History History (and Build) of Just Steve's 1932 Ford Three Window

Nice work on the firewall, Eric.

 

Firewall looks great, keep up the good work..

 

good work and grate story roadsir and keep it coming

 

Thanks Everyone....No progress this weekend. I did get the pedals warmed up and bent, and I have some thoughts for a clean wood toe board assembly, we found the windshield frame, and we found the bankers box of Stewart Warner guages.

One dilemma. If you look at some pictures of the chassis you can see it is set-up to run a '40 box with cross steering. But to do so the tube and shaft would have to run run low to clear the exhaust ports, and it would need to incorporate a u-joint at the firewall to the column. Using the outer tube occupies some real-estate that is valuable for exhaust clearance. In the end it could look somewhat traditional (from the outside), but still not quite as right as a box located where the 32, F-1, F-100 should be located. That Nailhead starter is right where the the box would need to be.

Another option would be to cut the shaft very short and run a u-joint at the box, basically making the 40 box work (and look) like a Vega. It would require machining and welding an adapter for the shaft to accept a u-joint, and a support bushing on the output of the box to carry any load from the u-joint angle. So if it is going to look like a Vega, why not just run a Vega, and avoid a shaft modification to accept a joint.

So that's where my head is at, and I actually made a 40 Ford to Vega adapator plate and it bolts right in, and tucks under the engine mount, and is not real obvious. Right now the other deviation is dual master cylinder, and If I could think of two deviations from the traditional build it would be the the master cylinder and the sector.......

Thoughts and comments?

 

What about running one of the early 60's chevy truck dual chamber MC. I've seen them set up with "Ansen" style hanging pedals. I think Titus might even sell a set up like that.

 

When the car was found it did have hanging pedals, and I can see why. Chassis mounted clutch (and more so the brake) pedals are tough to make clear the bellhousing, but things are fitting pretty decent. The dual master cylinder is under the chassis, and while not era correct it is not that visible.

Functionally the '40 box is an order of magnitude better than the 32-34, its era correct, fits better with its forward placement, but it doesn't look quite right (in my mind), and if anything the Vega is even less obtrusive. So where does one draw the line?

 

If the pedals are in it and its got a dual master then its done, why mess with it. im a die hard traditional guy and very seldom do i run dual masters (always have E-brakes) but thats one of those things, its super hard to see and any dude that gets under there and sees and give you shit has too much time on his hand.

The steering is a moot point, there arent a ton of options like you said, the nailheads driver side starter messes things all up, i have a build coming up alos that were going to be having the same delima, what to do for steering, i really dont want to do a vega as everything well be doing on the car will be period spot on so, were going to have to get creative, weve talked of doing the same thing you have about adding a support bushing to the 40 box and then machine it for double D, i consider that a pretty simple process, my other problem is that the u-joints dont fit the look of a traditional engine bay so we have been talking of making a chrome cover for the steering shafts and joint to kind hide it, like an exhaust tubing smooth cover. dunno yet, well see. i just would have to see the engine covered in all that cool vintage stuff and then have to live next to a vega box but again understand how it can happen, because its easy

JEFF

 

Since a Mustang box fits somewhat below the framerail, would it give you the clearance you need? I know it's not quite early 60's traditional, but it's older than a vega box.

 

The pedals will stay. To get the stroke I will have to move the 45 degree angle toe boards back a few inches. I can possibly use this to my advantage as it will create a concealed space that I think would hide the u-joint from view (inside or outside).

 

How about a 37-48 passenger car box under the rail with the pitman arm sticking up. This would be for push and pull steering rather than cross steer of course, but it may package. My friend (UKgav on here) has this setup on his pickup (built by Limeworks) and it drives really well.

Mart.

 

Interesting idea, I would like to see a picture, wondering if there would be a bump steer problem with the pitman arm sticking up?

 

Some reason i think i just read an article on this, an old rod and custom from the 70s, i think it was Jim Jacobs resto of the niekamp? roadster ill see if i can find it.

 

http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=778140&highlight=steering

Some discussion then pics of ukgav's setup on second page.

later jim

 

Tom Branch's roadster is set up with a 37-48 Passenger car box mounted under the rail with the Pitman arm pointed up. It is mounted fairly far forward...



I prefer to see a solid steering column mast on a traditional car. So if you have to use U-joints, if you can hide them and still use a mast jacket from the steering box to the floor/firewall I think it looks better. I cringe when I see a period perfect engine with a Vega box and u-joints down below...

Neal

 

This car is set-up to sit fairly traditional and with a fair amount of suspension travel. The bones are only split about 8-10" apart and terminate at the K member (so they hang down somewhat). With the box mounted under, and steering arm up I think the drag link arc, versus the radius rod arc will be a recipe for bumpsteer. Just like the Pete and Jakes catalog drawings that should be imprinted into all hotrodder brains!.

I am going to keep the 40 with the cross steering set-up. Traditional parts, maybe not as traditional of a solution. I will use the tube back to the firewall. I have sketch make up bearing support, needle bearing, and DD shaft adaptor to shorten the mast and secure it at the firewall. More to come!

 

I remember reading about Steve's lucky find when I bought that issue of Rodder's Digest back in the day. Glad to see its staying in the family, Steve would be proud!!

 

Great story and awesome coupe!

 

Thanks guys!

 

Ok, Short update. I came up with some dimensions/ sketches to make a few parts to shorten the 40 Ford column and use the mast back the firewall with a U-joint.
Inside I'll use a Limeworks column with a 3/4-36 spline and a DD-3/4-36 spline. The u-joint will be concealed (more on that later)

I decided to use a roller bearing not only because they can carry the load but they are cheaper than many ball bearings, and certain bronze bushings are getting pricey.

Heres the "print" and the McMaster Carr PN single side sealed needle roller bearing ($9).

You could also use this with a short section of 3/4-36 spline shaft from Speedway.



The dimensions worked out good. I pressed the bearing into the retainer with some loctite, the bearing rides on the shaft with a nice fit, and the retainer is a "Honeymoon fit" with the column tube (the column tube shown below is a scrapped Ford piece for test fitting).

To fasten the shaft adapter to the shaft I will weld the circumference at the chamfer, and drill and pin and weld in two places similar to the Rod & Custom Article in July 2012

I'll either use the old clamp shown or a two piece collar clamp (Mcmaster 6436K23) to clamp the tube and provide a mounting provision at the base of the firewall.

Here are the machined parts (Thanks again Darrel)

 

I've been researching parts and suppliers, and talking to the local machine shop about building the nailhead.

If I decide to use the Gotha rockers I have one that is roached, and a few where the adjusting screws seem loose.

Maybe they would take them back, there barely used, I don't have the receipt, but I have the box they came in.



This is the rough one. Looks like it back off and got mushroomed a little. Could still be useable.

 

Im the local Gotha nailhead rep and will gladly take returns for full refund of original purchase price.

But serious, if you decide not to use them id be interested.

 

That's funny..

 

A friend just posted a link to this old thread and it's sort of relevant here.. (And God bless C9).

http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=325015

Mart.

 

Mart,
Thanks for the link. It appears a 40 box mounted in the stock 32 location (fore and aft), but on the bottom side of the frame, with the steering arm up would be a hybrid of your images 1 and 2. Bumpsteer would be minimized over image 1, but not as good as image 2.

 

A few updates. I decided to make a column support that mounts to the chassis instead of the lower firewall. Mostly due to clearance of the rear most header tube. This provides a nice support for the u-joint.



The brackets have a slight lip rolled to give them a little stiffness and better form.




Here's a shot with the firewall back in. The rear header tube will pretty much conceal the u-joint. Header clearance will be tight.



Heres a shot from the inside. I made some 2 3/4" risers to mount to original toe board mounts. This allows the pedals to come up a little higher which is necessary, as at the original floor height the brake pedal doesn't quite clear the bellhousing.

I need to make a lower column mount, but the u-joint will be just under the floor level and it is operating within it's angle limits.




Now I can get started on the headers, and I think a mini-starter may help with the real-estate too.

 

Looks like it worked out really well, i like it alot.

jeff

 

Nice work!

I love the way you coped the bracket...

Sam

 

That is VERY clean and sano! I like it a lot!

 

Thanks guys. I appreciate the comments.

 

Looks great, and the idea of a mini starter, should help a lot for room I would think. Nice work!!