32 frame newly arrived, is this correct??

aerocolor, very nice car and surprisingly low considering the frame setup. Actually, that is a lot lower than I want my rear. I don't think height/stance is my biggest gripe but the cut in area. I FAR prefer to see the rails swoop up into the body, just my opinion of course.

As the prior poster said, it is just hard to invest time and money into something you are not completely happy with.

 

Good luck going forward with this. Perhaps in your discussion with your chassis builder they will explain how the car would sit in their mind. Surely they must have done this before. I guess I would ask myself how the construction was on the frame and can it be modified to fit your expectations of how your car will look.

I agree with the poster above who said if it is not what you want do not use it. You will never be happy and it is a huge investment in time and money.

Again good luck, hopefully this will work it self out.

 

In the event you don't use it and the builder won't offer a refund, please offer it for sale here first. I may be interested, if the price is right. You'd at least get some of your money back.

But I also hope you and the builder work it out. Keep us posted.

 

Hey Wex, I get how these things can happen but is still unfortunate. Hopefully this will work out for you. Get what you want and don't look back.

 

I am less hopeful things will be resolved. Getting silence from the builder after reaching out to him first thing this morning.

I HIGHLY doubt he will offer a refund based upon a brief call I had with him yesterday afternoon when it first arrived. PM me if you are interested in pursuing the frame and I can let you have additional photos etc and find out what you consider to be the 'right' price. I will at least know that way if there is a plan B although I will be on the phone to my credit card company tomorrow if I continue to get silence. I run a business myself and know he won't want to hear the words 'charge back'. I will likely have to ship the thing back but c'est la vie.

Just noticed one more thing in looking at the frame, not one hole despite him assuring me all body holes would be drilled and captive nuts welded in place prior to it being boxed.

 

Did you get the frame from Dagel's? If so, it looks like they sent you a modified FULL FENDER "A" FRAME. It looks like that's the only frame they sell. At $1,600, I'd try a little harder for the refund. If you didn't ask for the cut ins, you didn't get what you wanted. Or you could build a full fender car.

Here's the price list with a description of what you got. Part #

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]DAG-28A<!--mstheme-->[/FONT]​

http://www.dagelsstreetrods.com/price_sheet.htm

That's a nice looking cross member, but is it really needed for a Model A? I seem to remember seeing them built with a little less structure underneath. I'm no expert, that's why I'm asking questions. My interest in it would be to put the frame under a '27 roadster. With a kick up, of course.

 

That's a Deuce style frame, Fred. Putting fenders on it would not be a simple task....

 

That looks like a cool frame to me !
Model A rear grafted to a 32 front.
You might want to put a traditional (tardel style and type) z In the rear to drop you 2-3 inches. Doubt it takes longer than an hour or two.
The lack of caged nuts would really piss me off

This one has a 2" step at the rear wheel arch. Can barely see it, certainly not a smack in the face and my wheels aren't 4" further apart than they need to be which personally I think looks like shit when the wheels are 6-8" away from the body.

 

That pic is from Dagel's website and it's listed as a frame for a full fender Model A.

http://www.dagelsstreetrods.com/super_x_crossmember.htm

 

metal man is right that Wex got a deuce style frame, just not a traditional deuce frame. The frame you showed Fred is a Model "A" type "repro" frame for a full fendered car. Quite a different thing altogether. The deuce frame is a more perimeter design that runs closer to the body all the way around, and it is quite a bit deeper through the rails and has a natural kick at the rear and a small "sweep" at the front. They are easily identified by the character line running the length of the rails below the door line.

To answer you other question about understructure, Hell yes! I wouldn't build a Model "A" type frame (or really any other for that matter) without an "X" member. It makes a HUGE difference in the car's road manners, general stiffness, body fit and suspension compliance. The Model "A" was the last car that Ford really built to be flexible and use the frame itself to function as part of the suspension. Putting an "A" together with minimal cross members is a mistake in my book. I even go a bit further than most in that when I work from an original "A" frame these days, I prefer a substantial "X" to boxing the frame. A properly designed "X" does the same thing as boxing by providing beam strength, while also providing support to the rail's vertical strength in areas like the running board mounts. Kills the twist big time too!

 

Thanks Louvers. I posted the pics because it looked like the company Wex paid, built him an A frame. But you cleared it up for me. It's just that the frame pic he posted looked just like the Dagel frame. It threw me off.

As far as the X member, what you said makes sense. Like I said, I'm surely no expert in the frames for an A or a deuce. But I'm learning. I'm wondering if Wex's bad frame would work for a '27. I'm looking for width measurements now. I think a '27 on A rails would look neat, if there's not a lot of modifications needed.

 

What looks odd to me (other than the rear riser/suspension/etc) is the fender/running board reveal. It looks too far rearward.

 

I think you should look again Fred - that doesn't look ANYTHING like a Dagel frame to me, not even close, and I've seen plenty of Gary's frames in person

 

Here is a picture of my frame, and the stance of the car.

 

I understand what you're saying, that's why I was asking IF he had got it from them. The top part of the frame Wex showed LOOKS like the TOP of a Dagel A frame. And it doesn't look anything like the profile of a '32 frame.

Whoever built Wex's frame built it for a full fender car. That's my main point.

 

I don't think they thought it would be a full fendered A, the reveal is wrong for 32 fenders and it's not drilled for fender bolts yet is fully boxed. not to mention they don't work well on pinched frames. And model A fender and Aprons would be really stupid on a 32 style frame
I think it is just a not well thought out exercise.

BUT it will sit plenty low with a flat or low arch spring ?

 

If you look at his original build thread, it looks like he mocked up the old frame for a flat or low arch spring. Maybe he should go that route with the new frame.

 

Guys, not trying to be a tease but no I did not get the frame from Dagels. I will hold off on naming the company till I see how they are going to handle the issue. I reached out to them again just now, still getting radio silence.

the photos of the Dagels frame really is quite different from what I have. My frame is basically completely flat on top from the front to the rear, no step whatsoever.

 

If there is a lesson to be learned by everyone reading this thread, it would be have a list of all features and PHOTOS of them to give to the fabricator. I'd sure want every step talked about and maybe some progress shots befor taking delivery. Using a shop within daily driving time, and making inspections isn't out of line IMO. Bob

 

Admittedly a little late on this one but I wholeheartedly agree with the Kid...

...and as little as it might seem ,the one photo I sent him is possibly the biggest hurdle he has in saying the frame IS what I asked for.

 

I really don't see an issue with wexs frame, it will not make a crappy hot rod.
Here's an original 32 frame.
Pinched in the rear for an A and flat in the rear to avoid the sub rails .
The drop will come from the arched rear crossmember.

 

When you look at this one , it has the rear bump up, a c notch and a flat crossmember. This requires the subrail modifications .
However if you'd measure from the spring mount to the ground on this and from the spring mount to the ground on wex's I'd bet there is little difference, some but little.

 

Go ahead and print this out then draw wex's frame modification to the rear super imposed over it. Don't forget to put the rear crossmember in.

 

Now the other issues, and no cage bolts
Well that's another story and needs to be addressed by the builder.

As Far as all the other stuff ,,,, well it's just another way to do it.
If You want a smooth rolling floor, you need the subrails to follow the 32 curves.
If You want a flat floor with a bump and flat sun rails like every model a had, you need a flat frame with an arched rear crossmember.
If you want your tires up tight and tucked a little bit, you need the step in.
If you want your tires out wide and 6 " out from the body , you need the stock 32 rear style.

It's all in what you want and how you want to get there.
Mock it up, make a plywood wheel and take a step back and look.

 

Now the other issues, and no cage bolts
Well that's another story and needs to be addressed by the builder.

As Far as all the other stuff ,,,, well it's just another way to do it.
You could set a 100% stock ,no modification model a body on that frame. No sub rail kit , no wheel well work, no welding, no grinding, no thinking, no nothing ! Drop and go, well if the holes and cage nuts were there .

If You want a smooth rolling floor, you need the subrails to follow the 32 curves.
If You want a flat floor with a bump and flat sun rails like every model a had, you need a flat frame with an arched rear crossmember.
If you want your tires up tight and tucked a little bit, you need the step in.
If you want your tires out wide and 6 " out from the body , you need the stock 32 rear style.

It's all in what you want and how you want to get there.
Mock it up, make a plywood wheel and take a step back and look.

 

Apparently I can only post 1 pic per post
So bear with me

Here's a better detail of the step on mine.

 

Here's the step.
And you can see I made the wheel wells and inners deeper to accept the tire and let it in just enough, to make me happy.

 

Little different view

 

Quote of the year.

 

All of that to get the tire to sit like this.
There was no way in hell I was going to have a huge gap from the body to tire.