question, post #2 covers it.
To post #9, please measure D-2-D to confirm for post 1 & 2. Thanks

[rotorwrench]

The frame was even damn near the same but longer forward of the firewall. They even had that weird wishbone ball adapter to move it forward to the new wheel base. I think they just wanted it a bit heavier duty for the new Mercury 239 CID engine so they did away with the spline coupler and made the shaft solid. A few years later they changed back to the normal Ford design with the coupler but the war put a stop to production in early 1942 .

[V8COOPMAN]

Originally Posted by flatjack9

I do have a 40 Merc rear end.

That '40 Merc rear you have must at least have a drive SHAFT still attached, right? IF it still has TORQUE TUBE attached, could you possibly measure the TOTAL length of the T-tube from the front end bell, back to and including the 6-bolt banjo flange? ONLY if the torque tube is missing, could you possibly measure the length of the drive shaft from FRONT splined end to the flat, 6-bolt surface on the front of banjo? Surely would answer some questions here! Thank you....DD

[flatjack9]

Hopefully I can check it tomorrow. There is no torque tube.

[V8COOPMAN]

Originally Posted by flatjack9

Hopefully I can check it tomorrow. There is no torque tube.

Thanks, Jack....should be interesting! ANYONE else have a KNOWN '39-'41 Merc torque tube that they wouldn't mind measuring precisely? DD

[rotorwrench]

The length should be the same as Ford but the radius rods might be the shorter type that were used later on Fords. The part numbers are all 99A for the torque tube and the radius rods. The 99A radius rods were also used on the 1941 Ford passenger cars. In 1942, the number of the radius rods was changed but they look pretty much the same to me. I have a 41 car rear axle and it has the short radius rods.

Ford used the long radius rods for passenger cars through 1940 and for the Commercial pickup in 1941.

[deuce_roadster]

I didn't see this posted so I looked in my 40 Ford and Mercury Chassis book and it lists the same axle part number for both 112 and 116 meaning Ford and Merc so the width must be the same.

[banditomerc]

Thx guys...got one.
..

[flatjack9]

A 40 Merc driveshaft measures about 73 5/8" from the end of the shaft to the face of the flange on the dif housing.

[rotorwrench]

The torque tube shouldn't be much different than that figure. I thing the 42 & later Ford cars TQ tubes were 71 7/8". If that's the case then the Mercury would be longer. It would be interesting to know the actual figure though.

I believe the 112 inch wheel base Ford car torque tubes for the 38 thru 40 cars were 69 15/16". The 35 thru 37 cars should be close to that too since they had the same basic frame design. Only the motor mounts were different for the 35 & 36 cars before the block mounted pumps came out in 37. The dimensions from the engine to the rear axle should be pretty close.

[V8COOPMAN]

Originally Posted by rotorwrench

The torque tube shouldn't be much longer than that figure.

I've got to agree, which means we are now in the neighborhood of 4" LONGER than a 1940 torque tube which is 70" long. That's also about 2-ish inches longer than a '41-'48 FORD t-tube which is 71-3/4" long. I have read a couple of descriptions of these elusive Mercury t-tubes on the H.A.M.B. stating that the Mercury tubes (at least the '39-'41 Merc tubes) have some sort of a 4"-ish SPACER welded into the tubes to lengthen them to the dimension necessary. This "old Ford" mechanical and suspension stuff has always intrigued me, especially when Ford Engineering utilized SOME parts swapping and overlap usage to develop new, or updated assemblies for subsequent models. The oddball 1941 Ford suspension differences is a good example of this. Now, this Mercury torque tube/drive shaft has come back to light and I'd really like to find-out ALL the particulars on these two obviously-misunderstood parts and their reason for being different. I still feel like the extended wheelbases (although all lengthening supposedly took place in front of firewall) play SOME part in the lengthening of these torque tubes/d-shafts. So PLEASE, STILL searching for someone with a KNOWN-TO-BE '39-'41 MERCURY torque tube for some measurements and details! DD

[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.

[V8COOPMAN]

Originally Posted by rockfla

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.

Thank you "rock"! I love that crew! DD

[rockfla]

Originally Posted by V8COOPMAN

Thank you "rock"! I love that crew! DD

Too bad I couldn't get the dogs to "help" me and the wife to "kiss me" while I was laying on the creeper!!!! Damn the luck!! But she did do a great job of holding the light and the end of the tape measure. The littlest "golden" is a new addition, she's learning the routine.

[rotorwrench]

Its the 99A version of torque tube. This was the 116" WB 1st Generation Mercury. It definitely does appear to have a sleeve roughly centered on the radius rod location. They may very well have extended the 112 " WB Ford torque tube pretty close to 3.5 to 4-inches. One day we can get an exact length on one of those torque tubes. At least we know what they look like and approximately how long they are. It makes sense to use a longer sleeve to extend the tube. Butt welding is strong but a longer sleeve is even stronger.

Those radius rods do look like the later Ford ones so that may be the origin of that shorter design.

I also want to thank rockfla for his efforts. This is quite informative.

[rockfla]

Back on the lift tonight for the front measurement, 40-3/4 to 41 from center of ball to center of axel, no load on the front end at all, pic #1. I also took measurements from center of ball to king pin pic#2 and #3. And I don’t know why it’s turning them on edge

[rockfla]

For those interested I shot some close ups of the “added” part of the tube.

[rockfla]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

And a few general shots & Oliver helped!!

[V8COOPMAN]

Originally Posted by rockfla

For those interested I shot some close ups of the “added” part of the tube.

Hey rock …...This shot shows much more definitively that the sleeve we were discussing last night is actually a one-piece affair instead of what appeared (to me) to be two sleeves butt-welded together.





It's obvious now that the weld bead I saw last night was actually the weld for the radius rod mount to the sleeve. That sleeve appears to be maybe 14" or 15" long. I'm really not understanding why Ford did it this way rather than just making a one piece tube to begin with. Clearly, Ford must have been capable of extruding or forming those tubes in any length they wanted. I also must wonder if there was a center bearing inside that thing like the Fords of the era had. And the front wishbone measurement is likewise much appreciated. You really have gone above and beyond for us! Now, this last picture.....who couldn't love a wooly schnoz like this one? DD

[rockfla]

Glad I could help the confusion. The struggle was real with blood shed from the new one biting my nose pic#2 (sharp puppy teeth) but all the "help" was happy when they got to go for a ride when I moved the Merc off the lift.

[rotorwrench]

With the reinforcing tube on the torque tube, it would be hard to say if there was any welding of the torque tube or not. A person would have to look inside to be able to tell. It may have just been a reinforcement for the radius rod attachment. The shorter radius rods were a new thing for Ford so maybe there was some concern about structural strength.

The other unanswered question is whether there is a damper bearing in the tube. We know that they used a solid complete pinion shaft all the way from the U-joint to the ring gear. They may not have used a damper bearing. I see no evidence of a grease fitting like most of the damper type tubes had.

[V8COOPMAN]

Man, if ANYONE has one of these critters out in the open and away from the car, PLEASE let us get a few pictures of this oddball so that we can soak-in all of the weird characteristics it has going for it. Many thanks again, rockfla! DD

[rockfla]

In response to the original question I measured from inner brake backing plate to inner brake backings plate and low enough to clear the bottom of the pumpkin and I measuring just about 51-3/8 was doing it by myself with a flimsy tape, hope that helps

[V8COOPMAN]

ROCKFLA certainly helped answer several questions about these oddball Mercury drive shafts and torque tubes. But I STILL HAVE QUESTIONS! I want to know "WHERE", and "WHY"? Where do those extra almost 4" in length actually fit into this picture? Keep in mind that more than one person has stated that the Mercs are WIDER! Are they? Is that inside, or outside? Is that wider body, or wider FRAME also?


Some have stated that the Ford & Merc bodies are the same...BEHIND the firewall. Well, they AIN'T! For one, the rear doors on a Fordor sedan are not the same between Ford & Merc. The Merc only has ONE exposed hinge...the Ford has TWO. The reason the Merc has no exposed BOTTOM hinge is because the whole upper front of the rear fenders is shaped differently between the two, the Merc resembling a teardrop. The Merc's upper fender sloping surface headed down toward the gas filler has a long, straight section below the stainless trim, before rounding-down toward the rear, whereas the Ford fender top line is a nice, pleasant, continuous arc from front to rear. And that Merc rear fender surely does appear to be longer behind the wheel opening than a like-yeared Ford. In fact, I believe that whole quarter panel is different between the two. Plus, that little quarter window front post slants forward on the Ford, and is straight upright on the Merc. And there's even more if you compare the two side by side. Whew!


The big question....a couple of you's guys stated rather emphatically that ALL of the 4" increase in wheelbase over a like-year Ford is "in front of the firewall". Well, if that were true, and keeping in mind that the transmission mounts BEHIND the firewall, WHY would the torque tube/d-shaft be 4" longer? DD

[rockfla]

V8coopman
What amazes me even more about the "difference" discussed here between the Ford and Mercury of like year IS how "different" just about "everything" on them is......Like floorboard seals, transmission cover seals, etc etc. you would think that in both an effort to get the Mercury introduced and on the market AND to save "some" money that little details like the above mentioned would be carry-over's from what was already in the parts bins but NOPE!!!! AND thus, nothing on the repro market!!!!

[V8COOPMAN]

Originally Posted by rockfla

V8coopman
What amazes me even more about the "difference" discussed here between the Ford and Mercury of like year IS how "different" just about "everything" on them is......Like floorboard seals, transmission cover seals, etc etc. you would think that in both an effort to get the Mercury introduced and on the market AND to save "some" money that little details like the above mentioned would be carry-over's from what was already in the parts bins but NOPE!!!!

Hey rock …...Even though it's YOUR car we're using as a guinea pig here, it's encouraging to see that you seem to have something of the same curiosities, as well as some surprise at Ford Mtr. Co about just how they did these cars. I've always been somewhat infatuated with Henry's old Ford chassis and suspension bits and pieces, along with their usage, cross-usage, updating and progression of parts for subsequent models, and especially how hot rodders have adapted and made use of these parts for just short of a century now. Changes, or differences usually have reason for such, especially when a huge automobile manufacturer has a bottom line to keep happy. THAT's a good part of my continued interest in all of this, and I appreciate your help toward that end. DD

[rotorwrench]

The design department at Ford was still young when the Mercury was developed. The book about Edsel Ford and Bob Gregorie tells a lot about the changing way that Ford was starting to adopt. They were making full size clay models for cars in order to 3D the production processes that followed. They used some Ford car stuff to make the first Mercury cars but it was still in a state of flux change wise during the production year. They weren't as worried about using Ford parts unless it made their job easier. I've seen transmission cases that had 99A casting numbers but it was the same basic transmission as the Ford so that changed pretty quick. They just modified them all to be the same. Column shift came the next year for all the cars anyway so they changed again.

Edsel managed to keep his father on board with this new stuff due to the hiring practice of bringing in students from the Ford School. Henry really liked that idea so he went along with it even though the design department basically took over his old dance hall at Dearborn. In order to use that hall they had to put up temporary partitions so that it could be put back the way it was. Henry had already had his first stroke in 1938 so his barn dancing days were over for the most part.

[V8COOPMAN]

As promised, I've submitted a new thread with all of the information that WE collectively have been able to compile on these old Fords and Mercs. Click this link! DD


https://www.fordbarn.com/forum/showt...84#post1896584

[rockfla]

V8Coopman


Wow, thanks for all of your efforts!!!!

[TomO]

The 39 and 40 Merc bodies and frame are completely different from Ford. The Mercury was designed to fill the price gap between the Ford Deluxe and The Lincoln Zephyr. The body was made bigger to give the passengers more room and the new frame design was much stiffer giving a better ride, quieter ride and better handling.



The Mercury body is wider, longer an more streamlined than the Ford body. The Mercury body extends over the frame more than the Ford body did and the running boards are much narrower. By the time that the 1940 models came out the "sleeve" was gone from the torque tube.



I did not see the center bearing zerk in the photos, but the 39 and 40 Mercs did have a center bearing for the drive shaft.


The "X" frame design of the Mercury was adopted by Ford in 1941 when Ford and Mercury shared bodies. The 41 Mercury has many unique parts and several running changes. It is probably the hardest Ford product to restore.