Im working on the chassis of the speedster project. I plan on using a new KC Warford transmission that I acquired. Im just doing some checking of things and it appears that the center arch of the front running board bracket will occupy the same place as the shift tower on the trans. My running board brackets are cut off at the frame and all I have is the center "arched" section. They are the pressed steel channel type. Is it common to have to modify the running board brackets to install a KC Warford. ??? I do not remember ever reading about them being in the way. I can move the front bracket back about 5 inches and re-rivet it to the frame for a fix on the speedster. But what do people do, that do not really want to cut up stuff. I had thought about using the KC Warford on my 1927 touring that is our tour car. But I would not want to cut the running board brackets on it ...... Thanks ..........
My speedster donor car had an cast iron Warford in it and no running boards. I was going to use the rolling chassis as the basis for my WWI machine gun carrier and was going to install running boards. I had the one piece brackets, but, like you realized that the rear would fit but not the front as the Warford was in the way. I was going to cut the brackets and remove the center section and bolt or rivet the remaining bracket ends with the support brace to the top and bottom of the frame rails in the original holes. If neded, for support, I was either going to reuse the cut off section further behind the Warford and bolt it in place. But my Warford had it's own crossmember support bolted to the frame, so I was going along the presumption that additional bracking would not be needed.
But, in my case, my finished vehicle would be a FrakenT, so cutting the brace was not a deal breaker.
Ended up not using the Warford or the shortened driveshaft and replaced it with correct gear, so used an original brace on the running boards.
I've seen few speedsters with running boards.
I think I am going to run into the same issue with my CI unit. While the U part between frame rails did help when people stepped on the running board if you think about it all the early cars had was a brace rod between the two brackets. If I see a need after I cut mine I might do something similar to the early cars, run a brace rod under the transmission side to side.
The main reason I want to keep the center arched part is to keep the two frame rails tied together. It helps to maintain the 21-1/2 inch center to center. I just thought it strange that I had never thought about the running board bracket being in the way or ever saw any discussions about it. I learn something new every day... Ill just move my front bracket center section toward the rear 5 inches, to solve the interference problem, No big deal on a speedster project, but there is no way I will cut the 27 touring car's bracket. I had a little problem deciding what car to use this KC Warford on. This pretty well solved my indecision issues. Thanks for the input ...
My Gramps' TT had a cast iron Warford installed not long after he purchased it new in Seattle - early spring of 1925 (12/24 engine #) and it has one of the stamped running board brackets "whacked" as well as a 1/2" pipe swing joint to move the sediment bulb out of the way of the Warford.
Donnie, when I fitted my KC to my extended frame shooting brake, I fitted a support bracket for the trans. This was made from a spare front frame cross member, installed upside down. This will keep your frame rails as you like. The KC interfered with the cross rod between the two forged running board brackets on the 17 model, so I cut the rod and anchored the inner ends to the additional crossmember.
Hope this helps.
Allan from down under.
I have installed three KC Warfords, two in frames with the pressed steel running board supports and in both cases I had to cut the support. On the 14, it uses the cast supports and of course they required no modification.
Apologies Donnie. The support made with the second front cross member is not upside down. Rather, it is mounted the usual way up, but is bolted underneath the frame rail.
Allan from down under.
OK, thanks for the input. It answered my question.
Here's some info you might want as well as the answer to your original question.
If you want the Warford, you have to make the cut. Also a support at the rear is a good idea. I also had to trim the seat support a little to gain a little clearance for any twisting movement. Each car is different and some may not need the trim job.
Donnie, what ever you decide to use for a support, DON"T drill holes in the frame to mount it. I've seen that done and there is no need to do that. It's very simple to just make u-bolts or clamps to attach it to the frame. I'm sure that you know that, but some others may not. The Chicago transmission on my TT is mounted that way and works great. Dave
Tim, Thanks for the link. There is some good information in it. On the speedster Ill be removing the running board bracket. I have a few different ideas as to a support. But I will be using a Ruxtell in the 27 touring. That way I will not need to remove or change anything ...
I cute mine like john`s then I added a 1 inch square tubing that bolts to the running board brace to the other so I got back my frame support. I also supported the tail of the warford that to much weight for the rear of model t trans to hold up
Parts houses sells the brace for the rear of the warford or you can make your own. I had my new warford in my touring, to hard to get in so I took it out. Now I`m putting it in my sedan.
Rick, You said Parts houses have the brace. Are you talking about a "belly brace" that goes under the model T pan, or a brace at the rear of the Warford. Do you know who is selling them . I would like to see what is available. Thanks ....
Donnie - Not t answer for Rick, but just to let you know, I'm sure he's talking about the brace that Lang's lists in their catalog. It is especially designed to support the Warford at the back end near the U-joint "ball". I have to say, it is very nicely made, and appears that it provides support but not too rigid so as to provide for chassis flex. Only thing is, it's $295.00 plus shipping. Also, it appears to me that you could build one similar as it's very much like the one that Mike Walker built which is pictured somewhere here in the forum if you want to dig around a bit. FWIW,.....harold
I bought that one, its nice but the price is to much.