1932 Roadster Frame without reveal?

Here are some pictures of the inside of the frame rails. There is no evidence of any modification work.

 

More rail pics

 

Are there VIN numbers stamped in the frame?

 

CTFuzz. Yes there are. It also has all of the proper rivets. Everything is right, just no reveal. I have a local friend who is a Hot Rod builder for 40 years. He went over it with a fine tooth comb, confirmed everything is right and original. He had never seen one without the reveal. He and I have been trying to figure it out since.

 

Apparently not, must be "dick measurers code" and we can't play.

To quote Hillary "What difference does it really make?".

 

Hillarious swbatt.

 

No,only seen the truck cowl hearse,,HRP

 

Were they Ford numbers, or just some DOT numbers? B-xxxxxx, or *18-xxxxx ? Wonder if its stamped in all three spots on the drivers frame.

 

Any other thoughts?

 

The "early production" no-reveal thing is an interesting theory I've never heard of before. I own a V8 chassis with a serial number of 18-5XXX that David Rehor, the guy who wrote the book on '32 Fords, said was an April 25th production car. Somewhere else I've read actual '32 production didn't begin until March. So, my chassis is a month and a half into production. It has a reveal.

My Dad owns an early production tudor with a chassis in the 50,xxx count of B production. It too has a reveal.

We should ask DavidG on the Fordbarn what he thinks of this. I'll send him a link.

 

Thank you Alchemy!

 

My Hot Rod friend who I mentioned earlier confirmed that this is NOT a LoBeck frame. So that potential solution is out.

 

Here's the word from the guy who knows the most about 1932 Fords in the whole world:

"Ford did not use the word "truck" in conjunction with "pickup" for its 1932 models. The word "truck" was reserved for use with the 131 1/2" and 157" chassis. The pickup was a commercial vehicle, along with the station wagon and panel delivery (and eventually the sedan delivery) which used the same 106" wheelbase chassis as the passenger cars with the only difference being in the number of leaves in the rear spring.

In the thread in question, Bruce Lancaster has tried to explain that.

As for the frame in question, as Ford did not produce any 106" wheelbase chassis frames without the reveals in the side rails, this frame is reproduction, at least to the extent of its side rails.

David"

So, we know it's not a Ford product, we just need to know where else it may have come from. I don't know what all the early repro guys were putting out, but I can't imagine why they would go to all the work to create a die to stamp the rails, and not put the reveal in the same die.

 

Thank you Alchemy.

 

All pickups are trucks, not all trucks are pickups.

Northern? The Yankee's do not accept Iowa as a northern state.

 

Once again: Allard
http://restorationproject.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/ktype1.jpg
32 ford dimensions but their own stamping without reveal...

 

Chrisp, I think that frame in your pics is close, but no '32 cigar. Kinda looks like a '32 but the kick is way more than stock. The rails look straighter under the body as well. Doesn't look like a regular '32 floor would bolt to it without a kick in the back.

 

Alchemy, what are you refering to when you say "kick is way more than stock"?

 

The rear half of the Allard frame has a kick up over the rear axle that rises higher than a normal '32 Ford frame. If your body doesn't have a raised floor in the back, it can't fit over an Allard frame.

 

I'm not entirely sure that back when Deuce Factory was still stamping rails, at the tail end of that deal you couldn't order a pair with out the reveals...

 

Very interesting louverguyquinn! Thank you. While there are many opinions on this forum, I have had to 70+ year old hot rods builders look the frame over (on and off a rack) and state repeatedly "this is a 32 frame in every way and correct".

Alchemy or anyone else that could recomend an recognized expert in the area, I would gladly cover their expenses to come to Denver to check out my car and help me solve this mystery.

 

This.

 

I have owned several sets of original deuce rails without the reveal. Lil John beat the reveal out using a torch and a garden hose. When he finished you could not tell there was ever a reveal. In the early 80's CSR, Chuck Lombardo, did the same thing for his roadster and metal finished the inside rail. It was a common practice to do this in the late 70's and 80's when smooth was in. I did my own but you could tell where I shrank the reveal but I boxed them and no one knew.

 

Pewsplace. Very interesting. Thank you.

 

A torch and a garden hose? Would love to hear more about that technique.

 

OK...grinder/wire wheel time??!? There should be lots of visible hot spots with paint offa there, I would think. Another area to examine is the little dip/divot in the framerail right ahead of the firewall for the cowl adjuster/tensioner... that shoul be there or show evidence of a lot of work. I think it has sharper downturn than reveals.
Stripping the area should also show at least some evidence of a serial number.

 

That's what I touched on in an earlier post. There was a picture in either Hot Rod or maybe Rod Action of him doing just that.

 

Bruce, you can clearly see the cowl divot in one of Mikes pictures.

 

Do you remember the time frame of this?

 

Metal man, I had the exact same question.