Cruising speed

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 2017: Cruising speed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dave Eddie on Saturday, May 13, 2017 - 05:32 pm:

Just wondering what to expect in the way of speed
for my 26 Tudor. Had it weighed the other day, came off the scales at about 2000 lbs with out the driver.
The engine has been rebuilt, domed pistons reground cam. TW timer, coils by Patterson.
In our neck o the woods we have a lot of hills, but on a straight stretch I can cruise along at 40 mph without too much effort, once I had her up to 50, but that's about all she's got. The thing is I've never been in anyone else's T so I don't have much to compare her too.

Dave


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Spencer Vibert - Granby ,CT on Saturday, May 13, 2017 - 05:45 pm:

Sounds good to me a tudor is a dog going uphills anyway. Put a warford in it and drive it till the wheels fall off


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Roger Karlsson, southern Sweden on Saturday, May 13, 2017 - 06:26 pm:

With std gears 40 mph means 1600 rpm and peak hp = 20
Seems your T runs just like it should. Uphill when it gets tough it may slow down to peak torque at 22 mph or 880 rpm, that's also normal. If it gets even steeper uphill you may have to push in low, then it'll be really slow.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Keith Gumbinger, Kenosha, WI on Saturday, May 13, 2017 - 06:31 pm:

Dave, I have a '27 Fordor and can tell you they're really slow on the hills. A Ruckstell or KC Warford will help a lot with the hills. I suggest you ride with someone that has a Ruckstell or KC Warford to experience how they perform on the hills. Remember that if you get a Ruckstell or Warford you should add extra brakes as well.

Keith


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dave Eddie on Saturday, May 13, 2017 - 07:48 pm:

Ha Ha,... I have experienced the slower than slow phenomenum. A month or so ago my wife and i decided to attempt crossing one of our local mountain passes. 3000 ft of climbing at a 13% grade.
We made it up one side without stopping, the other side however was a bit steeper, at the last switchback " Bernice" powered out, had to let my wife out and have her hike that last turn. Hard to believe that 130 lbs could make that much of a difference.
Yes, I am on the search for a Ruckstell and Rocky mountain brakes.

Dave


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Keith Gumbinger, Kenosha, WI on Saturday, May 13, 2017 - 07:52 pm:

Dave, That sounds like a good plan! With hills that steep, you might even want to consider disc brakes.

Keith


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Tim Wrenn-Monroeville OH on Saturday, May 13, 2017 - 08:04 pm:

Dave, it's great that your wife was nice enough to "hoof it" on the switchback! And buddy, you missed a golden opportunity about weight disclosure...you shoulda said... "at only 110 lbs., ...."! You might've been rewarded later on!! Ha ha. :-)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Pat Kelly Montana on Saturday, May 13, 2017 - 08:10 pm:

I have a 27 Tudor with a KC Warford and 4:10 gears. It's a great combo for hill and mountain country. It will run along at 45 easily on the flat. For sure get a brake upgrade. I went to disc brakes, many guys use Rocky Mountain brakes. On the grades you are on it is a must.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Norman T. Kling on Saturday, May 13, 2017 - 09:42 pm:

One important thing also is to descend the grade in the same gear you climbed it. The brakes will work much better when accompanied by the engine compression.
Norm


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dave Eddie on Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 10:29 am:

If you guys that have knowledge on the subject had your druthers,...would you install a Warford or a Ruckstell?

Dave


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Norman T. Kling on Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 11:08 am:

As for myself, I would install a Ruckstell. The only parts you need to change are the carrier,and the left side of the axle housing. It is very easy to convert back to standard Ford in the future if you want. You don't have to shorten the driveshaft.
However with a warford, you do get the advantage of both under drive and overdrive. But you get a neutral and if not careful how and when you shift, you could get into trouble with freewheeling. With either kind, I would recommend auxiliary brakes. The Rocky Mountain brakes are a period correct accessory, but the disk brakes are a bit better. With either type brake as well as with the original Ford brake, you only stop the rear wheels, so you still need to drive at a reasonable speed for a Model T. Neither transmission will give you a great amount of uphill speed, but both will be faster on moderate grades than the original transmission and both will give you "compound low" if you use both the auxiliary and the Ford low gear together. Neither one will give you enough gas to go uphill if the tank is low.

I know I gave you a lot of information but I don't want you to think it will go much faster. Either one will save you a lot of strain on your left leg.
Norm


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Roger Karlsson, southern Sweden on Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 11:13 am:

If I didn't have to care about costs, I would put in both plus vintage accessory brakes for a large drum axle that works in reverse too :-)

Though, a modern Warford would work fairly well alone - it's easy to shift gears like a Ruckstell and it has an overdrive like the vintage Warfords.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Pat Kelly Montana on Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 11:34 am:

I have a Ruckstell in my TT and just put one in my Roadster. Nice improvement, I like them. But the KC Warford in my Tudor is really nice. I like the over drive.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Stephen D Heatherly on Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 12:04 pm:

Dave, I would recommend the Ruckstell. If you install a ruckstell you don't have to modify the drive shaft, the torque tube, or the running board support like with a warford. Also, all parts for a Ruckstell are available new. That's not the case with an original warford. My 26 coupe will climb a steep hill at 10 mph in Ford low if I rev the engine up. It will climb the same hill in Ruckstell high at 20 mph without revving the engine and you don't have to hold the low pedal down which is a big plus.

Stephen


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Gene Carrothers Huntington Beach on Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 05:03 pm:

Warford has so many more advantages over the Ruxtell with an under and over drive.

The original alum Warfords can be found fairly reasonable and people that have them love them.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Roger Karlsson, southern Sweden on Sunday, May 14, 2017 - 05:23 pm:

There is one problem with an original Warford in a Tudor - a closed body tends to turn into an echo chamber for the gear howl from the straight gears. In an open car the howl will escape easier and won't annoy as much. Ruckstells and modern Warfords doesn't have this problem.


Add a Message


This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Username:  
Password:

Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration