Projects 1940 American Bantam Woody Convertible Build

Unless you're going for a restore, can't you reinforce rather than replace what you have? Adding 1-inch square crossmembers or even a whole subframe might be easier and stronger?


Sent from my iPhone using The H.A.M.B. mobile app

 

In other words if it's thin but straight, reinforce. If it's thin and bent and not too complex, use for pattern and rebuild. If thin and complex, patch and reinforce


Sent from my iPhone using The H.A.M.B. mobile app

 

BuiltFerComfort,

I've thought about patching and reinforcing, but the metal that needs to be patched is either very flimsy to start with or very hard to get to. I intended on keeping these floor pans, but on realizing all of the other issues I'm now thinking that replacing the worn out metal with something a bit heavier isn't such a bad idea.

The shapes aren't too complex on these cars and they are very simply built. A person with a very beautifully restored Hollywood had mentioned to me that his door jams seem to pinch slightly when the car is loaded. I've attached a photo with red lines showing where the factory added extra support to the body itself. The yellow circles represent where the floor attaches to the frame and the yellow lines are where the body sits on the frame itself. I'm thinking that the best way to add support to the body is through good floors that are properly welded into the body, rebuilt rockers from a moderately heavy gauge of steel, and heavy iron reinforcing the door frame similarly to how the factory originally did it. I wouldn't be opposed to a little more support if it will keep this body fairly solid. Weirdly, the rear package tray is only contacts the frame in two points where body mount bolts pass through a piece of wood (also circled in red).

I've also attached a photo of the back half of a Hollywood to give you an idea of how much of the car is supported by that piece of wood in the rear. I don't believe any of the rear sheet metal makes contact with the frame.

I'll get some more photos of the poor condition of what I'm working with so you can see how much support is really missing.

Also, if you want to see some nice work, check out the Metal Surgeon's work on an Austin Roadster:
http://www.themetalsurgeon.com/2013/02/1931-american-austin-restoration-for-pebble-beach-part-8/ (One photo is attached below.

 

I had the chance to look at a Hollywood and to take a few photos of the underside and the sill moldings. Those photos are below. I also just picked up a set of brand new floors to strengthen this body up.

 

A longtime member of the club had, long ago, given me a sheet of Bantam running changes. One of those changes was a shortening of the cowl. A few years later, I heard that a member was assembling a beautifully painted Bantam which he bought as a puzzle to find the firewall needed to be clearanced to accommodate the engine. If you scroll up, you may see that my test cowl and my body both seemed to clear the the cylinder block, but just barely. Then again, both firewalls attached to the test cowl and body are bowed in by the engine.

One of the donor vehicles for this project was an early production 1940 pickup. Comparing its gas tank to a standard 1938 Bantam tank and an Austin tank revealed that it was around 1" shorter. Since the engine seemed to clear the body, I thought all was well and the shorter cowl thing was all folk lore. Then about a week ago, I was looking a photos a friend in the club sent of his car, I realized his cowl had a strange lip where the upper portion seemed to be recessed in comparison to the bottom. Knowing he had Austin cowls on hand, I asked him to measure the two to see if the 1940 was different. Sure enough, the 1940 cowl is about .75" shorter at the firewall while being standard length at the bottom.

After discussing the difference, he offered a very good rationale for the recessed firewall. In 1940, they altered the mounting setup for the engine and transmission. There is a chance that this caused the assembly to move back by a fraction of an inch. To be honest, I am amazed at Bantam's pride in their work and their desire to sell well made cars. Another company may have let the firewall have a few blows from a sledge hammer around the affected area.

So, I now have a little more sheet metal work to think about. However, my first step is going to be to find a local metal place that can make up a nice pair of rocker panels and inner supports. In the mean time, I will continue stripping the body to bare metal so make the work a bit easier.

Finally, I'm thinking about adding overdrive to this Bantam. More on that to follow.

 

Some small progress on the way to a complete rebuild of the chassis. I spent a few hours sandblasting the front axle. For some reason, the media nozzle keeps getting jammed. It's most likely from moisture in the lines. The next step for this piece is to have new king pins and bushings installed. After that, I need to bore out the shock mount holes. Once all of that is done, I can worry about paint and the front wheel assemblies. In the mean time, it is well coated with WD-40 to prevent rust. Also, as you can see, the axle has a little bit of a bow in the center. Hopefully it wont effect the alignment of this car too much.

 

Do you think that bow is stock, put in on purpose as part of an alignment process, or due to accident? I know big truck wheel alignment used to be done via axle bending, might still be the case.


BFC

 

I wish I had known that. Some years ago, I scraped a bunch of Ford axles with bends almost dead center. They were bent up. I think it was due to the axle bending in under weight. My thoughts back then were that the axle had been hit, or hit something solid and was unsafe to reuse.

 

BFC,

I'm not too sure if this is a bend that is supposed to be there or not. I'm attaching a photo of an axle from a nicely restored 40. Rather than a sharper bend, it appears to have a gradual bend that runs the length of the axle. I chose this axle for two reasons over others I have. First, it was way less bent than the other axles I have. Second, it was the only one which had the factory supplied 10 degrees of caster.

I've heard that axles like these need to be bent to be brought into alignment. I really hope that I don't need to worry about that after cleaning and refinishing the whole assembly. Maybe I should hold off on painting it.

 

It's probably a long way into the future, but here is something I'll need to look back upon when it comes to making window frames for at least the side windows:

http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/...ss-notes-cont-56k-beware.390728/#post-4247460
http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/bending-glass-frame-u-channel-help-please.609267/
http://www.lewisbrass.com/channel-tee-angle/channel-equal-leg/

The frames I have will really one serve as patterns. I will need to make a new set, and am almost tempted to make a new piece for the windshield. However, at this point, a body is more important than some windows. As I once read in a newspaper: "Doors and Windows are a commodity."

 

Looking for a rear 1939 Bantam Coupe license plate mount, I came across an oddity. While I am most likely set on using the 1939 Plymouth export taillights pictured a few pages ago, I stumbled across a pair of NORS green taillights. These taillights follow the same pattern as the Lynx eye lenses yet they are green!

I have never seen green taillight lenses aside from on a few pre-1930 cars, most of which also had other colors surrounding the green. For conjecture on the subject, take a look at this thread on the AACA forum: http://forums.aaca.org/topic/235908-1920-tail-light-lenses-colors-function/

If you don't feel like clicking, the important part of that thread is:
"My National Service Manual of wiring schematics for this period shows many cars with 3 bulbs at the rear. Tail light Stop light Backing light ( yes that is what it was called)

There is no singular order of position and I believe this is because these are schematics drawn for ease of layout on the paper and not intended to show physical position on the car.

I think we can go with Durant28 on the colors: red for stop, white for backing, green for tail. Just some of the 1929 cars with 3 rear bulbs: Chrysler, Franklin, Lincoln, Marmon, Stearns-Knight. The stop and backing bulbs were listed at 21 candlepower with the tail at 3 CP. Can we assume from this that the tail was the small lens ( green)?"

These taillight lenses were cast at least 10 years after this service manual listing and for a car far beneath a Marmon or Franklin status-wise. Also odd, the Plymouth only had a single lens on each taillight. Does anyone have any ideas of why these lenses exist?

I'll be keeping the pair of green lenses on the shelf until the car is done. Maybe I can run one green and one red to mimic nautical navigation lights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navigation_light) or maybe I'll save the green ones for March driving only.

If you are interested in a set, there are only two or three more available from the seller on ebay.

 

Very interesting historical information!

 

I love those green lenses but I'd be afraid to run them in modern traffic at night. Someone used to seeing only red in the back of cars might do something stupid.


BFC

 

You are absolutely on target with what I was thinking too. I think they are cool, but I can definitely imagine some issues cropping up. With a car this small, I need to do everything I can to be seen on the road.

Also, thank you Peanut!

 

Overdrive in a Bantam?

A while back, in researching the Bantam T-84 transmission, I came across the following information, which I believe was originally sourced from Hollander:
"T-84E-16
Bantam ‘38-40

T-84F-1
Stude ‘39-40 Champion (over drive)

AS1 T-84J
Am Bantam (Jeep) 40 BRC 1/4T 4×4

T84H-1
Bantam 41-42"

The thought that a T-84 existed which may be interchangeable with the Bantam unit while offering overdrive was very appealing. However, at earlier points during this build, I thought that I would try to keep the running chassis as close to factory correct as possible, in the hopes that I could take it to a Bantam meet and compete in judging. While I knew that my Sportsman style body may preclude me from having a shot at an award, I figured it would still be worth a shot. Actually, I had at one point purchased a 1940 Roadster body so I could enjoy the fruits of restoring the chassis without rushing the work on the body. I also thought using that body may even give me an opportunity to compete with a very nice Bantam restored to nearly stock condition. Interestingly, that would also allow me to have a chance to compete at AACA events with the car as a body such as the Sportsman's would result in an automatic 40 point deduction (http://www.aaca.org/images/judge/2017_AACA_Judging_Guidelines.pdf). With all of these competing thoughts, I really need to clarify something with myself; am I building a car to win some sort of award, or am I building it to enjoy? (The answer is the latter of the two.)

If you have ever been in a Bantam or an Austin, you know that the little engine is really spinning its guts out in order to speed you down the road. A while back, the president of the AABC did an article on Bantam engine revolutions at differing vehicle speeds which I wish I could find. When I find it, I'll try to update this post. However, consider, that the three main engine featured a Bore x stroke of 2.26 inches x 3.125 and 22 horsepower @3,800 rpm and 35 ft-lbs @ 1.800 rpm (https://wmspear.com/Bantam/btm3mtr.html) which put power to the 15" rear wheels through either a 4.88:1 or 5.25:1 rear end ratio. A later Brennan I.M.P. featured similar bore and stroke, but put out 25HP @4,000 rpm and 30HP @ 5,000 rpm. The final iteration of the Brennan utilized similar dimensions while miraculously putting out 40 HP @ 5,000 rpm. So, while the engine could produce more horsepower than a model T, it was generally at lofty numbers of revolutions per minute. This translates into an ability to push a Bantam in the high 40's or 50's (you know who you are), but the engine is really working to do this, even on flat terrain.

The thought of being able to drop the RPMs into a lower range while maintaining a comfortable cruising speed is very intriguing. An important thought is, will an engine such as the Bantam, function properly with an overdrive gear or will it cause lugging and speed loss?

If the overdrive will be beneficial to the car, there are a number of different types of overdrive systems to consider. There are two speed rear ends, overdrive transmissions, and inline overdrive units. Given that cabin space is limited, I initially didn't want anything that would protrude into it such as a bulky overdrive unit attached to a the stock T-84. Inline overdrives are neat, but not period correct at all (think hone-o-drive: http://hone-o-drive.com/). Two speed rear ends are also very cool (Think Studebaker truck or Columbia) however, additional unsprung weight is not something this little car needs at all.

Getting more more seat time in a Bantam has shown me that the area of the floor under the drive shaft hump isn't really that essential to comfort in the car. The only reasonable option for an overdrive would be a complete t-84 overdrive transmission. If I'm installing an entirely new floor and am almost constructing this body from the frame up, I can make the necessary modifications to ensure the whole transmission will fit nicely. From what I understand, it will add about 6" onto the existing transmission length which shouldn't really interfere with too much. I will need to make sure that it will not shorten the driveshaft too much to the point that undesirable angles would occur at its joints.

For a last little bit of reading, here is some information on the R10 and R11 Borg Warner units: (https://fifthaveinternetgarage.blogspot.com/2015/10/borg-warner-r-10-r-11-tech-tips.html and https://fifthaveinternetgarage.blogspot.com/2017/01/borg-warner-r-10-and-r-11-overdrives.html)

I know this is a lot to think about, but it's something on the horizon. What do you think, would you consider building this car around an overdrive?

 

It's been a busy few weeks, just not regarding working on the car. The overdrive idea is still in the back of my mind. However, that's a superfluous detail that does not need to be entertained at the moment. Something more important is getting the body straightened and braced so I can start working on it.

Considering the constraints of my workshop, I am planning to build a wooden dolly to allow for me to move the project as necessary and to raise the entire thing off the floor enough to work on it comfortably. I picked up some nice swivel casters with brakes and have some old lumber laying around. I know I'll need some extra wood, but I wasn't sure exactly how much. The maximum length this contraption can take up is 7'. The approximate maximum width is 4'.

I am planning to support the body on the frame as it supplies a lot of the rigidity of the body. Despite the added rigidity, the frame is still fairly weak. To design around the natural sag of the frame, I am planning to support it in five points to mimic a car sitting on its own wheels. My plan so far calls for a 1.5" x 1.5" x 4' piece of box steel mounted to the front of the frame using the stock square U bolts. The rear of the frame will be supported by the springs with a piece of round tube spanning between the two and extending to a total of 4' in length. Both pieces of stock are going to be supported by steel plate welded onto each and drilled for bolts to pass through these plates and the upright 4"x4" pieces of wood.

What do you think? I'm planning on getting the rest of the supplies later on this week.

 

After a visit to Lowes, I have started some of the first small steps to building this dolly. What should have been easy was complicated with my a little bit of exhaustion on my end. I needed to make two pairs of rear shackles to attach the springs to the rear of the chassis. The front of the springs are held in with a single bolt.

Proceeding on a journey of "good enough" I cut out four blanks to make into shackles ends. I originally placed one of my shackles on the piece of flat stock I bought and marked a straight line at its end. After nipping a straightish line, I repeated the process. In the end, I had 4 unequal blanks and the thought that some grinding would easily clean them up into uniformity.

Stacking them, I realized, they were a little more varied in size than I thought. Tapping one with a punch I marked where each hole would be drilled. Putting all four pieces in the drill pres vice, I began pushing it through the blanks until I had four similar holes. Holding them together with a bolt, I took to the grinder and began working at their rough edges. If I were making the shackles which were going on the car, I would have taken a different approach in their creation. (You may get to see that process if I decide to make new shackles).

Interestingly, these frames and springs have brass bushing that should be inspected to see if they are overworn. The springs I took off of this frame were fairly nice. The springs which I will be using on the dolly have been worn to the extent that the holes at each end are ovaled enough that they could accommodate 1.5 7/16" bolts. When I am ready to mount the frame to the dolly, I may work on filling the voids to give a little extra sturdiness to the structure.

I am going to pick up some of the wood this week so I can start measuring and cutting everything before I begin assembling it. Although it is just a dolly for moving the car, I will need to pay a bit more attention to detail than I did with these pieces.

 

Since you asked, I'd definitely go with an overdrive trans if you want to drive and enjoy this little tyke. But higher cruising speeds demand stronger brakes.

You can see that you might be going down the rabbit hole here...

But I would argue that improving the brakes of any old car should be a top consideration if it will be driven in modern traffic. And isn't driving them the whole point?

 

Peanut, Thank you for your thoughts. I think I may end up going for the overdrive. I only have two fears; the first being a lack of necessary power from the engine and the second being lack of reliability of one of the early OD's modified to fit the Bantam (i.e. lack of underhood linkage and utilization of only the cable and the electric solenoid).

I'm planning essentially one modification to the brakes for now, that would be the reinforcing band. In addition to the full floating segmented shoes, the reinforcing band should dramatically increase the stopping power of these tiny brakes, but I can imagine needing to upgrade in the future.

You are absolutely, driving it is definitely the point. No need to just stare at it and let it collect dust.

 

The BW R-7 and R-10 overdrive units can be set up semi-manually to shift on demand; one guy wired a switch to his shifter and found that second gear + overdrive was a nice intermediate gear between 2nd and 3rd. So it acted kind of like a 5 speed for him.


BFC

 

That's a very interesting thought. I will have to give the man who builds the Studebaker OD units to see what he would recommend. I like the idea of the pull lever, bit am hoping to avoid any electronics if possible.

 

Figure out the throw and direction of the main OD solenoid and build a lever to match.


Sent from my iPhone using H.A.M.B.

 

Very interesting thread! I read the whole thing. Although I doubt I ever build an Austin or Bantam, you've set the hook in me so that I'll be following the rest of this just to enjoy the show. Good luck in the rest of your project.

 

Thank you!

 

Progress has been slow on the Bantam as of late. I've been working on building a wooden dolly to support the frame. I have almost all of the wood cut for the dolly, the casters attached, and the metal support pieces ready; but there is always more to do.

 

As I need brackets to span between the wood where the casters are mounted and the sides of the dolly, I decided to make them. The commercially available right angle brackets I saw seemed a bit flimsier than I would have liked. I remembered I had some stock left over from making the front frame horn support brackets and decided to give it a whirl.

Although I probably should have used slightly thinner metal, this really gave me a moment to reflect on the actual skill needed to make a perfect bracket. I figured making these would give me practice for the many brackets I will need to fasten the wooden body onto the floor pan. After making the first one, I realized how much practice I actually need. After making much more intricate brackets, I figured these would be simple; never underestimate your work!

I measured multiple times and you can see the fruits of my labor below. Not a matched pair between them! I'm glad I need to make four more. Hopefully by the time I get to making brackets for the body I'll be able to turn out a better product. The hope is to make a made bracket that is elegant in its simplicity. Maybe next time.

 

Looks like a jig or form would help with the bracket shape? If it were me I'd look for brackets I could buy and modify as needed, but I'm lazy about things like that.

 

I thought about doing that, but the scratch built idea seemed good from a practice stand point. I absolutely agree though, a jig or form would have been useful. As you can see in the photos, I was bending them on a vice using a square tube for leverage. My last effort was the best, but it's a steep learning curve.

 

I've just gone through the entire thread again, enjoying the journey.
As for bracing/mounting the frame, I would suggest actually connecting to it directly at the spring mounting points, rather than through the rear springs.
A more solid foundation, so to speak. Yes, the frame is going to flex, but rebuilding the body to a single location is better than having things move as it is restored.
You have mentioned removing the entire back half of the body to be replaced with wood. I would consider keeping the rear inner wheel wells and at least a flange for the door openings and around the outer edge of the floor for strength and a mounting for the wood. 1920s thru 48 Fords were mostly wood including frame. the wheelwells were metal. 49s used a metal framework with wood over it.
Example
Here's a '46 Ford with the full box made of wood.


Here's a 49-50 woodie being fitted.


A Chrysler T&C, note how this has an inner steel framework that they brace square for the wood fitting.


also found this
https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/woodie-plans.112185/
plus parts 2&3.

Considering the Bantam size, flexibility, low power and weight, having less heavy wood framing and more solid steel framework would probably work to your advantage. A light steel skeleton that holds shape with the wood over it would be lighter and more rigid than a full wooden body, unless you have the shop and skills to build to early aircraft standards. Just my 2 cents...

 

RodStRace,

Thank you very much for your thoughts and the videos you attached. I've been giving your words a lot of thought before responding. Firstly, I'm glad you've enjoyed the journey. I from time to time go back and am surprised at what I find. Looking at the heap in the storage room, I often forget how much work went into making a pile of parts.

Regarding the bracing/mounting of the frame. I think you're right. While the springs would be helpful for seeing how the body will settle with weight on it, having a springed work piece may be a bad idea. I will probably keep the round tube which I have to run transversly to the frame. However, I'm thinking that 1.5" box tube may be a good substitute for the springs. I'll still mount these square tubes to the round tube using u-bolts, but I may need to cut new vertical pieces to adjust the height of the frame. The frame should still flex as though it is sitting on the ground but without other unnecessary motion. The springs I was planning to use are actually quite worn at the bushed ends. Eliminating those springs should make for a sturdier mounting of the chassis all around. Thank you for your suggestion.

Also, I have been contemplating in my head the best way to achieve the result I'm after considering the factors you mentioned. Given the size, flexibility, and low power of the Bantam, I agree that the lighter this body can be, the better. So far, I'm planning on stiffening the rockers and the surrounding metal to create a more stable door opening. I've gone back and forth on keeping the steel on the door latch side. I think you've convinced me to keep it. It should be easier to keep the door opening stable with a steel pillar attached to the body stiffening members I am planning to include.

For the wheel wells, I'm planning on using larger wheel wells which would have been found in 1940 Bantam convertibles. They were actually blank rear fenders with welded in skirts (I can't remember if I've posted photos of this, but if not, I should). They would extend most of the length of the rear quarters, and would hopefully allow for the utilization of less wood structure. My fear is that the fenders I am planning to convert into wheel houses may not be as thick as I would like to support the body, but they should be a good start (or a good pattern for a good metal worker if anyone knows someone who can fabricate a pair of nice wheel wells). I don't remember if I had said this before, but I am planning on using original (but well rotted) Bantam convertible doors as donor boxes to be re-skinned in wood. The metal box will hopefully cut down on unnecessary weight and will allow me to retain the steel window guide at the A-pillar.

GreginJax has also recommended adding an inner steel structure to the rear end of the car and the Ford Sportsman sports a similar skeleton. I think you are both right. At times I've considered making the car of more wood but I really don't want to add tremendously to the weight of the finished car. It may be a good idea to run some metal along the perimeter of the floor pan, around the top edge of the convertible opening, and one to three vertical connections between the upper and lower pieces. If I do it right, it may let me cut down on the wood weight of the car. I can't imagine much worse than adding 500 lbs to a 30 hp powered car.

What would you suggest for creating an inner skeleton?