Ford Blitz Restoration/Rebuild

[Private_collector]

On Wednesday afternoon I was honoured to have a visit from Mike Cecil. It was excellent to get to meet him in person, and we were able to spend an all too brief couple of hours or so talking and looking over my truck. I had always indicated that the chassis on my restoration vehicle had been shortened by an owner that preceded the guy I bought the wreck from. That is what was told by the seller. Curious, it always struck me, the 'shortened' length was 115" WB, which is precise length of the uncommon tractor CMP that couples with a large trailer. If you refer back to post #55, you will see a reasonable view of the chassis rear, showing a butchered section at very back of both rails. That part of the chassis has obviously been modified. You will also note the heavy-duty springs on rear axle. The H-D bump stops were taken off chassis by previous owner.

While looking over the vehicle, Mike asked about the chassis number. I have checked every inch of the chassis previously, and had to reply 'there isn't one'. Attention then turned to the workmanship (or possibly lack of it) of the shortening. Both Mike and I found no evidence of any modification to the chassis length. No join, no non standard welding, nothing. That is very curious. Mike enquired about what sort of rear body I was contemplating. I'm still not 100% sure, but had given thought to a turntable, based on the 115" wheelbase it is now. In the absence of any visible mods, is it possible the chassis may actually BE one of those tractors???

Mike felt that the rear section of a tractor chassis (behind the spring mount) wouldn't be as long as mine, in order to achieve maximum clearance between tractor chassis and trailer. Now look back to post #55 again. See the boxed-in bodge at back of the rails? Naturally I removed these and had proper profile replacements of same length welded in it's place. In reviewing some old photos, I can now see that badly made box section was in reality an additional portion of length to the rails. The chassis rear used to be considerably shorter. Perhaps too short for some farmer or house restumper, BUT maybe the right 'shortness' for trailer tractor use???

I don't know if the cab is the original for this vehicle, I don't know what other parts have been added or subtracted, except that in removing the rear heavy-duty spring sets I may have contributed to the departure from original specs!

Any thoughts? Do you have any way that I can tell if this chassis was originally 115"?

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by Private_collector

Curious, it always struck me, the 'shortened' length was 115" WB, which is precise length of the uncommon tractor CMP that couples with a large trailer. If you refer back to post #55, you will see a reasonable view of the chassis rear, showing a butchered section at very back of both rails. That part of the chassis has obviously been modified. You will also note the heavy-duty springs on rear axle. The H-D bump stops were taken off chassis by previous owner.

Quoted here for easier access:

Originally Posted by Private_collector

Today I made the last trip to my Ford chassis, in readyness for the trip home via tilt-tray, later in the week. Former owner got it to front of his property, and the rope he had used to 'hold' rear axle on reportedly snapped in transit, so he re-roped the axle.

I'm not quite as brave ??? as he is, so I removed rope and chained all together. It only has to last one load/unload on the truck transporting it home, so I am confident it will be OK.

I'm begining to have second thoughts about using this particular chassis, due to former owners efforts in shortening the length. I'm not at all convinced that all the cross members can be reinstalled for a satisfactory appearance. Time will tell and I will take a better look once home.

[Private_collector]

Cheers Hanno,

When I look back at what I started with, it makes me shudder. What the hell was I thinking?

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by Private_collector

Both Mike and I found no evidence of any modification to the chassis length. No join, no non standard welding, nothing. That is very curious. Mike enquired about what sort of rear body I was contemplating. I'm still not 100% sure, but had given thought to a turntable, based on the 115" wheelbase it is now. In the absence of any visible mods, is it possible the chassis may actually BE one of those tractors???

Tony,

I do not have a clear picture at hand, but the Ford chassis in particular has a clear taper from the mid-section running to the front and from the mid-section running to the rear.

If the chassis was shortened by sectioning, there would be evidence of welding which you say there is not.

I have seen another option to shorten a F60L with 158" wb. chassis: on this they moved the rear axle forwards and lobbed off the remainder of the chassis. This requires no "cutting and shutting" and does not leave any visible mods, other than that the chassis looses much (if not most) of the tapering to the rear end.

So by measuring the frame side rail height at appropriate places you should be able to determine is this a genuine 115" wb chassis - see what we did on Chevrolet chassis in the thread Chev CMP chassis views.

HTH,
Hanno

[Mike Cecil]

Hi Hanno and Tony,

Great afternoon talking 'green stuff' Tony, thank you!

First, I should say I'm not familiar with the finer points of the 115 inch WB chassis, so both Tony and I were working from that point on Wednesday.

What I observed was:
(1) no weld marks to indicate a 'cut and weld' shortening of the chassis, and no bolt holes to indicate that the spring hangers had simply been moved forward. Without knowing the finer points, it certainly looked like an original uncut chassis to me.
(2) no chassis number on the top of the right hand chassis rail, as per Ford Australia practice. The absence of a chassis number in that position is a pretty good indication that the truck was not assembled in Australia from imported and local components.
(3) the cab that came with the truck is an Australian assembled cab: both the rear and roof sections are Aust manufactured, and the floor is 1/4 inch Aust chequer plate, ie a 'standard' Aussie assembled Ford cab.
(4) the 115 inch wheel base seems too much of a coincidence for a farmer-shortened chassis.

So I'll be very interested in comparing images of Tony's chassis rails with those of an original 115 inch WB chassis, so if someone has one, some side images would be appreciated by both Tony and me, to do a comparison.

Mike

[Private_collector]

Taper at rear of the chassis starts roughly 2/3 to 3/4 back from the front spring hanger of rear spring. As it is, the top of rear spring hanger sits closer to top of rail, because of the amount of taper present. If the rear axle was located even further back originally, both front and rear hangers would be attached to an even shallower height of chassis, if taper continued. It would have been much further back too. As Mike has said, there is no visible set of holes that matches those of a former spring hanger location. If I'm right (will check today), the rear axle, if chassis was originally longer, must have been further back than the full lenght of the spring, or another set of holes would be evident....wouldn't it?

[cliff]

here is a Chassis diagram labelled as being the F60T. Note trailer brake hose to rear.

Hopefully this will help

[cliff]

Tony what are the series of holes in the top Chassis rail over the rear axle for?

I believe the Australian fifth wheel setup had a series of bolts along the edges of the mounting plate rather then the 'U' bolt setup of the Canadian F60T.

If these are what the holes are for then maybe it is an F60T but fitted with an Aussie fifth wheel?

[Private_collector]

I have no idea what those holes are for, Cliff.

In fact, the more I learn about this vehicle, the more I am aware that I don't know.