Part ID
- Thread starter Dragfink
- Start date
Marshall V. Daut
Well-known member
I've just always called it the rear lower body crossmember. Model A people seem to respond to that name.
Marshall
Marshall
Marshall V. Daut
Well-known member
That would work, too. I like your designation better than mine. It's crisper. 
M.
M.
Marshall V. Daut
Well-known member
"Lower rear valance panel."
Not to split hairs over a semantics issue, but I believe that would be more accurately applied to the unique rear valences found on Fordor sedans, Victorias, Deluxe Phaetons and Convertible sedans. The piece Dragfink is asking about is found on Tudors, roadsters, phaetons, Cabriolets and coupes of all flavors.
Marshall
Not to split hairs over a semantics issue, but I believe that would be more accurately applied to the unique rear valences found on Fordor sedans, Victorias, Deluxe Phaetons and Convertible sedans. The piece Dragfink is asking about is found on Tudors, roadsters, phaetons, Cabriolets and coupes of all flavors.
Marshall
Marshall V. Daut
Well-known member
Jim has settled the issue for us with irrefutable documentation from the horse's mouth, as it were (i.e., from FoMoCo). However: "A rose by any other name... etc., etc." I do think that a Model A guy would understand what was meant by any of the names suggested so far, or at least recognize the general area where that part lives.
Marshall
I do think that a Model A guy would understand what was meant by any of the names suggested so far, or at least recognize the general area where that part lives.Marshall
Bob Bidonde
Well-known member
The part is called a "Sill Assembly" in Ford Body Parts Price List. See the diagram on Page 233. The part number is likely to be A-45050 Sill (floor cross) center-rear and it is common to the 45-A Coupe, 45-B Coupe, 49-A Special Coupe, 50-A Sport Coupe, 50-B Sport Coupe & 54-A Special Coupe.
Jim Mason
Well-known member
Yup"A rose by any other name... etc., etc."
Marshall
Randy in ca
Well-known member
The Sill pictured in post #1 is not the version to fit all the Coupes (or Roadsters) it is for Tudor Sedans and possibly Phaetons (forget for sure on Phaetons without checking). The shape on the ends is totally wrong for Coupes and Roadsters (except as that shown in the third picture). Edited to add picture from Mike's.
-
Attachments
Last edited:
Karl Wescott
Well-known member
The tudor sedan sill rear crossmember (iirc) fits the four-door (35A, 35B) phaetons. It does not fit the 1930-31 tudor (180A) phaeton.
The bodies that used a "rear valance panel" were mostly bodies that had a wood sill structure (1931 fordor the exception), though I prefer the term "back splash apron".
The bodies that used a "rear valance panel" were mostly bodies that had a wood sill structure (1931 fordor the exception), though I prefer the term "back splash apron".
BRENT in 10-uh-C
Well-known member
So since this has been answered correctly let me ask a question relating to this.
Do you think we are doing any harm, -or doing a disservice to the hobby by using made-up or confusing nomenclature for names on different parts? Especially for parts used in other Countries?
Do you think we are doing any harm, -or doing a disservice to the hobby by using made-up or confusing nomenclature for names on different parts? Especially for parts used in other Countries?
Karl Wescott
Well-known member
Interesting conundrum. IMHO in general, using the specific Ford terminology would be best, however sometimes to a "lay" person this could be confusing. Most customers would think a "lock" is something you insert a key into to allow function, however what most would call a door latch Ford called a door lock. The second issue is where Ford's nomenclature is unclear or unknown to the user, the "valance" vs "back apron" as an example, or what I call a "clutch spring" internal to a window regulator (Ford did not service the internals to the regulators as far as I know) as that is my best description as to its function.
alexiskai
Well-known member
The parallel use of a formal and a vernacular language for the description of some set of objects or ideas is pretty common.
Sometimes the vernacular term arises because the formal term is unwieldy or unintuitive. For example, the rear cabin window is usually called the rear light in technical documents, but who calls a window a light?
Another reason for a vernacular term to arise is to distinguish something that the formal language doesn't distinguish. For example, if I say "the #8 stud," most of you know that I mean the longer cylinder head stud to which the ignition cable is clamped. But of course that term relies on a numbering system that originated in the hobbyist community decades after production ceased.
Lastly, vernacular terms arise because the formal term is not commonly known or accessible. Because technical diagrams and factory descriptions, particularly of subassembly parts, are sometimes not available or were not available until recently, the community sometimes has to invent names for them. I'm thinking of the collar that sits on the shaft of the Model B distributor and is pivoted by the counterweights to advance the cam. I'm not really sure what the official name for that is, in part because it was always sold as a full assembly with the shaft, weights, and springs, and I don't have access to the drawing for that assembly.
However, because of the fragmentation of the hobby, it often happens (as seen in this thread) that there's no consensus on what the vernacular nomenclature for some things is. In addition, everyone has to learn all the words as they go, and there's often a tendency to re-use terms for things that have a similar function if no one is around to tell you the exact name. For example, there are a lot of things commonly called "control rods" that are very different from each other but are similar in being a component in a linkage. So I think it's reasonable to offer corrections when it appears that the use of vernacular terms is engendering confusion, but if a vernacular term is doing its job of signifying a particular thing (e.g., "RPU") then I don't think people should be chastised for using it.
Sometimes the vernacular term arises because the formal term is unwieldy or unintuitive. For example, the rear cabin window is usually called the rear light in technical documents, but who calls a window a light?
Another reason for a vernacular term to arise is to distinguish something that the formal language doesn't distinguish. For example, if I say "the #8 stud," most of you know that I mean the longer cylinder head stud to which the ignition cable is clamped. But of course that term relies on a numbering system that originated in the hobbyist community decades after production ceased.
Lastly, vernacular terms arise because the formal term is not commonly known or accessible. Because technical diagrams and factory descriptions, particularly of subassembly parts, are sometimes not available or were not available until recently, the community sometimes has to invent names for them. I'm thinking of the collar that sits on the shaft of the Model B distributor and is pivoted by the counterweights to advance the cam. I'm not really sure what the official name for that is, in part because it was always sold as a full assembly with the shaft, weights, and springs, and I don't have access to the drawing for that assembly.
However, because of the fragmentation of the hobby, it often happens (as seen in this thread) that there's no consensus on what the vernacular nomenclature for some things is. In addition, everyone has to learn all the words as they go, and there's often a tendency to re-use terms for things that have a similar function if no one is around to tell you the exact name. For example, there are a lot of things commonly called "control rods" that are very different from each other but are similar in being a component in a linkage. So I think it's reasonable to offer corrections when it appears that the use of vernacular terms is engendering confusion, but if a vernacular term is doing its job of signifying a particular thing (e.g., "RPU") then I don't think people should be chastised for using it.
Bob Bidonde
Well-known member
Model "A" parts & processes the world over have many many jargon names such as wish bone, banjo housing, ******, crank, popout, perch, carb, aprons, speedo, Japaned, Pitman, drag link, slinger, Bendix, etc. We have a habit of calling parts the way they appear to us or by their makers names. Also, in languages other than English, the vocabulary will mandate alternative names of stuff. So on public forums, we ask for pictures of parts with jargon names to be sure we know what is being discussed. I do not see any negatives from using jargon in this way.
David in San Antonio
Well-known member
I’m firmly in the camp of describing parts in detail using as many names and descriptors as are known, with labeled diagrams, clear photos, and examples.
Why?
The Model A hobby attracted me in part because I love the feeling of confidence I get when I know I can do basic repairs. I previously had a Haunted Audi which was so complex and computerized that I couldn’t address even small problems, and everyone who specialized in German cars charged more on a per-hour basis than a private college in New England. I finally gave the darn thing it away, literally for free. Hence the urge to drive and fix a Model A.
At this stage I am undertaking every task for the first time.
When a repair instruction refers to parts without pointing them out in a diagram nor describing them I sometimes get anxious and frustrated because I really, REALLY don’t want to screw it up.
Recent example: I’m fixing the horn which suddenly went silent. Les Andrews Red Book: “Remove the connector block screw, nut, and washers and lift the connector block from the mounting base.” This is accompanied by two diagrams, but neither points out a “connector block” nor “mounting base”. I fumbled around and disassembled something else (I’d call it the adjuster mechanism) and realized that isn’t it. Also find the book doesn’t have an exploded diagram of the adjuster assembly which is now in pieces. I will figure it out or find another source. Finally I did find and remove the connector block. Now I realize it CONNECTS the electrical leads to the horn circuit. But it isn’t a block, certainly not like the distributor points rubbing block.
Simple in retrospect, and I’ll know it for next time, and I didn’t destroy anything, but wow a few extra words and an arrow would have made it easier, quicker, and not frustrating. The next step refers to removing the “ratchet tension clip” with no indication of what it is. This one I figured out with less agony.
I am not knocking Les Andrews’s books. As a technical writer I know that creating instructions means striking a balance between usability versus complexity and is restricted by the size of the document. I guess his intended audience is not the complete newbies like me.
What I have learned is to take deep breath, slow down, summon wise patience, and take pictures of everything at every stage. When in doubt, call club members for advice and post the question here on FordBarn. Crying, shouting curses, and taking a slug of bourbon May feel better at first but ultimately does not enhance my ability to reason.
Why?
The Model A hobby attracted me in part because I love the feeling of confidence I get when I know I can do basic repairs. I previously had a Haunted Audi which was so complex and computerized that I couldn’t address even small problems, and everyone who specialized in German cars charged more on a per-hour basis than a private college in New England. I finally gave the darn thing it away, literally for free. Hence the urge to drive and fix a Model A.
At this stage I am undertaking every task for the first time.
When a repair instruction refers to parts without pointing them out in a diagram nor describing them I sometimes get anxious and frustrated because I really, REALLY don’t want to screw it up.
Recent example: I’m fixing the horn which suddenly went silent. Les Andrews Red Book: “Remove the connector block screw, nut, and washers and lift the connector block from the mounting base.” This is accompanied by two diagrams, but neither points out a “connector block” nor “mounting base”. I fumbled around and disassembled something else (I’d call it the adjuster mechanism) and realized that isn’t it. Also find the book doesn’t have an exploded diagram of the adjuster assembly which is now in pieces. I will figure it out or find another source. Finally I did find and remove the connector block. Now I realize it CONNECTS the electrical leads to the horn circuit. But it isn’t a block, certainly not like the distributor points rubbing block.
Simple in retrospect, and I’ll know it for next time, and I didn’t destroy anything, but wow a few extra words and an arrow would have made it easier, quicker, and not frustrating. The next step refers to removing the “ratchet tension clip” with no indication of what it is. This one I figured out with less agony.
I am not knocking Les Andrews’s books. As a technical writer I know that creating instructions means striking a balance between usability versus complexity and is restricted by the size of the document. I guess his intended audience is not the complete newbies like me.
What I have learned is to take deep breath, slow down, summon wise patience, and take pictures of everything at every stage. When in doubt, call club members for advice and post the question here on FordBarn. Crying, shouting curses, and taking a slug of bourbon May feel better at first but ultimately does not enhance my ability to reason.
Last edited: