X-Frame

Your English may have limitations but your talents don't!

Yes, cars of today are supposed to be safer due to materials, design, and as you said, scientifically tested crumple zones. And as you have also seen, cars of years past were heavier with thicker gauge steel but that created a problem. They were so stiff (pre 1966 safety standards beginning) that people were injured more by the hard G-force impacts of non giving hard steel body and chassis designs because you were thrown harder upon impact than if the car crumpled and absorbed the impact. I am sure they were probably safer in slow speed crashes or non violent rollovers but more high speed impacts were an issue. Also, they knew that side impacts normally happen above the separate chassis side frame rails anyway - which was an issue and brought up during the whole 1957-1964 GM tubular center-x (no side rails) design frame debacle in which GM was sued for. But at the time, GM was not held liable and was prior to the new 1966 laws. This chassis design carried over until 1970 on Buick Riviera but they felt more confident since the body was built in unibody style attached to the separate frame so in essence had double protection but was very stiff.

Don't think it is Hudson either. They did not use those loop door handles and seems like the beltline design only shows up on 1912 or earlier Hudson's. Eric

Hey Roger... yes, the 1957-1964 Cadillac (and continued to 1970 on the Buick Riviera) was the Tubular Center-X chassis. And true, there is usually a "fish plate" of about 1/4" thick stitch welded to the rails up to the kicks on convertible models. Here is an example looking at one of the X legs with the convertible metal strip reinforcement...

How about the 1931-1933 Auburn X... different?

I had learned not too long ago that the Wagonaires used the Lark Convertible chassis. Just like another oddity was the 1957-1959 Chrysler Imperial 4-door HT used the convertible X frame as well but did not need it. Think there was another oddity as well but can't put my finger on it at the moment.

Maybe Australian imports were using older style frames as opposed as in the states? Just like some Ford models in the 1950s lag a year behind in style in Oz. Here are some of the later year examples from 1946-1948 The disassembled one on its side is from 1947. The gray painted frame from 1946. The one in the grass is 1948.

emjay, the X is still being used today on at least (and may be the last) one production car today. The London Taxi TX4. I also know that the X is used by many custom high performance chassis makers, some reproduction boutique cars, and is in a form on a few NASCAR chassis so its importance and strength are still respected.

Those double pipes are the mufflers with cylinder baffles in them. Being small diameter they used two

Ahhh... but of course Ford did use the X starting in 1933 and on convertible models only from 1949-1964 (Fords - Mercury and Lincoln had different time brackets of use) I put together a visual identification example for them a couple years back for the 1935-1948 models. The 1933-1934 was slightly different than the 1935:

Even here in America... an example of the more traditional X being used in this 1924 Goodyear chassis:

The 1924-1927 Delage GL was an early example of the more traditional X design used on an automobile long before the Cord L-29.

I see you noticed the center section where halves meet kept getting smaller. Most are riveted together and some welded. Of course, this was not consistent and of course there were more traditional equal length legs from a central axis design being used on vehicles at the same time. (see Alvis X chassis used between 1928-1931 attached for inconsistency). Strength also came from the fact that early on, engines were bolted to the frame at four points which kept it from twisting but when rubber mounting was introduced and of course, floating power, the frames became weak and the use of X bracing became fairly universal. Is there a formula for the most effective X leg length or angle in mind?

Another similar but don't think it was identified but suspected as a Sunbeam?

It is definitely a brass era car - more like 1912-1916 era... see Rover and Singer both have that upper body lines but the cowl will be the focal point to look for. Here is a 1913 RCH Touring which has that wrap over line and seem like the same windscreen hinge. Just doesn't have those door handles.

X OR NOT AN X - That is the question! The examples (and there are others) I put together show what is considered a Transverse X brace chassis design. The earliest "automotive" use I have come across thus far is on the 1922 Hotchkiss AM. It, like the others, claim that it is truly an X design. Some people will dispute that even if the manufacturer state it is. Delage, as with authors, have made claim they have been using an X brace for years like shown, starting 1926. Please stake your arguments here, pro or con, and why...and if you know any earlier use... Thanks

Chuck, thanks for the '35 Hupp FWD article. Any idea where it ended up? And still not sure about the '32 model seen above unrestored. Who designed and built it? There is no mention by Muller or anywhere else I have run across yet, that says this one was built but obviously it was. Any background about it? Eric

That would be great, thanks.

Apparently this one was restored but can not find pictures of the finished product? Also, as in my other post, wonder how this fits in with the Bill Muller creations since all I see his name linked to is a car he created at Budd and finished in 1928 which was pitched to Hupp but rejected. Joseph Ledwinks also created one at Budd that Muller helped finish the drive in 1931 and Citroen used it as inspiration for the Traction Advant. Then there is the Ruxton prototypes which have nothing to do with this... and the 1936 Hupp Aerodynamic I am waiting on a picture of outside a small printed pic I have in the 1965 Car Life magazine. But there is no reference that I have run across, including Muller interviews, that mentions a 1932 Hupp version though he would be back at Budd by this time and suspect Archie Andrews still on both company boards?

Just checking in since the end of the month is approaching and reminding you that I am still in need of the Muller designed 1936 Hupp FWD as well as the 1932 model. But since I can only find reference in print that Muller through Archie Andrews, came up with the '36 version, is it assumed that Muller also created the '32 model as well even if there is no note about it? This isn't the Muller designed 1931 Budd Special? He created a car while at Budd, left in 1929 for Europe, Joseph Ledwinka came up with his own car but unibody which Muller was called back from Europe in 1931 to help finish... but his car he finished in 1928 (seen in photos also as a 1931) - wonder what happened to it? It was the car they tried to pitch to Hupp but was rejected. Thanks Eric

Bringing this back up since I have run across a magazine photo. Does anyone have a good picture or point me to one for the William J. Muller - Ruxton drivetrain 1935 Hupmobile Aerodynamic? I know there was a 1932 version as well and it still exists - been restored? Was it also a Muller creation? Also, since both Hupp's were built when the company were using X braced frames, did they utilize it or were they on proprietary ladder types? Thanks!

Al... also, the 1960 still had the same torque tube as 1959. It was 1961 when that disappeared along with the K brace chassis. You aren't confusing those?

Thanks. This is a bit perplexing though because from what I had heard, there was a smaller sized Hydra-Matic transmission used which allowed the "tunnel" to be dropped down helping out those sitting shotgun and getting their butts bumped by it through the cushion on the '59. This still doesn't say how the floor pan up front was dropped 1 inch. From the 1960 shop manual it says the frame was redesigned... but how? From how it looks the pan sits on top of the rails that run beside the tranny.

There is supposed to be a change or alteration between the 1959 and 1960 chassis allowing for a 1-inch drop in the front floor pan on the '60. What was changed? Thanks. Eric

There is suposed to be a difference between the 1959 and 1960 chassis allowing for a 1 inch drop in the front floor pan on the '60. What was altered / changed? Thanks Eric