| kubes40 | -- 05-31-2012 @ 6:48 AM |
|
I was prompted to bring this subject to the forefront as it was recently touched upon (once again) in a separate post. It probably bears repeating often but no one should trust a vendors catalog insomuch as to think their stated application may (most likely not) be concourse correct. Like the Ford parts books, just because it is listed to FIT a particular model does not mean it matches what was originally installed upon the factory assembly line. This is a common malady I hear on the concourse and one that could be avoided with a bit more research during any restoration process. Also, simply because a vendor has a "Ford licensed part" listed does not mean that part is correct or will even fit properly. The licensing does mean the vender is paying a royalty to Ford and little beyond that. Yes, the part I am confident, has met a minimum criteria of The Ford Motor Company's license department. One example: Upper radiator hoses for 1939 Fords... They are a licensed part. Are they correct for a concourse restoration? No way. Another example: Upper hoses for a 1940 Ford... They too are a licensed part. In fact the identical part as being sold for a 1939 Ford. Are they correct for a concourse restoration? Once again, no way. The list goes on and on and on and on... Remember the burden is upon the owner / restorer to present his car upon the concourse with the factory (authentic) installed pieces. An argument that "well, such and such (insert vendor name here) said it was the exact / correct part" does not carry any weight when deducted point are being discussed.
|
|
| 42wagon | -- 05-31-2012 @ 9:18 AM |
|
kubes40 Well said! It is my understanding that the parts books were issued to allow the dealers to find repair parts easily. As such they are a guide but Ford was only interested in providing a part that would fit not in providing an exact match for the part the car was assembled with. As I understand it, and my brother is one of those who has a license, the license only gives a vendor the right to use the Ford logos on the part he or she is manufacturing. It does not make any representation that the part in question is an exact reproduction of the original part. Ted
|
|
| supereal | -- 05-31-2012 @ 10:37 AM |
|
Mike: I lost your e-mail address when I purged my address book. Please PM your address to me so I can reply to your message. Bob.
|
|
| ford38v8 | -- 05-31-2012 @ 10:39 AM |
|
I'm glad Mike brought this subject up. When a part was modified for whatever reason, Ford would always design the replacement in a way that would interchange with the old version if possible, to avoid excessive parts inventories. The Green Bible, for that reason, was intended as, and should be thought of only as an interchange catalog. To find the Concourse correct part, restorers need to get hold of a parts catalog as near to the year of their car as possible, although, some lisings in the "year" catalog were never supplied, and corrections were made to the catalog in the following year's catalog. These issues do continue to come up from time to time, and tend to make life interesting! Alan
|
|
| kubes40 | -- 05-31-2012 @ 3:43 PM |
|
Alan is correct in that you are best to obtain a parts book as close in print date as the date your car was manufactured. However, even having said book in hand, be aware that there are numerous discrepancies between what was "built" and what was supplied even a month or two later. The more we research, the more information becomes available to allow us to narrow down what was built and when.
|
|
| trjford8 | -- 05-31-2012 @ 7:41 PM |
|
O.K this is all well and good and an owner should use the correct part on the restoration. But what happens if there are no NOS parts available and all the repos of a certain part are not correct? In my view I would not deduct points if the correct(authentic) part was not available.
|
|
| ford38v8 | -- 05-31-2012 @ 10:51 PM |
|
Tom, this is in fact what is done many times, and the practice draws the ire of those who did go the extra mile (and the extra dollar) to assure that their restoration is as correct as it can be. Indeed, there are some guys that really take it personal that some cars rate a high point Dearborn with these non-authentic features. There is no hard and fast rule, and some items get by pretty much automatically because there is no correct reproduction. I'm kinda in the middle on this, and apply the "best available" formula perhaps more than some purists would like, but I do think that fairness should take into account the viewpoint of the vast majority of restorers as opposed to those few purists on the fringe. Now I just made some enemies, but know that I do consider my judging to be somewhat stricter than most, as I think most Judges are way too lenient. Alan
|
|
| kubes40 | -- 06-01-2012 @ 7:10 AM |
|
I am one of those guys that don't allow for the "best available" part, etc. There are hard rules about this. That being the car is deemed to be a "perfect" restoration when the judging begins. Any deviations from authentic result in a point loss. It is not an excuse if you can't find and / or afford any given part. EVERYTHING is either available or can be produced. If it was made once, it can be made again. Sure, that can be costly. That is the "game" you, as a con=course participant choose. If you apply the theory that "the best available part is "acceptable" the founding principles of our Club will vanish completely. Sooner or later all authentic (correct) parts will not be available unless someone makes them anew. Does that mean our concourse is filled with cars that all have "the best available" junk on them? At that point, count me out. I realize some judges look the other way and I am strongly against this practice. If we as judges KNOW the part is wrong or a poor reproduction, a point loss should be forthcoming. If not the new "A" cars will become in reality a bunch of "C" cars. Are we really wanting to get our concourse akin to the modern little leagues wherein they don't keep score so there are no losers and all the kids feel great? We know how that theory has worked on our society. Not for me, thanks. If we do subscribe to the aforementioned theory how about we just give all who enter the concourse a trophy right away. The savings in time and efforts would be great. Plus, everyone can go home and tell their friends they won. Me? I'd rather earn my award(s). Let's be completely honest here: We all do not play on the same field. Some have more talents and / or more play money. Regardless of the participants talents / monies, once on the concourse we all are SUPPOSED to play by the same rules. Fair is fair. There are touring classes, etc. for those that judging is not so important. By the way, I restore my cars to see what I am personally capable of accomplishing. Each one is a challenge that I welcome. Often it has been a strain on my knowledge level and / or play money. Still, I find a way. MY choice. I do not offer any excuses when I may have over looked something. By the way Alan, you did not make an enemy out of me. I do disagree with you this time (that rarely happens) but you still have my respect. This message was edited by kubes40 on 6-1-12 @ 7:12 AM
|
|
| 40guy | -- 06-01-2012 @ 7:28 AM |
|
What is wrong with the current reproduction upper radiator hoses for 1940 Fords? I haven't bought any in 15 years.
|
|
| kubes40 | -- 06-01-2012 @ 7:53 AM |
|
In response to: What is wrong with the current reproduction upper radiator hoses for 1940 Fords? I haven't bought any in 15 years. Authentic 1940 Ford hoses did not have any markings on them. It is well documented that the markings did appear until early 1944. I would hazard a guess here and say that many venders (Drake comes to mind) copy service replacement parts. You know, the Green Bible theory. The part fits, it functions but is not necessarily correct.
|
|
| bonusbuilt1950 | -- 06-01-2012 @ 8:13 AM |
|
The advice on using a parts catalog closest to the year of manufacture is sound advice. Being a former Ford Parts manager for 30+ years, I understand Ford's thinking. Getting an original catalog is hard, as most dealers tossed the original when the revised ones were issued. Catalogs were issued 4 times a year for each line. Most catalogs found today are the condensed versions and have alot of mistakes and ommissions. Good example are the green bible, the 48-56 truck catalogs. Many parts were originally designed for a certain year and cataloged as such. Often, they found problems with the original, so they came up with a better design, or supercession. We used to recieve OSI books between major catalog revisions that would give the supercession and or interchange of part number. Also if a part went obsolete. This catalog is a big help and I think a good idea to have even now. I have a bunch from the 40's and 50's and use them often. We found many parts could be interchanged with others to repair a vehicle. WE'd find 2 different part numbers and compare them out of the box and they were identical. When restoring a vehicle these days, the odds of finding an original part instead of the superceded one is rare. Dealer used up the originals before ordering the supercession. No one wanted to get stuck with the old part number on the shelf. Often, the difference was very slight. I have to disagree on the concourse judging rules, if a part is correct as to the Ford catalog no matter an original or supercession, no points should be deducted. I would never go by the vendors remarks as a lot of time thier info is incorrect. If there is a blatant difference between an original and aftermarket/ repo part, then yes, deduct for it. Barry 50 F-1
|
|
| kubes40 | -- 06-01-2012 @ 11:54 AM |
|
In response to Barry: I appreciate an "insiders" view of what happened to the Ford parts and books. I am not surprised a bit but perhaps your shared experience will help others understand what happened in the past. As for as your opinion about YOU not deducting for an incorrect part... well, with all due respect,I hope you do not judge. The rules are very clear: The car is supposed to be restored to the way it was built and subsequently delivered to the first owner. By your stated opinion, then all glass bowl type fuel pumps are A-OK on pre 1941 Fords. And, if that's okay, what else? There are no exceptions within the club rules. I realize this is a "hot topic" but unless and until the club changes its rules, the only way to make a Dearbron award worth more than the cost of the plaque, is to make folks abide by (be judged by) the same criteria.
|
|
| Don Rogers | -- 06-01-2012 @ 1:28 PM |
|
Gentlemen, Here is what is written in the Jan 1, 2012 edition of Early Ford V-8 Club Judging Manual under General Policy: "The broad objective of EFV8CA restoration insofar as judging is concerned is to duplicate in every detail the vehicle as it left the factory assembly line and/or the Ford dealer showroom floor." If a car is judged properly by these guidelines today there should be no allowance for later improvements (even by Ford) that occur after the Model year time period. Examples would be 37 steering in a 35 Ford, glass bowl fuel pumps in 35 or 36 Fords. This also includes poorly made reproduction parts or parts where the vendors logo can be clearly seen. If it didn't have "J.C. Whitney" on the part when the car was made, it shouldn't have it on the part now. If these requirements are presently unobtainable, as some have indicated, then the existing judging rules have to be reviewed and changed if appropriate for the future. Perhaps words like "authentic" and "Dearborn Class" will become Obsolete!!!!
|
|
| kubes40 | -- 06-01-2012 @ 1:44 PM |
|
Don, I agree with you completely. Most likely there will come a day when it is nearly impossible to restore a car to the degree I and others aspire to. There are only so many parts, so many guys willing to make the effort and investment... When and if that time comes about, perhaps that's when the club may want to review it's policies. Until then / while it remains possible to do a near perfect restoration, I feel we must abide by the current rules. I am known to be strict but honest. I only deduct if I am certain of the infraction. It has been my experience that for the most part the fellow's that do their own research and / or a large part of their restoration work are the most inclined to have a desire to realize where they may have over looked something. Those same guys go home happy, make the necessary changes and try again.
|
|
| 51f1 | -- 06-01-2012 @ 2:28 PM |
|
kubes40: You say, "It is not an excuse if you can't find and/or afford any given part. EVERYTHING is either available or can be produced. If it was made once, it can be made again. Sure, that can be costly. That is the "game" you, as a con=course participant choose." I understand what you are saying. I'm a rules guy too, but you sound a bit too elitist for me. Aren't you pricing most hobbyists out of the game if you hold hard and fast to your "rules?" If your opinion prevails, only rich guys will be able to compete for awards by having their cars restored by expensive restorers. The average individual will not be able to restore his vehicle to a completely original condition, because he has neither the money nor the resources. The average guy is lucky if he can afford what's available in the vendors' catalogs. And it's getting tougher everyday. If your opinion prevails, you will price the average guy out of the game. Is that what it's coming to? At that point, count me out. Richard
|
|
| kubes40 | -- 06-01-2012 @ 4:30 PM |
|
Hi Richard, I don't mean to sound elitist. As a matter of record I do nearly all of my own work as I simply can't afford to pay another to do it for me. Also, not "my" rules but rather the rules of our club. Anyone can can compete for the awards. as it should be. As it IS. However, my argument remains not everyone should expect to win simply because they can't afford what's necessary to do so. I do think to have a car score high on the concourse, it can take the "average guy" (as you call) him out of the game. I do without a new car, big screen tv, etc. so I can have the award winning cars I desire (and produce. It all comes down to a matter of choice(s). I can't accept a guy receiving the same score as me if I went to the extra lengths to acquire the correct parts, do the extra research, etc. required to make my vehicles "correct". Should the fellow that can't or chooses not to "play" at this level be eligible for an award? Sure. And he is eligible. But NOT the same points simply because he can't find, can't afford or simply doesn't choose to make the requisite efforts required to get that top point car. C'mon, nothing is "even" in our society. Nor should it be. We can certainly lower the standards so everyone can feel good about himself easy enough. As a society, we've been doing that for many years now. Recall the "No child left behind" program for our nations schools? That worked out real well. Yep. Lots of kids graduated. Too bad the standards were set much lower then when my generation was being schooled. Yep, the kids can feel real good about themselves & graduating. Too bad, in reality, they did not get an education. 20% cannot read even though they received their "trophy" (diploma). Bottom line remains: (I am not quoting) The rules of our club dictate the car must be restored to the way it was when it was delivered to the first buyer. respectfully, Mike
|
|
| TomO | -- 06-04-2012 @ 9:55 AM |
|
"If restored or reproduced it must duplicate the original, as near as possible, in appearance, form, fit, function, color, texture, etc" If the judges follow Mike's interpretation of the rules, the floor mats, trunk mats, fan belts, radiator hoses, voltage regulators, fuel pumps, dash knobs, most upholstery, most rubber seals, many mechanical parts and other reproduced parts would require point deduction, because they are not exactly like the original. Alan's interpretation would allow the better quality reproductions pass. I am not on the Judging Standards Committee, or a current judge, but I lean more towards Alan's interpretation than Mike's. The Club's books are the best reference material as to what is considered correct and they should be used as guides for a restoration and judging. So, Mike, when you are writing the book, you should stick to your definition of originality. Anything can be reproduced, but our Club cars are not the high dollar cars like a Classics, so we have to accept what is being reproduced or go into business to reproduce parts, like Dennis Carpenter and Bob Drake did. I am completely unhappy with the fit of the current floor-mats available, but there is no way that I could afford to reproduce one correct for a Ford, much less a Mercury, so I live with it, because it is better than nothing. It would be nice to say that we should not buy these inferior reproductions, when they are the only game in town, we have to. Tom
|
|
| EFV-8 Club Forum : | https://www.earlyfordv8.org/forum |
| Topic: | https://www.earlyfordv8.org/forum/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=18&Topic=4726 |