'32 thermostatically controlled shocks

L

Lincolnville

Senior Member
Is this one of the thermostatically controlled shocks? It is 2 1/2" tall as measured from bottom of the base to the top of the stamped cover. The total height is 3 1/2" and the back of the base has a series of recesses radiating from the center.

However, the patent numbers 1777129 & 1781127 were issued on 9/30/30 and 11/11/1930 respectively. And the ear has been stamped letters, NC. Both of which are causing me to think otherwise.
 

Attachments

  • DSC_6935.jpg
    DSC_6935.jpg
    48.6 KB · Views: 211
  • DSC_6937.jpg
    DSC_6937.jpg
    50.6 KB · Views: 205
  • DSC_6938.jpg
    DSC_6938.jpg
    32.2 KB · Views: 210
Last edited:
Lincolnville said:
Is this one of the thermostatically controlled shocks? It is 2 1/2" tall as measured from bottom of the base to the top of the stamped cover. The total height is 3 1/2" and the back of the base has a series of recesses radiating from the center.

However, the patent numbers 1777129 & 1781127 were issued on 9/30/193 and 11/11/193 respectively. And the ear has been stamped letters, NC. Both of which are causing me to think otherwise.
Click to expand...
530896


530897


530898
 
I know I have seen a couple of those in boxes of parts stashed around here. Mine had the look of NOS. Had no idea they were shocks til 5 minutes ago. Can I assume they'd make some good trading stock?
 
Yes, some years are very hard to find. Ideally, they would still be free to move and not stuck.
 
Neither of the shocks above appear to be friction shocks. Original Ford shocks made by Houdaille are all hydraulic. Early shocks (pre 32) had to be readjusted often with temperature swings. The therostatic shock eliminated some of the need for re-adjustment. Dave covers the 32 shocks in chapter 10 of his restoration book. The stamping of the letters A, B or C on the shock, indicated the factory adjusted resistance of the shock.
 
The shock in Pete's photo in #3 above appears to be a late Model A manually-adjustable shock, although it is hard to tell given that it is missing the ring between the cover and the base and the view of base doesn't lend itself to judging the height of the base.

The part number prefixes of the automatically-adjustable '32 shocks was 18 as it was originally released for use on V8 equipped chassis only. There was a short-lived B prefix shock released for four-cylinder-equipped passenger car and commercial chassis that was manually adjustable as shown in the photo below. It is distinguished from a late Model A shock by its 1/4" thicker base and by the recesses on the back like the 18-prefix shock. Shortly after Job #1, the decision was made to use only the 18-prefix shock on all 106" wheelbase chassis and the existing inventory of B-prefix shocks was used up on commercial chassis. Needless to say, finding rebuildable B-prefix shocks is a real challenge.
 

Attachments

  • Book photos 290.jpg
    Book photos 290.jpg
    41.5 KB · Views: 125
DavidG said:
The shock in Pete's photo in #3 above appears to be a late Model A manually-adjustable shock, although it is hard to tell given that it is missing the ring between the cover and the base and the view of base doesn't lend itself to judging the height of the base.

The part number prefixes of the automatically-adjustable '32 shocks was 18 as it was originally released for use on V8 equipped chassis only. There was a short-lived B prefix shock released for four-cylinder-equipped passenger car and commercial chassis that was manually adjustable as shown in the photo below. It is distinguished from a late Model A shock by its 1/4" thicker base and by the recesses on the back like the 18-prefix shock. Shortly after Job #1, the decision was made to use only the 18-prefix shock on all 106" wheelbase chassis and the existing inventory of B-prefix shocks was used up on commercial chassis. Needless to say, finding rebuildable B-prefix shocks is a real challenge.
Click to expand...
530925
 
Pete,


Thanks. Notice the 1/4" difference in the thickness of the cast bases of the shocks in your photo and my photo.
 
Yes, and the extra 1/4" of casting between the 'wings' and the threads shows up well in your photo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top