Agree on most of that except the this last part. If any car was known for cost efficiency it was Ford. As for the parallel leaf springs, I think that for the most part they are an eye sore but they were certainly adopted by quite a few lake cars because it makes sense. The inline 6 by the 40's was a pretty healthy motor and always gave the flathead (pre 8BA) a run for their money. The "BULKY" frame you speak of are one inch shorter then the famous '32 frame that every one used and provided a wheel base that was much closer to an ideal then Model A frames could. But yes a great deal of work and research would be needed to keep up with Ford counterparts.
I call BS on that....I've talked to way to many old timers that said the stovebolt took the flatheads for the first 3 or so blocks and back then that was all the race took to show who was the big **** of the block. Plus the parallel leafs are ***y!
The Chevy's are just as traditional as the Fords. The Chevy vs. Ford thing goes back to at least the early Thirties, with each having its own following. Same goes for the 6 vs. 8 thing, and even the 4 vs. 8 thing. As much as I hate to admit it since I'm a blue blooded Ford guy, one of my uncles was back then (and is now) a Chevy guy. In the Thirties and Forties, he had a '32 Chevy coupe hot rod. (BTW, he would never even think about putting a Chevy engine in a Ford body. I think he'd say that's just stupid.) I agree that that the survival rate of the '32 Chevy is lower due to the wood. It is also why more are not built (rebuilt) today. Regardless of all that, the '32 Ford has won the battle. They are iconic even a**** non-car people. stu·pid (stpd, sty-) adj. stu·pid·er, stu·pid·est 1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse. 2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes. 3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake. 4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied. 5. Pointless; worthless: a stupid job.
Nice solid looking Chevy, JeffreyJames, and that '32 is neat too, but I noticed that it doesn't have a Wayne head on the engine as you stated. Both the intake and exhaust are on the driver's side on that car. (stock configuration) A Wayne head has "cross-flow" tech. with the intake on the left (driver's side) and the exhaust on the right. (p***enger side).......Rick
From where I am right now the nod goes to Ford purely because the amount of Ford information floating around is much more, and much more readily accessible, than Chevy information. The same goes for aftermarket parts support, which often hangs together with the information aspect. People who make re-pop parts are often very good sources of technical data, like Wescott's frame drawings. I don't get the wood thing, though. Sure, a twenty-year-old Ford body was likely to be in a better state than a contemporary Chevy body in 1950, but 60 years later both might pretty well have to be rebuilt from scratch: in which case the Chevy has the advantage. GM used wood because they weren't as much mechanized as Ford at the time; their methods were more labour-intensive and relied more on skilled (and relatively expensive) craftsmen. Surely that's more easily replicated by someone working in a home workshop than complex ***emblies of steel pressings would be? So, Fords are more practical if you've got half-decent parts to begin with: but not all of us are knee-deep in affordable early Ford parts. Chevies are more viable if all you've got to work with is information: but the information you're most likely to have is Ford information.
How's THIS for a conflict. I LOVE old Chevies but I SELL Fords... I've tried selling Chevys but they're just not as loyal as Ford buyers and will cross shop Toyota, Honda and even other GM Brands. Nothing, to me, looks as cool as a Flat Head with all of those bolts on it. Almost anybody can make a small block chevy run and the aftermarket support for it is phenominal Just my $.02's worth. Rob
The Jalopy Journal
