wayne sheldon

I wish I had $5000.

"Necessary" businesses could request through the rations boards to buy one of the stored new cars during the war (in the USA). In 1944, my grandparents requested and were granted permission to buy a brand new 1942 Oldsmobile for a few reasons. Number one, was that as a farmer, with nearly 90 acres of peach trees going to the canneries. You know all the old "canned peaches" jokes that soldier's loved to hate? My family (along with hundreds of other hard working families!) filled literally millions of those cans! (And I laugh every time I see a rerun of certain M*A*S*H episodes!) Well, it was almost ten miles into town, and trips into town were required often for many reasons important to the canning business. As if that wasn't enough, the army placed an aircraft spotting station on my grandparent's ranch, literally days after the Pearl Harbor attack! My grandmother was involved in local politics at the time, and they sometimes had to transport or feed the army personnel that manned the spotting station 24/7 through most of the war. (little known, they started shutting down the spotting stations that had to report every airplane sighting or sound a few months before the war ended as reliable radar detection had finally become practical!) So, in 1944, my grandparents were allowed to buy at their expense a new car as "necessary" for the canned peaches and aircraft spotting station. I sure wish I could somehow have gotten that car, however, the year I was born they traded it in for a new Cadillac (their car I remember as a small child). By the way, the car, built before the manufacturing shutdown in February 1942, was registered and licensed as a 1944 model. And that was what my grandparents called it.

I am not familiar with any Studebaker "trucks" per se of the 1920s, I don't know what sort of rims, rings, keepers, they actually used. Multi-part truck (and car!) rims used a wide variety of locking ring designs. Some were two part (the major wheel and a single locking ring), some three part (the major wheel with a holding ring and another locking ring!), while others had other bolts or clamps to keep the rings from working loose. There was another design, and this is very important! It was a two-part, the major wheel, and a single ring. What made this other design different, is that the ring did NOT have a cut or split in it to spring onto or off of the major wheel! HOW they work generally cannot be seen while the rim and ring are assembled with a tire in place. How to work with them is not something that a few thousand words can adequately convey. They are very difficult, and very tricky to work with. And, yes, they pretty much do require a special tool! My dad had a 1951 Chevrolet 3/4 ton pickup with the optional 15 inch tires and rims using this non-split ring design. He had taught me how to work with them, and I was changing tires on those rims by myself when I was twelve. How common they are? I don't really know. But I have not seen many trucks of any make or age that actually had them except for his. I do know the design went back some years earlier, and in larger diameters than his 15 inch. IF (big IF) this is the design of your Studebaker wheels? Advice needs to be very design specific. They are not really difficult to do, IF you know how? But it takes a "feel" gained through experience, to balance the pressure applied with the special ring lever, and the carefully placed light tapping of a medium hammer.

Rules varied by state, however, most states did not require headlamps until sometime after this car was built. Even Ford's model T did not come standard with headlamps in 1909. California did not require automobiles to have headlamps until 1921.

Cannot be sure without proper size reference, however I am pretty sure Mark W is right! That was my fist thought right off as well.

"Recreations" can be an interesting, and sometimes heated, debate. Like the more recent recreation of the "Beast of Turin" racing car, well done and basically accurate recreations allow us and millions of other people to see, hear, and feel the awesome power of a bygone era! Without them, such displays would be virtually impossible. As long as we can be clear about what is and what is not original or recreation? I am all for them. As long as a serious effort is made to do them properly.

You sure find some really interesting early stuff John E G!

Maybe not any more than a lot of us here? I have restored a few lesser cars that were worse than that! If one has the skills, room, tools, and time and money enough? It could be done in a home-shop setting. Years ago, I had a 1925 series 80 four door sedan. I loved that car. It was in so much better condition than that when I bought it, but it still took a fair amount of work to sort it out and make it really tour ready. For several years I enjoyed driving it on nickel era club tours, other events, even did display only at a couple low end concourse events. Unfortunately, I had to sell it when we bought our first real home. I would give almost anything to have another one. That said, I cannot in good conscience encourage someone to attempt such a restoration unless they have sufficient experience with major restorations, and all that they entail. I WANT someone to restore this car! I would love to know it was being done and done reasonably well. But this is the sort of project that breaks probably 95 percent (or more!) of people that attempt one. At 70 plus now, I cannot take on another major project car. I still have four project cars I need to try to finish, two of which are nearly as major as is this one, and both are at least as worthy of being done. For me? I enjoy the challenge, the special satisfaction, every part I restore that nobody else was willing to attempt to do! I have brought several cars that were considered "unrestorable" back to the point of looking good and being ready to tour on a moments notice! (I have never been sure they were ever actually finished?) Most of those cars I drove and enjoyed for several years. I enjoy both the restoration process and the driving the cars once they are ready. But that is me. A lot of very smart people on this forum will say it cannot be done, it SHOULD NOT be done. I won't say that. I will again say that most people cannot do it! But only you can answer whether or not you might be able to.

I - DID - call it ugly, and it is too new to really interest me, but frankly, I too like it! It is/was a very important time in history, both world and automotive. A last automobile vestigial of earlier wealth and opportunities being crushed by a war for world domination. The 1929 crash and following depression certainly helped that world political shift along! This particular car is a touchstone of both world and automotive histories at a crucial turn in time (for humanity). The "high hat" styling of the car doesn't really blend well with the sleek modern (for 1940!) front end. But somehow to me it gives the car a uniqueness that I find attractive.

A complicated time in Russian history. Stalin was head of the USSR at that time, and forced into war by German invasion. He certainly did not care about the Russian people, but was still trying to feign friendly to the US. I could certainly see them spending good money on an embassy car. The truth is that Stalin had absolute plans to eventually invade the US, and Germany's attempt to take over the world put an end to them. Think about that for a few minutes? Interesting car. Ugly no matter how I look at it.

I have known you as "brasscarguy" for so long now, I don't know if I can make that change? (No worries, I'll manage. I also remember that car from back in the 1960s!)

Don't get me going! Peter G would ban me for sure? But a few things. My mother was a journalism major, graduated in 1950. Me? School, teachers, and I never got along very well, so although I went to college to learn subjects I wanted to take, I never declared a major or got any degree. Through many of the past thirty years, my mother and I would discuss the sad state of journalism "today". While I always appreciate people sharing links to interesting articles about our collector and historic automobiles? I rarely ever follow any link with the "msn" in its address! Way too many of them have been so poorly written, often so incorrect, that number one they are pointless, and number two they are often so egregiously in error that they have no value whatsoever, not even as entertainment! How anybody could in any way be proud of writing such garbage is beyond me! DF, I have said similar things hundreds of times myself, but never quite so eloquently. I may need to memorize that line and quote it myself. Any permission needed or credit to give? Truer words were never said. The survival of civilization is wholly dependent upon language and communication! One should wonder about anyone that thinks a breakdown in language is acceptable. On to much more interesting things! That Napier is incredible! Floor sweepings or not. The sad fact of early racing cars is that most did not last long without major changes, engine swaps, or being wrecked. With a few exceptions like Locomobile "Old 16", very few truly original racing cars actually survive intact. The vast majority of significant racing cars were "on-off" cars to begin with. Rebuilding them from a few remnants is a massive undertaking as so much of it has to be made from scratch. I love a car like this one is said to be, resurrected from a few original major parts to as close to original as can be reasonably done. I myself have resurrected a few model T speedsters or racing cars from what I willingly accept the term "floor sweepings", I used as many original era speedster and racing car pieces as I could. I made them close to era correct in general design, materials, and methods as I could. I still have a couple project piles of era pieces that maybe I can resurrect another one or two? How else can one really enjoy the feel of racing of that era? How else can many people be able to see such cars in action? Bringing back era racing cars is a subject I could go on about for hours!

Some years ago, a good friend had a specific marque (I won't at this time mention the well known marque) one-off custom built 1915 roadster fully restored (at great expense!). After completion, I went to see the car back in their private collection. I don't recall the wheelbase, but for 1915 it was huge! Especially for a roadster! We were talking about the car, and they were curious, so I was elected to sit in the driver's seat, while they took a tape measure and measured the distance from the tip of my nose to the back of the Motometer! Sitting naturally in the driver's seat, it was exactly nine feet from the tip of my nose to the back of the Motometer! That is more than the wheelbase (only 100 inch) of my 1915 model T runabout? What a great view from sitting in that big roadster looking out the long hood to see that Motometer so far away.

Can't be sure without looking up close. There were some after-market headlamp lenses sold in the 1920s that were yellow, but I don't think these are those. Most likely, just the silver on the reflectors has tarnished badly. I have seen a lot of them tarnished to about that color, although usually in headlamps that have broken lenses. Quite often, if a headlamp has been kept closed and indoors out of the elements, the reflectors even after nearly a hundred years will be still fairly shiny! But I have seen exceptions over the years. If the headlamp is supposed to have some sort of gasket between the lens and the reflector, but that gasket is missing or has shrunk so much that most of it has slid out of place, sometimes the reflector can tarnish badly. Certain corrosive chemicals can become airborne, and even if a headlamp is closed up, a small amount of those chemicals can do a lot of damage to the silvering. Most headlamps that era had drains and/or small ventilation holes to let condensation or rain water out. Given enough time, those small holes can "breath" enough air out and in to allow some amount of silver corrosion.

The 1913 touring car has a flaw in the design that left them with weak sills not adequately supporting the back of the touring car body. The problem began showing up early in the 1913 production, so Ford rushed "fixes" which sort of worked, and had dealers call all buyers they could to "fix" them for no cost to the customer. That is sometimes considered one of the first automobile recalls! Ford also rushed a design change to correct the real problem. For this reason, the touring cars began getting the 1914 style bodies about July of 1913, and both 1913 and 1914 style touring car bodies were being assembled into cars through July and August. Interesting to note, that during those few months, a fair number of cars got a "mix" of year/style/model details. 1913 style touring cars might have a 1914 style windshield while down the line a 1914 style touring car might have a 1913 windshield! With the exception of those anomalous how ever many? Looking at the windshield hinge is often the quickest way to identify whether a car in a photograph is a 1913 or 1914. The runabouts as in this car for sale, however, were not affected by the weak design of the touring car sills. With no back seat to carry people, there was no urgent need to make the body change for the upcoming year. Researchers and knowledgeable owners I have spoken with seem to not be sure just when the change was made to the 1914 style with the rounded bottom doors. The general informed opinion seems to be that the runabouts changed quite a bit later than did the touring cars, likely September or October of 1913. One highly respected brass era T expert who has spent many days researching at the Benson Ford Archives said that at least a few 1913 style runabouts left the factory as late as December of 1913. The engine of this car is said to be November of 1913. So it could possibly have either the earlier or later style body. And of course, timelines for Canadian production may have been different, although most of the general details remained close to USA built cars at that time. I sure wish the pictures of this car were a lot better. Lots of details just don't show in the pictures. I can't even tell if the turtle deck is a correct era or not? It would be nice to know if it is a Canadian production car or not?

It may not technically belong in the "Prewar" period photos section? And there is in fact a "Postwar" period photos section where it may be more appropriate? (Which I rarely look in myself!) However, it is a wonderful photo, and interesting to me. One of the arrogant entitled children of doctors and lawyers that I was forced to share my high school experience with had one of those "Superbird"s and drove it to school during my (and his) senior year. I very much preferred my 1929 Reo coupe that I sometimes drove to school! No complaints from me.

I wish I had a picture of Moe Howard to share?

I notice the AR brake and probably truck transmission. If it still has the AR clutch and other special early AR parts, they may have been worth the price themselves! The great thing about it is that such doodle bugs have a following these days, Facebook pages, clubs and all! One could remove the AR parts and replace them with common later pieces and still keep the doodle bug as what it is.

This forum is one of the few places left in the world that I find any pleasure in spending a bit of time with like-minded intelligent people. So I have mixed feelings about the hard line on NO politics. I certainly understand it. To a point I completely agree with it? But some things in our pathetic world today cross a line and something needs to be said! And this is one of those things. Frankly, I have been wondering when this was going to happen. The writing has been on the wall for over ten years now. This particular monument hasn't been around long enough to have a historic standing deep enough to survive the current state of affairs. But what comes next? Mount Rushmore? The Washington Monument? The Lincoln Memorial? If the moderators want to delete my reply? They have my permission. I just hope they do not put me on restriction again. I don't think I could handle it right now. History MATTERS! And if it doesn't? Neither do our cars, or us.

A lot of money for what is there, but a lot of worse things could have happened instead.

As a really longtime fan of Red Skelton, I will attach a special consideration to your postings! Just for that association.

Fantastic! A friend in Idaho has one of these he did an incredible restoration of many years ago. It is still one of his favorite tour cars!

Headlamps are universal sealed beam replacement lamps sold in the 1940s and 1950s. They would fit most cars from the early 1920s into the early 1930s that were still being used as daily driver cars. Used to see a lot of model A Fords with them!

A common misconception that persists to this day caused by faulty memories that were relied on in the early days of this hobby. Much of what was "believed" in the 1950s well into the 1970s was incorrect. Serious research didn't begin until the late 1960s. Numerous books and various guides were published before then that contained a great many errors. Serious researchers (including myself!) are still debating on many details and the timelines surrounding them. Hundreds of researchers (I wish included me?) have spent thousands of hours searching through Ford's archives! They have found mountains of important information! Unfortunately, even those records are sometimes wrong. There are records of changes that have never happened, dated records that for whatever reason were written either before (planning stages) they happened, or "corrected" later and the dates given are wrong. There are also many things that were planned on, written into sales literature but then production delays of some sort would prevent them from happening (like wire wheels being standard equipment on 1926/'27 sedans!). Ford, like most automakers, usually made a model year change about August to October of most years bringing out the next year's model. However, production delays had the 1915 open cars not going into real production until January of 1915! I generally refuse to debate the "model year" of model Ts built between August and December as too many people are passionately crazy one way or another! Fact is, that there are at least FOUR different years to be considered. "Model" year, "calendar" year, "style" year, and "fiscal" year. Each of those varies from one year to the next, and for about a third of all model Ts ever built, more than one of those "years" may apply. And there is in fact, a fifth "year" that may apply? The year the car was first sold. And a sixth year, the year given on its registration? Shall we continue? Ford in the early days was so busy building a brave new world that they never made really clean changes from one year to the next. Six months after the 1914 "model" year ended, Ford was still build 1914 "style" open cars! For about four months (part of December 1914 till nearly the end of April 1915, Ford was building both 1914 style and 1915 style open cars in the same factories! Arguably, the 1915 "model" year was replaced by the 1916 "model" year somewhere around October of 1915. Although, running changes of numerous details had been made during the entire year! Changes continued to be made through some of the 1916 model year. The change to the 1917 model year was a bit cleaner. While there was some crossover while both styles were being built, that particular crossover time was fairly short (in the Fall of 1916 where it basically belonged). The slightly taller painted black shell covered radiator that defined the 1917 model year came and stayed without much trouble. From a practical standpoint, if it was from that timeframe, and it had the earlier style brass radiator? It was a 1916 "model". If it had the new stylish taller black painted radiator shell? It was and is a 1917 "model". The folding windshield was mentioned. THAT change actually occurred in stages during the 1917 model year! Early 1917s can often be spotted in era photographs because they had the 1915/'16 style windshield with the even folding hinges! If the photo detail is good enough? One can sometimes make out the mounting brackets. The 1915/'16 windshield brackets were riveted onto the frame and bolted onto the cowl. The first few months of 1917 MODEL/STYLE cars, mostly built in late CALENDAR 1916 and into January of 1917 had the same windshield, brackets, and mountings as the 1915s and 1916s. Somewhere early in CALENDAR 1917, the mounting brackets were changed, and they were held to the windshield frame by two round head slotted screws instead of two rivets! However for another month or more, the hinges were still even folding! Then the hinges were changed so that the hinge pin was held higher above the lower glass causing the offset folding windshield frame which continued through "model" year 1922 on USA built open cars. Canadian built model Ts had a major windshield change about 1920 making them different than the USA built Ts, Canadian built Ts had slanted windshields with two folding panes instead of one, as well as one-man tops beginning about 1920. The uneven folding windshield gave somewhat better ventilation in warmer weather as well as affording a bit more protection for the driver and passengers when the windshield was folded back. A whole book could be written about the string of changes in Model Ts through the "model" years 1914 through 1917!

Billy K, Great story! And appropriate for this thread.