F15a steering knuckles

[Dave Schindel]

I am working on a 1940 F15a . I need someone to set me straight on the steering knuckles, can they be swapped from side to side? are they identical? I have no parts book so cannot check numbers.Can someone steer a knucklehead straight?

[rob love]

According to my later manual, yes and no. There was a part number that could do both, and there were part numbers that were particular about which side they were on. I am trying to find my early 41 manual to see what was more likely for yours.

[Jacques Reed]

Hi Dave,

From my later edition 1943 F15A-01 parts manual there were three types listed:

C11Q-3337 "used for replacing Steering knuckle CO1Q-3340 on R.H. side only" (it had 1/2" studs)

C11Q 3339 "Knuckle steering and cups assembly used with 1/2" studs" (no side specified)

CO1Q 3340 "Knuckle steering and cups assembly L.H. side only. Used with 7/16" type studs only"

Looks like C11Q 3339 is interchangeable L-R but perhaps another MLU member can shed some more light on it.

I do know of the two stud size differences as I have both types but not on same truck.

Hope this is of some help.

Cheers,

[Jacques Reed]

Further to previous post:

Attached is a photo of two steering knuckles with the two sizes of stud holes.

The one with the 7/16" dia stud holes is on the left side of the picture and they are noticeably smaller than the 1/2" dia ones on the knuckle on the right side of the picture.

Cheers,

[Private_collector]

Jacques,

I've taken screen shots of your two posts, hope you don't mind.
I have a feeling I may use that info at some point in the future.
Had no idea of any of that.

[Dave Schindel]

OK , beginning to look like the 1/2 in. threaded one goes on the right and 7/16 on the left. I have a 1/2 in. threaded one that came off the right side. I have 2 others I have not checked yet. I did not realize there was a difference in threads.

[Jacques Reed]

Further to the part numbers previously listed:

The first digit after the "C" in the part number is the year the part was designed and released.

Therefore the knuckles starting with C1 were designed and released in 1941 and the one with the number starting with C0 were designed and released in 1940.

Points to early pre 1941 CMP F15A's had the two size studs on the knuckles and later they standardized them to the larger 1/2" diameter studs.

Both sides of my 1944 model have 1/2" diameter studs.

No doubt there would be exceptions due to using up old stock post 1941 and replacement parts.

I bought the early 7/16" stud NOS knuckle for a spare a while back and only realized the difference when I brought it home. Thought maybe it was for a Marmon Herrington afterwards so on the shelf it sits. Anyone want it?

Cheers,

[Jacques Reed]

Now I am confused (More so than normal!)

While putting away the knuckles I photographed for the earlier post I noticed the Part number C01Q 3358 cast into one of the knuckles as per the photo attached. None of the other two knuckles had any numbers cast into them.

Very different to the F15A parts list numbers I quoted.

It definitely came off a 4-7/8" steering end as used on the F15A. Still, as is often the case, it does not mean it is the correct one.

I don't have a parts list for the larger trucks with 6" steering ends and would have thought those knuckles would not be the same size but could it be?

Anyone able to shed some light on this one?

[Dave Schindel]

Tough one.....none of my knuckles have numbers,at least none that I could find.Just the Ford logo stamped on the inside near the bearing race.

[Dave Schindel]

Rob, I am guessing that the 1/2 in. studs were used where the steering arm attaches to the knuckle and the others were 7/16. Later they were all tapped to 1/2?

[rob love]

It would make sense, in the interest of carrying less spare parts in the supply system, to make the left and right the same. So to that end, you would have to go with 1/2 inch, since that was required to handle the load of turning 2 wheels. The left side only had to handle the load of turning one, so in that case 7/16 studs would have sufficed engineering wise.

Checked a 44 Chev 15cwt Sigs van that is apart and sitting about 30' from me. Sure enough, 1/2" threaded holes on the left side and the C01Q-3348 part number on the casting.

[Jacques Reed]

Hi Rob,

After reading about your part C01Q-3348 on A Chev CMP and my C01Q-3358 off a Ford CMP perhaps Ford assigned different numbers to parts earmarked for Chev truck production? Can anyone shed any light on that as I don't have any Chev Parts manual to check.

Have looked in my GM MB-C1 Maintenances Manual but no reference there to part numbers in the front axle section. GM seems to avoid part number in their Maintenance Manual whereas Ford seems to often quote them.

Cheers,

[rob love]

Sorry about the part number...I'll have to confirm tomorrow. It is likely the 3358 number you quoted and I hit one digit off.

It would seem as though Ford was the primary designer/supplier of the knuckles, brakes and hubs for the bulk of the Ford and Chevrolet CMPs. You will often find Ford's name on bearings, and Ford part numbers on castings.

There was a great deal of co-operation between the two during the design phase, as is documented in Blueprint for Victory by Bill Gregg. Some of it went the other way too. The Lynx armoured car had Chev brake system on one of the axles.

Remember that when it came to brake systems, companies like Bendix would provide the various models of braking systems, and companies like Marmon-Harrington would provide the various 4 wheel drive systems, Timken the axle systems, so there would have been some commonality just from the limited number of providers of engineering back then.

Often the Chevrolet parts manuals listed the FOrd part number as the primary part number, then after the description in parenthesis, would give the Chevrolet part number.

I am no fan of the chevys, so have to say that by putting Ford parts on a Chevy, you can only make things better.

[Bob Phillips]

Now Rob..lets not get carried away..
While I accept that each of us has his own peculiar tastes..and that there is a strong, committed and even delusional body of enthusiasts who collect Fords ...the unkind slight you have dished out..by suggesting that a Chev is improved by bolting on Ford parts is simply hitting below the belt.
One of my earliest CMP vehicles was a Ford gun tractor. It was the most difficult, tempermental and unreliable vehicle I ever owned. To get it running with sporadically stuck valves, a fuel system that vapor locked routinely and a front mounted distributor clearly designed by someone with a bent and twisted sense of humour strained even my patience.
There can be no more reliable a powerplant than the 216/235 series of engines. I have owned MANY since the Ford days and (aside from a equally tempermental UC) have never returned to the dark side !! B.P.

[rob love]

Bob, methinks you doth profess too loudly. This is not uncommon amongst Chev owners, who by their very nature have a inferiority complex trying to compete with the Ford V8.

Bob, Bob, Bob....facts is fact. The Ford Flathead engine itself is a work of art and engineering. Sure, it requires proper tuning, as does any engine. But done by the book, the engine will idle so smooth that you won't hear it running. I know I have hit the starter at times thinking the engine has stalled.

The only Chevs in my yard are when there is no alternative. Had they made a Ford HUP, then I would have one. There are 3 in total: the HUP, the Deuce, the 5/4 ton, and there is a 8.2l diesel in the MLVW. There's also the wife's corvette. Fortunately I have a drain pan for each.

[Bob Phillips]

Well Rob, they say no opinion needs changing, more than the other guy's so we have to leave it at that..however given your enthusiasm for Windsor iron I do have a boat anchor you need..how about a 331 flathead v8 (biggest built) you could mount it in the back of the HUP. oh and some Caddy v8 parts for your penguin if you need bits...B.P.

[rob love]

Bob:
Do you mean the Cadillac 331 or the Ford 337? I think either would make the HUP very tail-heavy.

Hoping to have the Caddy engines home in a couple weeks so will know better then what's needed. Hey, was Caddy part of GM by then? I suspect so. Guess I'll have to pick up a couple more drain pans at Cdn tire.

See what happens when you let one or two chevs in the yard? They multiply.

[Bruce Parker (RIP)]

Originally Posted by rob love

This is not uncommon amongst Chev owners, who by their very nature have a inferiority complex trying to compete with the Ford V8.

Rob, you're a great guy and I love you like a brother, but ya really got to take that one back. The leaky, cantankerous one in my garage is a Ford and the only reason the concrete floor is safe is because the oil leaks and pools INSIDE the hull. My Chev's love me. They start and don't crap out in the middle of, and require being inglamorously towed home from, EVERY STINKIN' PARADE.

[Bob Phillips]

well stated Bruce...and yes Rob it is a Ford 337.this one out of a dump truck. B.P.

[rob love]

Originally Posted by Bob Phillips

well stated Bruce...and yes Rob it is a Ford 337.this one out of a dump truck. B.P.

Wow, more of a great thing.

[Phil Waterman]

Hi Guys

Putting a 337 in any CMP would be a challenge it weighs just short of 1000 lbs with the transmission. Was used in the BIG Ford trucks and Lincoln 1949-1952. I've got two of these engines hence the CMP



I was moving one of them from garage to shop.

Cheers Phil

[Dave Schindel]

Typical. A Chev hauling Ford parts around.

[Phil Waterman]

Hi All

I wonder if there were not a lot of unintended interchange of parts. The guys in a REME repair shop have a dead Ford and a pile of Chevy parts taking the attitude if it fits it works.

For example the replacement of Chevy engines with Ford engines in North Africa has often been referred to, reason the guys running the rebuild facilities were Ford guys and had Ford parts, they worked with what they knew and had.

Cheers Phil

PS Dave I was expecting somebody to comment on Chevy with an outboard Ford glad you enjoyed.

[Dave Schindel]

Commonality of parts was fairly important at the time.

yeah, couldn't resist.

[Bob Phillips]

On a more serious note.. the discussion about Ford & Chev interchangibility, and support by Ford & Chev during the war years is an interesting one. ( though I never heard of putting a Ford v8 in to replace a 216??details??)
Phil you might vaguely remember one of the participants in Bill Greggs CMP seminar was a guy named Kuno Stockelbach who travelled as the Ford rep through north Africa and the middle east during the war. There was clearly much more than simply military support re transport but I don't know to what extent. Do you have any memory of the specifics 32 years later??
AND on some other thread there was discussion about a surviving audio or audio/video tape of the CMP event. Anybody know what ever happened with respect to that effort?? ..BP

[Phil Waterman]

Originally Posted by Bob Phillips

....though I never heard of putting a Ford v8 in to replace a 216??details??)
Phil you might vaguely remember one of the participants in Bill Greggs CMP seminar was a guy named Kuno Stockelbach who travelled as the Ford rep through north Africa and the middle east during the war. There was clearly much more than simply military support re transport but I don't know to what extent. Do you have any memory of the specifics 32 years later??
.... ..BP

Hi Bob

My memory of Kuno speaking was that he mentioned they knew how to rebuild the Ford V8 and were setup to do it, so they did, if something needed and engine it was likely to get a Ford. The only print evidence that I can find is Blueprint for Victory page 153 but that is talking about a Cadillac. Memory is saying there was something in Wheels&Tracks on the topic.

Cheers Phil

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by Phil Waterman

My memory of Kuno speaking was that he mentioned they knew how to rebuild the Ford V8 and were setup to do it, so they did, if something needed and engine it was likely to get a Ford. The only print evidence that I can find is Blueprint for Victory page 153 but that is talking about a Cadillac. Memory is saying there was something in Wheels&Tracks on the topic.

This is what I wrote earlier...personally I doubt the degree of engines being replaced by a Ford V8. In some caes it may have been an easy swap, in other cases it must have needed major alterations. On the other hand, wartime brings up the best ingenuity in people ...

Originally Posted by Hanno Spoelstra

Re. Canadians being the hot rodders of WW2, read the following snippet from Gregg's "Blueprint for Victory" p.151: "Kuno Stockelbach, a civilian employee of Ford Motor Company of Canada, supervised all vehicle assembly and major overhaul facilities for the British 8th, 9th and 10th Armies in North Africa and the Middle East from the Fall of 1941 until the end of the Sicilian Campaign.
Kuno attempted to keep the inventory list down by putting Canadian 95 h.p. Ford V8 engines in anything that had room under the hood. All Universal Carriers were re-engined, at the first refit, with the larger powerplant, as were English Ford products such as the W.O.T. transport series. Engines did not last long in the North African desert; Universal Carrier engines were changed every 2,000-3,000 miles and transport vehicles after 10,000 miles. The enthusiast should not despair if he finds a British-built Armoured Car equipped with a Canadian Ford V8 engine. This was the standard refitting procedure in North Africa."