I don't understand my A...

Steinar

Steinar

Member
picture.php


Here is a picture from my rear axle (car is not original, runs with hydraulics). I would expect the rubber cushion at the end of the arrow to run into something if the suspension were overloaded. Here it is nothing to catch it. Doesn't make much sense to me. So I think this is either some leftovers from the old A construction, or it was intended to build some more into the car which apparently never took place..?
Anyone who know this thingie, and know how it was meant to work? Should it have been a bracket coming out from the axlehousing to catch it?
Any answer appreciated!
 
Definitely Not a model A
Yours seems to have rear control arms which likely had shocks/struts mounted to them at one point. That rubber is likely somehow related to whatever was there before.
 
So, it looks like they mounted this rubber item into my model A frame? This rubber is not part of the A construction, right?
And the rear wishbone/control arms doesn't look like A because of the hole drilled into the side of it, right? Does it differ much else from that?
Could anyone tell from the picture where those control arms most likely come from? Could it be from a little younger Ford?
I dont' know the history of this car, but it probably has been a bit troublesome. I have found out that my front axle has a slightly drop, looks like 32-36 Ford. Maybe the rear control arms are picked from the same donor?
 
About picture problems, I did put my picture right in front of the text. And it still is there, that is for me. I have read other postings here as well, where folks are asking for pictures that is refered to in the text. Looks to me Fordbarn might have a bug in their software somewhere...
But that is correct, I have also put my pictures to my album in my profile. But that is not how it was supposed to work..
 
Steinar said:
About picture problems... Looks to me Fordbarn might have a bug in their software somewhere...
Click to expand...
At work I can see the picture in post #1 perfectly. At home it's not there. Sometimes it's the other way around. -- go figure!
 
Jim, thanks, you had an interesting comment there!
I did put back the old linings up front after just cleaning and rubbed'em. I also wondered a little about the length of the lining when I first saw it. But after some thinking, I thought maybe this would make the brakes work even better! The way I was thinking, the lining is fixed at the bottom, not being able to move toward the drum down there. If the lining had been running all the way up to the top of the shoe, where all the movement is being done, just a small part of the linings surface would touch the drum while braking. By taking away some of the lining, as being done here, a lot more of the linings surface will be exposed for the drum while braking, hence giving more friction and with that more brake power!
But then again, I'm not a skilled mechanic, am I far out here? Any comments appreciated!
picture.php
 
Last edited:
If the drums are true,(round and centered), the more braking surface of the lining only improves the brakes. By only having half on the trailing shoe with lining on it, you are loosing the braking ability of the shoes. The rest of what is left will have work harder to do the same job, and will wear sooner. The shoes, when properly arched to the drums, will give 100% of the shoes surface towards the brake drum. This set up has been engineered by Ford, and I am sure there was more than one person working on it, and for more than one day! The technology may be old, and there have been some changes over the years, but what Henry sold was good enough then, and if maintained and set up properly, is good enough now. I'd fix yours if I was in your position........
 
Ok, thanks, I like your argumentation, and you're probably right. Since they was like that on both sides, I thought they maybe were meant to be like that, and I tried to understand why. I don't know what they originally looked like, but if you know the original setup, and you can see mine are different, then you're right. As I have said earlier, my car has had a little troublesome history, and it's been done quite a few things to it that differs from A originality. I'll see to make the necessary corrections here. Thanks!
 
Steinar said:
Ok, thanks, I like your argumentation, and you're probably right. Since they was like that on both sides, I thought they maybe were meant to be like that, and I tried to understand why. I don't know what they originally looked like, but if you know the original setup, and you can see mine are different, then you're right. As I have said earlier, my car has had a little troublesome history, and it's been done quite a few things to it that differs from A originality. I'll see to make the necessary corrections here. Thanks!
Click to expand...

Since both sides are the same I'd say your brake shoes are OK. It's very common to have the primary shoe shorter than the secondary shoe.
 
Ok, I think I'll just put things back together and see how it works. If brakes feel fine I'll leave it as is. If poor braking capacity I'll have to come back to those things.

Thanks to all of you! Always interesting to hear different point of views!
 
Fordgarage had a comment about my missing rear shock absorber earlier in this thread. That's right, they are missing. But from the picture shown here, you can see earlier owner of the car has had thoughts about it. Bolts are set up for top-fastening of telescopic shock absorbers.
For fastening the shock to the axle, I think it is two possibilities. Either make some clamp to bolt on, or do some MIG-welding right into the axlehousing. If so, could I just drain out oil and do the welding, or could the heat make problems, like twisted axlehousing, or give problems with cracks? Anyone who has been doing such things earlier? Any comments appreciated!
picture.php
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top