I've taken all the information given in my two last threads and made these new drawings. I started these thinking that there wouldn't be too many variations of mounting styles...I couldn't have been more wrong. I hope I've come closer this time and as always, if you see something that isn't quite right please let me know.
I as of yet haven't gotten enough information to finish 1926-1927. When I do, I'll post it here also.
Martin, I don't know if US production was the same, but on our Canadian sourced cars the low radiator shells came with the apron attatched as one unit. There was one rivet at the back, where you show two, and the piece of the apron which goes up inside the front of the shell was spot welded to the shell. As such, the shell and apron were fitted as one unit.
Your 17-19 drawing shows a piece of apron on the radiator shell and it is duplicated on the apron.
Hope this helps, if such is the case on US production.
Allan from down under.
Thanks Allan, I couldn't figure how that was supposed to attach, but it make more sense that it was one unit and not an extra piece.
I still wonder if the dates are correct. Looking at the cap, thimble and extra spring setup on the 1920 to 1923 drawing. Could it be that 1919 cars were this way as well? The encyclopedia says no yet my own 1919 car came to me this way. The parts were very rusty and the springs were broken indicating they were there a long time. It is possible my car suffered an early collision and upgraded parts were used to repair it. Could any other 1919 owners check and see which setup they have? Thanks.
Quite the talent to master the computer drawing like that, Martin - great job !
I still think you need to move the rivets and bolt hole closer to the outside and flip the leather.
I would tend to think like Dave Wells and perhaps the answer is to simply overlap with a tilde (~) meaning approximately.
I too have a 19...(serial says March 7, 1919) it too seems to be near pure as in well worn and equally pitted when it comes to anything chassis...and when I went to change radiator to a new Berg a while back was surprised to find it sat on leather pads and the old style arrangement! Sure the radiator has probably been off and changed over the years,,,but if you don't have too...a normal person is NOT going to change the mounting stud arrangement as its a bit cumbersome to do and in repair work if it fits...it fits.
I asked on the forum...and the consensus at the time was leave it be and do not change it which is what I did!
Thank you Martin for a wonderful set of diagrams! I have never really understood how the damn thing on my 24 Touring goes together, even with all the previous pictures.
So, is the idea with the assemblies that have the thimble as follows...?
The radiator, along with its shell and apron sit as a unit on top of the thimbles, left and right. Then, is the proper final adjustment for the thimbles to sit slightly above the top of the car's frame on top of the radiator mounting springs, essentially "floating" above the frame on spring tension?
Another (stupid) question:
Are there actually two (2) springs #3930 both inside the thimble above the frame and another below the frame???
The radiator apron on my '25 is different too. The end pieces are riveted to the radiator shell at the hole and the apron has a flange that fits under that and captured by the spring thimble (3976). The riveted pieces, called Radiator Mounting Brackets, overlap the apron and provide a finished bead that blends the bottom of the radiator shell and apron.
Good catch Mike. Yes, there's supposed to be two springs.
Mike, not a stupid question at all, because the Ford parts book doesn't specify how many per car. The Lang's, Mac's, and Snyder's catalogues all show above and below (4 total) for your car. The Ford book does show #3930 and #2742 (wishbone cap spring) as the same part.
The drawing does show two springs per side.
OK, there are 4 drawings, and 2 of them (the two without the leather pads) show 2 springs per side.
For a '24, is the proper final adjustment for the thimbles to sit slightly above the top of the car's frame resting on top of the upper radiator mounting springs, essentially being "buffered" against downward movement by the upper springs and against upward movement by the lower springs?
Please advise...and thanks!
Martin - This "radiator mounting project" that you are undertaking is going to clear up a very long standing subject of confusion, once and for all! And the way you are doing it, with the help of the collective knowledge of the entire Model "T" community, will ensure that your easy to understand and absolutely beautiful CAD "exploded view" drawings will be a fantastically CORRECT and easy to understand aid to all. For the first time ever, ANYBODY, no matter how much or how little Model "T" experience, will be able to install a radiator correctly and with confidence. I'm wondering if you have any idea what a great help this will be to everybody,......??? Thank you so much for what you are doing,.......harold
P.S. I don't know who's talent I admire more, yours Martin, or Richard Eagle's!
This is great. I am putting a 27 together and will wait to do the radiator until you publish that drawing
Dave Wells, maybe what I should do is just overlap the dates. That way two different set ups could apply depending upon what that car had. There doesn't seem to be any easy yearly cut off on anything with the Model T, seems they were a work in progress for 1909 clear through 1927. If something didn't work out, they changed it to something else in favor of making a better product then and there.
Steve Tomaso, thank you, it's a fun project.
Ken Kopsky, sooo your apron has the same arrangement as the with the shell as does the 26-27's? That's something I didn't know, but it makes sense, was it riveted to the shell? George Clipner's 26 apron was separate from the shell, but does have those shell mounts riveted to it...also the radiator beauty strip (that looks a lot like a nickle plated version of the 22's apron) was separate too. Yet Allan Bennett's says the apron on the 17-19's was spot welded onto the shell, which also had those shell mounts but with one rivet, not sure if that's a Canadian thing or not though, he was talking about Canadian source cars.
Steve Jelf, I see what you're saying about the rivets and I'll move them and turn that leather pad around, thanks.
Mike Green, as far as I can tell or know, everything between the radiator and the shell sits on the bottom thimble which is sitting on the top spring on top of the frame. The thimble centers these parts on the stud and the cap and nut clamps them to the to the thimble. The springs (above and below the frame) puts a preload on the stud that basically holds the radiator assembly (radiator, apron, shell) in a neutral position from the frame, the springs allow restrained travel in both directions (up and down) but is not a rigid mount, otherwise it would damage the radiator at the mounting foot...it's really a rather clever set up when you realize what it's doing.
The only assembly that doesn't require two spring (above and below) as with the later years, are those with the leather pad. The brass radiators have a thicker mounting foot than later radiators. And the reason that pad has to be so thick is for basically the same reason as the later mounting set ups, with the spring below, it's again a preload on the shaft but this time the leather pad acts as the upper cushion. Anything thinner than what John Reagan is offering would result in damage to the radiator mounting foot and or the radiator itself where it's attached.
Harold Schwendeman, this project is just one piece of what I'm going (or trying) to do. And that is systematically (at least to my way of thinking) setting about to draw the entire car one subassembly at a time from years 1909 - 1927, all variations, all body styles, all assemblies, including the one ton truck (TT) and it's assemblies. And yes I know I'm working with the best proof reading crew I've ever worked with...nothing gets by you guy...which is exactly the way I want.
Ok here's the corrections, I hope I got it right this time, but if not, let me know.
I changed the ending date one year for those commercial vehicles with brass radiators that I saw listed as 1917's.
(just in case there really is a difference between US made and the Canadian made cars of this period.
Again I changed the date for the beginning year just to cover those cars that are 1919 but with the thimble and cap mounting.
Again a dates overlap.
I'll post the last one (maybe, who knows) 1926-1927 tomorrow sometime, I think and maybe under the 2015 tab.
Looks good Martin. The overlapping dates should keep things as straight as possible. The difference between the parts for each group of dates is obvious. Even if I was a new guy, I would understand this. Thanks again.
Wish I had those drawings when I was putting mine together. They look great!!!
Sometimes it's hard to know what parts folks are asking about because they use different terms. Perhaps everything should be labeled with the correct name even if it's obvious what the part is. Some numbers and/or names to add:
3929 Radiator bolt (Factory #1106) First 2500, 1909
3929 Radiator bolt (Factory #1106B) 1909
3929 Radiator stud 1910-1919
3929B Radiator stud 1919-1925
3929B2 Radiator stud 1926-1927
3929C Nut (Factory #1154) Dec 1920-1927
3930 Nut (First 2500, Factory #1321) 1909
3930 Nut (Factory #1122) 1909
3931 Nut 1910-1920
Other names: upper thimble, lower thimble
Perhaps an inset close-up of the nut would be in order, showing the different styles and with a note on material (brass, steel). #3930 and #3929C which replaced it are different, but have the same factory number.
39311/2 [not 3931] washer nut (Show dimensions & years. Again, same part # and factory # but different styles.)
How about a note that #3930 spring and #2742 spring are the same part?
I don't know Steve, Putting both part and factory numbers might be too confusing to people, not to mention novices. Although I can see how they would absolutely identify any given part...tis a technical conundrum my friend, do I approach this project from a simple easy to follow standpoint, or as a real technical reference complete with cross referencing? I obviously started with simplicity.
I don't know, what does everybody else think?
I'd keep it simple and skip the factory numbers, just showing the different versions of a part at different times.
Martin, I really appreciate the work you have put into research and the excellent drawings. It is a service to all of us!
Please be careful of published drawings since they take on a life of their own and as Bruce McCalley always warned - once it is in print it is forever - right or wrong.
Dealers have taken wide liberties in making up some part numbers to suit often new replacement parts. Factory numbers are way more accurate but in fact not widely known or understood. While I certainly want folks to be interested in accuracy the problem is that all Ford changes were running changes and just as soon as a "year" is attached to some detail drawing there is for sure early or late cars that were not like that. The only firm dates we have are the dates on Factory number drawings and that is when a given part came into existence and/or was changed and those dates are the only dates I ever talk about in an absolute sense but I really fear research done by "consensus" in order to get a drawing done quickly. I don't wish to be a wet blanket but having done a bit of research on various items, the number of combinations of various years parts makes assembly drawings nearly impossible to be "correct" for the title year they bear. Martin's artwork renderings are magnificent without question but I see problems in them if you use even only the drawing dates but I think you are seeking "on the car" dates. I wish I could offer more help.
In the early years a part could be drawn up by Ford and then be used on the car within a month or so but in later years when the assembly line was up and running and millions of car were being produced, the drawing date showing a part change might precede the "on-the-car" date by several months. I fear these drawings will not be absolutely correct but will be better drawings. I know that Martin wants these drawings to be absolutely correct but because of the nature of changes being "running changes" it makes the job nearly impossible. Branch built cars were way later when it came to incorporating changes and that has not even been considered here. I know I am going to make some enemies by posting this but I wish in my heart that it were not so.
I believe that for a time in 1909 the radiator had a different pad with only 2 holes and the radiator was mounted with a brass (Plated?) bolt down through the radiator and nut underneath. There were more than 2 different versions of the "washer nut" for sure and the commonly shown "special" nut with the slanted top was not used during most of the commonly accepted years that it is sold to be correct for. The radiator mounting to be totally correct is a research project that takes more time than I can offer but I only point out what I know for sure via drawing info but I don't have the info you seek for model year appearance of the parts I know were in fact used.
John, I know that changes were made on the fly with these cars, they'd make up a prototype batch, but by the time production got into full swing, that prototype could (and most likely would be) replaced by something else and wouldn't always show up the drawing until a much later time. But Ford being ever the frugal man, used up what prototypes they had then made the switch. I think a good example is the 1909 fish scale frame. The original 1909 frame was too flimsy so they riveted another long piece inside the channel to strengthen it, which worked sort of but not really well and they used those up until they were gone sometime around the mid 1909 run and replaced it with the thicker frame channels. And how much later after that was it until they improved the cross members?
None of this is really impossible John, just very tedious and time consuming, but I think it's also fairly doable too. I have at my disposal the most informed year variations experts available here on this forum, which I plan to take full advantage of. If it comes to anyones attention that one of my drawings isn't jiving with what is known to have happened at that time even if its a limited run of cars, let me know and I'll make a drawing just for those cars. Already I've noticed a difference between USA made cars and the Canadian built cars and have drawing(s) to reflect those differences.
John, if you find further documentation on this early 1909 radiator mounting assembly please let me know, like I said I want to be accurate. And don't worry about pictures, I work perfectly fine from top assembly engineering drawings too (perhaps even better, those are what I've worked from for over 45 years) and don't worry if they're just machinist scribbles on a bar room napkin, been there worked with that.
John do you think that Ford retro-fitted any of those cars with the two hole pad and brass stud to the three hole pad and steel stud? Perhaps after they broke, the dealer would've made that replacement. Or none of these cars are around today that had such a mounting set up on them. Which leaves the question, do I make exploded views for what we know exists or for everything that did exist? Right now I'm concentrating on what we do know, hence the drawings that reflect what folks tell me their cars have and yes the years overlap because like you said the changes were running changes, But I'm willing to include any and all "special" variations of the car as well.
Oh, John I forgot, Bruce was kind of right when he said - once it is in print it is forever - right or wrong, but not totally. The Model T is a done deal, all the variations have been made, some forgotten, some lost and some found, but all have been made and used at some point. My drawings don't represent a final say on anything Model T, they represent what the people here (you included) have informed me about. So rather than saying that if "it's published, it'll be forever right or wrong", rather say it's an ongoing and ever revealing story. The one thing I've found doing as many of these as I have done, nothing is cast in concrete.
Example, I made three switch drawings for what I thought was at the time a done deal, 1915, 1920-1922, 1926-1927...guess what? the one I did for 1915 turned out to be a 1917 switch and those others also had to be modified a bit to encompass the span of years and what was available for both electric cars and non-electric cars. I started out with 3 drawings, and ended up with 7 drawings between the years 1914 to 1927 and that's because I posted them here and everybody gave me the benefit of their expertise and what they knew about their cars and other years of cars. I guess this is drawing by consensus but who better than to consult with than the folks here? We're the people who own, love, restore and drive these cars.
I know that you John, go and do research at the archives. Man, I wish I could do that, just to paw through those micro films looking for assembly drawings. The top assembly and sub assembly (if they have any, even if it's scrawled on a napkin or whatever they had laying around at the time they jotted it down), drawing is all I need, don't need detail drawings, I'm not a machinist, don't care what the parts are made of, I only need to see how they went together and top and sub assembly drawings are I all need to work from and if they're photo's, those work too.
Martin, just a final adjustment. The Canadian 17-19 apron piece is the same shape as the 19-23 piece you show in the next drawing. In your drawing it might be seen as two pieces, instead of having the radiused curve leading into the radiator shelf plate next to the choke wire hole.
I know this is nit picking, but you give me the impression that you would like things to be spot on. I too like to see as much detail as possible, but, having been playing with T's too long, I always cover my observations with the caveat, "in my experience"
Allan from down under.
Allan, Is this what you meant, I was trying to figure what you were saying out. Now if you meant that the 1917-1919 looked more like the 1923-1925 that one has the larger apron whereas the 1919-1923 has the small apron with the thimble mounting.
Martin, Great work!! Don't stop there. Do the whole model t, It would be great if we could see how it is suppose to be. Thanks for doing this. Sincerely , JW.
Many thanks for sharing. I save electronic copies of these diagrams and insert a paper copy in the corresponding MTFCA "Restoration Guidebook". These diagrams would be excellent additions to future revised guidebooks!
One suggestion, would you mind tagging each 'final' drawing with the date you completed it, eg., "VowellArt 010615"?