Rod & Custom
Click here to find out more!

This month's issue: "A" bodty on 32 Ford frame

  
Rod & Custom
Item Posts    Sort Order

This month's issue: "A" bodty on 32 Ford frame

 
XC_Ute XC_Ute
User | Posts: 109 | Joined: 01/07
Posted: 06/27/11
06:58 AM

Can't believe I am at the age that I can honestly say, "You youngsters need to get your facts straight before titling a story".

Nice article in regards to fitting the doors and hood, BUT the information will do you no good if you try to follow the article while fitting a REAL Model "A" Ford body to a 32 Ford frame.

All of the Model "A" bodies that came out of the Ford factory (and many were built by outside suppliers) have FLAT FLOORS.

The 1932 Ford frame had top rails that were CURVED(the floor of the 32 curved to fit the frame). You need a SPACER that is curved on the bottom and flat on the top in order to fit the "A" body to the 32 frame.

Okay, I have seen ads for repop Model "A" bodies that state the floor is not factory correct but made to fit the 32 frame. But the title of the article does not mention this, it lets the (younger)reader think all Model "A" bodies are a direct fit to the 32 frame.

If the "rat rod" movement has proved anything it is that there are still many factory-built Model "A" bodies out there, not everyone is automatically going to buy a repop body.

Try putting the "A" body on a 32 frame without the spacers and the body will bent in the door area when the retaining bolts are tightened. You would have to physically pie cut the doors in order to make them work! Using the shaped spacer keeps the door opening square.

Enough complaining for now, youngsters, it's time for my nap....


Yes, I put a "t" in the word "Body", dang computer contraptions...  

RottenRodney RottenRodney
New User | Posts: 3 | Joined: 12/06
Posted: 06/29/11
09:01 PM

Well, for what it's worth, I'm gittin' geezerly myself. That's my story on your dart board. It's all Model A -- not a speck o' '32, and I sense from what ya've written here that ya already know all that. Ya do already know all that, right?

Look, I'm just a contributor, but I'll 'ave ya know that I'm totally stoked with the way R&C put my work out there. If this is about the unofficial title that appears on the cover; pobody's nerfect. After nap time, ya might go back 'n' find a typo in your own post.

RR  

XC_Ute XC_Ute
User | Posts: 109 | Joined: 01/07
Posted: 06/30/11
07:32 AM

A bit touchy aren't we? Where in my comment do I mention you as being the one who created the incorrect article title?

Typo's? Hey, at least I don't pretend to communicate like today's kids through text messaging...

But since you have surfaced, exactally what did you do to get the body to correctly sit on the 32 frame???  

RottenRodney RottenRodney
New User | Posts: 3 | Joined: 12/06
Posted: 06/30/11
06:14 PM

Sheesh... Ya know last night before I pushed the 'post' button, I thought it over for a good while or two first. Then 'bout half way through the work day today I thought to myself: "Self? What'd ya git involved in that for?"

Anyway, back to the frame thing: I was kinda hopin' to clarify that it's all Model A. That's a Henry Ford Model A frame -- reasonably flat across the top, just like the body is reasonably flat across the bottom. I ain't exactly sure how it came to be a '32 on the cover, but it's no biggie on this end 'cause the inside stuff is fine. In fact, I'm pretty tickled with it.

Touchy? Yeah, it seems so now. Tell ya what I'll do: I'm not goin' to spell-czech this post. You were observent enough to find the glitch on the cover -- can you find my typo here?  

Smirk (smiley thing might help) RR  

XC_Ute XC_Ute
User | Posts: 109 | Joined: 01/07
Posted: 07/01/11
06:47 AM

#1 Typo's - I'm the oldest male in my family who has never been employed in the newspaper/printing business, I care less about typo's if the message still comes across correctly. Which is more then I can say about text messages...

#2 In your message above you add further fuel to my complaint about magazines publishing incorrect information - you indicate your car, the car in the article, is on a Model "A" frame and not the 32 Ford frame.

#3 Here's the problem which has my concern: I started buying car magazines during May of 1959 (Car Craft, cover had a drawing of a fad "T" with 59 Chebby rear sheet metal) and my R & C magazine collection (complete execept for the combined with Hot Rod and the R & C model magas) goes back to the first issue of May, 1953. To me the information within is "only yesterday".

But half of the world's current population had yet to be born in May of 1953.

The last time I recall the "A" body on 32 frame problem mentioned was back when Bud Bryan was editor of R & C and published articles on his roadster's construction.

How many of today's R & C readers are younger then 25 years and didn't see those articles?

I grew up with a half brother that was 15 years older and from him I got the mis-information that "all" parts from "all" the flathead Ford powered cars interchanged. Only when I started to build/modify cars did I find out first hand they don't.

The classic hot rods were built from selected vintage/used Ford parts (example: rear radius rods from the 35 model year are the ones you want because of the way they were made during that model year ONLY!).

Has anyone bothered to publish the correct interchange information? Not that I have seen during my life time, I life time when most of "correct" older parts were still in junk yards if not a buddy's back yard. That means the newer street rodders have to either repeat the mistakes that persons with hand-me-down-incorrect-info dealt with, or "re-invent the wheel".

And that's where the street rodding magazines enter the picture.

Well, NO! I've talked to several former R & C editors (and Tex Smith) and came away with the idea that #1 they were no really any different then me (i.e. don't walk on water) and #2 being the editor of a car mag is not what it appears at first glance. More time is spent on budget/pleasing advertisers/management (meaning: "It's a business") then working on articles that present correct info.

But when I see simple mistakes, such as photos of 1926/27 model "T" bodies captioned as model "A" bodies, well, it's too bad magazine editors have to put their college degree "into running the business" and not provide correct info. The younger reader gets the wrong info. (Remember when sports car magazines actually said something about the cars they tested vs today's "We drove the car and it was fun". And the article's text was not limited in order to provide more ad space for products not related to automobiles???

And finally, the last time I heard from an R & C editor (somewhere on this board) I was told he did not have access to a complete collection of R & C to use as reference.

(Hummm. Come to think of it in regards to R & C being a "business", when was the last time your saw it mentioned that the magazine was first published by Quinn? Only remarks seen on that subject today make it sound as if R & C was a brainchild of Peterson. In fact it was not a "brain child" , R & C was always a pain in the rear to Peterson.)

That's why ya got ta love em. But only if they get the facts straight.  

RottenRodney RottenRodney
New User | Posts: 3 | Joined: 12/06
Posted: 07/01/11
11:05 AM

I guess we can't post ol' photos here, can we?

This is almost turnin' funny. Here we are discoverin' that we ain't so much on different pages. I too grew up around the auto dismantling business. In fact, I was fortunate enough to have been born right into it. My childhood playground was acres of used auto parts (we called 'em "road-tested" back then). I won't go deep into that here, but I can honestly claim that I worked the counter when wreckin' yards were wreckin' yards and I wouldn't trade that experience for anything.

I really should go 'n' git my day started, but ya made a little reference to the Bud Bryan roadster, too. I haven't met Mr. Bryan, but I have had the privilage of doin' a recent feature on his ol' Roadster -- currently owned 'n' well cared for by Julian Alvarez, whom I have had the pleasure of meeting. Anyway, that was two or three years ago, now that I think about it -- for one o' them new-fangled 'lectronic magazines that were s'posed to revolutionize hot rod-related journalism and so on. From what I can tell, it's not time for that yet. Us ol' guys still prefer paper in our hands, don't we? Like you, I have stacks of precious ol' magazines that I treasure, and actually refer to from time to time. They weren't perfect. There are errors to be found, but they're special to us for what they are.

Eh, I gotta go work on ol' cars now, but I'll check back now 'n' then.

RR  

XC_Ute XC_Ute
User | Posts: 109 | Joined: 01/07
Posted: 07/05/11
06:55 AM

I meet/talked to Bud Bryan when the NSRA Nats were held in Detroit. Always wonder about the remark he made in one of the construction articles. As I recall he welded the rear quarters vs the factory rivet connection and made the remark that he would let any future restorer of the car worry about his method of assembling the roadster.

And the car was later rear ended meaning some had to woory about his method of construction. I wonder if he hadn't have made the remark then the car would not have be wrecked...  

XC_Ute XC_Ute
User | Posts: 109 | Joined: 01/07
Posted: 08/22/11
07:37 AM

Haven't noticed any imput from the Editor on this subject explaining how the title managed be published even though it was incorrect...