32 K member identification
- Thread starter JakesA
- Start date
rotorwrench
Well-known member
I don't know if all 4-cylinder legs were the same or may be just certain versions since Ford was making changes all the time in 1932. On ones that are different, the only difference that I'm aware of is in the right side leg and it isn't by much. I think it has a slight bit of angularity difference in the way it is mounted It angles down a bit more than a V8 right leg and it may be a tad bit longer due to that. Maybe someone else has more information on this than I do.
deuce lover
Well-known member
Same for 4 cyl 8 cyl.The very early frames I don't think had the legs.
Last edited:
DavidG
Well-known member
There were three different versions of the 'legs' of the center cross member roughly forming the letter K when viewed from above, but in each instance they were used simultaneously on both four-cylinder and V8 chassis frames. In other words, except for extremely early frames manufactured before the decision was made to delay '32 model production in order to incorporate the V8 engine, there were no unique 'B' frames or unique 'V8' frames.
Those extremely early production frames had a wider spacing of the motor mount insulators in the front cross member, which was narrowed to 12" with the advent of the V8 engine. A revised B motor mount bracket was released for use with the revised front cross member.
As deuce lover indicates, all very early '32 frames had no 'legs' on the center cross member. In one of the April, 1932 recalls, the legs were to be added retroactively. There are a few examples of surviving frames that were missed in the recall (I know of six).
The very early B-only front cross member and both versions of the B front motor mount brackets and a surviving leg-less center cross member frame are shown in the photos below.
Those extremely early production frames had a wider spacing of the motor mount insulators in the front cross member, which was narrowed to 12" with the advent of the V8 engine. A revised B motor mount bracket was released for use with the revised front cross member.
As deuce lover indicates, all very early '32 frames had no 'legs' on the center cross member. In one of the April, 1932 recalls, the legs were to be added retroactively. There are a few examples of surviving frames that were missed in the recall (I know of six).
The very early B-only front cross member and both versions of the B front motor mount brackets and a surviving leg-less center cross member frame are shown in the photos below.
Attachments
Last edited:
rotorwrench
Well-known member
Since this question comes up now and then, I am going to throw this out there. Mike Bishop and Vern Tardel have a procedure to modify the 32 K-member to fit the model A frame in their book "How to Build a Traditional Ford Hot Rod". The measurements and where to cut are illustrated in that publication but I will not copy that and put it here since it may require someones permission to do that. They single out the right leg for "4- cylinder" frames as needing different modification than the V8 right leg which is also illustrated. I will state that Mike has mentioned some mistakes in the book that could not be edited after the book went to print but you can see why there may be some confusion out there when folks start asking questions. I don't know if the author of this thread has any knowledge of the Bishop/Tardel book or if he is just curious to see if there are differences unknown to him and would just like to know. I respect the knowledge of DavidG and Deuce Lover since they are both well versed in the 1932 model year vehicles as well as other years. I also have some respect for Vern Tardel and Mike Bishop so there is still a bit of a question mark in my mind over this question. Folks who are cutting up k-members may also need to know before they start hacking away. Vern does make a nice copy or at least he was making them. I purchased one of these for my AV8 project since I think I'd keep a good 32 Ford k-member for a 32 project if I ever got my hands on one. This might be more appropriate on the HAMB but I think is is appropriate on this forum as well just for general information about the 1932 ford frames.
PS: I went back and studied the Bishop/Tardel K-member modification illustration further. By their cuts and weld seams it indicates they were referring to modification of both right and left legs in reference to 4-cylinder legs. They indicate that both legs needed to be pie cut where the rear of the leg has a bend line at the attachment to the cross member in order to tilt the leg up from its normal position with a 3/4" width cut at the top just forward of the bend line at the attachment to the cross member tapering down along the bend line to a point at the bottom of the vertical side of the legs. Also of note is that the holes pierced through the leg in that location are almost oval shape with two straight horizontal lines upper & lower and round circular ends front and rear in the unmodified legs. This can be seen in the photo on the original post above. The holes pierced in what they refer to as V8 legs are D-shaped indicating that they stop at the bend line or possibly continue around the bend line. It's not a photograph so it's not apparent how they actually look.
This would indicate a slight difference in angularity of the legs in question on how it relates to positioning the cross member in the frame. As I mentioned before, I am just a person looking at this stuff from a position of ignorance about whether there is any truth to this or not.
PS: I went back and studied the Bishop/Tardel K-member modification illustration further. By their cuts and weld seams it indicates they were referring to modification of both right and left legs in reference to 4-cylinder legs. They indicate that both legs needed to be pie cut where the rear of the leg has a bend line at the attachment to the cross member in order to tilt the leg up from its normal position with a 3/4" width cut at the top just forward of the bend line at the attachment to the cross member tapering down along the bend line to a point at the bottom of the vertical side of the legs. Also of note is that the holes pierced through the leg in that location are almost oval shape with two straight horizontal lines upper & lower and round circular ends front and rear in the unmodified legs. This can be seen in the photo on the original post above. The holes pierced in what they refer to as V8 legs are D-shaped indicating that they stop at the bend line or possibly continue around the bend line. It's not a photograph so it's not apparent how they actually look.
This would indicate a slight difference in angularity of the legs in question on how it relates to positioning the cross member in the frame. As I mentioned before, I am just a person looking at this stuff from a position of ignorance about whether there is any truth to this or not.
Last edited:
DavidG
Well-known member
The existence of a unique 'leg' for fours and another for V8s suggests that would be reflected in unique part numbers for them, namely one with a 'B' prefix and another with a '18' prefix. I believe that I have all three of the original U.S. '32 chassis parts catalogs that were published during 1932 as well as copies of the original engineering drawings for the frames and the corresponding engineering releases and all show all the parts of a passenger car/commercial vehicle chassis frame have only 'B' prefix part numbers.
Perhaps the confusion has arisen with the changes that occurred to the 'legs' (B-5048 and B-5049 frame center cross member braces) over the course of '32 model production. If you removed a complete center cross member from a B chassis and another from a V8 chassis that was manufactured at a different point of time and they were different from one another, that might lead you to conclude that there was a difference between B and V8 B-5048 frame center cross member braces. In the photos below, note the variations in those braces, most notably in the shape of the various holes and in the extremely rare version with the integral brake/clutch pedal bracket (the right side of which is bent out of shape).
Perhaps the confusion has arisen with the changes that occurred to the 'legs' (B-5048 and B-5049 frame center cross member braces) over the course of '32 model production. If you removed a complete center cross member from a B chassis and another from a V8 chassis that was manufactured at a different point of time and they were different from one another, that might lead you to conclude that there was a difference between B and V8 B-5048 frame center cross member braces. In the photos below, note the variations in those braces, most notably in the shape of the various holes and in the extremely rare version with the integral brake/clutch pedal bracket (the right side of which is bent out of shape).
Attachments
Last edited:
Flathead Fever
Well-known member
Here is a K-member from my dad's stash of parts. The right leg does not look like any others I have ever seen. I don't know what the purpose of that piece would have been? Unfortunately the left leg looks like most of the ones I've seen at swap meets. Not quite sure how the master cylinder setup worked. Maybe it didn't and this is all that's left of the car.
Attachments
DavidG
Well-known member
Flathead Fever,
Please refer to the photo above to see what the missing portion of the left side looked like originally. (The right side of pedal bracket portion is bent out of shape as it was originally perpendicular to the center cross member like the flange on the right side of the center cross member.)
Please refer to the photo above to see what the missing portion of the left side looked like originally. (The right side of pedal bracket portion is bent out of shape as it was originally perpendicular to the center cross member like the flange on the right side of the center cross member.)
Last edited:
rotorwrench
Well-known member
This is starting to make sense now that I can see some of the other variations. A person would have to take measurements on all the variations in order to come to any complete conclusion and that still may not change anything. I really don't need a conclusion since I have no intent of ever modifying any of this stuff. I do know that Ford was not fond of manufacturing more than one type of any specific component if it wasn't absolutely necessary.
Where the information is really necessary is when folks purchase frame parts separately and then try to assemble a frame that would be considered authentic to the time frame of the serial number stamped there on. Variations can make this a truly difficult task.
Another thing that may have affected this was the way the actual cross member was formed. I see an angled kick up on the top of the ends of the cross member where it joins to the frame. This indicates the member has a bit of an angle back on the frame. If some were straight across then the legs would need a different angle too. It may have just been a time frame in production thing. Tardel and other AV8 guys were cutting the ends off to get the fit in the Model A. This would have the affect of changing the angle at which the member met the frame on the model A rail. The legs had to be changed as well to make them fit the model A's narrow rail.
Where the information is really necessary is when folks purchase frame parts separately and then try to assemble a frame that would be considered authentic to the time frame of the serial number stamped there on. Variations can make this a truly difficult task.
Another thing that may have affected this was the way the actual cross member was formed. I see an angled kick up on the top of the ends of the cross member where it joins to the frame. This indicates the member has a bit of an angle back on the frame. If some were straight across then the legs would need a different angle too. It may have just been a time frame in production thing. Tardel and other AV8 guys were cutting the ends off to get the fit in the Model A. This would have the affect of changing the angle at which the member met the frame on the model A rail. The legs had to be changed as well to make them fit the model A's narrow rail.
Last edited:
DavidG
Well-known member
That it can. Throw in the variations in the center cross member itself and it further complicates the task.
Note on the earliest version of the three I've shown (the one with the integral pedal bracket) that there is no provision in either the cross member or the braces for the engine steady rod positions inboard characteristic of the vast majority of '32 (and later) V8 engines, namely those with the attachment of the rods directly to the cast-in holes in the engine block bell housing.
In this instance, like all of the earliest V8s, the fours and V8s shared the same outboard attachment of the rods to the center cross member with separate forged brackets that attached to the bell housing. Even then, that is not the earliest of the variations in center cross members. On the first center cross member which had no braces whatsoever, the steady rods do not pass through the center cross member, but rather attach to the front of the cross member with a vertical orientation to the two attaching bolts (as shown in the photo below) compared to the horizontal orientation of the bolts of all rods that followed for the balance of '32 production. (Actually, that shown in the photo is not the first, as the holes for the brace are already in place.) Woe unto you if you need and are missing any of those components.
Note on the earliest version of the three I've shown (the one with the integral pedal bracket) that there is no provision in either the cross member or the braces for the engine steady rod positions inboard characteristic of the vast majority of '32 (and later) V8 engines, namely those with the attachment of the rods directly to the cast-in holes in the engine block bell housing.
In this instance, like all of the earliest V8s, the fours and V8s shared the same outboard attachment of the rods to the center cross member with separate forged brackets that attached to the bell housing. Even then, that is not the earliest of the variations in center cross members. On the first center cross member which had no braces whatsoever, the steady rods do not pass through the center cross member, but rather attach to the front of the cross member with a vertical orientation to the two attaching bolts (as shown in the photo below) compared to the horizontal orientation of the bolts of all rods that followed for the balance of '32 production. (Actually, that shown in the photo is not the first, as the holes for the brace are already in place.) Woe unto you if you need and are missing any of those components.
Attachments
Last edited:
Flathead Fever
Well-known member
Hey David, I've been missing a lot of details lately which is ticking me off. I should have spotted your cross member photo. I had a cornea transplant in my left eye caused by a botched Lasik surgery. I went to have my vision corrected and now I can barely see without glasses. One of the biggest mistakes I've ever made was deciding to have Lasik done. I had to give up welding because I don't know which puddle is the real one? The good thing is, I'm seeing double the Christmas lights this year. I couldn't get my '34 pickup registered at DMV but I had no problem getting my drivers license renewed. As long as you can read the eye chart it does not matter how many of the charts you see.
Thank you to all for their (in some case very knowledge) replies. Yes, my question was raised after having read the Bishop and Tardel book, this being my only reference point to the K member.
Thanks to all who have helped me with this inquiry and may you all have a very merry christmas.
Thanks to all who have helped me with this inquiry and may you all have a very merry christmas.
Fortunateson
Well-known member
What would someone expect to pay for a good k-member?
WRA
Senior Member
Nice one at Moultrie this year was marked at $800. Was gone by Saturday afternoon and guy said he got $750 for it. I cobbled one together about 5 years ago and sold it for $350. Sold a cherry right leg for $100 this past summer. Guess I'm saying, they are not cheap...
rotorwrench
Well-known member
To the best of my knowledge, there have been no accurate reproductions of any variation. Vern Tardel's welded K-member assembly is the only reproduction that I have seen and one of his compadres may still be fabricating them. There is a phone number for Spencer on Vern's web site for contact. They have the basic shape and provisions for the wish bone but that is as far as they go. It would be very obvious that they are a general copy to the trained eye since they are missing a lot of the original shapes & hole piercings.
I's too bad that American Stamping doesn't try to reproduce them since they at least have presses that might be able to do the job given the dies to do it. Most folks purchase other aftermarket members for street rod applications so they may not want to invest in the dies. There would also be a question like the one this discussion has been about. Which variation would be the best to reproduce? The same would apply to OEM type front and rear cross members.
deuce_roadster
Well-known member
I sold one at the Portland Swap meet last year for $800, I have another nice one I will have there this year for 850. Both of these I found loose, I would never take one out of a frame or cut one up. Both my 32s have stock frames and crossmembers.
MN Stumpjumper
Senior Member
I made some reproductions in past years. Both the full size and the "cut down" A" version . All hand built and time consuming. Sold some to fellow Hot Rodders. Didn't make any money. I tried to make them as close to original looking as I could. If I find some pictures I'll try to post on here.
MN Stumpjumper
Senior Member
rotorwrench
Well-known member
That assembly has more detail than the Tardel assembly does. The ball cup for the wishbone and the legs are much closer to original form. Welded assemblies can get a person in the ball park. I does take a lot of time to do all that though. A person can use a power brake to bend a lot of the key major bends and weld the rest. Forming the ball socket would require some ingenuity.