Hey folks, I've been seeing some cars where people pull out the wood structure in the body and replace it with, say, 1x1 square tube. What are your thoughts on this? For my build I want to build a really tight body that won't be squeaking and wobbling. Perhaps a bit of added safety as well? Obviously we're talking about those 30's and earlier era wood reinforced body cars. Anyhow, just curious what the communities thoughts are on this.
I replaced using the wood everywhere, except where the door hinges mount. That area I fabricated using 1/8" sheet metal, rather than tubing. I designed it, so I would have some adjustment for the hinge mounts, as my wood working skills are lacking.
I'm not sure I get this. Surely far more of us have access to woodworking skills than to sheet-metal presses, considering the way the former generally comes attached to a human being rather than a huge corporation. Given that and the necessary information I don't understand how it isn't obvious that wooden-framed coachwork must be easier to reconstruct than pressed-steel. That is, after all, the context where wooden-framed body construction comes from. It was a way to create bodywork out of nothing without the guarantee of enough demand to justify the capital investment required for Budd welded-pressed-steel and suchlike construction. And the latter was adopted not for any primary technical advantage but in order to get rid of the need for a lot of expensive skilled labour, the advantage of which is contingent upon somehow ensuring enough demand to justify the capital investment. (How that demand was - and is - ensured in collusion with the state by effectively remaking the world to spec really makes the popular idea of an adversarial relationship between big business and the state look silly. But I'm getting political - rant over.) I think four things inform the traditional aversion, among hot rodders, to wooden-framed bodies: Ford - who, for the above reasons, used pressed-steel construction - had a huge market dominance, which meant that the bodies one was likely to find tended to be Fords. A lot of people consequently knew Fords, and a pool of vernacular technical knowledge grew up around Ford parts, as will happen when people collaborate informally to figure stuff out, try to fix stuff, try to modify stuff, etc. Pressed-steel bodies generally stand up to protracted neglect better than wooden-framed bodies, meaning that there are proportionally fewer decent wooden-framed bodies around, and even those might be rotten in parts. More recently, unitary construction has changed our feel for body structure to the extent that we have to re-learn a feel for wooden-framed or any other unstressed kind of body construction. Of course this doesn't address the use of small steel hollow sections where there used to be wood - a sort of home-brew superleggera which is a perfectly valid way to do it. But I think wood has some definite structural advantages, i.e. when it is strong enough for the job it is also amply rigid, and moreover it takes screw-fixings etc. very well.
My 31 pontiac had a LOT of wood basically a wood buck with the sheet metal nailed and screwed to it. In my case most of the wood was in good condition but it was still all removed except for some in the doors and around the trunk. Even wood I good shape will gradually get loose once you hot rod the car and start exposing it to power levels and driving that it was never intended
I guess I'm am kind of a hybrid guy. On my '29 roadster I made a steel insert to replace the front cowl filler so I could firm up th eframe mounting and get some support for some extra support hoops. Here is the link:http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=591871&highlight=cowl+support
I tend to feel that if wood was good enough for the OEM it's good enough for me. Perhaps some sheet metal cladding here n there to give it some extra strength isn't a bad idea. Also, wood tends to be easier to hang trim panels on. Catch 22 in some cases, but the early GMs were particularly bad in regards to wood/longevity. Tough call there.
Generally speaking if the wood is still good I leave it alone. I've been driving my latest project a 32 Chevy for over 4 years with no problems with the body moving around of panel alignment issues. I figured if it could withstand the road conditions and abuse over the last 80 years and still survive with hardly any ill effect then it should be able to handle a few hundred extra hoarse power plus if you build a good strong frame all the body has to do is sit there and look nice.
If you do it right, new wood will be tight and quiet. It takes patience, and it is probably harder than you might think. Even when done really well, a home-made steel frame tells me somebody was looking for a shortcut. I think it devalues the car for all time. I'd rather buy a car with rotten wood than a car with all the wood gone and a bunch of steel that doesn't belong.
Replaced the wood in a 32' Chevy 5 window by fabricating three dimensional pieces to replicate the wood as close as possible. Cutting the profile of each side in the flat (like dugbred shows above) and then welding the pieces together. I think it gives you better stability than wood and although it may not be as structurally sound as tubing, fits better and also provides a better mounting profile for your interior panels. It also makes an early Chevy, termite proof!
I think you make a valid point. Torsions tending to flex the frame and arising from road/suspension inputs can be considerably greater than engine torque, even with a short first gear. There are much better wood treatments around than back in the day. We also have the option of using species that might not have been conveniently available then, or might have been too expensive for the intended use. I don't know what mainstream manufacturers like GM used but a lot of high-end coach-builders used ash, as it is tough and stable and was easy to get hold of and relatively cheap then. Ash is, however, considered a perishable timber, the lowest durability class. Given the sorts of wood treatments available at the time and the relatively short expectation of durability it is a wonder as much of it has survived as has. There is probably also a better understanding of wood chemistry now, the way some timbers might leach resins and oils that might be corrosive to certain metals under certain conditions. That might be a factor with some tough, durable timbers like eucalyptus - that and warpage. Nevertheless, there are more options now than then.
Dodge was the pioneer of the mass produced all steel body. They had them in the early twenties. GM was last, they still used wood frame construction up to 1935 or 36. Everyone knew steel was stronger than wood. The problem was to get the cost down. Tooling was the big expense. Once they got the mass production problem solved and a few other issues like noise and vibration the wood framed body was obsolete. If the body has good wood I would say keep it. Or if a few areas need replacement, use wood. But if I had an old wood framed body that was shot and falling apart I would replace the wood with steel. This assumes you have the skills and the tools. Even then it might be necessary to use wood in certain areas. This would be very tricky. You would have to develop your own plans and the framework would have to be accurate to within 1/8" or less if the body panels were to fit correctly. How you would do this starting from a body that was sagging and falling apart I don't know. Finding a similar car with a good body would not help much. Wood framed bodies differed from each other even when new.
My latest project is a '32 Chevy 5wdw like yours. Some of the wood needs to be replaced but most of it is in amazingly good shape. I plan to retain the wood and reinforce some stress areas with steel.
I would go with wood for all the positive reasons cited above. That is what I have done with my Bantam V8-60 project. Wood is not necessarily the perfect material, but it did last in the parts donor car since 1932.
I tend to disagree. I picked up my wife's 33 chevy 3 window and all the wood was replaced with a steel inner structure and I am ticked to death that that part of the build is done. With almost 450 HP the body panels would most assuredly move creating all kinds of issues. Our first car also a 33 chevy 3 window had the original wood in good condition and we had all kinds of issues with stress cracks everywhere.
For me it was a no-brainer! I've spent most of my life as a metal worker of one sort or another and I prefer welded joints to screws and nails. As far as getting everything to fit, wood and steel are the same, except wood changes size with humidity and rots. (you don't find many wood framed car bodies here in Wisconsin with original wood in good useable condition) Oh yeah, my cab in my avatar was framed with white oak, much of it 3"x3" or larger, when I'm done I will probably save close to a 1000 pounds
About 80 % of the wood in my 34 Chevy coupe was still very solid. However, I wanted a steel floor and floor substructure in it, for the seats, and seat belts to bolt to. The only other places that the wood was replaced with steel were the door bottoms, and from below the trunk lid to the tailpan. A steel trunkfloor was also installed, and the roof insert was filled.
Depends on the car and the condition of wood. Nothing wrong with wood structure if it's in good shape. My '32 Phaeton has wood subrails and all internal structure is wood. I'm keeping all of it because it's in great condition and is a distinct trait of Australian bodies phaetons.
Only bad thing about replacing the wood is how to attach your upholstery. If you can leave a slot where the wood was take windshield glue and apply in this area. After it dries you can trim down with a knife. This gives you a place to staple your fabrics when you stretch them.
Wood was used in the beginning due to cost. In todays world, steel tubing would be stronger and safer. Seems an easy choice.
My '35 or '36 tall cab Chevy 1.5 ton is a dry CA survivor. Still, it has major wood issues. It will never be worth a lot, and I'd like to drive it sooner rather than later. The places making wood kits for it are months behind on orders? My approach on THIS truck is a combo wood and metal repair. The wood that is still present and has the outside cab contour in it and good I use as the filler between my new metal structure and the cab shertmetal. I use strips of rubber or cloth Like original to cut down on squeaks. I then construct an unobvious "cage" to capture all the wood pieces where they are. I weld these pieces together. The driver's door especially likes to pull right off the A pillar. My fix will include a metal tube section in this pillar so this will never happen again, the door hinges will be screwed to this tube. The tops and bottoms of these tubes will be welded to the " cage". The wood man will sell separate pieces and I'll purchase the necessary door, windshield header, etc to make my plan work. Remember that VERY few people would go to the trouble to save a 1.5 ton truck so my efforts hopefully mean it won't go to the recycler any time soon. Otherwise it would be lost forever? BTW, I'm using the heavy strap from the original flatbed edges to make the " cage". Don
Thanks for the responses guys! Sounds like wood is the way to go, as my wood is pretty good. All my top wood has been replaced. Maybe I'll build an unobtrusiver roll bar for safety's sake (and maybe nhra rules? I need to look that up). I can't imagine being hit or crashing in a stock body at modern day speeds...
Say Leviman, what ya building? As has been previously discussed it depends on the car. I replaced all the wood in my '31 Tudor, but the wood in this body style isn't structural, same with my '27 Ford RPU. But for cars that have a structural wood frame, with sheet metal panels nailed to it I think steel makes a lot more sense, or maybe a mix of steel and wood. Another thing.... on a rod with no interior the wood is pretty freakin cool lookin! Back in 1999 when my grandfather and I were headed to a car show / swap meet I asked him to initial and date a wooden roof bow on my model A. He did, but I think he thought I was nuts. He's passed on now, I still got the Model A and now it'll never get a headliner
I think it depends on the car and what you are doing for chassis and motor. If you are building a good stiff chassis and not a 500 hp plus motor, keeping the wood makes a lot of sense. If it is a really wood heavy car, the wood is all gone, and no patterns exist, you probably have another answer.
Here's a solution we employed when faced with a four-door missing all of its wood. We built a pickup instead. It is still getting new wood sills, but we can use original wood in two doors and eliminate a bulk of the remaining woodwork.
If you're working on something, like a Ford where you can buy wood already cut, that should be a no-brainer.
After 30 years of buying body shop tools (both air and electric) owning 5 different welders, I just can't justify purchasing and setting up a wood shop to fabricate pieces that I can make out of steel. Jeff
I"ve done it both ways,installing wood is a pain but fabbing all the steel is to.So if your wood is good,use it.It's a matter of what you want,have fun.
The Jalopy Journal
