Ruckstell with 12 rivet Housing??

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

I am trying to mock-assemble a Ruckstell housing mated with a 12 rivet housing, and the differential carrier housing seems to be hitting in the clamshell area before the two halves can be joined. Do I need to machine the differential housing to gain the needed clearance? (Not sure if there is even enough material that can be removed) Has anyone assembled a Ruckstell using early housings or is the housings too different??

(In full disclosure, my 12 rivet housing is actually for a left side, so my initial plan was to add a boss and machine it for the oil fill hole and convert everything else to be a R/S unit.)

[Dan Hatch]

I would just get a later housing to match pinion bearing housing on driveshaft and the Ruckstell housing. Save the early stuff.
But that is just me.

[speedytinc]

I had no fit issues using a 13/14 right housing mating to a rux left.
In fact I cut down a 15 left to re-tube to the rux casting. (matching smooth backing plate)
It was for a wide track T. Wide track rux housings are not available.

"(In full disclosure, my 12 rivet housing is actually for a left side, so my initial plan was to add a boss and machine it for the oil fill hole and convert everything else to be a R/S unit.)"

There is your problem.
Good God why?? Find a right side housing. Modifying a left into a right would be a kludge. The backing plate is backwards & the mating surface is reverse stepped.

[Jerry VanOoteghem]

... the mating surface is reverse stepped.

There's the big problem. ^

Plus, there will most likely be a mismatch of mating surfaces where your pinion bearing spool attaches. (Closed spool versus open spool issue)

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

There is your problem.
Good God why?? Find a right side housing. Modifying a left into a right would be a kludge. The backing plate is backwards & the mating surface is reverse stepped.

... the mating surface is reverse stepped.

There's the big problem. ^

Plus, there will most likely be a mismatch of mating surfaces where your pinion bearing spool attaches. (Closed spool versus open spool issue)

John, the reason "why" is simple to understand, ...at least for me. I own a restoration shop with a full machine shop. Those that know me know that I restore or replicate horseless carriage era and nickel-era parts because I have the capability to do what many restorers can't. I don't mean that in an arrogant way, but that is my justification of why.

Jerry, you are correct that the spool housing flanges are different.

And Dan, yeah I should probably save the early parts, ...but then it is the 'Authenticity Policing' folks here that like to fuss about how stuff is incorrect on brass-era cars. If I at least have part of a Ruckstell axle assembly appear to be correct, I can argue that I made an effort to be correct.

[Allan]

If the "authenticity police" think you need to befitting a Ruckstell into a 12 rivet clamshell rear axle is the way to go they are misguided in the extreme.
It makes about as much sense as fitting large drum backing plates and brakes on the outside end of a clamshell axle. Save the original early parts, and run a Ruckstell as later accessory , which it was. Just because a 1913-14 half will suit a Ruckstell doesn't make it any more "correct". Nor does having smooth backing plates from a 1915. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
End of rant.

Allan from down under.

[Wayne Sheldon]

The Horseless Carriage crowd around California loves their Ruckstells in their brass model Ts. Personally, I don't. I have only had one brass era T that I actually toured with a lot, but a few more that I haven't been able to use in recent years. For all of them, I have avoided getting or having a Ruckstell for them simply because the Ruckstell was NOT and available option in the brass era. I want my cars fairly close to "era correct", and frankly, a Ruckstell isn't.
The Ruckstell wasn't on the market until somewhat after the end of the "Great War". Difficult to be on a car in 1913 when they weren't manufactured until almost 1920?
For my 1916 center-door sedan (with a late November engine), which I toured with a lot for a couple years, I went to some effort and cost to get an earlier Moore two speed. The Moore first went on the market just about the time the last of the "brass" model Ts were being built. So at least they were close to era correct, and they were less visible. The car was almost tour ready when I acquired the Moore, and I never got around to installing it. The funny thing about it was that I toured with that car for about two years before deciding to sell it in order to purchase a car I wanted more than the borderline late center-door. The (again) funny thing about it was that I never even once found myself wishing I had the Moore or a Ruckstell in that car on all of the tours I took it on! I never once felt that I really needed it.
When I sold the car, the fellow that bought it said he loved the idea of the Moore being closer to era correct, and said he wanted to do that. I had planned to keep the Moore for a future brass era T, but he said he really wanted it to use, so I wound up letting him have it (for no additional cost). The next thing he did was trade the Moore toward some wire wheels for the car, and buy a Ruckstell (so much for keeping the car era correct?).
The two brass era Ts I currently have waiting for me to begin driving them? I have no intentions whatsoever of putting in a Ruckstell, even though I actually have one here I could use.

The fact is, it really isn't a big deal. I someone wants a Ruckstell under their brass model T? Let them. And a lot of people like using the late 1912 into early 1915 twelve rivet housing on the right half. I have known a lot of HCCA people that have done that.

And Allan, by the way, personally, I agree with you. But there is no real shortage of those right side housings up here. So using a few of them that way (silly as it may be?) doesn't really hurt anything.

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

The Horseless Carriage crowd around California loves their Ruckstells in their brass model Ts. Personally, I don't. I have only had one brass era T that I actually toured with a lot, but a few more that I haven't been able to use in recent years. For all of them, I have avoided getting or having a Ruckstell for them simply because the Ruckstell was NOT and available option in the brass era. I want my cars fairly close to "era correct", and frankly, a Ruckstell isn't.
The Ruckstell wasn't on the market until somewhat after the end of the "Great War". Difficult to be on a car in 1913 when they weren't manufactured until almost 1920?
For my 1916 center-door sedan (with a late November engine), which I toured with a lot for a couple years, I went to some effort and cost to get an earlier Moore two speed. The Moore first went on the market just about the time the last of the "brass" model Ts were being built. So at least they were close to era correct, and they were less visible. The car was almost tour ready when I acquired the Moore, and I never got around to installing it. The funny thing about it was that I toured with that car for about two years before deciding to sell it in order to purchase a car I wanted more than the borderline late center-door. The (again) funny thing about it was that I never even once found myself wishing I had the Moore or a Ruckstell in that car on all of the tours I took it on! I never once felt that I really needed it.
When I sold the car, the fellow that bought it said he loved the idea of the Moore being closer to era correct, and said he wanted to do that. I had planned to keep the Moore for a future brass era T, but he said he really wanted it to use, so I wound up letting him have it (for no additional cost). The next thing he did was trade the Moore toward some wire wheels for the car, and buy a Ruckstell (so much for keeping the car era correct?).
The two brass era Ts I currently have waiting for me to begin driving them? I have no intentions whatsoever of putting in a Ruckstell, even though I actually have one here I could use.

The fact is, it really isn't a big deal. I someone wants a Ruckstell under their brass model T? Let them. And a lot of people like using the late 1912 into early 1915 twelve rivet housing on the right half. I have known a lot of HCCA people that have done that.

And Allan, by the way, personally, I agree with you. But there is no real shortage of those right side housings up here. So using a few of them that way (silly as it may be?) doesn't really hurt anything.

Wayne, et/al;
-So with your stated thoughts above taken under advisement, ...may I ask what is your view(s) are on having Rocky Mtn Brakes installed on HCCA tours? Should those be removed too?? What about touring with smoothie white tires in lieu of black treaded tires???

Since we are talking about aesthetics, -what is your thoughts on safety glass being removed and using plate glass in the windshield instead since safety glass was not an era-accessory or era-retrofit??? What about vehicles painted with enamel or urethane paint instead of era-correct varnish??

[Allan]

Brent, my apologies if I have caused any offence.
I was not "talking about aesthetics". T owners fit many kinds of accessories to their cars, and they are welcome to do so as far as I am concerned.

My point was that modifying a 1912 clamshell axle housing to accept a Ruckstell fitment does not make that fitment any more correct than using the usual Ruckstell fare. I consider it a pointless exercise.

Regarding safety glass, in Australia automotive glass is mandated by law to be safety glass. Manufacturers/suppliers are obliged to brand each panel with a standards mark to show that it is safety glass. The reasons for this are obvious.

Allan from down under.