It's a beautiful car with a beautiful paint job, but it sure has a lot of '15 attributes, including particularly the rear axle housing. And all the brass trim. And then there's the demountables...not trying to trash the car, just sayin'
That style of housing which was adopted in the 1915 model year was also used in 1916.
They can even be found on 1917 model Ts. However, in that case one 1915-16 style housing matched with a revised housing (ribs on the backing plate).
Tim - Demountables on a brass car never bothers me! I honestly believe that that was a common (and sensible) upgrade to any brass car if the owner kept the car until demountables became available. Hard to imagine tire repair in the mud, snow, whatever, before demountables!
I guess it depends on your need for utility. -With my non-demountables, a flat tire would pretty much wash out my day and I'd be phoning Hagerty to send a flatbed to take me home. -Oh, maybe I could stuff a new inner-tube in the tire by the side of the road if the weather weren't too hot, but I have a feeling that's unlikely.
I guess the main reason I brought up the rear axle on this '16 being a '15 without the reinforcing ribs, is that on Nov. 30, 1915 per Acc. 575, Box 19 specifically states that new rear backing plates with the reinforcing ribs be specified. Maybe some were on '17s, but I'd have to wonder if they weren't swapped out at some point in time like so many parts seem to be on these cars.
Harold, oh, I actually agree wit the demountables...just making a comment is all. I wish all the cars had 'em!!
But, as I've read in one particular publication the author basically stating there really are NO "correct" Model T's due to all the on-going changes.
Well, if a car needs structural reinforcement with regard to its brakes and doesn't have it, that's bad with a capital B.
That's a nice looking car with very expensive paint on it (Imron). Even comes with a WP and 12v light conversion. It's shame to go through all the work of a rebuild and paint then put spaghetti plastic wire and connectors on it. This looks like a cheap rush job and wonder what else was done that way.
I'm not thrilled with a twelve volt "upgrade", but the only thing I hate about it is the plastic insulators, a minor glitch easily corrected. Otherwise it looks great. The seller knows how to advertise, with lots of excellent pictures.
Bob, methinks you're selling yourself short! While not an absolute pleasure, I've found that changing a clincher (removing the tire to patch or replace the tube) is not that hard. Yes, your hands and your knees get filthy, and you'll scratch the heck out of your nice shiny rim, but it's doable and I'd put money on you that you'd get it done! If the temperature is high, you'll sweat "bullets" however the tire will come off and go back on easier if it's hot! Flatbed? We don't need no stinkin flatbed..............
The accession you mentioned I assume is the "record of changes" but all dates mentioned in those records and on the drawings themselves are the dates that the part changed on the drawing and only in an emergency does the change then appear on the car right away. Normally a part vendor must first get the new changed drawings and make up the new parts for approval. Then the part goes into production. Finally the parts start to arrive at Ford but Ford always used up the older parts first before any new parts were then used. There are countless examples of changes that appear to a part that are not actually found on cars for 3 to 6 months later depending on what the part is and how complex the change is and finally on what year the change occurred. They built a ton of cars in 1924 for example and it could easily take months for a drawing part change to appear on the actual part on the car unless they were completely out of parts a lot sooner than expected. Drawing change dates only rule out when a part could NOT have been on a car rather than when it would start to be used. Branch assembled cars were delayed even further than main factory with regard to changes. The casting date on the motor is April 13 of 1916 according to the data on ebay. I would argue that the rear end is most likely correct for this car.
Thanks John for that enlightenment...I can see how that could be. This is part of the fun/frustration with these cars for sure, as nothing seems to necessarily be "black and white".
Bob, it's a beautiful car.