X-Frame
-
Posts
799 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Gallery
Events
Posts posted by X-Frame
-
-
I have done some investigating and it looks like the original configuration was being phased out in 1951 and completed by 1959. Does that sound correct?
-
I have done some investigating and it looks like the original configuration was being phased out in 1951 and completed by 1959. Does that sound correct?
-
I've been told Cords are Quite the driver. I was suppose to go for a ride in one but it was down with a minor problem.
The idea of driving the Auburn with a truck/ lumber wagon feel doesn't bother me. I was told 33 was the best year because of improvements including Hydraulic brakes. I drive an F250 superduty diesel stick 4 wheel drive truck every day so other than power steering and disc power brakes it's not going to be too different.
If I was really concerned with ride I would probably buy a luxury boat from the 60's.
Yes, the FWD Cords were horrible on the road, hard to handle.
-
I have a question about a 2000 Buick Century and wonder if there is a group where I can post my question to? Thanks.
-
If they have an offer for a Discovery show, most likely it is the Strip 'N Rip out of Las Vegas, that turns cars into Rat Rods. I think all of the car shows on cable either chops or customized them and none do a showroom restoration. That said, I am betting they are holding out to see who is the highest bidder to bait these people at Discovery and get 15-minutes of fame with it. And, this could be a young kid selling the car with no manners when it comes to business?
Eric
-
This is a cross post of sorts but hoping others here may have the answer?
This involves Chrysler's Floating Power engine mount configuration first introduced in 1931 on their Plymouth PA and for the 1932 model year, on all of their cars. With this new system, the frame had to be stiffened and they started the trend of using the X brace chassis.
One article coyly says that the frame as it was, could have withstood the stress but, made it sound like they proactively did the change anyway. Of course, it was physically needed so, was it Albert Werdehoff who holds the patent, or someone else?
Also, does anyone know when they stopped with the original layout of having the mounts on a pod under the water pump and moved it to the side? Or when they stopped using the term "floating power" for engine mounts? I see on the Imperial site a vendor that lists side engine mounts up to 1966 as such.
Thanks!
Eric
-
Good Morning everyone. I am bringing my post back up because after a year and a half, I am still no closer to finding the definitive answer as to who came up with the chassis design change? One article coyly says that the frame as it was, could have withstood the stress but, made it sound like they proactively did the change anyway. Of course, it was physically needed so, was it Albert Werdehoff? Thanks!
Oh, also, does anyone know when they stopped with the original layout of having the mounts on a pod under the water pump and moved it to the side? Or when they stopped using the term "floating power" for engine mounts? I see on the Imperial site a vendor that lists side engine mounts up to 1966 as such.
Thank!
Eric
-
That style of shock was supplied by Spicer & Monroe to Auburn in 1934. (the frame is not Auburn) Why would they have the design pressed into the frame around the area of the hole provided for the axle?
Curti, who said the frame was an Auburn? It is a 1933-1934 Graham. The thumbnail pic is from a 1934 Graham brochure.
Eric
-
Looks like I am sticking with a 1933 or 1934 (used 2 years) Graham chassis. I just think that someone may have changed out the lever shocks but... Monroe built the first original equipment hydraulic shocks for Hudson in 1933 so these too may be original but not standard equipment?
Sorry for the typo... the years are 1933-1934. The 1935 had a different bracing under the radiator.\
Small pic from online in a brochure. Trying to get a better one now for my collection.
-
With the Rambler in the background, it is hard to pinpoint since the car is a bit blurred but it is definitely either a 1961 or 1962 Rambler Classic. I lean more towards 1961 since the grill appears to be a bit smooth.
The Packard is a bit trickier since their series number is quirky and they used body styles 2 years in a row. We can eliminate certain models that have the egg-grate grills and those with wraparound lower grills where the turn signals are. That leaves the 1949 or 1950 Eight or Super Eight 2302 or 2322. I may be wrong but it is a best guess without seeing the rest of the car. Attached is a 1950 Super Eight series 2302.
-
Came across this chassis sitting in a field with other auto parts. The only vehicle I'm aware of that has its rear axle passing through the chassis is a Bugatti, but this is definitely not a Bugatti. Couldn't locate any identifying numbers or markings. Patent number on the differntial offers no clue.
Anybody out there recongnize this?
002.JPG003.JPG005.JPG001.JPGAfter a quick check, as I remembered it is a Graham chassis. The design was used in 1933-1934 with the "double X" design but again, want to make sure about that before I give a definitive answer. The shock absorbers are throwing people off. I will do some more investigating.
-
Thanks guys. The person making the post did contact me after your suggestion to do so. I am glad people remember me in a positive way when it comes to all things "X-Frame"
I will give it an attempt after looking over the pictures more, this evening. I am at work right now. But when the axle runs through the side rails it is called a "banjo frame". One American car that comes to mind is Graham or Graham-Paige but there were others, more so in Europe. I will look at my sources and post an answer here this evening.Eric
-
It took a couple of years but while looking through journals this evening, I discovered that the chassis in question is a 1910 Alden Sampson. Now, to see if there are earlier models with X bracing? Thanks.
-
That drawing is from the set of books titled AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEERING by the American Technical Society and is just labeled as a typical heavy duty frame. My copy was printed in 1934.
You mentioned above that you recognized the drawing from your book. Is there way of getting a scan of that diagram from it so I can have a clean copy rather than a photocopy? Thanks.
-
This is an old topic but while looking through old journals this evening, I ran across the identity of the chassis from my original post. Turns out to be a 1910 Alden Sampson. This is a couple years earlier than I expected but still seeking any earlier ones if they exists. Thanks.
-
Anyone here can help with a picture, diagram, even chart showing that area of the chassis for these cars? Thanks.
-
Does anyone here have one of these models and could provide a picture or drawing of the chassis, especially the front part around the cowl - transmission area? Thanks!
Eric
-
Now that's a challenge I would enjoy. As long as there's no deadline. Did I mention I hate deadlines?
In 2011, West put me in contact with the curator of the Bahre Collection and he took some pictures of the chassis for me. It is just sitting and really needs a good restoration and then placed in a better location than a private garage museum.
-
You can see how short they are with this girl standing next to one... In any event you did a First Class job and wish you could get ahold of the Packard FWD Prototype since it needs a restoration!
-
I have seen some other British bodies like the Stutz Weymann Monte Carlo that also has a channeled body. Wasn't aware of it on Ruxton. I think the picture is of extremes anyway and they used a large vehicle for comparison for the effect. The Ruxton Model C stands 53 inches tall (less than 4-1/2 feet tall) while the average car then was 6-feet tall (or more). The fact that your head hit the roof says it was short since cars were designed for hat wearing people then and part of the Hudson (and others) low profile challenges of the late 40s-mid 50s.
-
Ruxton on left above next to a more traditional height car then. The deep double drop frame was responsible for this while the car on the right used a straight type rail frame. (example below)
-
We are so use to seeing double-drop frames since they were the norm before unibody, that we don't think about these things outside of frame alignments. But many cars beforr 1907 and long afterwards since they did not take off at first, had basically straight side rails over the axles (the kick-up). As you can see on the Ruxton, it has a high curve over the front axle area and a shorter one over the rear. If you draw a straight line at the top of the curve and measure down to the top of the side rail where it goes straight down the side of the car, what is that drop distance? As mentioned on Peerless it was 2-1/2 inches but on Ruxton it was much deeper as you can obviously see. I was curious since the low body profile was very noted on these cars if that info was readily available or mentioned somewhere in a manual?
-
Barry, I have a quick question for you about the Ruxton. I know that in America, the 1907 Peerless was the first single drop frame by 2-1/2 inches to help the center of gravity. The 1907 Imperial (not Chrysler) was the first with double-drop for in-line drive. Some dropped very low so the cars are short in body height by the standards of the day and the Ruxton was like 11-inches shorter compared to some.
Does any of your manuals or documents state by how much the Ruxton frame is dropped in the middle by inches? I know it is a very deep drop behind the engine since there was no drive train to the rear axle being FWD. Thanks.
Eric
-
Does anyone know if there is a problem with the SMC Blueprints website? Their url address is paid up but everything seems to be down and emails go unanswered.
Eric
I will give it an attempt after looking over the pictures more, this evening. I am at work right now. But when the axle runs through the side rails it is called a "banjo frame". One American car that comes to mind is Graham or Graham-Paige but there were others, more so in Europe. I will look at my sources and post an answer here this evening.
2000 Buick question
in Buick - Post War
Posted · Edited by X-Frame (see edit history)
Thanks. I didn't want to ask if this was for Buick's from 1946-1960s. The problem is probably common from what I have read but need to voice a question.
This is possibly a transmission solenoid issue but at the same time, it seems to be temperature reactive.
In the winter months (for the past 3 years), the transmission runs fine, engine is strong, and gas mileage is great.
When the outside temperature raises above 70-degrees and temperature gauge rises about double than what it is during the winter months, the transmission will downshift and clunk hard into 2nd gear, whine, the engine runs rough and gets bad gas mileage. It happens in particular after driving for a while or when it is hot outside.
I am wondering if possibly it could be a fluid cooler issue or still a transmission one?
The engine runs a bit hot when in city traffic or idling. When it runs well, the gauge is around 1/4 but when warm outside and things start up, it runs up to around 1/2 or a little over before the cooling fans kick in.
It has around 80,000 miles.
Thanks
Eric