Register now to get rid of these ads!

Technical 1934 Ford Frame Boxing?

Discussion in 'Traditional Hot Rods' started by Eldonius, Apr 30, 2020.

  1. Eldonius
    Joined: Apr 15, 2020
    Posts: 63

    Eldonius
    Member
    from Louisiana

    Does anyone have detailed pics on the boxing of a 33/34 frame? Seems most people recommend it even on the 33/34 that are double walled up front and in the rear. If you think differently let me know. Want to have a frame that’ll hold up to 400-500hp.


    Sent from my iPhone using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
     
  2. Johnboy34
    Joined: Jul 12, 2011
    Posts: 1,284

    Johnboy34
    Member
    from Seattle,Wa

  3. Once upon a time, like in 60's and 70's when there were car magazines staffed by car guys, there used to be how-to articles about stuff like this all the time. Sadly, times have changed.
     
  4. Dago 88
    Joined: Mar 4, 2006
    Posts: 1,939

    Dago 88
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    I used a '46 Ford X member & boxed it from the X forward to the front cross member. The X stiffened it considerably . 10155252_10203844286721528_398715940825865691_n.jpg 1898134_10203852872216160_5168303309293714088_n.jpg
     
    mgtstumpy, Halfdozen, Dave Mc and 8 others like this.

  5. dumprat
    Joined: Dec 27, 2006
    Posts: 2,804

    dumprat
    Member
    from b.c.

    IMG_1831.JPG A 34 frame has an X already.
    I used sections of another X with the holes in it to box my fame(as seen in the pic. )
    I just used 1/8" plate sections for the rest. Lots of welding but it's rock solid now.
     
    Eldonius likes this.
  6. alchemy
    Joined: Sep 27, 2002
    Posts: 15,868

    alchemy
    Member

    Dump, what are you using to tie the two halves of the X together? Ford originally had a huge formed cradle riveting the two segments into one. You are building something similar?
     
    X38 likes this.
  7. Kan Kustom
    Joined: Jul 20, 2009
    Posts: 2,635

    Kan Kustom
    Member

    Eldonius likes this.
  8. krylon32
    Joined: Jan 29, 2006
    Posts: 6,633

    krylon32
    Alliance Vendor
    from Nebraska

    Did a customer 33/34 original frame a few years ago and boxed it front and rear with CE boxing plates tieing into the original X member. It has a 400 plus hp SBC and 5 speed. I did weld the X to th side rails at all 8 points where it intersects to frame. Used a Neal Jennings 37 Hudson side steer with unsplit wishbones, dropped original axle and original spindles with Lincoln brakes. Also an A rear cross member with a QC. He does not baby this car and the frame to date seems to be working fine.
     
    lurker mick, Eldonius and 31Apickup like this.
  9. dumprat
    Joined: Dec 27, 2006
    Posts: 2,804

    dumprat
    Member
    from b.c.

    @alchemy .I used a piece of square tubing with sides and bottoms welded on to tie the whole X together. I neede the depth to clear a dodge 833 trans mount.
     
  10. On Mike's '33 we boxed the front section so as to make it easier to weld on the motor and steering mounts. Cut the center out of the X and added formed channel rails with an upper tie tube and a bolt in lower tie and trans mount channel. Boxed the rear to use a Posies parallel leaf kit.

    No pictures; but we did a '34 with 283/T350 with a CE engine mounts, CE center kit, and Posies bolt-on parallel leaf kit and no frame boxing at all.

    If what you are building goes better with a boxed frame, go for it; but the stock (or modified) X and doubled rails front and back should be adequate in most cases.
    IMG_20190529_110932 (Medium).jpg IMG_20161205_170825 (Medium) (2).jpg
     
  11. hemihotrod66
    Joined: May 5, 2019
    Posts: 230

    hemihotrod66
    Member

     

    Attached Files:

    Eldonius likes this.
  12. dumprat
    Joined: Dec 27, 2006
    Posts: 2,804

    dumprat
    Member
    from b.c.

    @RichB
    The frame I just fixed was done exactly like the red one you posted. Over a short period of time the rails bent and tipped outward on the tops from a lack of triangulation and strength just behind where the x mounts. It was out almost 2"! I had to cut it all out and pull the top back in. Just saying.
     
  13. I guess I'm not following what you are describing. I don't see how the rails could tip out without the upper cross tube (which is welded both to the web of the channel and the boxing plate) or the lower tube bolt-in trans mount (which is bolted into both the boxing plate and the lower flange of the channel) failing in some manner. The body fit the mount holes during and thru-out fab, and after powder coat.
     
  14. dumprat
    Joined: Dec 27, 2006
    Posts: 2,804

    dumprat
    Member
    from b.c.

    The only thing I can figure is the weight of the engine pushing down coupled with impact from road irregularity caused everything to bend. It bent outward right through the front body mount holes. It actually bent the boxing plates, and the remaining front sections of the X. The only thing that make sense is the lack of triangulation allowed the frame to twist like a rolled up towel. And yes it had a bolted in trans crossmember which did almost nothing to stop the twist. It's in perfect shape.
     
  15. Halfdozen
    Joined: Mar 8, 2008
    Posts: 606

    Halfdozen
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    I mean no offence to anyone in saying this, just engineering observations:
    A true "X" member gives a frame a great deal of torsional stiffness. The red frame doesn't have an "X" member, there are no diagonal load paths. The inboard channels are too far apart, as a result the only crossmember is too wide, and it's too far to the rear. The C notch weakens it further. A lot of twisting can occur between that crossmember and the engine bay. Compare that to the frame in the first pic in post #4. Narrow, highly arched centre section, straight diagonals from engine bay to rear suspension. That frame will be strong in beam and torsion.
     
  16. Sure; thought you were talking about twisting behind the rear legs. How did you go about fixing your frame and correcting the set-up?
     
  17. dumprat
    Joined: Dec 27, 2006
    Posts: 2,804

    dumprat
    Member
    from b.c.

    I cut out the old boxing plates. Pulled the rails back in, and replaced the X. Then added more boxing inside the X.
     
  18. sloppy jalopies
    Joined: Jun 29, 2015
    Posts: 4,184

    sloppy jalopies
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    My $0.02 … using an x member as opposed to a k or just a cross channel is much stronger...
    when I box frame rails I like to cut the plates so they slide into the channel/frame...
    I like to leave about 3/8" of lower frame rail as an exposed flange that I can drill and tap to mount about any wiring, vac. hoses, brake line etc...
    .
    I am doing a '32 which does not have the doubled up frame rails like the '33 and up...
    I will box from about 4" in front of the cowl to about 4" after it...
    from about 4" before the rearend kick up to about 4" beyond the rear crossmember...
    will weld T nuts with the tabs snapped off into the body bolt holes the are hidden by the plates...
    I like to cut the ends in a concave radius... doesn't give stress a straight line to work on...
    if I but-weld frame sections in a project I like to weld the inside, grind it smooth, weld on 2.5" x 3/32" thick discs I got from work … I weld them on while they are centered on the frame welds... stress wants a straight line the discs won't give it one...
    I got carried away and boxed the open side of the X rails... lost a tranny line, had to pull the seats, 1/2 the front floor to get at that side of the tranny... only did that once !
    HIH.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2020
  19. Still trying to reason why your rails ended up twisting that way. Seems to me if the X or H or tubular street rod giz is rigid enough and properly attached at the four points it should do the job. Couple pics of the similarly modified frame under another 33 I had; lots of miles with no problem. Previous to that one, I had another '33 with about the same mods to the center to clear a TH-400; I did not box the rails on that one; but I did have a round tube crossmember under the pan of the 375-396; again a lot of miles with no problem.
    Not saying everything I did to these cars was right; but I still can't figure out the why of the twist you had.
    33 frame (2) (Medium).jpeg 33x (2) (Medium).jpeg
     
  20. Halfdozen
    Joined: Mar 8, 2008
    Posts: 606

    Halfdozen
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Jag suspension was a hot ticket back in the '70's. I think fifty years is old enough to be considered "traditional". Nice looking chassis.
     
  21. dumprat
    Joined: Dec 27, 2006
    Posts: 2,804

    dumprat
    Member
    from b.c.

    @RichB
    I am not entirely sure why the frame went so far out. I can only go on what I was told.

    I think an under engine brace is a good idea, my CJ7 has one stock.
     
  22. 34Larry
    Joined: Apr 25, 2011
    Posts: 1,347

    34Larry
    Member

    Thanks Halfdozen I do take a certain amount of pride in what can't be seen under there. And your right about what you say on Jag stuff, even way earlier than the 70's. But most of that era install never made it into the spotlight(s) and it wasn't never really shown and accomplished that much as the 70's so there wasn't the notoriety to name it as traditional. It bothered me at first when finishing the car, but today my skin is much thicker and it dose not bother me, I know what I have, I like it a tad bit unusual from the normal duck:rolleyes: and it isn't hard for me to accept being what it has become.
    Just one more point, because it was almost a 25 year build, and 34's/33's were getting more and more into vouge (because of ZZ Top maybe), I feared it would be considered common place, kind of like the '57 Chev. has become, at least to me, (everyone ever made is still on the road I swear, even I owned one), and not recognized for what it would be when finished. The uniqueness of the IRS/IFS brings about lots of conversation that does not take place about standard suspended 33/34 Ford coupes.
    I do notice that the pic's I posted to help with the OP's question and my answer in trying to do so is now cyber dust just as I predicted. :rolleyes:
     
    Eldonius likes this.
  23. Halfdozen
    Joined: Mar 8, 2008
    Posts: 606

    Halfdozen
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    I hear ya, Larry.
    My build has also dragged on for a very long time. I don't post pics of it because it's an odd assemblage of parts, some of which would make my posts go *poof* as well. And it's a Chev, not a Ford.
    It irritates me that some really good content by some really talented guys gets arbitrarily deleted. Yeah, I understand that Ryan and the mods want to maintain a very narrow "traditional" focus. But a lot of people here have interests and cars outside of the prewar Ford envelope. It's hard to know where the boundaries lie sometimes. Why couldn't there be a "Miscellaneous" area for not-quite-so-traditional stuff? Or a tech area that's a little less rigid about "tradition". I'm not talking about LS motors, turbos and fuel injection, but post- 1965 stuff like disc brakes, automatic transmissions, general knowledge and experience info. There's lots of it sprinkled throughout the forum now, it could all be "quarantined" in its own area. Kinda like the "Antiquated" area, which includes content that's not hot rod or kustom related at all...
     
    duncan likes this.

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2020 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.