Ton Truck Front Crossmembers

Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration
Model T Ford Forum: Forum 2012: Ton Truck Front Crossmembers
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Colin Comollatti - Queensland, Australia on Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - 09:51 pm:

Hello

Firstly I would like to thank John Page for pointing me in the right direction about the different size front crossmembers.

I was having trouble making the radius rod ball meet the cup on the sump without pulling the front axle up and backwards, upsetting the camber. A family member told me that they thought the crossmember had been replaced at sometime due to a tree jumping out in front of the Ton Truck.

Anyway getting to the point. I finally found a cross member to fit my TT, and the radius rod ball fits correctly without any pulling of the front axle.

I have also been told lately that the car crossmember was use from the factory at times and the sump ears sat under the top rail of the chassis instead of on top. Can anybody enlighten me if this was the case?

I have supplied photos of a Car and Ton Truck cross members.
Ton Truck Crossmember
Ton Truck Crossmember
Ton Truck Crossmember

Once again thank you all for your Model T knowledge


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Fred Miller, Sequim WA on Friday, June 08, 2012 - 03:55 pm:

Ford produced at least two different front cross members for the Ton trucks. The change I know of was in 26 I think. The newer one was 1/4" shorter to apparently compensate for frame flex pulling on the radiator mounts.I have never put the two together to compare the height and the thickness differences.
No matter the car or the truck front Cross Member the geometry should not change i would think. I have a Ford TT chassis change in 25 that shortened the overall measurements that I haven't been able to track down why or where yet.

The transmission ears are designed to be placed on the top of the frame and the only change I know of was to omit the block behind these mounts then to omit the bolt through the frame.

Fred


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Layden Butler on Friday, June 08, 2012 - 04:28 pm:

Putting the pan ears under the frame top rail would lower the rear of the pan and the neutral adjustment to the arm on the handbrake cross-shaft would be out of whack unless something special was done there too. They could possibly have used the car handbrake assembly. Pretty unlikely I think. There would be other things to also consider: water hoses, spark and gas rods.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By mark herdman on Friday, June 08, 2012 - 11:58 pm:

Col

I studied Truck Frames in he mid 1990s and did a series of drawing of changes. I had 2 of the shallow front cross members. Most Truck frames in Aust had the front member changed so it is a hard thing to study. The early frames appear to have the standard location for the crank case ears and would require a low front cross member. I did manage to find one for my 1918 truck. It was early and didn't have the location dimples nor later location squarer pressings for the front engine mount / spring clamp. So the early frames did have the shallow front cross member.

The frames then went to a lower mounting hole so the crank case went under the top lip of the frame. This meant they could use the standard front cross member. Later frames went back to the high hole for the crank case ears. Although the front cross members were changed on trucks, the holes in the frames tell the story. Layden is correct in what he says and I am not sure what they did with the Handbrake. They are too scarce over here to realty do a comparison.

Fred

I wasn't aware of the 1926 change. I will try and post some of the drawings later, but i don't have a lot of spare time at the moment. Might help answer some of the questions in the other thread on the body mounting brackets.

Mark


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By mark herdman on Saturday, June 09, 2012 - 12:08 am:

The smaller, downloadable versions of the frame drawings are readable. Please note they were done in the mid 90's with limited samples. I am sure there are other versions and dates may not be entirely correct. They are also Canadian Frames. Change notes are at bottom op pages.

Mark





Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By mark herdman on Saturday, June 09, 2012 - 12:13 am:







I also did all the car frames i could find changes on from 09-27 in the same format.

Mark


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By mark herdman on Saturday, June 09, 2012 - 12:18 am:

I appears that they went to the standard front cross member from approx 1920-24 than back to the shallow one. Some chassis you will find with two sets of holes for mounting the crank case ears. I found that chassis had a second set of holes drilled in them later in life.

Look at the pattern body bracket holes and it will answer some of the questions in the other thread.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By David Stroud on Saturday, June 09, 2012 - 01:18 am:

I don't see how the rear engine mounts could have been mounted under the top lip of the frame. It makes no sense to me. The top of the crankcase ears are not flat so they would be very hard to keep tight. Also, that is a lot of weight and stress for those little 3/8"(I think)bolts to endure. Then, there is the handbrake issue as Layden mentioned. The rear of the engine would be lowered an inch or so which would be much more than the difference in the front crossmembers it seems to me. It just doesn't seem to me that Henry would open a can of worms like mounting the crankcase arms under the frame rails when a simple change in the front crossmember would take care of everything. Maybe they did things differently in Australia back then, but to me, it seems unlikely. I have absolutely no proof either way, just my observations. JMHO. Dave


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By mark herdman on Saturday, June 09, 2012 - 03:29 am:

David

They were definately mounted below the Top chassis rail at some stage. Have found them with the crankcase still bolted in and original holes in the frame, under the lip. I sold my trucks so no longer can photograph one for you. Truck handbrakes are hard to find. Most didn't survive.

The wooden block between the frame an the crankcase ear took most of the load

Mark


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By David Stroud on Saturday, June 09, 2012 - 05:47 am:

Mark, that is very interesting. I know that things were done differently "down under", such as the rear tires and wheels being mounted on the front of TT's. Maybe some one can post some pictures of these TT's with the engine mounts mounted below the top of the frame rail. Dave


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kerry van Ekeren (Australia) on Saturday, June 09, 2012 - 06:43 am:

Some choice words would be flying around trying to get the ears under the top lip,
I tried a sump on a 16 frame and my conclusion on that was the only way to get the ears under would be to remove the crossmember and slide the engine in square.
I'm not familiar with TT's, what would be the trick to get the ears under?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Fred Miller, Sequim WA on Saturday, June 09, 2012 - 05:52 pm:

The USA TT's only listed One part number (1122) for the front Cross members (1918-27). Even though Ford changed parts along the way they didn't always change the part number if it could be Back Dateable. This Front Mount is obviously not Back Dateable and therefore should have its own Part Number. Is this a special Australia Part?
Is this Front Cross Member even a Ford Part or is it from something else?
From a engineering standpoint I think Ford would have made a special Crankcase Pan with longer Ears to go with this unique front mount.


I love a Mystery.
Fred


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By mark herdman on Sunday, June 10, 2012 - 12:29 am:

Gents

I have tried a crank cars inside a Truck frame and you can angle them in because the frame U section is wider than a standard frame.

How do you explain the low bolt holes in the Frame that only line up when the crank case is below the upper edge?

Does anyone have any Canadian Ford Service Bulletins that might explain it? If it is in Australia and a factory fit, it will be a factory Canadian thing too. Australia did not make TT Frames.

Mark


Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.
Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration