Carb rebuilder

[scooder]

Originally Posted by Ralph Moore

Was the Chandler Groves the first version of the 94 style carb?
I really like the CG carb. So much I'm running three of them on my Hot Rod!

Yes it was, as far as my reading is aware it's a 1938 ONLY carb, 1939 was a Ford built 91-99 or Holley built 91-99. Ford built has a nice F in script on the accelerator pump well, the Holley has an H in that place.
Interestingly, (to me anyway) is that Ford appeared according to some factory photos, to continue to supply the earlyer 97 type inlet, the ones with the hole for heat that can easily burn out the power valve, after the 97 had been dropped and replaced by the 94. I have a 1939 pickup factory photo that shows this. Later the inlet was changed and the carb mounting was divorced from the exhaust heat. I don't know when that change happened, I suspect 40-41, as a 42 has the divorced type.
Kube, what did the 40 come with manifold wise?
Apologies for the hijack on the manifold stuff, closely related though.
Martin.

[Kube]

Originally Posted by ford38v8

Mike, we're not interested in corporate details, we speak to the physical appearance of the carburetor itself. Ford acquired the CG molds and license, then simply added the F.

I'm sorry. From the very first post I was under the impression this fellow wanted a properly restored carburetor for his '39. I didn't want to see him go to the expense to have an incorrect carburetor rebuilt and refinished.
In this case, there should (obviously) be no indication of Chandler Groves on the carburetor body.
Ford did not acquire the molds and license from C-G and "simply" add an "F" to the carburetor. In fact, Ford stopped purchasing carburetors from CG late in 1938 and began to produce their own variation. Although the carburetor Ford built was very similar in design to the CG it was different enough so as to avoid any infringements upon CG.

[ford38v8]

Mike, I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. There most definitely was a 91-99 with the CG logo opposite.

Edit: I just now went out to check my collection, and yes, I have two examples, both of which also have the F mark on the lower pump housing. I took pictures to post, but I'm afraid the contrast isn't great, and won't show clearly on the net. You'll just have to take my word for it.

[scicala]

Originally Posted by tpls63

Does anyone have a holley list 771-1 parts carb laying around? I need a couple choke related parts for mine. Thanks!

Hello tpls63,

I sent you a personal message about Holley LIST 771-1 parts.

Sal Cicala

[ford38v8]

Mike, as you have not replied to my last post regarding the CG 91-99, I've been wondering how you could be so adamant about it and yet have not gone ballistic on me!

Well, I think I have a way for both of us to be correct:
First, I'll assume you have never seen a Chandler Grove Model 91-99.
I, on the other hand, have two Chandler Grove Model 91-99 carburetors in my possession.

How can we both be right?
I think it may be in the interpretation of what we've both read and witnessed over the years. There being a vast difference between Model Year and Calendar Year, CG's contract may have specified Model Year 1938, yet Ford required carburetors for job 1 of the 1939 Ford and Mercury.

Once again,the two carbs in my possession have "MODEL 91-99" on the driver side, do not have the Ford Script on the passenger side, but rather, they have the "CHANDLER-GROVES CO. DETROIT U.S.A." with three patent numbers below. These carbs are identified with the F mark, indicating manufacture by Ford, so obviously (your word) Ford produced those first 91-99 carburetors with a modified (assumed) CG mold to supply the assembly line's requirements until new molds became available.

We can go pretty far afield with speculation on the hows and whys, but the fact remains that Ford's assembly lines needed carburetors, and Chandler Grove had stopped supplying them.

So watta 'bout it, Mike? Are we both right?

[ford38v8]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Here ya go.. I was able to make some better pictures today. I included four pictures to show a CG 91-99 from several angles, and so the pictures can be compared to each other in case someone wonders if they were photo-shopped. Note the F mark on the accelerator pump. I have another carb like this, and it also has the F mark.

The whole issue here is to show that there are carbs that have both the CG logo and the 91-99 model number.
As I have two, I'm quite sure there must be many more out there! I would hate there to be more books written that incorrectly stated that the CG ended with model year 1938.

[Kube]

Originally Posted by ford38v8

Mike, as you have not replied to my last post regarding the CG 91-99, I've been wondering how you could be so adamant about it and yet have not gone ballistic on me!

Well, I think I have a way for both of us to be correct:
First, I'll assume you have never seen a Chandler Grove Model 91-99.
I, on the other hand, have two Chandler Grove Model 91-99 carburetors in my possession.

How can we both be right?
I think it may be in the interpretation of what we've both read and witnessed over the years. There being a vast difference between Model Year and Calendar Year, CG's contract may have specified Model Year 1938, yet Ford required carburetors for job 1 of the 1939 Ford and Mercury.

Once again,the two carbs in my possession have "MODEL 91-99" on the driver side, do not have the Ford Script on the passenger side, but rather, they have the "CHANDLER-GROVES CO. DETROIT U.S.A." with three patent numbers below. These carbs are identified with the F mark, indicating manufacture by Ford, so obviously (your word) Ford produced those first 91-99 carburetors with a modified (assumed) CG mold to supply the assembly line's requirements until new molds became available.

We can go pretty far afield with speculation on the hows and whys, but the fact remains that Ford's assembly lines needed carburetors, and Chandler Grove had stopped supplying them.

So watta 'bout it, Mike? Are we both right?

Hey Alan,
Sorry I have been absent a bit. Working on these old cars gets in the way of this forum stuff now and then
You have brought forward an interesting opinion most certainly worth some serious consideration.

Like you, I have a number of these carburetors. While fairly rare no doubt, they are around as you and I know.
I do agree with you in that if Ford had a bunch of these "laying around" when the assembly line ramped up for the 1939 models, no doubt, they would have been used.
I would like to see when this particular model was manufactured and hopefully how many as well. My guess (only a guess) is perhaps a number of them were made in expectation of the 1939 models and sometime shortly thereafter, the contract "went south". That may have left Ford obligated for whatever number were initially contracted.
I say "may" as we do not know if CG went ahead and made these without a contract in hopes of getting a contract or Ford in fact did request a certain number to be manufactured and changed course.
At this point, without pulling the engineering releases, I suppose we will not know for certain.
Me? If I found one of these on a concourse '39, I would not take a deduction. I'd rather NOT see one and would make a note of it but again, no deduction. Also, it would have to be a very early '39.

I am so glad I am working on the '40 book and not the 39. At least in this particular instance.

[ford38v8]

Mike, These were made by Ford.

[russcc]

Uncle Max is your Stromberg man, and I would recommend Charley Schwendler in NY for 94's. He does excellent work and is well respected throughout the EV8 community

[Kube]

Originally Posted by ford38v8

Mike, These were made by Ford.

Hmmm... what do you think happened? We do know Ford broke their contract with CG in late 1938.
This is getting interesting.

[ford38v8]

What do I think? OK. time for some pure speculation...

We all know that Henry Ford was particularly sharp and devious in all his contracts. He would have entered the CG contract with full intent to deceive and cause a default on the part of CG. Ford would have disclosed a projection of model year 1938 production, and would also have gratuitously provided projections and model numbers for the following two years, specifying the manner in which they should be displayed on the carburetor. The initial contract would cover the (calendar) year 1938. This would have been the trap, all the information was provided, but in a manner that would deceive CG into providing for the manufacture of carburetors to cover requirements of the 1938 model year only.

To continue my speculation, the contract would have provided for penalties should CG fail to fulfill the contract. License to manufacture the CG carburetor would pass to Ford in the event of CG's default of its contractual obligation, and subsequent ownership of the patents would pass to Ford in return for a specified nominal sum.

Ford had to produce the carburetor as CG was to have produced it, hence the CG logo rather than the Ford script, as Ford would have had license, not ownership. He did so, but with discreet placement of the F to show his manufacture as opposed to CG manufacture.

It's easy to play Monday Morning Quarterback, much more difficult to carry out such a plan to fulfillment, but Ford is known to have used such tactics in most all his previous business dealings, most often coming out on top. CG was no giant of industry, and would have signed a juicy contract with Ford without hesitation.

Once again, this is merely speculation, right out of a hat.

[Kube]

Originally Posted by ford38v8

What do I think? OK. time for some pure speculation...

We all know that Henry Ford was particularly sharp and devious in all his contracts. He would have entered the CG contract with full intent to deceive and cause a default on the part of CG. Ford would have disclosed a projection of model year 1938 production, and would also have gratuitously provided projections and model numbers for the following two years, specifying the manner in which they should be displayed on the carburetor. The initial contract would cover the (calendar) year 1938. This would have been the trap, all the information was provided, but in a manner that would deceive CG into providing for the manufacture of carburetors to cover requirements of the 1938 model year only.

To continue my speculation, the contract would have provided for penalties should CG fail to fulfill the contract. License to manufacture the CG carburetor would pass to Ford in the event of CG's default of its contractual obligation, and subsequent ownership of the patents would pass to Ford in return for a specified nominal sum.

Ford had to produce the carburetor as CG was to have produced it, hence the CG logo rather than the Ford script, as Ford would have had license, not ownership. He did so, but with discreet placement of the F to show his manufacture as opposed to CG manufacture.

It's easy to play Monday Morning Quarterback, much more difficult to carry out such a plan to fulfillment, but Ford is known to have used such tactics in most all his previous business dealings, most often coming out on top. CG was no giant of industry, and would have signed a juicy contract with Ford without hesitation.

Once again, this is merely speculation, right out of a hat.

Alan, Good theory. I do realize ol' Henry was no choir boy.
Perhaps the next time I am back at the Benson Center, I'll look this up. Hopefully that will allow some proof as to what may have transpired. Interesting...

[zoegrant]

Who would be the best to use as a carb rebuilder for a Rochester Monojet carb from a 53 Chevy truck ??? I am a Ford guy but my brother has a 53 Chevy truck sitting for 10 years and he needs a carburetor rebuilder. Any suggestions are appreciated...thanks

[rowens55]

My holleys rebuilt by Sal...they will be going on my 57 E code intake when the time comes...
Rowen

[Vics Stuff]

There is a carb rebuilding place there in Florida. They restore as well as rebuild carbs. I have had them do 3 for me and all are like new. They replace all shaft bushings and new shafts , fasteners and bolts or replate all linkages and brackets.
Have had good results in even getting my original carb back.
Vic