Correct Hogshead for 1916 Coupelet

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: Correct Hogshead for 1916 Coupelet
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Philip Berg on Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 11:39 pm:

From my limited research aluminum hogsheads were used at the beginning of the 1916 production year and then phased out for the cast iron version.

With that I have two (one of each) that came with my Coupelet. I think the cast iron one is the original but can I use the aluminum and still be period correct.

See below:



Thanks,

Philip


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kerry van Ekeren (Australia) on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 12:06 am:

It was still a bit of a mix by march 1916,(block casting dates) for my Canadians, 2 cast and 1 alloy


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dale Peterson on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 01:33 am:

Not with that aluminum hogshead, no bosses at the corners, so is a pre 15 version. My 11/15 touring came with the same cast iron hogshead and I at first thought it was wrong but since have learned that it likely was correct. By the way, the spare alum hogs head that came with mine was also the earlier type


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 06:52 am:

Phillip,

I would make every effort to use every part that is original to the car. The iron hogshead is a great example.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Hap Tucker on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 08:03 am:

We are always discovering more and more about the cars. Bruce McCalley (RIP) often used the term “typical” when he described the features used during the year. They would be based on the information he had gathered from multiple written sources as well as from surviving original cars etc. At: http://mtfca.com/encyclo/1916.htm Bruce states for the 1916 cars, “Transmission cover was now cast iron, replacing the aluminum type used earlier, and with the smooth-surfaced pedals” At http://mtfca.com/encyclo/1915-16H.htm describing the 1915 - 1916 cars he uses that term “typical” when he writes, “The typical transmission cover in 1915 was aluminum, identical to the 1914, with the reinforcing bosses around the bolt holes at the widest part (introduced in about 1913). Sometime during the year, though, the cover was changed to the cast iron style. All 1916’s were believed to have had the iron cover.”

But when Trent Boggess did his research for his article on “Engine Painting” he reviewed photographs of the USA Ford production line. And the photograph of the 1,000,000 milestone engine which was produced at 1:53 ½ on Dec 10, 1915 was also used as one of the reference photos. Because David Dewey’s engine was within 100 numbers of the 1,000,000 he was very interested in when the aluminum transmission cover replaced the cast iron cover. David noted not only did the 1,000,000 photo show an aluminum transmission cover and it was the style “WITHOUT” the reinforcing ribs.
Trent’s response from page 16 of the Sep – Oct 1998 “Vintage Ford” is shown below:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“The transition from the aluminum to the cast
iron hogshead took a number of months.
According to the “Record of Change” cards for
the transmission cover assembly, the decision to
change the material from aluminum to cast iron
was made on or about Oct. 5, 1915. By the way, the
cards indicate the decision to change to a cast iron
timer was made the same day. Other documents at
Henry Ford Museum & Greenfield Village
(HFMGV) indicate that the decision to change to
cast iron was made because of the rising cost of
aluminum.

However, it appears that the actual transition
to cast iron cases began several months later: A
General Letter dated January 1916 told branches
and dealers that some production was coming
through with cast iron covers. When the car had a
cast iron cover; the weight of the car would be 25
pounds more.
There is also considerable evidence that aluminum
covers continued in use into February 1916
on at least some production. The engine I used in
my 1916 had an aluminum cover (#1090523) and
I just purchased a chassis for Don Lang with a
Feb. 1916 that also has an aluminum transmission
cover What’s more, the covers that appear on
these cars are what some folks refer to as the ‘11-
‘12 style covers without the reinforcement ridges at
the corners. The records at HFMGV do not seem to
indicate when these ridges were adopted and so we
are left with another mystery that shall never be
solved.
Trent Boggess”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[Hap again] Based on the current available information [and we would welcome supporting or conflicting data], it would appear that an aluminum transmission cover could have been installed at the factory as late as Feb 1916 and that it could have been the type without the reinforcing ribs.

For Philip – you have a very unique car. It is yours and you of course have the right to do with it as you please. But unlike the tourings or roadsters Ford did not make very many of that body style and even fewer appear to have survived. I would recommend that you develop a plan for the car, how you want it to become – you may have already done that and I missed that outcome on one of the other threads. You may still be thinking that one through and that is fine also. In general I would recommend to anyone to maintain their car as close to the original parts as practical for their budget and their needs. I would always temper that with recommending installing safety upgrades – such as the bronze thrust washers in the rear axles in place of babbitt [early 1915 and earlier cars came with the bronze thrust washers], replacing the cast iron parking brake shoes with lined shoes, safety glass, etc. if the car is going to be driven any at all. I would recommend you keep a record book with the car of what you know was on the car – photos etc. and what you know was replaced (in your case the engine was replaced earlier but from what I remember you think you have the original engine also.) That will make it a lot easier for others in the future to know what features were likely original to the car and which ones were changed out or likely to have been changed out.

I like to remind myself and others we are only stewards of our cars. I don’t think any of us reading the forum today are the original owners of our Model T Fords. And 200 years from today, I doubt that any of us will be the current owners of the same car [unless there are significant changes in health / medicine etc].

Respectfully submitted,

Hap l9l5 cut off


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Richard Gould on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 09:03 am:

Great info Hap and sobering advice. My sentiments exactly.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ed in California on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 09:20 am:

"early 1915 and earlier cars came with the bronze thrust washers" .....is this a typo?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Richard Gould on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 09:36 am:

Couple of observations I forgot to mention.
1. My Jan 16 car, bone stock and original, had bronze thrust washers. From the significant wear on the outer axles, it appeared the rear end was never worked on. I was surprised.
2. The car had an iron transmission cover and a clip front spring. Always wondered about the spring.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Hap Tucker on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 09:54 am:

Ed,

No, it is not a type-oh. Although I should have said “early 1915 and earlier Model Ts” rather than just “cars” came with the bronze thrust washers, since I do not know what the NRS&SR and earlier cars used. But the Bronze for early 1915 and earlier cars and babbitt for later 1915 to the end of production is documented at: http://mtfca.com/encyclo/P-R.htm#rax3 see DIFFERENTIAL THRUST BEARING part number 2528. And I probably should have used the term bearing rather than washer. I do not know why Ford switched but I would suspect the cost either for the part or assembling the part in the rear axle or both was a factor in the decision. It drove most other decisions. Note in most of the Model Ts if they were driven a lot – the bronze thrust bearings may still need replacing – but they do not tend to fail by crumbling and falling out. And even if you have a 1914 or earlier rear axle, you do not know if it was serviced in 1918 or later and the bronze part was replaced with a babbitt part. So it is really smart to check and confirm what type and what condition it is in.

And when it doubt – always ask – as I clearly make type-oh’s as well as just ordinary mistakes. And with a computer I can make them faster.

Richard -- In the case of your Jan 1916 rear axle with the bronze thrust bearing -- yet another case of when was the old style used up/discontinued and only the new style used.

Front springs -- tapered, pointy, or clipped and when. Another area to document some more. Obviously one that is often replaced (our 1907 has a "brand X" clipped front spring -- but 99.99" chance it is not the original one supplied by Ford). See: http://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/29/5633.html
Also see the entry for 1915-1916 front spring at: http://mtfca.com/encyclo/S-T.htm#spring Did your front spring have the 6 leaves and the bottom leaf not drilled for oilers? Or was it a later 7 leaf style drilled for the oilers?

Respectfully submitted,

Hap l9l5 cut off


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ed in California on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 09:56 am:

I found some bronze in a 16 axle too, and a 17, both were original axle. I guess it was whatever was in the parts bin at the time.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Philip Berg on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 09:58 am:

Ok I'll stick with the cast iron hogshead.

Thanks,

Philip


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By R.V. Anderson on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 10:05 am:

There is one significant difference between the '11-12 and 1916 aluminum covers. While both types had no reinforcing webs at the bolt holes, the early type had a heavy and quite noticeable rib cast into the arc where the cover sits on the back of the engine block.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Larry Smith on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 11:28 am:

Richard, I've not heard the term clip front spring. Is this the new style, non tapered you are referring to?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Richard Gould on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 11:59 am:

Yes Larry, that is what I referred to.
Hap, I wish I could be more helpful but the car was sold some years ago and I don't remember any details about the spring. At the time the consensus was that the tapered leaf springs were correct for an early calendar year 16, so I didn't really go further.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Randy Driscoll on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 01:16 pm:

Some of the '11-'12 covers did not have the straight front wall with the pronounced rib that Randall mentioned, but do have another identifying feature. Just forward of the hand hole opening, the hemispheric shape of the casting is noticeably smaller on the early covers. Later aluminum covers look the same as the iron ones in that area.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By David Dewey, N. California on Saturday, July 28, 2012 - 01:16 am:

Hap,
You have an amazing memory, or a really great filing system--I didn't even remember I'd noted the lack of ribs--the aluminum, yes, as I have both the aluminum cover and an early cast iron one, and wanted to know which one to use.
Unfortunately, I haven't gotten much done on that car the past few years, but I have acquired others!
T'
David D.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Roger Karlsson, southern Sweden on Saturday, July 28, 2012 - 02:45 am:

Philip, based on another thread about your car you have an early 16 with engine #958,xxx produced nov. 18 1915. Most of the engines were still produced with alu hogsheads by that time it seems from Hap's summary of the evidence above.


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