Page 1 of 1
The manifold clamp controversy rages on.
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2022 2:46 pm
by Steve Jelf
Well, not really a controversy but a question. When did they start putting the clamps on "backwards"? Maybe somebody who's a better researcher than I am can find some documentation.
Re: The manifold clamp controversy rages on.
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2022 3:07 pm
by ModelTWoods
Well Steve, I guess you are referring to the 'late' manifold clamps, as the early ones don't have two flat surfaces opposite each other. As for the late clamps, I guess they could be used either way, but with the recessed V, pointed toward the block, they will go on a standard length manifold stud. If they are reversed with the V pointed away from the block, I think a longer manifold stud would be needed. Date of change, I don't know. Maybe sometime in 1925. Maybe T Encyclopedia knows.
Re: The manifold clamp controversy rages on.
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2022 3:17 pm
by Steve Jelf
Maybe T Encyclopedia knows.
It may be in there, but I didn't find it.
Re: The manifold clamp controversy rages on.
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2022 3:18 pm
by jiminbartow
According to the “Model T Service Manual”, Here is the way it was done in the 1920’s. Jim Patrick
Re: The manifold clamp controversy rages on.
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2022 3:18 pm
by Rich Eagle
"I think these changed in '24? or '23? Anyone know the cut off date for using the pad type clamps?"
http://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/11 ... 1276305342
It may still be up in the air.
Rich
Re: The manifold clamp controversy rages on.
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2022 3:35 pm
by DanTreace
The recessed new style clamp was used beginning with the 1924 model year, which was late in calendar year 1923.
Re: The manifold clamp controversy rages on.
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2022 3:40 pm
by Rich Eagle
Thanks for that Dan.
Rich
Re: The manifold clamp controversy rages on.
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2022 4:01 pm
by Dropacent
Another ford better idea! And they saved $$, from a forging to a casting !
Re: The manifold clamp controversy rages on.
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2022 4:31 pm
by Jerry VanOoteghem
Dropacent wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 4:01 pm
Another ford better idea! And they saved $$, from a forging to a casting !
Tim,
I would expect that they're both forgings. Do you have some info regarding the change to a casting?
Re: The manifold clamp controversy rages on.
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2022 4:55 pm
by Dropacent
Jerry, it was just a SWAG guess and a poor one. I’m holding a good late one in my hand it it has ford script and a foundry cartouche, so obviously a forging.
Re: The manifold clamp controversy rages on.
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2022 5:40 pm
by CudaMan
I wonder if the January 1924 engine in Betsy should have the later clamps. It came to me with the longer studs and the older style clamps.
Re: The manifold clamp controversy rages on.
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2022 6:00 pm
by Allan
Mark, you're worried about the correct manifold clamps and studs and they sit above an alternator.
I don't understand. An alternator is a major departure from originality, so having the correct manifold clamps is hardly going to make the engine bay any more authentic.
Allan from down under.
Re: The manifold clamp controversy rages on.
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2022 9:02 pm
by CudaMan
Guilty as charged! The car came to me with the alternator already installed.
I have a Ron Patterson freshly rebuilt generator and a Regan 6V negative ground voltage regulator on the shelf for the day when the 6V alternator dies.
Trouble is, the alternator refuses to die and it works great, it keeps the battery topped off without boiling the water out of it.
Since my car is already corrupted with an alternator, maybe I should go all in and install a pair of neon green windshield wipers and some fuzzy dice on it as well (that's a joke, son).
