Franklin's wooden frames. I'd like to know which other cars used wood in the frame, especially post WWI

[mikewest]

On 10/28/2022 at 3:33 PM, Steve Braverman said:

I have two wood-frame Franklins. The engineering is fascinating. i don't know of any other cars with wood chassis rails post WW1.

Morgan cars. Great little cars.

[wayne sheldon]

12 hours ago, Avanti Bill said:

I always heard that one of the reasons there were so many more early Fords than any other marque was that Ford was the first to get rid of wood for the body frames.  Of course Ford produced a lot more cars than even Chevrolet so that has something to do with the numbers.  Way back when the wood framing gave way the car was just junked and didn't survive well enough to be restored at some later date.  I have also been told that Ford set out to defeat the carpenters union early in his career. 

Interesting legends, but not fact.

 

I don't recall offhand what year it was? However, Maxwell had a basically all-steel body beginning about 1907 on their inexpensive little two-cylinder runabout. Which is why so many of those survive still. The first year for Ford to use mostly all steel bodies was the 1926 model year, nearly twenty years later! Not exactly leading the way? The Dodge Brothers, former partners of Henry Ford, after they left the partnership to form their own automobile producing company, began using mostly all steel open car bodies in the late 1910s. Still nearly ten years before Ford.

 

Certainly, the deterioration of wooden framing lead to the early demise of millions of automobiles. However, other factors including changing technologies and styles, and the rough roads and dusty conditions, generally rendered most automobiles of that era worn out and obsolete long before the bodies fell apart.

 

As for the "carpenter's union" thing?, I never heard that one before. 

[JV Puleo]

Steel chassis were pretty much the rule after about 1905. Franklin was one of the only exceptions and they continued to use them because they were both lighter and stronger (given the extreme care they put into making them) than the available steel frames. They stopped because the buying public expected steel and because they were having an increasingly difficult problem getting the wood they needed...as well as the workmen skilled in handling it. There were many so called "advances" in design that were driven by buyer's conceptions, almost invariably formed without any knowledge of the engineering involved.

 

As far as all metal bodies are concerned...those go back much further than their adoption by Ford. Well before WWI there was the Springfield Metal Body Company...Pierce Arrow used cast aluminum body panels for a time. These changes were often driven far more by cost. It was the 1920s before metal working machines were up to producing an all metal body and the 1930s before a sheet of steel could be rolled large enough to make the top of a car.

[Terry Harper]

Of more recent vintage, the short lived but clever Costin Amigo comes to mind which used a wood chassis.

 

[JRA]

I own a 1928 Ford Model A phaeton and a 1928 Chevrolet touring, and I can easily perceive the differences of a wooden frame on a open body car when driving. Despite of different production numbers of these cars in 1928, it is much easier to find 1928 Ford’s than 1928 Chevrolet’s in car shows, so it is clear to me the lower survival rate on the Chevrolet was determined by the natural deterioration of wooden frame for such cars and its complexity to maintain or restored, compared to steel.

[hook]

3 hours ago, JRA said:

I own a 1928 Ford Model A phaeton and a 1928 Chevrolet touring, and I can easily perceive the differences of a wooden frame on a open body car when driving. Despite of different production numbers of these cars in 1928, it is much easier to find 1928 Ford’s than 1928 Chevrolet’s in car shows, so it is clear to me the lower survival rate on the Chevrolet was determined by the natural deterioration of wooden frame for such cars and its complexity to maintain or restored, compared to steel.

I agree that the natural deterioration of wood led to cars disappearing but, I think the simplicity of the Fords running gear added a great deal to it's longevity more so that the wood framed body. A four-door sedan Model A Ford has as much wood in it's body structure as my 30 and 31 Franklin sedans do.

[Avanti Bill]

On 2/29/2024 at 8:45 PM, gwells said:

Actually, Bill, I believe that's not 100% accurate.

Here's the best table I could find that I didn't have to remake. Doesn't show production numbers, but I think it gets the point across.

 

 

Ford clearly dominated sales through the first half of the '20s.

But most people don't realize that Chevy actually outsold Ford for two out of four of the Model A years. And that Chevy outsold Ford in 1927, 1932, and 1933, too. Ford fought back during the middle '30s, but after that Chevy took over until WWII. From 1926 to 1941, inclusive, Chevy was tops in sales nine times and Ford just seven.

One personal experience many years ago suggests those who target the wood-framed bodies that Ford largely abandoned by the mid-to-late '20s as the reason old Fords of this era have survived at a much higher rate than Chevys are on the right track.

In my later HS years, I bought a 1926 (IIRC) Chevrolet sedan that was essentially complete, out of a guy's garage near Nashville, for $80. This would had been in the very early '70s, perhaps very late '60s. Every single piece of body structural wood on the car was extremely rotten and all the nailed-on external sheet metal body panels were literally falling off.

 

It's been almost 55 years, thus my memory is a little fuzzy, but I think I quickly sold the car to someone else for $200, without having to actually move the car first. I think I hleped guy who bought it from me take it to his place.

 

To this day, it remains the most profit, percentage-wise, I ever made on a car I bought and then later resold. LOL.

 

I stand corrected!  I knew that Chevrolet overtook Ford but I thought it was late into the '30s.

[Steve Braverman]

2 hours ago, hook said:

I agree that the natural deterioration of wood led to cars disappearing but, I think the simplicity of the Fords running gear added a great deal to it's longevity more so that the wood framed body. A four-door sedan Model A Ford has as much wood in it's body structure as my 30 and 31 Franklin sedans do.

I believe most Ford closed car bodies were all-steel by 1925.

[60FlatTop]

The 1936 Chevy I pulled out of my grandmother's barn still had the upgraded nylon stocking to keep the driver's door tied shut. The wood in the doors was pretty saggy.

 

Many cars today use a variation of nylon in their body construction. Probably got the idea from women like her. They also have easier loading of the steel milk cars on the modern crossovers. You don't have to take the rear seat out and risk it being misplaced.

[PFitz]

2 hours ago, Steve Braverman said:

I believe most Ford closed car bodies were all-steel by 1925.

I don't know about all the Ford Model A body styles, but you can buy kits to replace the body's wood framing for some close cars.

 

Paul 

Edited March 1 by PFitz (see edit history)

[hook]

2 hours ago, Steve Braverman said:

I believe most Ford closed car bodies were all-steel by 1925.

Wrong! Steve, have you ever owned a Model A four door sedan? The coupes, two door sedans, & pick-ups were mostly all steel except for the roof and floors. The four door sedans were made by Briggs and Murry body builders and their structure was no different than any other coach built car of the early thirties. The wood structure was no different than the 1930 Franklin sedan. I've been there done that and got the T shirt!

[PFitz]

Even the steel framed Franklins used a lot of wood into the '30s  Here is a '31 Dietrich Convertible Speedster body after being re-wooded.

 

For those that don't like naked car bodies, don't look. 😁

 

Paul

Edited March 1 by PFitz (see edit history)

[hook]

8 minutes ago, PFitz said:

Even the steel framed Franklins used a lot of wood into the '30s  Here is a '31 Dietrich Convertible Speedster body after being re-wooded.

 

For those that don't like naked car bodies, don't look. 😁

 

Paul

Nice work, I love naked car bodies.

[31 LaSalle]

I dont no what year  chrysler stopped using wood but this is my 1928 chrysler conv coupe wood frame

[60FlatTop]

21st Century: https://morgan-motor.com/21st-century-coachbuilding/

 

[PFitz]

3 hours ago, hook said:

Nice work, I love naked car bodies.

Thanks. 

Then the question is,.. is it car porn or art ? 😁

 

Paul

[hook]

2 minutes ago, PFitz said:

Thanks. 

Then the question is,.. is it car porn or art ? 😁

 

Paul

Don't be knotty!

[wayne sheldon]

2 hours ago, PFitz said:

Thanks. 

Then the question is,.. is it car porn or art ? 😁

 

Paul

 

Definitely art!

 

I too have done a few total re-wood a body restorations. However, none of the ones I did were quite as complicated or nicely done as what 31LaSalle and PFitz showed.

 

My 1915 model T runabout in process,

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 2 by wayne sheldon
I hate leaving typos! (see edit history)

[Ozstatman]

....Back in 2011 while visiting a restoration workshop, Vintage Motor Garage, north of Sydney, Australia saw this pair of Cadillacs being rebodied to turn into V16 Roadsters. 

 

Floor sweepings, car porn or art? Wonder what happened to them?

 

 

[Roadster Willy]

I have 2 Brushes, one a Runabout, and the other the Gentleman's Roadster. Both cars have wooden frames, wooden wheels, wooden axles, and wooden bodies. (A common jibe at the time they were in production was "Wooden wheels, wooden axles, wooden frame, wouldn't run!")

I also have a 1926 Franklin 11A Rumbleseat Coupe.

I must say that after 98 years and 75,000 miles, the doors on the Franklin still close like a bank vault. There is no sag or misalignment anywhere on the body. (although I must admit that Franklin had a repair scheme for cars in the late 1920's which installed a metal cable over support struts mounted on the bottom of the frame rails to introduce  a sag support system.) I see no current indication that my car would need anything like that. Perhaps cars that wintered in the northeast states of the U.S. developed a sag after awhile. but my car was apparently first sold in California, and then migrated in the 1950's to Arizona, with both states being noted for good weather and well-preserved cars.

The Brushes are not in the same condition, having been obtained at the Homer Edmiston sale in Nebraska. However, I have to say that disassembling the frames for restoration showed me how tough these cars were. Every joint on the frame was absolutely solid, even where the wood had started to deteriorate. It was physically difficult to separate the cross bars from the side frames. Absolutely NONE of the frame bolts were loose in any way when I took them apart. 

 

When I was in aircraft mechanic school back in the 70's, I was amazed to learn that helicopter rotor blades that were made of wood, HAD NO LIFE LIMIT. Wood does NOT fatigue-fail like metal does, so therefore the metal helicopter rotor blades all had life limits, but the wood helicopter blades on Bell 47's had no life limit if kept in good surface condition. 

 

Although both the Brush, and the Franklin have been denigrated due to their wooden frames, my opinion is that the engineers at Franklin, and Alonson P. Brush, knew exactly what they wanted to accomplish, and how to do it most economically. Much of the engineering on both the Brush and the Franklin were industry-leading at the time. (At one time, Franklin was the largest user of aluminum castings in the entire United States. They also had a larger engineering staff than even General Motors ever had, on a per-capita employee basis. In fact, this has never been equaled since by ANY U.S. automotive company! The Brush, modest as it was, has a far superior two speed planetary transmission that is silky smooth in operation, unlike the Ford Model T "cement mixer" transmission. It also has irreversible steering, unlike the Model T.)

 

I also have a 1917 Oakland touring car, which is about the BEST example you could have of why NOT to use steel for your chassis frame. Virtually EVERY mount point on the frame, for both suspension mounts, and attachments for the engine and body, are cracked out at the bolt holes. Some spots literally have sections cracked out of the frame itself, with the frame steel and the mounts being held in location only by the suspension parts themselves. I have come to the conclusion that they must have badly or incorrectly heat-treated the frame material, that they induced this wholesale cracking and fracturing all over the frame. I have never seen this on any other car I have ever looked at. 

 

I think you will be hard-pressed to find ANY Brush or Franklin owner who has had any frame cracks of any type in their automobiles. (For Brush, I have never heard of ANYONE ever breaking an axle, either!) 

[Steve Braverman]

11 hours ago, hook said:

Wrong! Steve, have you ever owned a Model A four door sedan? The coupes, two door sedans, & pick-ups were mostly all steel except for the roof and floors. The four door sedans were made by Briggs and Murry body builders and their structure was no different than any other coach built car of the early thirties. The wood structure was no different than the 1930 Franklin sedan. I've been there done that and got the T shirt!

I learn something new every day. I’ve never owned a Model A. I find it curious that the four door sedans were wood framed when it was probably one of the most popular body styles. I thought the later T sedans were all steel? I never understood Henry’s thinking. 
My 1931 Plymouth sedan is all steel. But then again it’s a vastly superior automobile in almost every way compared to a Model A. 

 

[PFitz]

I got to drive the finished restoration of the '28 Series 12B Franklin with the new white ash chassis sills shown in my picture on the first page of this thread.  With full elliptic springs and the wood chassis, the smoothness of the ride has to be felt to be believed.  Even for a car quite light for its size. There is no seat-of-the-pants feel to bumps in the road. Not even at railroad crossings. Just tire noise from crossing the tracks. 

 

The closest I've seen to a ride that smooth was driving a friend's 30 Hispano Suiza limo. Except at half the weight of the Hiso, the Franklin had a much lighter and responsive feel.

 

Paul

Edited March 2 by PFitz (see edit history)

[8E45E]

8 minutes ago, PFitz said:

I got to drive the finished restoration of the '28 Series 12B Franklin with the new white ash chassis sills shown in my picture on the first page of this thread.  With full elliptic springs and the wood chassis, the smoothness of the ride has to be felt to be believed.  Even for a car quite light for its size. There is no seat-of-the-pants feel to bumps in the road. Not even at railroad crossings. Just tire noise from crossing the tracks. 

 

The closest I've seen to a ride that smooth was driving a friend's 30 Hispano Suiza limo. Except at half the weight of the Hiso, the Franklin had a much lighter and responsive feel.

 

Paul

I'd like to compare the ride to a Citroen SM.  The SM had self-centering steering which was a bonus where the RR crossed diagonally.

 

Craig

[hook]

7 hours ago, Steve Braverman said:

I learn something new every day. I’ve never owned a Model A. I find it curious that the four door sedans were wood framed when it was probably one of the most popular body styles. I thought the later T sedans were all steel? I never understood Henry’s thinking. 
My 1931 Plymouth sedan is all steel. But then again it’s a vastly superior automobile in almost every way compared to a Model A. 

 

Even your 1931 Plymouth has wood in the soft center roof. Here's a couple diagrams of the wood in a Ford model A 4 door sedan to give you an idea of what I was talking about. I found these on line. Notice the only part that is Ford is the cowl unit with the gas tank and the windshield uprights. An unusual point is that in all other Ford model A's all the floor boards are wood, whereas in the 4 door they are metal except the front 2 at the cowl. 

[PFitz]

A '33 Pontiac Convertible Coupe that I re-wooded for a Customer in NJ had all wood body framing from the cowl on back.  Franklins used wood body framing right up to the end in '34. 

 

Trucks and buses even later. I got a call to give an estimate to re-wood a post WWII double decker bus that was sitting in a junk yard in Hempstead Long Island for an advertising company that was hoping to restore it to use for mobile advertising. The body was all sheet steel formed around wood framing. It would have run into the tens of thousands to get all the sheet metal unwrapped from around the wood of the body and all the many window openings to replace it. The deal was cost prohibitive.

 

Paul

[Steve Braverman]

2 hours ago, hook said:

Even your 1931 Plymouth has wood in the soft center roof. Here's a couple diagrams of the wood in a Ford model A 4 door sedan to give you an idea of what I was talking about. I found these on line. Notice the only part that is Ford is the cowl unit with the gas tank and the windshield uprights. An unusual point is that in all other Ford model A's all the floor boards are wood, whereas in the 4 door they are metal except the front 2 at the cowl. 

Yes, I’m aware of the minimal amount of wood in my Plymouth. The doors close like a bank vault. 
I bought a complete wood kit from Cubel for my 1914 Ford. It’s a project that’s on hold for the time being. 

[1912Staver]

10 hours ago, Steve Braverman said:

I learn something new every day. I’ve never owned a Model A. I find it curious that the four door sedans were wood framed when it was probably one of the most popular body styles. I thought the later T sedans were all steel? I never understood Henry’s thinking. 
My 1931 Plymouth sedan is all steel. But then again it’s a vastly superior automobile in almost every way compared to a Model A. 

 

 

I don't think Henry necessarily planed them that way. They were contracted out, and I expect Briggs and Murray just bid on the contract and built them the way they were most familiar with and could mass produce for the lowest price.