1932 ford frame, to box or not?

Should I box a 32 frame with K member and model A cross members, if I am going to run a flathead and 39 transmission with a close drive?

 

No.

 

better to have it and not need it then need it and not have it......

 

i am certainly no expert, but i would box it (step box it)

 

Nope! But if you really want it to work well, hit up Elpolacko at I.C. and get a pair of his rear X-member legs that tie into the original center crossmember and frame rails. That's the best way possible to come up with a stable yet traditional platform to work from.

 

As someone who has built several cars just as you describe, I would not.

 

Another no.....

 

The 32 came with a V8, lets say you uped the HP 30%, the frame as long as it in in good shape can and will handle it. Yes you can box it but i tink unless you are running 300 or more HP it isn't necessary. I think the simple unboxed fram looks great.

 

Exactly.
I probably wouldn't if i were running that drivetrain. Really don't think it's needed.
Also have to agree on Elpolacko's set up if you're looking for rigidity. It's real slick and with stiffen everything up without having to box it. Or making one like it.

Tony

 

I like to fab my frames, this is sound advice.

 

I would box the front part for sure, but you have to be careful you don't warp anything. Short welds, cool down time, and more short welds. Box the front end so it doesn't have a twist when the engine torques. If you went to any professional ch***i shop like Boyd's or Andy's in CA, and I've done a lot of ch***i work myself even though you're running a flathead, you always make the upgrade changes.

 

Lay the frame on the floor, then try and pick it up from one of the front horns.........then ask yourself the same question again!

 

Put me in the NO column. There are exceptions from time to time. How many steering box setups have been welded/torched etc. I'm in the process of salvaging a 33 frame now for a future project. It has had three steering boxes adapted. It may get boxed from the firewall forward. I am planning on running a 283, so if it was a flathead as my truck is, I wouldn't worry about it. Tim

 

No.

 

I agree with those who say don't box it and I also agree with Need Louvers? and Tony on using Industrial Ch***is, Elpolacko's K-member legs. I have a set on a frame I'm building now and it certainly adds rigidity to stock frame rails. In addition I would reinforce any areas that have cracks or heavy pitting on an original frame.

 

Another no.

 

The rails are new Americans, so they are structurally very sound and the k member and cross members are mint.

 

Go elpolacko, or if you like to make stuff, do em yourself! I did.

 

Not for everyone but it is possible, and traditional!

I did some amateur testing on a couple frames. Stock frames flex quite a bit by design and the addition of my rear legs kills quite a lot of the flex. Believe it or not, the weakest section on the frame is not the front but rather the S-shaped section just ahead of the rear axle.



Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

 

i personally would box it. maybe its not as traditional but it is a whole lot safer. as stated above, see how much it flexes. it will make you wonder why they werent originally boxed

 

This is always one of my favorite misnomers to work from. Boxing mainly increases beam strength, not torsional rigidity. Where the boxing "cures twist" (torsional ridgidity) is in the fact that in the process, most weld the crossmembers into the frame. The boxing itself doesn't for the most part effect this. You could honestly take your stock frame and weld the crossmembers in and have the same effect without the extra weight and warp of the boxing plates.

Or, take your stock frame (unwelded and unwarped) and add a pair of rear legs that extend back to the rear crossmember, and get the same effect. Oh, plus a heafty amount of flex removed from the already not so bad beam strength that I started this little rant with.

This called trianglulation. The front legs roughly make the front of the frame a triangle, and the rear legs make another tringle. Who else used this design? HHMMMMMMM, how about a guy named Henry Ford, who used it on every frame after the one you are contemplating building.

 

Yes........but, just welding the cross members to the frame will concentrate all the strees to that local area,...........something Henry did not do.
True Henry triangulated the centre cross member, but if you look from 34 up the centre cross member was extended all the way up the rails also adding double wall thickness, therefore transfering the stress all along the rail.

In my reply, I simply stated doing a test to see if he is comfortable with the result......thats all.

 

QUOTE=need louvers This is always one of my favorite misnomers to work from. Boxing mainly increases beam strength, not torsional rigidity. Where the boxing "cures twist" (torsional ridgidity) is in the fact that in the process, most weld the crossmembers into the frame. The boxing itself doesn't for the most part effect this. You could honestly take your stock frame and weld the crossmembers in and have the same effect without the extra weight and warp of the boxing plates.

Or, take your stock frame (unwelded and unwarped) and add a pair of rear legs that extend back to the rear crossmember, and get the same effect. Oh, plus a heafty amount of flex removed from the already not so bad beam strength that I started this little rant with.

This called trianglulation. The front legs roughly make the front of the frame a triangle, and the rear legs make another tringle. Who else used this design? HHMMMMMMM, how about a guy named Henry Ford, who used it on every frame after the one you are contemplating building.

______________________________________________________


DON't think so !!! not even !!! JMO

______________________________________

" Real hot rods don't have fenders "

 

If you're not dumping the clutch, there is no need to box it even with a 283/39 trans...

 

Another no from me, Your not changing the weight of the car and if anything its lighter now than stock. I didnt box the frame on my 32 3 w and have driven it 9500 miles in the last 3 years , To me traditional means traditional all the way through the car, goodluck Scott

 

No offense to you intended Human Fly, at all, it's just one of those things that I feel needs futher explanation. And definitely let the O/P make his own decision. But I do have three early Ford frames in my back yard right now that have been almost warped into a non-usable state because of boxing done poorly. I will at some point straighten them back out and use them, but it would have been a whole bunch easier with out the boxing.
And, you are right about Ford going to a double wall ***embly after '33. What I was looking to point out was the triangulation factor of an x-member. If you have never put one in an "A" through '32 frame, you have no idea how dramatic the difference actually is.

 

Thanks for all the feedback guys. I think it looks bad where front boxing plates meet the K member. I may just box the rear portion. I will be C notching above the rear axle so I will definitely box that portion.

 

Ford didn't build stout frames because of the unpaved bad roads of the day. A flexible frame allowed for a smoother ride... the cars needed to flex in order to traverse ditches, mud holes and the like without breaking or cracking the frames.

 

You've seen the pictures of the Ts, As and 32-34s crossing bar ditches at an angle which throws the opposite side tires on front and rear higher and then reverse as the car traverses the ditch, haven't you? The triangulated suspension of the early Fords allowed tremendous flexibility in conjunction with stout but "loose" frame to keep it all together. Just old Henry's funny suspension idea that heis cars used from 1909-1948 and sold and worked just fine.

 

No, but if ya want that extra rigidity, add the aforementioned legs that tie in to the x member/side rails.

Rat