Rear U-bolt plate question Improved model ??

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 2018: Rear U-bolt plate question Improved model ??
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Donnie Brown North Central Arkansas on Wednesday, January 10, 2018 - 03:50 pm:

I am in the process of installing the spare tire carrier on the speedster project. It is made from a 26-27 Improved model gooseneck style spare tire mount. It is the type that mounts to the two rear spring U-bolts. When using the spare mount with the old style U-bolts the cotter key will not fit due to the added thickness of the spare carrier between the spring and the U-bolt plates. It has been discussed before that there is a longer U-bolt that was used with the 9 leaf Fordor rear spring. I went to my parts pile and found both styles. There is a short U-bolt and a long U-bolt that has different cotter key hole spacing that will work with my carrier (or any 26-27 carrier).

Here is a pic of both short and long styles
1

While I was looking for the longer style U-bolt I noticed I had a lot of U-bolt clamp plates that are 1/4 inch thick instead of 3/8 inch thick like the common u-bolt plates. I had never gave them much thought as I just assumed "farmer made" But since I have so many, and they all match up as to manufacturing quality, It appears they are factory made and not "farmer made" So that leads me to believe they are either thinner plates made by Ford to work with the spare tire carrier, or they are aftermarket such as Sears/ Montgomery Ward/ect. The thin plates will work perfectly with the earlier short U-bolt and the 26-27 spare tire carrier.

Here are pics of several of my thin plates and a couple pics of both styles
2

3

4

Since I found the long style bolts that will work with the spare tire carrier and the thick plates, I am good to go.

But I could also use the thin plates with the more common short u-bolts, that I have several in NOS condition.

So after all that typing I have two questions,

1. Would the thin plate used in conjunction with the spare tire carrier be as good as using the thicker plate. The thin plate and the spare tire carrier used together are the same thickness as a thick plate.

2. Does anyone think that the thin plates are another variation of the 26-27 models parts differences. Or do you think it is something aftermarket ... ????


There is one final possibility for the thin plates. On the 1926 Non Starter cars, there is a special taillight bracket that mounts to one of the rear spring U-bolts that uses the kerosene tail lights. It could be that the thin plate was used in conjunction with the Non Starter tail light. But since I have so many of them, I feel like that is not very likely (in my personal opinion)


Thanks, have fun and be safe ....


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Frank van Ekeren (Australia) on Wednesday, January 10, 2018 - 05:41 pm:

Donnie,
May be a Canadian thing?? both my 26/7's are,
long U bolts, spare carrier and then the thin plate.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Donnie Brown North Central Arkansas on Wednesday, January 10, 2018 - 07:36 pm:

The picture above of all the thin plates. I should not have used the word "thick" it may cause confusion. Those are all the "thin" plates that are 1/4 inch in thickness.. Frank, I do not think it is just a Canadian thing. I have too many of the plates for that many to have made it "down here" if it was just Canadian..

I installed my spare tire carrier today. I used long u-bolts, spare carrier, and then the 3/8 inch "thick" plates. The cotter key holes lined up perfectly.

I did a test fit of the short u-bolt, spare carrier, and a 1/4 inch "thin" plate. The cotter key holes also lined up in that combination.

My instincts tell me (not very scientific or accurate) that the 1/4 inch "thin" plates could be an early 26 item. ???? I have added them to the 26-27 Improved model studies as a "possible" early 26 change. Ill leave it as "possible" till I can find more proof.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By James G Fisher III Peachtree City, GA on Thursday, January 11, 2018 - 06:45 am:

I have the "less common" style on the front of my 1924 Roadster and the "most common" style on the rear. I haven't figured out why.


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