split wishbone kit for 40 Merc ? is it the same as 40 ford ?

3

345winder

Member
i need to split the bones on my 40 merc, planning on using the kit that bolts to the frame and provides the transmount area for an automatic (:o ) as well.

Has anyone confirmed the 40 ford kit is the same for mercury ? :confused:


OR, not saying i really want to but out of curiosity, if a person wanted to run a mustang II do you order one for a 40 ford or 41-48 ford ??? cant find any listed specifically for 39-40 merc
 
Last edited:
The Merc frame is different than the '40 Ford. I don't think the '40 Ford split kit will work without some modifications. In regards to the Mustang II front you may have to call around on that one. Try Chassis Engineering or Fat Man Fabrications for starters.
 
The Merc frame is stretched for a longer wheel base but they used a wishbone extender on the early Mercs that bolted on to fit the model 78 type wishbone ball location. They used the same wishbone till 1941. The 39 & 40 Merc were this way but Ford kept changing things each year to make manufacturing easier. In 1941 the Mercs got two inches longer and the Fords were also legthend in wheel base but they both still used the same 11A radius rod.
 
TJ said:
The Merc frame is different than the '40 Ford. I don't think the '40 Ford split kit will work without some modifications. In regards to the Mustang II front you may have to call around on that one. Try Chassis Engineering or Fat Man Fabrications for starters.
Click to expand...


I agree, the Ford chassis is four inches shorter than the Mercury chassis. This is true for any year Ford/Merc between the years of 1939 and 1948, although the BASIC frame layout remained essentially similar to the Ford for any given year.

Seen below is a '42-'48 MERC chassis. The picture is notable in that the difference in length between front axle and wishbone mounting BALL is accommodated by the bolt-in "wishbone ball adapter/extender" (shown still attached to the wishbone), but also noting the BASIC similarity to any FORD chassis of the same years. Best estimations are that the additional 4" in the Merc chassis is found in the general area of the steering box location.




1939-'40 Fords used a "78A-3405" wishbone, while 1939-'40 MERCURYS used a "99A-3405" wishbone. I don't have dimensional differences between those two wishbones, nor the exact reason for TWO different wishbones specifically. And with all of this, I'm having a hard time picturing in my head just exactly how your MERC wishbone is going to fit-in with the adapter plate/trans mount. You MAY be better off waiting until you can "fit" whatever you have once you can mock it up.

Complements of Karl Wescott, I can supply these two chassis drawings BELOW showing that the two chassis (1940 Ford & Merc) are nearly identical in detail, although four inches different in length. Hope this helps somewhat!

Coop


1939-'40 Ford Chassis

large.jpg



1939-'40 MERC

432831


.
 
main reason i was asking about the split wishbones in the first place is i was wanting to switch to a T5 and thought i may need to split the bones
 
Last edited:
345winder said:
main reason i was asking about the split wishbones in the first place is i was wanting to switch to a T5 and thought i may need to split the bones for clearance

thanks for the knowledge guys
Click to expand...

OOH-ooh ..... I loves me some T5 transmissions! I am likely the 'Barn's greatest advocate of this medium duty, totally adaptable, smooth-shifting transmission. PLEASE PLEASE ..... Don't allow yourself to be talked into using a transmission directly out of an "S-10". Most guys putting a T5 into an old Ford need only the rear housing and short shift rod from an S-10 transmission TRANSPLANTED onto an earlier T5 with the desirable close-ratio 2.95 gear set. I'll be happy to discuss any of the particulars if you just ask! ! !

Coop

.
 
I checked my Ford Mercury parts book and is shows the 99A radius rod for 39 116" only. The 1940 Merc used the one same as Ford for 116" so the add on ball socket was developed in that late 1939 time frame. The Merc grew to 118" in 1941 and the Ford grew to 114" so they both used the 11A radius rod.
 
Yeah, I looked under tonight and looked just like a regular mount , no extension, after the previous reply’s I thought I missed something, but I guess that brings me back to my original question
 

Attachments

  • AAD1D19C-3B71-4860-82AE-35B4E8395D49.jpg
    AAD1D19C-3B71-4860-82AE-35B4E8395D49.jpg
    80.1 KB · Views: 177
  • 51B96190-5B6E-4CD3-936F-537C3E285C0E.jpg
    51B96190-5B6E-4CD3-936F-537C3E285C0E.jpg
    84.8 KB · Views: 157
Last edited:
Splitting the radius rod to gain more central clearance is one of those custom application modifications that was usually done for engine swaps. There were no kits back in the day. A person just did cutting and threading for a home made bung to screw some Heim ends or tie rod ends in and fabricate frame mounts to mount them. If they need to be lengthened, then they got creative with tubing to do that or used a longer radius rod (wishbone) to get it done. Cutting on the X member requires fabrication to restore frame strength and integrity so I know there are no kits for that.

Split bones don't function the same way since they don't allow for the natural roll motion in turns. Build your frame mounts well. They tend to have a pretty good load on them in a tight turn.

A modern Mustang II set up was likely never in kit form for the early Mercs. A person would likely have to do a lot of fabrication to get it right on track. This is getting into Street Rod territory so it's outside the scope of the Fordbarn. Even the HAMB is more into traditional methods than that.
 
Last edited:
Im just starting the planning stages ,i purchased the car a few months back,previous owner has owned it since 1963 but he passed away in 2022.. we do not believe car was ever on road since he purchased,,, only a few weeks ago I drug it home to my house from my dads barn. so spending time now figuring a game plan along with inventorying whats missing etc., I was asking about mustang II mainly out of curiosity. Ideally do not want to go that route
It has the 99 stamped block still in it , offenhauser heads headers, and a gutted 39 ford trans case, (found estimates in glovebox from 2 different tranmission shops dated 1963 so that is whay we believe car wasnt on road along with the son of the previous owner mentioning he didnt ever recall it being drivable) I would much rather keep the flathead once I can get it unstuck ( no visable cracks) and either find another trans to repair this one or worse(best?) case scenario ad a T5 ,and prefer to keep the bones unsplit aswell, i have seen some threads on hamb where guy ran a T5 without splitting but used a ball mount spacer. but that was in a 40 ford
I am aware i may be getting ahead of myself with the question i asked, but i always prefer to have a game plan when i start a build rather than change it up as i go.
 
Last edited:
rotorwrench said:
Cutting on the X member requires fabrication to restore frame strength and integrity so I know there are no kits for that.
Click to expand...

yesterday i did find a chassis enginering kit specifically for the 39-40 merc, which along with the bottom plate has a top frame piece that bolts (or you can weld) to the top of the X member pricey though...

hopefully i can just stick with the plan and keep the flathead (get unstuck and rebuild it) and find a stock trans so i wont need to do the split bones, mustang II question was more of a curiosity question. i dont want to go down that road to be honest.
 

Attachments

  • CA72EBF1-C3ED-44F5-802E-4A9AEAB63581.jpg
    CA72EBF1-C3ED-44F5-802E-4A9AEAB63581.jpg
    91.3 KB · Views: 119
345winder said:
yesterday i did find a chassis enginering kit specifically for the 39-40 merc, which along with the bottom plate has a top frame piece that bolts (or you can weld) to the top of the X member pricey though...

hopefully i can just stick with the plan and keep the flathead (get unstuck and rebuild it) and find a stock trans so i wont need to do the split bones, mustang II question was more of a curiosity question. i dont want to go down that road to be honest.
Click to expand...
515160
 
The guts out of any Ford or Mercury car transmission from 1939 through 1948 will fit in a 78 case. I deal with VanPelt Sales for new parts and good used ones if he has them. Mac has snap rings that fit right and can be easily removed. You can go top shift if you want. 1939 was the last year for top shift on the Ford & Mercury cars. Pickups used them through 52 but they are open drive so the main shaft is different as well as the rear bearing retainer. Some of the Lincoln gear sets will work but the rear axle gearing has to be scrutinized to use them. A lot depends on how you prefer to drive. 1949 through early 51 Mercury gears and synchro will also work in the 91A & later transmissions but most are R10 overdrive so the mainshaft is a lot different.

Those early Mercury cars have a unique drive shaft. They are integral with the pinion quill in the rear axle. This can complicate things if person wants to change the ratio. They needed a longer drive shaft and torque tube due to the longer wheel base.
 
Last edited:
My guess is that a split wishbone kit for a 40 Ford will work with the 40-Merc. It really shouldn't matter that the frame is a bit longer in front - the mounts will just be in a slightly different place (further forward) than they would be on a Ford. Cool that you're thinking of continuing to run a Flathead - that makes us Barners happy! LOL
 
The channels that form the X-member in a Merc are reversed as compared with a Ford. The flanges face outward vs inward. There may be other stuff changed that isn't as obvious as noting that the Merc CE kit is quite different from their Ford kit. Seems to me it would be easier (and cheaper) to get a chunk of 1/4" along with some 3/16" and make your own mounts; using the kits as a guide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top