Edison Car update from Gilmore Museum

ctvpa said:
picture.php



Just a question. To all of those who feel that the Edison car should be removed of the history included in the years of owning, driving and enjoying the car; do you think the car in the above photo should be washed, stripped, repainted, all the extras removed and bring it back to the way it left the factory?
Click to expand...

IMOHO Many cars should be left the way they were when they were in daily use, like the one in the picture and the Edison car. Any one read/ see this before;
http://www.hemmings.com/hcc/stories/2011/11/01/hmn_drivable_dreams1.html
 
I think the Edison Phaeton is a wonderful study just as is. We may never know how all of the changes came about on this car but the fact that it is indeed the Thomas Edison Phaeton is such an important part of Ford history, the Gilmore should be so lucky to have it on loan.
 
Isn't it possible that the engine had trouble over the years and the car would have been taken to a dealer for replacement. The dealer would have replaced the block and stamped the correct number on it????
I think it is a wonderful car and the museum is lucky to have it and we can all have fun picking it apart.......Like we do with all Model A's Right?
 
George Washington's Axe? I think the Edison Model A is a perfect example of a historical Model A as is and should be in the museum. I wouldn't change a thing.
 
Ken Ehrenhofer said:
Isn't it possible that the engine had trouble over the years and the car would have been taken to a dealer for replacement. The dealer would have replaced the block and stamped the correct number on it????
I think it is a wonderful car and the museum is lucky to have it and we can all have fun picking it apart.......Like we do with all Model A's Right?
Click to expand...

I do not think Tim is "picking it apart" but wants to know, as I do and a few others, some mysterious things concering the A1 engine block and the photo.

Tim wanted to know what others felt about it so here is my take on it with red thoughts...:

"While attending the Museum's Grand Opening I spent a moment looking at the Edison car. It wasn't long before I had more questions than answers.

For example..... It is my understanding that the very early engine blocks had the engine number pad just above the water return inlet. True. This makes sense as the Model T for some time.....and at the end of its production.....also had the engine number pad just above the water return inlet. Then sometime still in 1927 the engine number pad for the Model A blocks was moved up and away from the water return port to upper edge of the block. True. This was due to Part Release # 3463 dated October 12, 1927 which indicated: “Moved pad for engine number to top of block and reduced size”; The same PR also indicated: “Reduced size of water outlet (inlet) connection pad to agree with connection”. Here FORD confused the “outlet” with the “inlet”.

So, sometime after October 12, 1927 the change was made in relation to the placement of the engine number pad. Which would have been the 2” inch length size (the pad on the Edison car is 2-3/4” as stated below). However, since FORD must have already made over 633 or so blocks with the lower pad, he then started to assemble the engine with such.

Now, notice the PR date is October 12, 1927! FORD’s records indicate that the first stampings of engines were done on October 20, 1927 with #1. October 21, 1927 was #’s 2-10; October 24, 1927 was #’s 11-40…through November 17, 1927. The 2” pad was used between November 17 and December 3-14, 1927 when the 2-2/1” engine pad was used…Then between December 19-27, 1927 the pad’s length was changed again to 2-3/4” inch in length.

The engine number pads that were just above the water return inlet were machined smooth for both the Model T's, at least the late ones, and the first Model A's. I suspect that the only reason the engine number pads were machined was because they were an integral part of the water inlet casting, which needed to be machined smooth to provide a water tight connection. I could not agree more with that statement. And, it would have been difficult and not worth the effort to machine only the water inlet face and not the integral engine number pad. My personal view is that the engine number pad was moved up and away from the water inlet opening so as to save machining time and tool wear.....since the engine number pad did not need to be machined. And, the high engine pads were not machined. So very true.

With the foregoing in mind, I wonder why the engine number pad on the Edison car is a high pad at the top of the block......and not down by the water inlet? Simple…the original engine, A1, which was stamped on October 20, 1927, was replaced with a later engine block that was stamped also with A1. I have been in hot pursuit to find out the size of the engine number pad on the Edison car and after some time, not to mention the “Why do you want it?” questions , I was told by the Gilmore Museum curiotor that the size of that engine number pad is: “The measurement for the width (length) of the pad on Edison's car is 2 3/4". This “size” of pad (the fourth 2-3/4” style/size) began to show up on the blocks between December 19 and December 27, 1927 and lasted to January/February 1929 where anywhere between 2820-4408 blocks had been already stamped. This little detail suggests to me that the block in the Edison car is not one of the first blocks produced. Exactly…What else that means is open to conjecture.

I suppose it's possible that the block for the Edison car was still the first one "finished" and stamped number one even though it was not among the early blocks produced. This possibility to me seems to be a bit far fetched (agreed) since there were hundreds of early low pad blocks produced and stamped with numbers as least as high as three digits. Between A616 (low pad) and A633 (2” high pad) to be exact…the change from low to high was November 17, 1927 (or very close to it). During this time period, FORD was sending all these numberd engines, and other parts to complete the assembly of the Model A, to most, if not all, the asembly plants around the USA so they could get things squared away within their assembly plant to bring it up to full production.

In addition, the picture that depicts Henry and others purportedly stamping engine number one shows a block with the high engine number pad, not low. True. My guess is that the picture was staged for promotional purposes....and not much attention was paid to details such as the location of the engine number pad. True…My feelings exactly, AND IF the A1 engine which is in the Edison car now is that very engine for which depicts Henry Ford stamping it in the picture, then the photo session must have been done sometime after December 27, 1927 (or there abouts) when the 2-3/4” pad took effect. Whether the pad is smaller than 2-3/4” in length, I do not think we can effectivly tell for sure of the exact size from the photo.

I suppose another possibility is that Ford started stamping the production engines with some number other than one, and then at some point shortly thereafter decided to produce engine number one, take pictures, and then put it in a car for Edison. I respectly disagree on that assumption as to the fact that we would see something of the sort, number wise, in those early blocks and as to date nothing has shown us that was the fact. And, if this is what happened, the engine number pad might have already been moved up when number one was produced for Edison.



If anyone has any evidence that the engine number pads for the Model A were first high, as is the case with the Edison car as it sits, and then moved down for a while and then moved back up again, please share it. I to would welcome any such information if it so exists.

Pluck
 
Thanks for all the info. Pluck...i think the car looks great the way it is. Just to think that Edison once drove that car is priceless ,no matter what condition....I'm sure he took Henry for a ride at some point too.
 
I was there and I think it belongs there. I have heard Henry had a Model A coupe he drove clear up to the early 40s and it had any number of modifications, some from places like Pep Boys.

If you want to pick something apart, step outside and look at the dog bone shock links on Edsels custom built 29 phaeton.

This is not a MAFCA/MARC fine point judging show. It's a museum and the stories that go with the car are what people enjoy. People don't bid the price of Elvis's scarf into the stratosphere because the scarf is perfect. They bid it up because it has Elvis's sweat on it:D.

Richard
Anaheim CA
 
Hi everyone, my father, Steve Ciccalone posted this thread about 7 months before his passing in 2011 on a thread for "earliest model a in existence"

"The so called A1 at Greenfield Village is a recreation. The former owner of A189, a US congressman, arranged through Bill Ford to have the body lifted to confirm it was not the real car. From the engine release list, A12, A13 and A14 were the first engines sent to production on 10/23/27. A1 in fact wasn't sent to the line until 11/1/27. A189 is the earliest surviving real engine, having been stamped 11/1/27 but not released to the line until 11/25/27. The earliest surviving engine sent to production is A241, the 82nd, which went on 11/7/27. The next engine is A354 that was the 101st released on 11/8/27. The third surviving engine is A435, also sent on 11/8/27 and was the 123rd released. These numbers come from the engine release log found many years ago by George DeAngelis. Of the known three digit cars, only two, A189 and A616 are bonefide matching number cars with their original bodies, a roadster and tudor respectively. Oddly, both engines were sent to assembly the same day with one engine released between them. I am not aware of any surviving real single or two digit engines. I know or am aware of all the confirmed three digit cars/engines. I own 3 three digit cars, only one of which is matching #s, A189, and a very low matching numbers four digit roadster A1031. My very good friend is restoring, A1276, another matching numbers early vehicle.

Very early cars of great interest to a small group of people, noteably, Doc Kalinka and Mike Gooding, whose father Fred actually got Doc interested about them in the early 1970's. I would be happy to answer any questions about these early A's and I hope this little bit of information helps. We are hoping to get a special interest group started at MARC, which would have been done by now if frankly I hadn't been so lazy."

It just so happens that I may be going to the museum on Thursday this week and I will try to get a picture of the engine pad myself. If anyone wants to search the string I pulled this posting from you can see some very clear engine pictures that my dad posted as well.

Although, like the earlier post states, even if A1 is not the earliest car, it is still a car that has a great story.

Thanks,
Steve Ciccalone
 
spdway1 said:
So is the car misrepresented in the Meseum?
Click to expand...

Joe K said:
Probably not. It is the car that Ford gave to Edison.

Joe K
Click to expand...

If this is really the car that was given to Edison, there doesn't appear to be a whole lot of the original car left. I understand that the car given to Edison was upgraded often over the years, but at what point does it cease to be the same car? As an example, consider the brake system. I'd guess that Ford updated the braking system when they went away from the split system, but a "first month of production" frame should be easy enough to spot from a mile away if you know what to look for, even if the brake system has been upgraded. Would Ford have just lifted the body and rolled a new chassis underneath? Possibly, and that might well be what happened. Even if that's the case it should still have a very early body, assuming that it was changed from a Tudor to a Phaeton shortly after it was given to Edison, and again that should be easy enough to spot. And it's pretty obvious that the engine isn't the original A1, so...

Is it misrepresented, as was asked earlier? I don't think intentionally, but it doesn't look like much of it (if any) is actually original to the car that was given to Edison. In fact, I can't pick out a single piece visible in the photos that's Oct. or Nov. 1927 production.
 
My own personal viewpoint, many historical things may be a re-creation of, or a facsimilie of, or changed slightly over the years, but at least the history has been "somewhat" preserved for us to appreciate!
I was thrilled when I first knew about Thomas Edison working with Henry Ford as Edison was one of my HEROS, even from grammar school. I love the ingenuity of early pioneers in the transportation field! Bill W.
 
This has been an interesting thread on A1. We know that A1 started as a Tudor ; I recently re found an old photo from an old [1960] Clymer book which shows this Tudor. It also gives a different time line for the Phaeton which may help explain why the Phaeton does not really show as a 1927 Model A today. A lot of the updates could well have been done before Edison got it when it was used & tested by Ford as a Tudor?
 

Attachments

Steve, thank you for posting your first message on Ford Barn. Your Pop was a great contributor to this site. I had a lot of great conversations with him regarding VE-28 Model A's as I am working on A3261.
 
Very interesting thread with some amazing detective work and impressive knowledge about the early cars. I would say that we would all be in agreement that the car was no doubt owned and used by Edison, I do support the effort to authenticate and validate artifacts to ensure accurate representation.
If the engine was disproved as being authentically A1 and perhaps a restamped replacement, I don't believe it hurts the historical importance of the car.
 
Gentlemen, I'm late to this discussion, but I have something to add. I was raised in the downriver area of Mi. and as a young person visited the Henry Ford museun many times (in the 50's). I clearly remember the #1 engine, mounted on a rolling motor stand, on display in the museum, The Edison car was also there and both items were singled out and their unique character clearly labled, although the engine was in a different area of the museum. They were displayed like that for many years. Fast forward to the mid 60's, when as a new member of the Motor Cities Chapter, I had the opportunity to do something special. Remember in those days Motor Cities Chapter met in the Greenfield Villiage,and they had a special relationship with The Ford Museum/Greenfield Villiage, and the chapter was sometimes asked to do some things to help out. This time they asked the chapter to UNITE (REUNITE) THE #1 ENGINE WITH THE EDISON PHAETON. I along with about 6 others, on a Saturday morning did that very thing. I knew nothing of the running production changes at that time and can add nothing about any, but that the what the Museum claimed to be the #1 engine and the Edison car were reunited by the Motor Cities Chapter in the mid 60"s.--- Jetrod
 
ctvpa said:
picture.php



Just a question. To all of those who feel that the Edison car should be removed of the history included in the years of owning, driving and enjoying the car; do you think the car in the above photo should be washed, stripped, repainted, all the extras removed and bring it back to the way it left the factory?
Click to expand...

FWIW, the Flyer was restored by Bill Harrah in the early 60s. It never looked like that when he got it. He hired Walt Disney and his crew to replicate how it looked in the photos the day it rolled into Paris. This included breaking and bending the headlamp to duplicate the lamp that got smashed by a pigeon during the race. All the "patina" on the car was done during the restoration by the Disney artists.
Although it is arguably one of the three most important automotive artifacts in the world, it is not what is considered today as a barn find or in "survivor" condition. It was restored to duplicate the look of the car on the final day of the most grueling auto race in history, Bill Harrah is to thank for putting that car in the condition it is today so the world can enjoy it.
 
modeleh said:
FWIW, the Flyer was restored by Bill Harrah in the early 60s. It never looked like that when he got it. He hired Walt Disney and his crew to replicate how it looked in the photos the day it rolled into Paris. This included breaking and bending the headlamp to duplicate the lamp that got smashed by a pigeon during the race. All the "patina" on the car was done during the restoration by the Disney artists.
Although it is arguably one of the three most important automotive artifacts in the world, it is not what is considered today as a barn find or in "survivor" condition. It was restored to duplicate the look of the car on the final day of the most grueling auto race in history, Bill Harrah is to thank for putting that car in the condition it is today so the world can enjoy it.
Click to expand...

I started to point that out earlier but some folks only hear what they want to hear. For those who are interested, Coker Tires sells an amazing DVD about the history of the Great Race and there's a lot of information about the car itself as well. As I recall, Harrah's commissioned some men back in the late 50's to go out and find this particular car because of it's historical significance, and when they returned with it he flew the original driver, Mr. George Schuster, out to Reno to verify that it was indeed the winning car. When Mr. Schuster arrived he said that the car had been modified so much from when he drove it in 1908 that he was quite firmly convinced it was NOT the same car. Nonetheless, he hung around at Mr. Harrah's request while the car was dismantled, and when they lifted off the body Mr. Schuster spotted a makeshift repair to either the frame or rear axle (I forget which) that he remembered making during the race!
 
Correct. It was a stop drill repair to a frame crack that Mr Schuster recognized. Prior to that it was not believed to be the car from the race as it had been altered post race at the Thomas factory and passed through several hands after the company bankruptcy auction, one being the DuPont family.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top