Question on 1936 Rumble mat fit

5

50droptop

Senior Member
Does anyone have experience with the reproduction rumble mats and their fit? I just received one from Dennis Carpenter and it doesn’t really fit. The cutouts do not align with the seat tracks and the hump seems too wide (excess mat it sitting higher than the tunnel). This is a 5w trunk car but as far as I know, the floor boards are the same for rumble and trunk cars). This car also has 75% of its original floor pans with only the rear passenger side replaced with a Bradley pan. I’ve attached a photo for opinions.
 

Attachments

  • 2882F6DC-429E-4A74-A89E-BF59973AC229.jpeg
    2882F6DC-429E-4A74-A89E-BF59973AC229.jpeg
    91.6 KB · Views: 71
Yeah, I left the padding out since it wasn’t fixed the the mat. Guess that would probably affect it. I’ll try that and report back.
 
Somethings still not right, even with the padding, this is how much ‘bunching’ there is in the middle.
 

Attachments

  • E4343C6B-6C12-4403-A38D-589C984B8C11.jpeg
    E4343C6B-6C12-4403-A38D-589C984B8C11.jpeg
    90.9 KB · Views: 73
I have an original black floor mat that is too brittle to install in my car, but the "rumble seat rear floor mat" advertised was shown in the old catalogs as for the rear of a Phaeton and not a rumble seat rear floor mat.


You also notice in your front of the mat there are 3 notches, while the original was straight across and did not go under the seat at all.


I have had my 36 Ford 5W Coupe since 1972 ( $200 basket case, now restored) and all these years I have not seen anyone reproduce the mat like I have.


Also is your mat all the way back and touches the vertical floor riser?


I also agree the padding should be included for best fit. Thanks
 
Gary Tosel said:
I have an original black floor mat that is too brittle to install in my car, but the "rumble seat rear floor mat" advertised was shown in the old catalogs as for the rear of a Phaeton and not a rumble seat rear floor mat.


You also notice in your front of the mat there are 3 notches, while the original was straight across and did not go under the seat at all.


I have had my 36 Ford 5W Coupe since 1972 ( $200 basket case, now restored) and all these years I have not seen anyone reproduce the mat like I have.


Also is your mat all the way back and touches the vertical floor riser?


I also agree the padding should be included for best fit. Thanks
Click to expand...

So, when you bought your car it was about 35 years old yet you are 100% certain it had the authentic mat. Hmm. Methinks maybe, maybe not.
I'd like to see the engineering drawing - then we'd know for certain.
Don R.? You out there?
And you say you have an original black floor mat. Original to what?
I'd enjoy a photo or three of your restored '36.
 
50 droptop: You have a rear mat designed for a roadster. During production, there were three different mats...68-710410 for roadsters, 68-720410 for 3window coupes and cabriolets and 68-770410 for 5-window coupes. Each had dimensional differences especially around the back of the front seat.

Since only the 68-710410 (roadster) mat is being reproduced, you will have to do some trimming to make things fit your coupe. You can email me at ConvV8@aol.com and I will send you a copy of the dimension drawing for either a 3 or 5 window coupe.

Regards, Don Rogers
 
Don Rogers said:
50 droptop: You have a rear mat designed for a roadster. During production, there were three different mats...68-710410 for roadsters, 68-720410 for 3window coupes and cabriolets and 68-770410 for 5-window coupes. Each had dimensional differences especially around the back of the front seat.

Since only the 68-710410 (roadster) mat is being reproduced, you will have to do some trimming to make things fit your coupe. You can email me at ConvV8@aol.com and I will send you a copy of the dimension drawing for either a 3 or 5 window coupe.

Regards, Don Rogers
Click to expand...

Don,

Just dropped you an email. Thank you for the help!
 
Don Rogers and I have confirmed that the black trunk mat that I have is for a 36 Ford Coupe and was made by Ford (Ford script on the mat) as a replacement in the 40' or 50's, since the original was made in Benton Gray. Therefore it was a Ford part, but not factory installed.
 
Gary Tosel said:
Don Rogers and I have confirmed that the black trunk mat that I have is for a 36 Ford Coupe and was made by Ford (Ford script on the mat) as a replacement in the 40' or 50's, since the original was made in Benton Gray. Therefore it was a Ford part, but not factory installed.
Click to expand...

And therefore it is not original but rather a replacement part.

In this case "original" is defined by what was installed in the car at the time of assembly.
No doubt your mat was made by Ford. That doesn't make it original - it only makes it "made by Ford".
 
Last edited:
Kube, I agree that the mat was not "original" as you say and all I was saying is that Ford made the mat and it was not a "reproduction" by another company, like we have today.
 
Gary Tosel said:
Kube, I agree that the mat was not "original" as you say and all I was saying is that Ford made the mat and it was not a "reproduction" by another company, like we have today.
Click to expand...


Gary, there's no point in you agreeing with Kube now. If he had read and understood your post, he should have agreed with you and Don Rogers. By you agreeing now, he may mistakenly believe that he convinced you. :rolleyes:
 
Gary Tosel said:
Kube, I agree that the mat was not "original" as you say and all I was saying is that Ford made the mat and it was not a "reproduction" by another company, like we have today.
Click to expand...

Thanks Gary.
As I tend to look at these posts through the eye of a restorer, I do my best to answer from that perspective and not "muddy the waters".
I've seen too many times guys on the concourse attempting to justify a specific part because some catalog said it was correct.
While I sympathize with those folks, relying on incorrect catalog listings, etc. cost those caring folks points, and well, money.

You DID deserve a kinder response than the one I'd posted. I'd edited that and offer you my apology for being a di--.
I know you were trying to help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top