Features T roadster gow jobs.

I did the same thing on mine. As far as I'm concerned, those components date to the later gow-era and are acceptable. At least to me. My main consideration was that I was building a driver, not an artifact.

 

This thread is great. I've reread it several times as I'm researching and planning an achievable pre-WWII build, and I'm taking a ton of inspiration from the prototype and build photos. I like the early stuff, but plan on semi-daily driving the car... and I don't think I'm up for a T drivetrain. So I'm currently thinking about a fendered T body (roadster, touring...) on an A chassis. Still 'Gow', or does the Model A frame and drivetrain push it into a 'Supe Job', 'Hot Iron' or other designation? I see a few T chassis running A bangers... I'm still researching but the fabrication and alteration to accomplish that seems a bit beyond my skills for a first build.

 

I think the big thing is not to sweat it. Putting together a collection of pre-war parts into something drivable is cool and it's got to please you. The terminology is something that Clayton and I more or less imposed on the different eras based on how we saw the evolution happen.

The actual term "gow" persisted long after 1934 or wherever we said the gow era ended. To us, a gow was more or less a speedster but with stock bodywork. In practice, when Hot Rod first came out in 1948, actor Robert Stack (he was a rodder, long story) asked Pete Peterson why he didn't call it "Gow Job" since people knew what that meant.

That indicates the term had a lot of currency even much later. In fact, the name of the magazine is probably responsible for solidifying the term hot rod to describe a car modified for speed.

Put a lot of "A" parts into the mix, run V-8 wheels, and you naturally drift into looking like you're from 1937 or so. We termed those cars "hot irons" but you don't have to call it that. It's just semantics and an attempt to impose some order on the chaos of history.

It'll be a cool car, no matter what you call it.

 

i made a little progress on my "Gin Runner" last weekend, pushed it outside to get a better view.. I plan to change the rear tray back to a shortened touring style tub for somewhere the dogs can ride!

 

^^^That looks like fun!

 

.

I’d say the best option is to keep it simple. Take a running and driving model a chassis. Leave it alone but lower it as much as possible, dropped axle, reversed eye springs and same in rear probably with a model t spring. Pinch rear of chassis to fit under t body and bolt a t body down. Keep the tires tall and skinny and you’ll have something that is basically a correct gow. You could even use juice brakes if that’s what your more comfortable with.

 

I couldn't agree more. That is by far the fastest and easiest way to get to the result. No need to start doing stupid stuff like we did, LOL. Maybe we both went a little overboard in our ideas, but the end results will still be nice. I can't wait to drive!

 

Thanks, man. I've been thinking on this a long time. The nomenclature of "gow", "iron", "supe" isn't as important to me as staying true to a period. Generally "pre-war" and more specifically early '30s. And I appreciate the work and thought that's put in to try to impose some order to the chaos!

Well... you basically nailed my current 'recipe'! I want simple and basic for this car and a lowered A chassis with a T body feels 'right'.

Pinching the frame... that's something I hadn't considered...

And I want to keep mechanical brakes. At least initially. I'm in a rural area and I feel like I can put the work into setting up the mechanicals to work for me.

The builds here are inspiring and the time you all put in to documenting the builds is appreciated. The photos really help to visualize how all the bits work together and make it easier to come up with a plan. Thanks to all for that!

 

1940 - Genoa, NV. Gow, buckaroo, Gow!

 

Here is a build thread on putting a t body on a model a chassis. I always wanted to see this car lowered. Unfortunately it sold overseas, and I wasn’t paying attention and missed it!
https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/25-t-roadster-gow-job-build.832278/

 

It is in the capable hands of Mr. Peter Stevens, whom - among many things - is one of the designers of the McLaren F1 supercar; https://stateofspeed.com/2019/04/30/f1-designer-peter-stevens-takes-his-t-black/

 

Not sure if it has been posted before or whether it's relevant to this thread, but this pic turned up on FB today captioned "Student vehicles at Stanford University in 1917."

 

Thanks, David! That’s a great build and answers my question about narrowing the rear of the frame. Does an A frame get narrowed for all T bodies or just the earlier bodies? Would a ‘27-‘28 roadster also need the pinch?

 

Good question, I’m not sure. If you poke around online I think there is a line drawing of the 26-27 t roadster with dimensions. The 26-27 roadster seems to be easier to find if that encourages you. I got my roadster body a year ago and I’ve seen maybe three bodies come up since, @guitarguy being one just an hour from me(lucky devil!)

 

Here is a dimensions drawing for 26-27 t roadster body and also for ford model a frame

 

I love this place. That helps a lot David. I do hope I’ll be able to contribute back to the community once I get into a build. Thanks so much!

PS - after a quick review... It actually looks like a ‘26-‘27 T body almost directly bolts to an A frame... NIFTY.

 

Well - the two rear crossmember bolts sort of do. But that's it...

 

If I had a chassis and body here, I’m sure it would be obvious... but right now I’m building in my imagination so I’m trying to gather as much information as possible to make a determination of which direction to go. So any experience shared is very much appreciated!

 

I can take a ton of pictures when you need.

 

@hotrodfil, in case @RyanAK doesn't know your Ts-on-A-frames track record (an to refresh my own memory! ;-) ), could you please list the ones so far?

 

They do seem to be multiplying.

 

I had always heard them called 'Strip Downs'. Another of those suggestive terms that might lead to a 'Gow Job'. Who knows?

 

Strip-down/cut-down seems to have been a very prevalent term when these cars were being built the first time. To the modern user, though, I've always felt it might not be sufficiently descriptive, whereas "gow job" is such a unique term, the listener either knows enough to be able to picture the style, or will be confused enough to ask for an explanation.

 

Nice job on those seats.

 

I’m having a nice chat via PM with @hotrodfil about his cars. Great stuff. His track record is impressive! Several other guys have PM’d with great advice. Much appreciated all around!

 

The car is owned by Jim Lindsay of Shedd, OR

 

Love those early dodges!

 

Let's not let this thread fade. My T GOW is starting to take shape. I'm using the back section of a 1922 T touring and an early 20s cowl. I believe is a Dodge Brothers. But not totally sure. All on a stock 1928 model A chassis.

 

I've just bought this Aussie T roadster body with the view to build a Gow job, not sure if it'll be on an A or a T chassis. Will see what parts turn up.

I'm also surprised that @Greg Stokes T hasn't had a look in yet, it's a great little car!
Perfect to my eye.

 

Neat thread-‘23 T built by Joe Runyan of Pasadena Cal in the 1970s.