I just bought a '50s pickup, and the prior owner shaved the door handles and installed remote door poppers. Now these things are a PITA. The door strikers (the pin) was moved to the door, and the latch mechanism was moved to the jamb. That places all the solenoid stuff in the back corner of the cab, but it eliminates any way to put a traditional lever on the inside of the door. To exit, you need to use the remote. To make matters worse, the remote will not function if the key is in the "on" position...so nobody gets in or out without first turning off the engine. I found out quickly with my new truck that it is risky to step out of the truck with the engine running: if the door closes, you can't get back in even if you have the remote in your hand! Does any of this sound normal? Maybe it's wired wrong or some safety feature needs to be disabled? It sounds as if I need to put in some momentary switches on the insides of the doors so we can exit without using the remote, and a hidden pull cable may be needed to get in from the outside. Anybody have thoughts?
They probably reversed the latches to avoid having wiring go thru by the hinges every time the door is opened. I have drilled and tapped a hole in the arm part of the latch and put a polished rod that came out thru the finished interior via a slot that allowed manual operation of the latch. Sorry I have no pictures of how I did it. I also ran a rod down thru the cab corner and out the bottom(out of site) that did allow manual entry from the outside. Always worried about entry if it had a low battery...
Does it have the small combine style latches? With the pin and the safety or double latch as you close the door.
If the rest of the build is as poorly designed, I'd get rid of it. even the front door gap is way off. who knows if the ch***is is safe. .
first i would change the wiring to make them function at any time....ignition on or off the way you describe it's function makes me think that there is a full time power wire going to them , and then a wire coming from the ignition on position to disable them...maybe through a relay? you could possibly just change a couple wires
Strangest problem and set of solutions I've read today...but Pat Thompson in #4 post presents the most logical, (one I would have planned and built the system around!) THEN rewire the electrical part that prevents opening with engine off? I had a nice mild custom '53 Vic that I cleaned the handles off of, along with hood and deck 'garbage'... BUT! Before rolling the windows up, closing the doors, etc....I tactfully ran a new VW braided throttle cable from the bottom of the inside door handle 'bellcrank' forward thru the doorjamb, down below 'A' pillar, and out the bottom of the floor, outside the frame rail. Just reach under and pull the loop down. If you could reach it. (fortunately, my electrics never failed me, car was a low taildragger, and I would have had to lay on my back for the proper 'arm geometry' to reach the Ding-Dong Ring!) Solenoids were '40s Chevy starter solenoids, saddle mounts flattened to bolt onto inner door skins. My switch was a NAPA heavy duty truck starter ****on, drilled thru the chrome spear. Hard to spot.
Good looking truck! I prefer door handles myself, but with the latch and pin swapped, it would be a bit of a project to correct them. I used an Altman Easy Latch kit on my 49 Chevy that was awesome. Far better and more reliable than factory. Didn't even require repainting the area. They make universal kits as well to mount bear claw latches. Or as others have mentioned, rewiring the latch releases on your current system to work any way you chose should be easy for an experienced auto electrical mechanic. Or by yourself with some patience and good wiring tools. Sent from my iPad using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
My little brother's Model A has the latch in the door jamb and the pin in the door like you have. He did not wire his to only open during OFF conditions though. He has a small ****on on the dash to open the door but a regular handle and cable to the latch in the upholstered quarter panel in case of emergency. And a pull cable under the car to open if the battery goes dead. You might want to do the same kind of thing. Shouldn't be too hard.
I quit removing door handles, but I have several cars that I did remove them. A couple of them are reversed like yours. Any time you remove handles, ya need to make provisions for loss of power. On mine I have "T" handle cables under the floor (reach under the car pull handle car opens. On the inside I have a very small lever hinged by a 3/16 bolt with cable going to latch (extend left arm to floor behind seat push down door opens). Both cables to latch have large loops as to not interfere with electrical operation of the latch.
Electric only doors are one of the most ****ed up ideas I ever saw. It's flawed on every level. I know this so I wouldn't have bought it, but since you did the NEST idea is where you'll find complete resolution. Lots of work and paint too.
It ain't a custom if it has door handles! I can see the logic of reversing the latch, especially if you run an emergency rod, or cable to open the door if you have a solenoid, or electrical failure. I ALWAYS run an emergency cable to open doors, if I shave the handles, and it is a pain to run a cable through some of the old car door jams. So...put in a rod (run straight down under the rocker) or a cable, to open it in case of failure, and rewire it to open even if the key is on. Not a big deal. "It's the price you pay, to be cool" as we say. A small inconvenience.
I don't understand why the reversing? I've never seen it done. I will be using that type of latch on my model A. Is there an advantage to reversing? Terry aka dirt t
I get it, but ,,, - how cool are looking you when you're locked out of your own car ? - with it running ? - how cool are you looking when you get locked inside your own car because there's no inside handles? Or out side handles? - how cool is it when the Gl*** guy hands you the bill? Ok so let's say you cover all those bases with silly bicycle cables. - how cool is it that you really can't lock the car because of your normally unnessasary but now imperative safety cables ? Clean uncluttered flanks are cool for sure, in my book if you can pull something like this off its not only cool but way smarter . Door mechanisms are always complicated, that's because there's a lot of things they need to do and from where they need to do it. There's one latch, the interior handle is on the opposite side and the opposite end of the door than the exterior handle and you'll want to p*** gl*** between all that mechanism. Since EVERYTHING should be as simple as possible but no simpler,,,Well just **** can all that handles and linkage and add solenoids, shaved smooth & simpler right? Except it doesn't cover a big part of that EVERYTHING and THE things LEFT OUT get real complicated with ******** compromising work arounds trying to correct the simplification.
My little brother put the latch in the jamb because a '28 Model A doesn't have enough room in the door behind the window track for a double-jaw latch. The small single-jaw might fit, but he wanted a better latch. And the plus is he doesn't need to run the safety handle through the door.
There is a couple of solutions, with an electrical one probably being easiest if the truck has an automatic trans with a neutral/park safety switch and the door poppers and the controller have their own separate ground wires. If that's what you have and want to retain the door-open 'lock out' feature when the car is in gear (not just 'running'), here's how to work it.... How it's probably wired now is the poppers are both connected to ch***is ground on the ground wire, with a switch wire to the remote receiver/controller. The controller get power through a relay, connected to the normally closed contacts. The relay coil gets power from the ignition terminal on the ignition switch. When you turn on the ignition, power is cut to the controller and you can't open the doors. Good safety feature, but with the problems you've noted. To 'fix' this, start by disconnecting the controller from the relay (leave the relay control wiring in place; you'll be re-tasking the relay). Splice the controller wire back together, supplying unswitched power to the controller. Next, move to the neutral safety switch and disconnect the starter solenoid wires from it (we'll get back to these). Connect one side of the switch to ground. On the other side, connect the controller ground wire and the relay coil ground wire. When the switch is in neutral or park, the switch closes and powers up both the controller and the relay (the relay only if the ignition switch is 'on'). Connect the starter solenoid wires to the normally open contacts on the relay and you're done. The doors will only open when the car is in neutral or park, it won't matter if the key is on or not. You can add momentary switches inside to open the doors, but these will byp*** the 'lock out' feature. If you want the 'lock out' on the inside switches too, rather than connecting the controller ground to the safety switch, connect the popper grounds instead. The only concern here is the popper current draw and if the switch is rated high enough. Even with this, I'd still add a exterior mechanical latch release.
http://www.hotrod.com/articles/1009cct-1946-1948-lincoln-push****on-door-handle-install/ Always thought these were a cool alternative to shaving handles . not really a solution for you but grist for the mill.
I'd put door handles back on it like HRP suggested and ditch the stupid electric stuff. Police and other rescue guys hate that stuff and if they ever have to get you out of the vehicle, they won't even think twice, they will take the roof off with the jaws of life and presto, instant RPU And it doesn't even need to be that serious of an accident. If there are no outer door handles off comes the roof. I have seen it happen....
If you're worried about a low battery make sure you have at least one or two spare batteries at hand Sent from my iPhone using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
Yes. Apparent simplicity often requires real complication. It's something people in my line of work have trouble understanding. Take a table, for example. A four-legged table is simple enough. A three-legged table is arguably simpler, being self-stabilizing albeit over a smaller relative area. A two-legged table requires going into cantilevers, and a one-legged table cantilevers in two planes, but nothing insurmountable. Now, try a zero-legged table. A zero-legged table is as far as you can take apparent or conceptual simplicity - you eliminate the "complexity of legs" - but how do you keep the table-top up off your toes? Fishing-line from the ceiling? Fishing-line from a weather balloon or something out of visible range, in the case of an outdoor table? Hidden electromagnets? A guy in a turban sitting cross-legged and concentrating really hard? It gets very complicated very quickly. And the table-top still falls on your toes as soon as the guy in the turban has to go to the toilet. And I agree: a clever door handle with some care and consideration behind it has more appeal to me than no door handle at all. Here's one by Zagato, c.1955:
Sounds like your current set up is a safety hazard in the event of an accident. They would have an impossible task getting you out. I'd put the door handles back on. Gary
I have some experience with this since I sell the latches and installation parts. I encourage to put the latch in the door, so you can hook up the stock inner handle using a mechanical connection. Also recommend some back-up entry method. No for OP and his reversed set-up. If you don't want to do work to make it normal positions, then you need to determine the wiring and see what the hot ignition lead is connected to that disables the solenoid from operating, and then remove that. I would install a simple switch that will open the door from inside so you don't need the remote to make it open. Also add an additional mechanical connection with a cable or similar for entry if dead battery.
The Jalopy Journal
