I am having the engine redone on my 1913. I need to redo the transmission. The flywheel/magneto assembly that was in it is pictured here:
I have Gail Rodda's books and a chart that Ron Patterson recently put up on the forum. From these I believe that this is a 1917/18 flywheel (3/4" magnets).
The magneto coil that was with it is pictured here:
I believe this is a 1919+, it has a starter notch.
I also have an earlier double stacked ring (1915/17):
Have I identified these correctly?
Am I correct that the double stack would not work with the flywheel because there would be insufficient clearance?
Is there any advantage/disadvantage with the double vs the single stack?
Any advice?
A couple more pictures:
The magnets on the flywheel:
and, is this a casting date?
Since much is not original, have you considered changing the flywheel and adding a ring gear so you could more easily add an electric starter in the future?
I once owned a Sept 1913 engine, it as in your last pic had a dated trans main shaft. It was only two days diff from the casting date on the block.
Not sure about the mix match of mag parts, but the only way anyone will see the wrong year parts is to take the hogs head off. IMHO if you're building up a car to drive and make a strong original coil system later parts that match is what I would do, plus they are more common(cheap too.)
Charles, I posed a similar question last month about a Hand Crank Coil Tester that I am restoring. It came with a later notched coil ring and a flywheel with a ring gear. I wanted to use a 1913 flywheel with 5/8th inch magnets and no ring gear to catch on clothing, etc.
My question was, "should I use the 3/4th inch magnets on that early flywheel?"
The answer was NO.
When I assembled the unit, I could easily see that it would not work well with a .250 inch gap.
Other than the modification done in 1919 for the ring gear, all flywheels have the same dimensions from 1913 to 1927. Flywheels with 5/8" magnets are interchangeable with the ones with 3/4" magnets. The earlier flywheels that used 1/2" or 9/16" magnets are considerably different than the later ones.
Charles, in my '14, which uses almost exactly the same pan as your '13, I have installed a ring gear flywheel, 3/4" magnets, and a later single stack mag field coil with notch in case I (perish the thought) or a later owner should wish to install a starter. It works just fine; plenty of clearance and the mag puts out 17.5 volts at fast idle, way over 30 at speed.
I might as well add another 2 cents. As Ford went from 1/2" to 9/16" to 5/8" to 3/4" magnets, the distance from block to flywheel remained the same. With each successive change in magnet thickness, the coil ring was made thinner. The 3/4" magnets came out in 1915 along with the oval pole mag ring and that was the last dimensional change.
Here's the evolution chart that Ron posted recently
.
The way I interpret this is that 3/4" magnets appeared in 1915, and from 1915 to 1918 they were used with double stacked coil rings. Is that right? If it is, then my flywheel should work with my double stacked coil ring. Correct?
Were the double stack ones round until 1915 and oval from 1915 until the single stack came out?
I have considered the later toothed flywheel idea, but am leaning towards using "parts on hand"
"The way I interpret this is that 3/4" magnets appeared in 1915, and from 1915 to 1918 they were used with double stacked coil rings. Is that right?"
Almost. The 3/4" magnets appeared with the double oval field coil in September 1914.
"If it is, then my flywheel should work with my double stacked coil ring. Correct?"
YES.
"Were the double stack ones round until 1915 and oval from 1915 until the single stack came out?"
They were round until Sept. 1914, then oval up to 1918. The double-oval frames went through 3 different configurations, but will all interchange.
Thanks!
Now, is there any advantage, or disadvantage, in using the oval double vs. the oval single stack coil rings? I have both and I'm going to have one or the other rewound, so which is better?
Randall, what are the differences between the 3 configurations of the double-oval frames? Is it all in the reinforcing rib?
Or lack thereof: the first ones had no ribs at all. The inner circumferential section looked just like the double round field coils--very flat. Then Ford used a large rib as a reinforcement that looked very similar to a pair of parentheses: ( )
After that, the third configuration looked exactly the same as the early single stacks on the inside edge along the top.
Is this the third configuration?
Charles,
It looks like a good time to rebuild that transmission. I see a broken thimble under some magnets.
Have fun, and good luck!
Drive carefully, and enjoy, W2