In another thread it was stated replacement water pump blocks were supplied into the 1920s.
I cant quote a reference off hand but remember reading a Ford directive to dealers to offer owners 50% off the part price to changeover 13 -14 rear ends as an incentive to owners .
I can understand that as it was probably cheaper than waiting for a warranty claim and covering the whole cost. Then there is the reputation to uphold so a bargain for Ford .
Then you have the old and new version of parts with no old versions once the old are all used up.
What was the logic of replacement 10 - 15 year old motors that are well out of warranty or was it way of trying to find car No 1 for the museum
Must have been a secret stash of water pump blocks from Ford, water pump blocks had been dropped from spare parts books by June 1909 never to be mentioned again, replaced with the Thermo-Syphon block August 1st 1909.
Hi Frank I may be miss reading what was written.
I think the person is fairly knowledgeable based on the topic and no one saying hang on a minute Mr X.
There too many who know a great deal to let the below be said without a challenge if not true
I will quote his words that may be out of context and miss understood
" it is also important to remember that Ford continued to supply replacement water pump blocks up into the early 1920’s"
To the author of those words I hope I have done no evil or miss represented your words ,
The Ford Factory Symbol number for the water pump block is T-400-A. According to the Record of Change card for T-400-A held by the Benson Ford Research Center at The Henry Ford, the water pump engine block was declared “Obsolete” in October, 1926.
If you have further doubts about this, I suggest you make a trip to the Benson Ford Research Center and look at the T-400-A Record of Change card (it’s actually on 35mm film).
Being declared "Obsolete" and being available from 1909 to 1926 are two different things!
As a person who knows less than a sack of rocks on this topic I am going to argue 17 years to be declared obsolete is not logical
They declare you legally dead after seven
If the documents are correct then someone explain the 17 years it took to finish the paperwork
If its a common error then can anyone cite examples
If Henry was looking for car #1 would that be why he held on to the paper work and did not file it as dead because he need it
Having poked around in many companies someone always asks whats this .
Even if its just the accountant bean counting,they don't count those beans next time, they make and entry to delete it.
Thinking aloud here
One person in the USA and no locals making comment , something not rite here
Stone me for asking, but I want to hear it
Hans, This is a hobby for most of us and there is a lot to do out in the real world so sitting on the Internet and constantly posting is not a priority for some of us. I log in once a week or so to check in on topics that interest me but otherwise have too much to do supporting my family and taking care of business to spend much time on the Internet. Be patient and eventually your questions will get reply’s.
Hans, it could be that there is no documentation to validate this one way or the other--or it could be we're too busy
a)Recovering from New Year's Eve partying
b) Watching the Rose Parade
c) watching a Football game (there must be one one somewhere!)
d) Doing something with the family outside (in the cold or the warm, depending on location).
e) Still sleeping. . . . .
Facts are many Ford drawings and change order cards have marks of being obsoleted long after that particular part was likely used or offered for service repair.
Would be difficult now to ascertain why this occurred.
Many records are obsoleted dated in 1926, just as Trent noted.
Likely the engineering dept. was cleaning up records by the later life of the Model T, getting ready to do the new Model A, or just engineering busy work.
Have worked at companies where obsolete process in engineering to remove dated prints and process is often slow...so that may be it.
Some examples, the early axle T-202-A being obsoleted in 1926.
Same with the '09 coupe body sketch, obsolete in 1926!
And early runabout top assembly drawing, obsolete in 1926.
No one can know for sure, as all the Ford employees from that time are gone. We can only guess at the rational.
However, practical lack of evidence of water pump blocks offered for service in the Parts and Price Lists, gives some reason to believe Ford didn't extend sales of bare water pump blocks or water pump parts and other unique parts of the water pump engine.
I would think so, Henry was keen on making the T reliable and off on quest to make them as fast as possible.
Would have been more easy to just replace a water pump engine with a later one. That appears to have happened in the case of Model T # 1. The record shows engine change!
Hello All who answered
OK some good reasons for the long delay in making a item obsolete and parts book deleted in 09 but not wanting to throw the person who said "replacement water pump blocks were supplied into the 1920s." They seem like they are somewhat wise or have a valid argument for making the claim .
I would think more than one person agrees with him so what is the evidence
No one is right or wrong till the experts see all the current evidence and agree on an answer and one day someone proves them all wrong with new evidence .In any field not the fist time that has happened
The only thing experts agree on is to disagree with each other
Not having read or found what the experts say on the topic and not being the only one can someone fill us in on both sides of the story . That way we can have an opinion (armchair expert) of the evidence and choose a side to support and one of them may get so enthusiastic to do further research
Thank you in advance for taking the time to make us wiser and thank you to the researchers for making us ALL wiser
You're over thinking this, is my opinion.
"replacement water pump blocks were supplied into the 1920s. "
Claim was made in another topic.
A bold claim never disputed.
"engine block was declared “Obsolete” in October, 1926."
Possible reason reply
Drawings cleanup for the introduction of the A
example. early axle T-202-A being obsolete in 1926.
No answer to the actual question . No dispute to the question asked .
With an important claim and no dispute any reader of this is going to think its correct and pass on the claim to others as fact
Read many post with experts saying this, that and the other thing. Someone comes back as says hang on a minute . 5000 words later and they agree to disagree or consensus subject to further research.
Not getting and answer and no one disputing it or agreeing and you tell me I am over thinking it.
If no one is going to answer the question then I submit a supplement question
Sent votes to this topic if I am or am not over thinking it. A simple yes or no reply
Maybe then someone will say ,how can you vote yes/no ? Justify your vote
I forgot one other answer
dropped from spare parts books by June 1909 never to be mentioned again, and secret stash
So what does dropped prove . Old stock available till its all used up. With first in last out when was the last issued
If its a "secret" stash (possible joke" well why
Agree with Jerry, really finding any answer to satisfy you of these comments made by many, including myself on this topic is running down a rabbit hole! I pass on voting
No one is around to know what happened, nor are records of sales of bare water pump blocks, or for how long were they cast, when did service stop supplying, in what manner, were engineering memos written, etc., etc.
What I do know, is if you found a 'stash' of water pump blocks today, you would be very happy....
Even finding an open valve block hiding somewhere in a closed Ford agency or as a storage building door stoop or step today would make me giddy!
It's pretty simple and logical, the first 2499 water pump engines were problematic and no evidence that Ford encouraged owners to persist with them into the 20's, when he himself had solved the teething problems of the T by re-design.
The repair was as simple as fitting a thermo-syphon engine.
Hi Dan & Frank
Now I am getting happier
Votes against the question I asked being fact and arguments I am happy with subject to further research which can make experts look like a pre schoolers No offence ,the world was once considered flat
Just one Q is that block price in Yen hard to tell .If its Yen I will take it. Shipping is going to cost me more than the block but so be it
Still waiting for a rebuttal thats credible
I mean Rebuttal of Frank & Dan's answer
Just a follow up to show how obsolete the water pump engine was, by 1911 the only parts that was unique to the first 2500 still listed that maybe available? was,
timing gear cover.
water pump parts.
By 1912 no longer listed.
A side question . What is a B Block worth in need of Valve Seats,Cylinders lined in need of total rebuild . US$ I will translate
Answer to side question, first off someone will need to up-front the dollars for a complete crack test, until then it's only scrap value.
The more credible arguments for and against makes it easy to decide who is right (at present) in someone's mind
I am leaning to the claim of the blocks being available into the 20s as not having any proof of fact but no one has come forth with arguments for being available that are logical to dispute
Hi Frank Knowing its a risk like any block but a lot more expensive. Lets say your taking a punt on a block you find at a swap that needs the above . What would you gamble. US$ approx.
Hi Frank Price is your risk profile others will bet the house on an ant race
Dan PM sent. Thanks, Dan.
Hi Frank I retract the question asked . Too personal and showing your hand in a deal you may one day do . I call it a failure to "over think " the question. My sin, I throw my self at the mercy of the court.
Where are we?
I don't see the logic of supplying blocks into the 20s as I stated at the very top.
"No one is around to know what happened, nor are records of sales of bare water pump blocks, or for how long were they cast, when did service stop supplying"
"first 2499 water pump engines were problematic and no evidence that Ford encouraged owners to persist with them into the 20's"
Parts unique to the first 2500 not available.
Unless someone wants to come forward with credible evidence in my opinion there is no proof water pump blocks were available into the 20s AT THIS PINT IN TIME
I don't know how much this has been debated outside the forum or inside it but to make a claim and have no one challenge it is like standing up and saying the world if flat and no one speak out because its a settled fact it is flat.
Call it "over thinking" but I still feel there something not right hear
Its like when politician's say, no need for an inquiry, there is nothing to see here. How many times has there been more to see than anyone thought possible.
"Call it "over thinking" but I still feel there [is] something not right hear"
You're correct. It's spelled "here". I'll leave you alone now.
Now Jerry. If that was a bit of rudeness over a spelling issue don't ever make a mistake or someone will jump on you. They call that Karma and as your human it will happen .
If its a joke its borderline at best
While I am at it I have seen a large number of such rudeness form people with nothing better to counter someone else's statements than to pick on spelling etc
I consider it a personal attack on them and you are poor example of a person and if it was not for spell check would not dare write a post
Don't forget some spelling experts here don't even know that the US has its own version of spelling ENGLISH . The rest of the world spells ENGLISH words the ENGLISH way
One other point . You have no idea who is at the other end, and to pick on them could have you branded a Troll of the highest order. Its a politically correct world and some people now a defended like no other time in history. Beware what you write.
For the Trolls .Yes I see the mistakes so go away
"Beware what you write"
Are you threatening me?
Jerry I think what Hans meant was "Be wary of what you write" as it can be misunderstood and offend someone. I don't see Hans threatening anyone, it doesn't appear to be in his nature.
This thread has become quite entertaining...
I see your trying an old strategy . Best defence is attack .
Your attacking me to defend yourself by trying to twist words to your advantage.
Does not work. One on one you can try that but others are here watching and judging
I finished dealing with you at line 3 of my first posted when I continued with " While I am at it etc"
You could have said, sorry it was unintended or in poor taste, but no is straight into attack trying to twist words
I don't know you ,but your accumulating points to not being nice
Now you can defend yourself from my countering your attack
For those of you who don't like my mistakes I am throwing myself under the bus and saying I am too lazy to fix some of them before posting
I am taking it for granted you you know I am a slacker by the number you will see over all the posts
Thanks. Yes, I agree with you.
"You could have said, sorry it was unintended..." I would have written exactly that, if you had not rambled on for 3 additional postings and called me a troll. Let's just let this pass. I am certainly not "attacking you" in any way. Yes, I poked a little fun at you, but since you found no fun it, I'll refrain from responding to you again on this forum. Please enjoy your Model T and the history surrounding it. And, please have a happy New Year.
Here we go again. Defending yourself with an attack .
If you want me to say sorry it was unintended then maybe you could have first replied with I don't think that 'Beware" was a threat .Sorry I poked at your spelling it was unintended hostility or in poor taste , I am sorry.
Now its time for you take your won advice and "refrain from responding to you (Hans) again on this forum"
I will defend myself from being cast as the evil doer by twisting what I wrote , and very happy for the viewers to decide my fate
I am going to offer an opinion
Always read the whole of what is written .
Take ALL written in context of what was said.
Don't assume evil . yes I assumed evil on Jerry's part because so much of the same has been done and you read my argument for why . I took a stand to everyone to be aware of what you write
Yes I have cracked down on Jerry but it needed to be done as part of my whole point. Jerry your the unlucky victim of my stand
He has suffered greater than others have, and hopefully others will not be taken to this point in future.
I will always defend myself and let other decide
If I am wrong I will stand up and say ready aim fire
LASTY I retract any evil opinion of you I am going pass this off as a bad situation that went out of control with poor judgement on both sides
Jerry ..I am a "rambler" I forgot to say Happy New year
In all your posts and threads, you come across as being in a crowded room of people asking the questions and answering them as well because you love the sound of your own voice!!
Give it a rest!
Sorry "Rambler" hear
Jerry its a poke at myself using your observation.
Back to the topic
We are still at me disagreeing with "replacement water pump blocks were supplied into the 1920s."
No one has come forward to defend the statement with credible evidence .
Any chance someone wants to try their luck with a defence to my opinion
Why not got to my other posts and challenge my writings that are relevant to Australian's
I know Australian's have been on the forum
I have noted a distinct lack of Australian's replying on a topic they are all over like flies on a steak with replies (normally)
I am considering your reply a disguised disapproval of what I have said here.
Open and full disclosure here lets not have people left in the dark
Frank Please note your typo with the name. Hans not Hank
For those not in the know
I am taking shots over the bow of what Australian's love and what they think they know and think is fact
Its time for a 2019 update of reality
No typo Hans, just seeing if you will turn it into a 10 post one sided debate!
Hi Frank Now that is childish
Go to my other posts and make your case against what I have said or have you nothing to add and hate what I said and I am doing a rewrite of history but cant deny it or do anything about it
If you don't say anything its going to be one sided just like the defence for this post .
Rewrite of history? Hans most of what you have been posting is no more than dribble!! you have no credibility to make a claim of
'a rewrite of history'
Frank Go to the post that counts , Make a contribution and not waste peoples time here.
I will give you an opening rebuttal line at the other post . " dribble" and give us your case.
If you don't we are going to have bored viewers here hearing the same line form another Australian that I only allow a one side debate.