MTFCA Forum

What do the original spacer brackets look like under the oval fuel tank mounting straps? According to Bruce McCalley's book on page 259, "The oval tank was raised to the proper height by means of special adapter brackets under the tank-mounting straps." Mine were missing when I originally bought my Roadster. With the three point mounting set up was the single bolt end just a longer bolt with a sleeve spacer? Was the two bolt end just additional formed tank strap metal? Is the proper height of the oval tank maintaining the same location of the filler opening as on the round tank since the seat height didn't change when the oval tank was first being used. At proper height does the top of the tank rub the sheet metal cover panel? Might there have been a felt pad protecting the tank top? I appreciate your assistance.

If there were some special brackets for the elliptical tank, had to be only very early 1920, during change from round to elliptical and perhaps won't be needed with the factory tank and brackets that hold the tank off the frame. The Parts and Price Lists for 1919 and 1920 don't have a Part order # for the Factory #T-2142 retaining strap assembly (obsolete).

Note of an 'obsolete' bracket in the listing of parts in Bruce's C-D comprehensive listing.

Thank you Dan!

Dennis, I decided to take a look at my mid-August 1919 1920 model Roadster to answer your question. I had never looked under the hinged sheet metal lid over the tank since buying the car about 7 years ago. It has a round tank and had a tool kit with Ford pliers, tire iron, several wrenches, and a Waldon-Worchester 4564 ratcheting band wrench. Your query made my day!

So does anyone have a picture of the bracket in question? So it appeared and then abruptly it was dropped from being used? Interesting observation about an archived part. Maybe it was a design change that was not to be needed and something Ford engineers dropped to save money?

I assume that because the distance between the top of the car frame to the bottom of the fuel tank is about the same for the round and oval gas tanks, Ford decided it was not necessary to space the oval tank up to match the round tank’s gas cap location.
There may have been a drawing of a bracket to match that part number but I doubt few, if any , such spacers were used in production or we would have seen some in surviving cars.

Thanks Noel, good to hear my question motivated you to investigate your car further and to share your comments.
The discontinuation of the round fuel tank and compatibility with earlier bodies is mentioned by both the Model T Service Bulletin, page 199 and The Model T Ford Owner, by Murray Fahnestock, page181. Mr. Fahnestock goes into more explanation of the purpose of the change over to the oval tank, which was to prepare for the planned lowering of the seat to improve comfort. Although both sources suggest oval tanks could be backwards compatible to earlier bodies if field modified using a ball peen hammer against the sheetmetal heel panel to allow for additional clearance. My experience, though I'm no expert, suggests otherwise.
When I first built my Roadster body framing based on Mel Miller's 1915-1922 Roadster plans, I discovered my oval tank wouldn't fit. It wasn't till I bought a partial 1920 roadster body to rebuild that I discovered that not only was the wood framing, but also the heel panel sheetmetal was different. Not even MAC's catalog's sheetmetal section showed the 1920-1922 heel panel difference. The body sample I got had a narrowed tool tray and seat riser allowing room for the rear portion of the oval tank while the sheetmetal heel panel was formed with a tilted forward surface at its base clearing the front of the tank.

Now that I've made all the changes to my body to accommodate the oval tank, I have a two inch distance between my sheetmetal cover and my tank filler cap. I don't remember where I read it but I recall mention of the fuel cap access hole on the sheetmetal cover being enlarged. Could that have been why the tank riser spacer bracket was no longer needed. Having the filler cap two inches below a small access opening could have been an issue. Enlarging the hole could have been a cheap fix.