MTFCA Forum

Does the mount for the leaf spring and the cross member need to be solid or should there be some flexibility?

I have never seen a OEM mounted one, so I don't know. The reason I ask is because this DIY lowering mount did wiggle a bit side to side on the cross member after I took the wheels off and hung the frame on stands.

The hole that 1/2" bolt goes though from the top and comes out mount at the bottom where the nut is attached is not round. I don't know how they cut that hole but it was not a drill.

There is a block of pine for in between the inside of the cross member but that is old and dried and not really a solid surface. I am thinking of using a 1.75x4" piece of box steel.

Of course, if there should be movement then this is fine. If not, I will replace the pine with steel and fill weld the oversized hole to match the diameter of the bolt.

I have a somewhat similar "suicide" front spring mount on my Racer and you DON'T want any movement up front !

The mounting should be solid. I'm guessing it have have gotten loose from the axle bottoming out on the bracket, hammering it loose. There's not that much clearance there.

(BTW, I have never heard it referred to as a "suicide" front spring mount.)

I'd like to see more of the bracket/mounting before commenting. Is the spring loose in the bracket, or is the bracket loose in the cross member? Either way both should be solidly mounted.

Allan from down under.

"Suicide" was coined due to the fact your front axle IS NOT where it was originally placed from the factory - that's my understanding of the phrase.

Mine is way out there !

Jerry VanOoteghem wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 26, 2024 6:04 pm

(BTW, I have never heard it referred to as a "suicide" front spring mount.)

Back in the day the old-time squares always called mods done by the cool kid hotrodders "suicide" (fill in the blank). Suicide shifter etc.

Allan wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 26, 2024 6:34 pm

I'd like to see more of the bracket/mounting before commenting. Is the spring loose in the bracket, or is the bracket loose in the cross member? Either way both should be solidly mounted.

Allan from down under.

No, the whole spring is solid. Seems the boogered out hole and weak pine block gives the mount wiggle room on the cross member to roll a bit side to side.

Tight, tight, tight. The only movement should be of the spring leaves moving up and down only. Never, ever, side to side, or front to back. Jim Patrick

Thanks. I suspected as much but wanted to make sure since I think with the frame there has to be some flex.

I will tighten up the holes and get some box steel support.

I dont think any Model T’s ever used wood in the main frame or front end itself. Maybe I’m wrong and others can make a correction. BUT in the quest for speed you would want stability and using steel is the best material to use. Maybe there was wood in the very early days of autos but not later.
I don’t know what anybody was thinking in using a piece of pine in a front end. But what do I know. And oh yeah every thing should be extra tight and sold. And absolutely no wood.

There is a wood block as a spacer for the steering box.

https://www.modeltford.com/item/3546.aspx

Yes there is a wood block behind the steering as a spacer and by the way 2 wood blocks were used behind the engine pan arms. The main difference in this entire post is the main chassis stability in the frame itself and the importance of the front end components to be tight with no movement. The 3 wood blocks used elsewhere don’t fall in that category.

By the way did you replace the bushings throughout the front end? That’s important for front end stability and steering control.

And the 3 wood blocks are not a species of softwood

I think this should keep it solid.

Since it's not entirely clear how the "Z" bracket is mounted in the first place, it's hard to say whether or not your added plate will help or not. Gotta be better than a rotted hunk of wood however.

Why is your original motor mount gapped 1/4"(?) above the crossmember? Is the "Z" bracket held on with only one bolt? If so, is it that bolt head that has the motor mount spaced away from the cross member? Do the two motor mount studs go through the "Z" bracket? To be honest, the original execution of this set-up is kind of a mess. There is very little about it that I would leave as-is or replicate.

Jerry VanOoteghem wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 06, 2024 9:25 am

Since it's not entirely clear how the "Z" bracket is mounted in the first place, it's hard to say whether or not your added plate will help or not. Gotta be better than a rotted hunk of wood however.

Why is your original motor mount gapped 1/4"(?) above the crossmember? Is the "Z" bracket held on with only one bolt? If so, is it that bolt head that has the motor mount spaced away from the cross member? Do the two motor mount studs go through the "Z" bracket? To be honest, the original execution of this set-up is kind of a mess. There is very little about it that I would leave as-is or replicate.

Not sure why the gap. There is this wedge that I think they used to align the holes for the crank handle. Why they did not just measure it right so need for a wedge I have no idea, but by the looks of that 'hole' I would say they were limited in grey matter. There is a single bolt. It does not have a head touching the crossmember. It sits flush (if the wedge was not there: it fell out as I was taking it apart and not sure where it was).

I am with Jerry on this one. Chuck it out and start again. probably easier in the long run.

Allan from down under.

Any plans out there for a better drop like this? I saw a bunch of pictures with examples before the car showed up but dang if I can find them now that I am actually looking. Funny that, the interwebs.

This is the car it is on. I guess it has been around for a while like this if anyone recognizes it.

In the old-timer's defense who built it, it is a thick hunk of steel for the Z and for the boxed part of the cross member we placed a thick walled section of steel tubing for the bolt to pass through and help the plate from sagging due to over tightening. I know it is a bit of over engineering, but WTH.

Saw this today.

I may go back and take measurements.

skyhunter wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 07, 2024 10:18 pm

Saw this today.

I may go back and take measurements.

Original sketch --
I had one & I believe some where made by Tom Butterworth (live in Florida)
--
Was a bit to tall so tie rod requires modification - I sold it --
so I have one made locally by a company that makes I beams etc They enjoyed the work $35 since I didn't need a receipt
-- --
Henry Lee design

Thanks Frank.

That is exactly what was there.

I like that Henry Lee one. 7" seems a bit more than I need.

I have reached out to contact both, but Lee said he was retired.

Anyone have one for sale, or the measurements of the Lee style?