1930 Radiator Shell Hood Hinge Retainer (A-8220-A) Finish

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

Does anyone have a copy of the print, -or does anyone know specifically what the finish was on the A-8220-A Hood Hinge Retainer?

I would have always thought they would have been stamped out of stainless and then polished to match the sheen of the shell, however it appears this item may have been a carry-over from the Model-T years. In the 28/29 era they would have been Nickle-plated with the shell. Therefore in 1930 (-and maybe '31?) were they CAD plated, -or should they be painted Black (-or??)

.
.

 

[CarlG]

My '30 radiator shell has stainless polished to match the shell.

 

[Model "A" Fords]

I have a few that are definitely not stainless steel as they look like yours, Brent. They seem to be nickel plated to me but not positive.
I wonder if they used nickel plated steel ones, and when they ran out they changed to stainless as Carl has on his car?
Carl, do you have some photographs of yours that you could share, please? I would appreciate to see a comparison if possible. Thank you.
Bob

 

[Phil Brown]

The one on my 31 coupe s definitely stainless steel to match the shell.
What was used originally on the CCPU with the non-stinless painted shells ?

 

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

As I understand it now, these clips were originally chrome plated. I am pretty sure the method was no polishing of the part and then only flash-plated. This explains why many (i.e: most) of them are rusty on original shells.

The commercial shells used the same retaining bracket however it was painted Black in lieu of the flash plating. Bob, I have a large stack of 30 & 31 shells which all have the steel retainer, which would lead to to believe they were all stamped from steel. The revisions in the parts kinda lean towards that mindset also.

The reproduction shells have their retainer stamped from stainless.

 

[Model "A" Fords]

As I understand it now, these clips were originally chrome plated. I am pretty sure the method was no polishing of the part and then only flash-plated. This explains why many (i.e: most) of them are rusty on original shells.

The commercial shells used the same retaining bracket however it was painted Black in lieu of the flash plating. Bob, I have a large stack of 30 & 31 shells which all have the steel retainer, which would lead to to believe they were all stamped from steel. The revisions in the parts kinda lean towards that mindset also.

The reproduction shells have their retainer stamped from stainless.

Brent, I found a drawing of the clip which dates 1927, 28 and 29. It shows the part made from 14 gauge Cold rolled Open hearth Carbon steel. No indication of polishing ( probably tumbled) with a Chromium finish as you mentioned, to stand a 50 hr salt bath without rust.

I don't have anything for 30-31 but looks like the same part. Makes sense, as Henry wouldn't make a different part if he could use an existing one to save money.

To restore this simple part, it has to have the rivets, Chromium and rust removed, replated and riveted back on. Sounds easy enough!

 

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

Brent, I found a drawing of the clip which dates 1927, 28 and 29. It shows the part made from 14 gauge Cold rolled Open hearth Carbon steel. No indication of polishing ( probably tumbled) with a Chromium finish as you mentioned, to stand a 50 hr salt bath without rust.

I don't have anything for 30-31 but looks like the same part. Makes sense, as Henry wouldn't make a different part if he could use an existing one to save money.

To restore this simple part, it has to have the rivets, Chromium and rust removed, replated and riveted back on. Sounds easy enough!

Thank you very much for the confirmation.


On a sidenote with regard to steel vs. stainless, I would be very curious if there is indeed any stainless retainers that are original. For the vehicle I am working on, it used an 8220-A retainer however on December 19 of '30 there was a revision made however the suffix was a C but no mention of a B revision. Was that because it never went to production? The A-8220 was likely the unfinished stamping, and then the 8220-A difference was the Chromium plated piece.

One other thing about these that may explain a reason why stainless was a problem. Yesterday Terry Deters and I were discussing these, and we both mentioned that the tang on many of these retainers (-which are made out of the 14ga steel!!) are worn so much that they allow the hood to creep forward too far. Both of us have remedied this by fabbing and inserting a spacer to correct the wear, however likely Ford discovered that stainless would be too soft and fragile for this application. Another thing that I have wondered about is that when Allegheny Steel manufactured the promotional 1930 Tudor, they used the Ford stamping dies however instead of 19 gauge sheeting, they reportedly used 22 gauge stainless. Was that because 19 gauge stainless would have been harder to stamp with the Ford dies, or was it some other reason?

 

[Phil Brown]

Checked several shells (mine, Dad's, and a friend's) 6 of the 31 shells were stainless (non-magnetic) 1 was carbon steel, plated and magnetic. The attachment rivets also do not look as nice.
3 of the 30 shells checked were carbon steel and plated and one was stainless. All with original nice nice-looking attachment rivets.
Wonder if there was a change in the material later in production.
Most of these 31's do not look like they have ever been worked on, but who knows ?
Could the change to stainless might have been to save $ by eliminating the plating process, just stamp, polish, and install. But the cost of materials was likely more. Who knows, mysteries of the A

 

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

Checked several shells (mine, Dad's, and a friend's) 6 of the 31 shells were stainless (non-magnetic) 1 was carbon steel, plated and magnetic. The attachment rivets also do not look as nice.
3 of the 30 shells checked were carbon steel and plated and one was stainless. All with original nice nice-looking attachment rivets.
Wonder if there was a change in the material later in production.
Most of these 31's do not look like they have ever been worked on, but who knows ?
Could the change to stainless might have been to save $ by eliminating the plating process, just stamp, polish, and install. But the cost of materials was likely more. Who knows, mysteries of the A

Thanks for looking. I don't really know the answer to your question. This is a great reason why it would be nice if the archives were open again. I have a running spreadsheet listing part numbers and questions such as this.

One thing that I would guess about the stainless units would have been they would not have been totally polished. Likely just the top because when they were installed, just the topside would likely have been polished. That is why you do not see areas like under the hood pad (lacing) is polished. That retainer would take a lot of effort to polish given all of the nooks & crannies.

 

[Model "A" Fords]

Thank you very much for the confirmation. Another thing that I have wondered about is that when Allegheny Steel manufactured the promotional 1930 Tudor, they used the Ford stamping dies however instead of 19 gauge sheeting, they reportedly used 22 gauge stainless. Was that because 19 gauge stainless would have been harder to stamp with the Ford dies, or was it some other reason?

Brent, you are correct about stainless being harder to stamp than mild steel.

There are hundreds of types of stainless. 304 stainless is similar to that used for the Tudor, so as a "rough" estimate, this stainless would require 1.5 times the pressure used to form the mild steel of equal thickness.

Just for interest, 304 stainless is known as nonmagnetic, which it is in the annealed condition but once work hardened will become magnetic and if the work hardening is extreme, so is the magnetism.