X-Frame

The way the book lists them is Model number with Serial Number then body letter. Again, I am not home to check the book but your examples above - the top one came off a 1935 since the model is 653 - would read like: 653-5620A. The one below is from a 1936 for model 852 and would read 852-3612I (not sure where the E comes in but will also check). Eric

Correct, no 6-cylinder cars in 1932. there was a base eight, custom eight, and the larger models. Remember these are in-line eights. Any pictures of the engine to post? But if a 1932 there should be one letter at the end of the serial number representing the model-body style. I will check again when I get home and post an example. Eric

Custom Eight A models will have an A after 8100 but all models will have a dash and four more numbers then a model code letter at the end.

Does someone here have an Auburn restored, body off, or any pictures of the bare frames from 1930 on they can share? Thanks.

A 1937 Red Book that I have also says the Serial Number Plate should be on the toeboard for 1928-1929. Apparently 1928 and 1929 numbers start off with the year number. Year..Model..Number Range 1928..6-66 2874801-2878300 1928..8-77 2864732-2866900 1928..8-88 2847536-2848000 1928.....76 2878301-2948000 1928.....88 2866901-2948000 1928....115 2848001-2948000 1929.....76 2948001-2982400 1929.....88 2948001-2973000 1929....115 2948001-2950500 1929..6-80 2982401- and up 1929..8-90 2973001- and up 1929...120 2950501- and up To add... the serial numbers for various models start with the following prefixes The 1930 models start with 685, 895, 125 The 1931 models start with 898 The 1932 models start with 8100, 12160 The 1933 models start with 8101, 12161, 8-105, 12-165 The 1934 models start with 652, 850 The 1935 models start with 851, 653 The 1936 models start with 654, 852

John, are there not bylaws within the group's charter that these board members are supposed to uphold when they took office? Can their decisions be overruled because of it?

Aren't frame and serial numbers supposed to match? If so the info in #2 should help. I have Blue books and NADA books that have them in it as well. If the two match then you should be able to get a year of a frame even if swapped by number brackets.

I should be so lucky to have such a puzzle in my possession.

Roger, my jaw drops every time I see updates with this museum quality model which has to be "priceless"! I know you still have probably a year left on this but wondered if you had considered another project afterwards?

I still need to figure out about the 1966 Riviera continuation with the cruciform frame when they had an opportunity to switch. One person said it was due to the stronger body it shared with Toronado/Eldorado which was built like a unibody. Someone else at Hemmings says no way, that it was misunderstood and that the body only "looked" unibody by the roofline-quarter design. Then I also read that the body may have been built in part unibody - at least on Toronado from the 3rd frame support back (rear seat to rear bumper) as this is where the separate sub-frame is attached to the body and then connected to the main frame (Toronado-Eldorado had a 2-piece frame). It is getting confusing. Then I see that Riviera's cruciform was "beefier" than the other GM models using it and that in conjunction with a more sturdy body (one owner-restorer said that the rockers were substantial and built in 3-parts) was a solid car and no need for change. Got to find a definitive answer. Thanks!

I also have the SAE books and reports that printed the reports by the designers and testers of the frame and they admit that the design is flawed but safe in their eyes citing side impacts happen above the rockers and door posts actually absorb most of the impact and those were reinforced.

I got it covered Bernie concerning the legal end. I have done my research there since I work at a law firm :-) But there was one lawsuit (there are others) that is well known and used in classes ... There is a line of cases directly supporting General Motors' contention that negligent design of an automobile is not actionable, where the alleged defective design is not a causative factor in the accident. The latest leading case on this point is Evans v. General Motors Corporation, 359 F.2d 822 (7 Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 836, 87 S.Ct. 83, 17 L.Ed.2d 70 (1966). A divided court there held that General Motors in designing an 'X' body frame without perimeter support, instead of an allegedly more safe perimeter body frame, was not liable for the death of a user allegedly caused by the designed defect because the defendant's design could not have functioned to avoid the collision. The Court reasoned at pp. 824 and 825 of 359 F.2d: The above is from a study book... below is my entry for the book explaining the above: " There was a high profile case which is still used in law schools as an example of how courts could render conflicting decisions and even overrule them for future cases. The case of Evans v. General Motors Corporation where chemist Roy Lester Evans, PhD (1924-1964) was driving his wife’s 1961 Chevrolet Impala Nomad station wagon on January 25, 1964 in Evansville, Indiana to pick up his son from the movies. He drove through a blind hill intersection and was broadsided by a 1957 Ford driven by Alan Ray Tolley resulting in injuries that killed Evans and a passenger in the Ford (George Daniel McFadden, Jr. 1946-1964). Dr. Evans' widow Barbara acting on behalf of his estate and their four young children, claimed that GM was negligent in their design which caused her husband’s death and even cited GM's own admission that their 1959 Oldsmobile "Guard-Beam" frame with side rails protected from side impacts. The court denied her claim in 1965, she appealed the following year and lost again in the higher court because the judge made a majority ruling that the car’s frame was safe for its intended purpose and is neither accident proof nor fool-proof. That the obligation of the manufacturer was against construction defects and not design defects. Barbara remarried in 1969 and died just 2 days after her 70th birthday in 1990. "

There were some lawsuits going on about this time involving deaths from side impacts against GM. The people lost because the courts sided with GM stating that the company had an obligation to manufacture a car that was free from flaws but not responsible for safety because crashes were unpredictable and saw it unrealistic to design a car for all kinds of crashes. GM knew that the Oldsmobile was safer and that the cruciform tubular frame was not as safe even before it went into production according to SAE documents. They were phasing it out then and in 1961 not only Pontiac changed but so did Oldsmobile. Cadillac and Chevy changed in 1965 as did Buick except Riviera.

Bernie... I know that some frame may have been built as convertible types with thicker gauge steel or have extra welded strips along the top of the frame rails. Chevrolet in 1958 boasted as well as having heavier rockers and floor supports. From what read the 1966 Riviera - they want it to also be a FWD car like Toronado and Eldorado and all shared the same body which was built like a unibody so these did have a heavier construction minus the frame. Guess I am wondering why Buick picked up on the X frame after the K type rather than a perimeter one? And if Pontiac dropping it the year Buick picked it up had anything to do with one another?

While researching for our book and working on the GM frames, I believe I have answers concerning "why" Buick continued using the X frame well beyond other GM cars? Seeking input. Passing the below on to you seeing if anything mentioned rang true or not with you? I have a much expanded historical narrative concerning this for our book but below is a very quickly written “Reader’s Digest” version Why did Buick Riviera continue using the X long after other GM cars had abandoned it? Short story is that Chrysler lit a fire under everyone’s butt with their new lower designs. Buick sales had been down due to stereotyping long before the 1958 recession that also hit the industry. A low, wide, and edgy design was introduced for the 1959 model year in hopes of drawing more than the traditional Buick buyer but it backfired. Traditionalists hated the design and a steel worker’s strike in 1960 put Buick in 9th place with sales. With the new body came a new chassis as well called the “Equipoise” K-Frame. But it too failed because the K still obstructed front footwell depths and it retained the torque tube drive, a Buick trademark since 1907 which was plagued with jounce-creating un-sprung weight. So in 1961 a completely new design approach was presented in a lighter, smaller, more conservative car which utilized the currently Tubular Center X-Frame introduced on GM cars in 1957. The oddity here is that the other makes were phasing this out and Pontiac dropped it the same year Buick picked it up. The new frame did not allow for the torque tube so it was discontinued after a 52-year run but did allow for the needed dropped and flatter floors to compensate for the lower body profile. In April 1961 the Riviera was approved and executives wanted it out the door for the 1963 model year which meant on such a short time schedule the same X frame used on the other Buicks was utilized with slight alterations for wheelbase and body size differences. And since the Riviera body was approved for a 3-year run, this put it a year past when Buick had dropped this frame on the other models leaving the 1965 Riviera the last and only GM vehicle using the Tubular Center-X Frame. For the 1966 model year came changes once again including those for suspension upgrades to the frame yet Buick continued on until 1970 with this wasp-waisted chassis. One explanation was that the 1966 Riviera shared the E-Body also used on the front-wheel drive Toronado and Eldorado, designed to be a unibody car so the shell was stronger than in previous years and thus no need to change frames already working on a low production car. In 1971 the X was finally dropped and changed to a perimeter frame design again resulting from last minute design changes and for budget reason sharing other Buick platform components. Eric Huffstutler

1940 Chevrolet Cabriolet I am seeking anyone who has, had, or know of anyone with knowledge of the 1940 Chevrolet Convertibles, especially the chassis frame design. It is a one year, one car, one make design and quite unusual complete with "skids" on the side rails and seeking "why" this was chosen then the next year a more conventional completely different frame used for the Cabriolets? Thanks! Eric <!--POLLS--><!--FILES--><!--SIGNATURE-->

A little more digging and I see in the book "The Complete History of Chrysler Corporation, 1924-1985" it says that "Floating Power," for years a Chrysler Corporation selling point, was another Skelton innovation (with Ken Lee), and would become almost universal. Roger "Ken" Lee on the patents was the chief research engineer. Carl Breer was the research director. Owen Skelton was executive engineer. Fred Zeder in charge of engineering activities. In the book mentioned earlier it said that Breer would give Lee an idea, Lee would come back with a prototype and the Breer gave in final instructions on how to improve it. Skelton wasn't mentioned other than being part of the design team. So getting mixed signals there. But there are many patents registered under Lee's name. Still would like to also know if the chassis change was Werdehoff's idea? Thanks! Eric

keiser31 Thanks for responding. Often group leaders receive the glory for their co-worker's efforts. Zeder was the head of the group dubbed "The Three Musketeers" and the Walter P. Chrysler museum names Zeder as the inventor as well as Lee Iacocca also mentioning him in his book. And believe the book "The Birth of Chrysler Corporation: and its Engineering Legacy" by Carl Breer, he seems to think that it was a team effort, his brainchild but the work developmental and physical test was done by Ken Lee (Roger Kenneth Lee) and Zeder gave it the name Floating Power. Other lists your Skelton as the main person so... it still seems all over the place depending who you ask? Are you for sure Skelton is the person to cite or could it have been a group effort but the grunt work was done by Roger "Ken" Lee? Then the chassis frame had to be changed to accommodate the new motor mounts because it lost torque strength and a X brace was incorporated. Who is credited for that? All I have seen is the patent person named as Albert Werdehoff who worked as chassis designer including for the Airflow.

This is a VERY early Mopar question and hope there are some historians here. It is known that Chrysler introduced “Floating Power” in the 1932 lineup. It was the first American use (and suspected worldwide) of actual Motor Mounts and not simple isolation bushings which date back to 1922. There is a controversy as to who actually designed them? The “team” leader was Fred Zeder and that is who Chrysler credits. Others say it was a chief engineer designer Owen Skelton. But the patents submitted are under the name Roger Lee. So, just who is supposed to get the credit? Thanks! Eric

Does anyone here know, can show through photos or parts catalog diagrams the differences between the 1959 and 1960 Buick chassis frame? There has to be some considering the front floor pan and center tunnel was lowered allowing more legroom on the 1960 model. Something with the K or transmission brace? Would like to know for sure... thanks! Eric

Barney, did you get some names? I am interested in asking some questions especially about the Ghia built Imperials and the T&C convertibles!

Since you only have one post I am hoping you still read this thread. Yes, could you post some pictures of the car's workings? I would be interested in knowing if it had a separate frame (chassis) and what it looked like? Thanks for the offer!

Even so, the name should have been registered with the trademark - copyright office and/or patent office too. Ford legal and research teams are supposed to be on top of these things.

Does anyone have any background information about Edward E. Glowacke who was head designer at Cadillac and VP of GM design department? For someone so prominent during the 1940s-1950s at GM, he sure is elusive. I only know he was born in 1921 in Detroit and died 1962 in Pontiac, MI and is buried there. I have his obituary but it is not very wordy and skims and misses over a lot of information. He was married and had a son named Rex, who have completely disappeared. His family did live in Canada before moving to Detroit around 1917. Any help is greatly appreciated. Eric

I will have to find my post from a while back because as you said, it was a different time. There were a couple of lawsuits against GM by car owner's families that had someone killed in these X framed cars and lost because, the courts sided with the auto manufacturers then. The auto maker was NOT liable for people's safety in an "accident" but only liable to make sure the car was free from manufacturer defects that may injury an occupant. They viewed the act of a crash is not predictable so the auto maker is not liable. It took a few of these cases before they started to do testing and change the laws.