A metric approach to parts identification

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 (old): A metric approach to parts identification
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By David Grant Stewart, Sr. (Davidgstewartsr) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 10:34 am:

It seems to me it would be helpful if someone would compile a list of measurements of the parts on Model Ts that can be identified by those measurements.

For example, the height and width of doors, the weight of pistons, and other exact measurements which could be useful in identifying changes in models and years.

The glass catalog is a good beginning in this direction, but I'm not aware of any systematic and comprehensive effort having been made in this area.

From time to time I have seen people ask questions on this forum about parts identification which could be answered by a list of such measurements.

What do you think?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Roger A. Price (Raprice) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 11:02 am:

David,
I can't help but thinking that you'd be opening a new can of worms going metric with Model T parts. You have to think in terms of when these cars were built and most of the people who own and restore these cars are either senior citizens or approaching that age. As for me, I rarely think in terms of metric as far as my old cars are concerned. I'm happy with the status quo.
That's my humble opinion.
Roger


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Susanne Rohner (Baybridgesue) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 11:14 am:

Unless, of course, you just happen to own one of the cars Ford built to metric, not US, specs.

I read about one of these in a VF a long time ago (maybe late 70's??) - it had metric bolts and threads, and the parts wouldn't match the standard ones.

I doubt there were many made (but then again, in Europe that may have been the norm, who knows?)...

After all, Hery made special equipment to match te 5' gauge of wagons in the south (that left 60" ruts!), rather than the 4'8 gauge of the yankee states. (I find it interesting as well that the railroads just happen to set the gauge of their tracks at 4'8" - 56" - apart. I wonder if this had any influence on Ford?...)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By David Grant Stewart, Sr. (Davidgstewartsr) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 11:49 am:

I used the word "metric" in its original sense, which I guess has been forgotten: "pertaining to measurement."

I am referring to using the good old American system we inherited from the English (but which they have abandoned because of the proximity of their neighbors) of inches, feet, pounds, ounces, etc.

By "a metric approach to part identification" I mean, "a measurement approach to part identification."

Let's scrap this subject and try again, with my apologies.

I am sorry for the misunderstanding, which is entirely my fault. Even my dictionary no longer includes the original meaning, so you are justified and in good company for taking it that way.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Bruce McCalley , Allison Park, PA (Bruce) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 12:24 pm:

Model T "metric" cars were only metric in that the spark plug holes were metric instead of 1/2-inch pipe. These were made for export mainly.
What appeared in the early Vintage Ford was probably written by me when I didn't know any better. I'm not much better informed today for that matter.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Roger A. Price (Raprice) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 04:01 pm:

Bruce,
Don't sell yourself short.
Rog


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jeff Yancho (4moocher) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 08:38 pm:

David,

I understand what you are getting at and a database of this type would be quite helpful. It would be quite time consuming to create however. I also think that there would be a log of ambiguity with so much overlay between years.


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