Does it matter which rear mount I use on my '39 trans with an F1 cross member? Easiest mount that matches up well enough? Thanks. Steve
What is commonly called the F1 crossmember was introduced with the '42 pickup, six years before the F1 in a lame effort to eliminate the chatter rods, a less than complete success. The rear mount was a one piece affair that doubled as the transmission rear bearing retainer. Lots of guys have been suckered into using them on A-V8s because they seem to be a quick but dirty solution to support early V-8 Ford trans and they look "cool" when the frame is being mocked up. Only problem is that the "cool" mount puts the rear of the trans a bit high in the ass end and to get the front at a good angle the front of many engine choices is pretty high levering the back of the engine into the firewall more than if another lower mounting solution like a '32 K-member might have done. Unfortunately the K-member solution has become more expensive over the years. I tried the "cool" when mocking up my A and luckily found the false promise of a fit when the A cowl used to fit was not as expected. By your post seems that you may find that something be "just enough". Go for it! Good Luck: Fred A
Thanks Fred. Very informative and a K member might be the way to go, for me. Appreciate the reply. Steve
I disagree with Fred. Yea if you’re expecting a bolt in solution it’s not the answer. I have used many of them and while they do take some modifications to make the fit proper they are a great solution for a v8 trans/pedal setup in an a frame. Note that a k member Will need extensive modification to fit an a frame and if you ever have trans trouble you’re pulling the front sheet metal, radiator, and engine to get to it. Here’s a recent install we did on my pal Dave’s pickup chassis. No firewall mods.
As always, great work Andy. Lots of things to consider with this application. I know the year ranges of the rear bearing retainer are interchangeable, but does it really make a difference which one you use? i.e. 8" spacing or 10" spacing between the mounting bolt holes.
A lot of work went into TBE's frame and it is very nice looking. The center crossmember is lost in the process because there is little function left when the trans is that high. There is still the task of making those hansome pedals work around the steering column. Beyond that, making the engine sit at an ideal angle, the firewall is most likely to become a fitting issuel, therefore even more work, not to mention the axis of the torque is above the line Ford designed for the A frame. But is it still a Ford frme? Well after 40 feet of welds perhaps. A flathead is a pretty low profile engine and after decades of looking at overheads, it may look a bit odd down in the frame. Should we play the traditional card? Early rodders were late to embrace the boxed frame which is today considered nearly standard. Most guys in the day had only gas welders, or if they had arc, it was a buzz-box. The shielding on arc rod was slow to allow AC as DC was the tool of the war years and beyond. The OP, Steep was asking for easiest and well enough. The polite arguments go on and on. A builder that can go the long haul can and should if they really want to go that far. Good Luck: Fred A
Steep, take another look at the subject crossmember. It's made for the one piece rear mount. No spacing... Good Luck: Fred A
Not sure what you mean by this either, it fits the narrow spaced rear mount common to 42-48 ford passenger cars (closed drive) and 42-52 pickups, (open drive) the rubber one piece mount that seats in the crossmember bolts to the rear bearing retainer. Thank you, see my reply above about the bearing retainer. Thanks Fred, although I still disagree with you. If you are making the argument that a 32 k member is easier to fit to an a frame than an f1 crossmember it leads me to question whether you have actually done it. It’s definitely not easier. And I’m stating from experience that while the engine position is slightly higher with the f1, it’s not like it’s a foot higher, you can see where the engine mounts are positioned for proper engine angle. it is basically a non issue in this application. I will admit that I have never set one of these up fora 28-29 so the engine/firewall interference you are alluding to may rear it’s head with that combination but I do not know. Both options will need pedal adjustment with the hot wrench to suit. On top of which if you choose the k member you’ll need to modify the pedals and build a bracket to accept a master cylinder. I guess another factor to consider is cost. An f1 crossmember and pedals is around $200-250. Unless you stumble onto a rare deal you’re gonna spend at least $1000 for a k member with a pedal set. Sure seems like a lot to spend for a nominally lower engine position.
I get caught on these arguments often as the availability of early Ford Components must be an entirely different market back east. That's why the big events out west are full of out of state shoppers. You have the projected prices in both cases by a factor of nearly 3.5X. One of the local swap meets has a regular with Ford pickup parts where the crossmembes run $60 for me as I have other plans for them. I went with the fabricated K member sized for the Model A chassis. Enough of them around here to supply a patient shopper. $275 with some ill fated fitting errors on the part of the seller. Not real damage but some extra holes. My roadster body is a '31 having the highest hood line of Model As. The pedals are modified model 40. I must be used to rare deals. I can see that you what you're talking about but the view from PA and your 21st century approach and equipment may account for the diffference. Could it be that Steeb may not be ready for the engineering marvel that you apply. The whole issue comes from the crossmember that I see as a poor choice for Steeb. Another thing not mentioned could be that the so called F1 unit and the K member are both easy with the early Ford trans which is a light duty unit. I've schattered enough of them to be aware of that weakness. Keep up the good work: Fred A
Cool, thanks Andy. That helps. I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel, just budget, time and accessibility is the name of the game. Appreciate yours and Fred's input.
never done it, but if the trans sat a bit higher, wouldnt that help the fire wall clearance? its usually the fuel pump stand and breather tube that is too close, raising the back would help. i never have understood the desire for the k member because as stated you cant get the tranny out. even the floyd climer book from the 50's said not to use the 32 k just for that reason
Ideally, the carb pads should be level when the car is set at ride height. A little variation there will have no effect other than looking kinda strange to the astute observer. It’s more critical when using an open driveline where u joint working angles need to set. There is a lot of room for different plans in this game, having done both setups I just thought I would share my experiences, and the reasons why I prefer the f1 unit. I’m just going by what I have sold complete f1 crossmember/pedal packages and 32 kmembers for recently. A quick search of the classifieds here will back up those numbers. I can’t ever recall seeing a fabricated k member at a swap meet over this way. Everyone has they’re own preferences I guess, and set up properly either will do the job sufficiently. but, aside from adding some torsional rigidity to an unboxed chassis, I dont see a k member, fabricated or original, as an easier or better choice than the f1 unit for most builders, be they experienced or green.
I saw a thread by HAMB'er Justin in PA, back in March 16, 2018 title "Another way to hack an F1 Crossmember" that seemed to be just what I needed on my 27 T on an A frame. Pictures are of Justin's crossmember before and after. The first pic is a stock F1 crossmember and the second is the result of some careful measuring and fabrication. Mine looks pretty much like his but I haven't cut the ends to fit yet. When I was done with mine, the rear of the tranny sat 1 1'4" lower than stock. Alan
My kid has done a lot of "A"s (including '29s) with F-1 cross-members without any problems; but now that we have now learned that it doesn't work; here is another way to consider. As a bonus junk '35-'40 frames are cheaper than '32 Ks.
In post # 16, you said F1's don't work. I'm curious as to why not since that's the direction I'm going. Not looking for an argument, just information. Alan
Alan, here are a couple of more shots of my F1 cross member in place. They work just fine if modified correctly. I left the stock A cross member in place also. It is true that using the F1 cross member with the original F1 rear trans mount without modification puts everything way too high. For my stock flathead I don't need an expensive '32 K member or one of the high priced aftermarket ones.
Thanks, guys...very informative thread! (I thought I'd done everything... LOL ) Glad to see where that 'member puts things, beforehand...I don't mind a little 'surgery', so it's nice to have some foresight! Nice pics of crossmembers/frame mods, makes it worth doing.
Gotta read the earlier posts in the thread where someone else said the F series cross-members don't work; I was just being facetious. Sent from my Nexus 5X using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
Rusty Valley, I'm using it for my emergency brake. It was in the mock-up stage when the photo above was taken. I don't have a great picture of the final product except for below. I rotated my rear backing plates to get the e-brake passages on top and then ran cables from an equalizing pulley to each wheel.
@Justin in PA How did you deal with the wheel cyl etc when you switched the sides and inverted the backing plates? Sent from my Nexus 5X using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
Rich B, when rotating the backing plates you need to keep the wheel cylinder upright with the bleeder on top. You need to relocate the large center hole as it is offset from the mounting bolt holes. You don't want to just re-drill the mounting holes as that will put the cylinder pistons out of line with the brake shoe push points. Of course, now the brake lines have to run downward which puts them at risk of being damaged. Since I used Ni-Copp, I added a deflector just in case something flies up from the road and the shock mount protects them from the rear (it is hard to tell from this angle but the deflector is out as far as the brake line). I also am using a dual master cylinder as a second defense against a broken line. When the wheel cylinders are arranged like this, you want the large bore end of the cylider to be pushing on the long shoe.
I can say, from experience, it works in an A frame with a '28/29 body. Mine wasn't as modified as Andy's cross member, but it works.
Looks like Justin is hot on the trail of the F1 solution. A bunch more difficult than the "Easiest mount that matches well enough?" that the OP was asking about, where the "F1" crossmember uses the 21A mount for which it was designed and Justin cleverly chose the '35-'36, 48- mount. Hope the thread doesn't run out of gas before Justin gets some pedals around the steering column to finish it off. Great use of the F1 crossmember. Wonder if Steeb is going to take a bite of that one. Good Luck: Fred A
The drawing says '34 or later; I think a '37-'40 would be the best due to trans mount. Just set the X on top of the A frame in the right fore and aft location, mark the legs where they cross the frame, cut them down, pie cut the ends to match the height of the A rails, slip the X in place and weld it in. Maybe a good use for a frame with the typical rear kick-up rust out. You could also take the stock center out and use the two legs with something like a CE center kit if not using a flatmotor' like in this picture of Mike's '32 frame over at my kid's place.
The Jalopy Journal
