Frame issues

[chenevix]

I have a need to replace the frame in the 56 Mark II we just aquired. From what I have read, it looks as though all the 56 and 57s had the same frame with minor plate modifications. Am I reading that right?

[Barry Wolk]

There's no difference.

[Chuck Lutz]

Barry, I thought there was a cross member deleted in 57, no?

[linc64]

That was my understanding also. Here's an excerpt from an article in Continental Comments #141.
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h58/linc64/Miscellaneous/Documentation/IMG_42072.jpg

[Roger Zimmermann]

In the parts book, there is only one frame noted for 56/57, # 4050571. The illustration in that parts book shows the frame with the center cross member.

Roger

[Nick DeSpirito]

What is that switch looking thing sticking up on the spear by the gas filler in the above picture that Jim posted? Did that replace the vibration clip? The clip is missing on that car.

Trunk hinges were changed in Mid January of '56. The jack location was changed back and forth from behind the spare to the right quarter. Buddy Holiday did a survey by VIN's and the results were not clear. Seems it moved back and forth between locations on the units he surveyed.

I'm pretty sure the acrylic paint was added, and definitely the air intakes were changed for the '57 model year.

[Barry Wolk]

The cross member has been discussed before. No car extant is missing the cross member, that anyone knows of. I believe it to be a Mark II myth.

Just shows that you can't go by what was written before.

[linc64]

In the parts book, there is only one frame noted for 56/57, # 4050571. The illustration in that parts book shows the frame with the center cross member.

Roger
Roger's statement got me curious about something else. Is there only one parts book edition? Would subsequent changes be documented by service bulletins?
Also, that same article says "that it wasn't until December 15 1964 that Ford Motor Company declared a differentiation from 1956 model to 1957." Does any one have documentation of that?
In any event, that article in the Comments has a lot of great info and pictures. If anyone here hasn't read it before, I can post it. Although it will take a while since it's twenty three pages long. It also has a lot of great pictures.
It might be fun to discuss some of the statements that were made by the experts twenty nine years ago.

[Barry Wolk]

Start a new thread for it.

[linc64]

Start a new thread for it.

Will do Barry!:)
I'll start on it later this evening.

[Barry Wolk]

:cool: I'd like to see that.

[Roger Zimmermann]

Is there only one parts book edition? Would subsequent changes be documented by service bulletins?

My part book is dated August 1959 when these cars were no longer produced. This part book is interesting: regarding the trunk hinges, it says:
4049660/61: RH/LH used on cars built though Job no. 597.

4050292/93: RH/LH used on cars built after Job no. 597.

[Barry Wolk]

The hinges switched from scissors springs to torsion springs, which did a better job of popping the trunk open.

[chenevix]

Of the articles I saw it stated the differences where minor. Plates in different positions etc,... The frame itself was a stock item,....

Oh BTW, while going thru my fathers belonings this week we found all the original Mark II manuals and parts books. We have alot of reading to do.

[linc64]

I'd like to see that.
Done! Hope you enjoy it.:)

[Don Henschel]

The cross member has been discussed before. No car extant is missing the cross member, that anyone knows of. I believe it to be a Mark II myth.

Just shows that you can't go by what was written before.

The extra cross memberes are missing from my car. My frame is like the late model frame shown in the Authenticity Manual.

[Barry Wolk]

Pictures. Any sign of there has ever been one?

[Don Henschel]

:o:o:o Still no camera! But I just looked under the car (and felt around too!) Looks like there were never any. No marks on the frame as if there were any removed. The very old tar undercoating has not been desturbed, even under the body itself (should have been blocked by frames if they were there when the undercoating was applied). I will get my hands on a camera. I never gave this any thought years ago because of this picture in the manual.

[Huffstutler]

Please post your frame pics - would be interesting to note like Barry's convertible frame was altered from the stock coupe frame, can now get a verified list of variables with them.

[Barry Wolk]

This was posted on The Lincoln Forum.

Barry:

Yes, it was the center, or 4th, frame crossmember that was supposedly, but actually never was, removed by the factory for the '57 models.

While I'm still doing the research, what I've found so far is that the error probably originated with Buddy Holiday, as evidenced by his mention of the "lightened" frame on page 65 of his book, "Problems With Your Mark II?.... Ask Buddy". It's possible Buddy saw a car without the center crossmember that was removed at some point by an owner/mechanic in an attempt to service the transmission without having to remove the engine.

This error was continued & compounded by Michael Black & Michael Schultz when they published the "Continental Mark II Authenticity Manual". On page 16 of that reference is shown an "Early 1956 Frame" & a "Late 1956 and 1957 Frame". The "Early 1956 Frame" illustration appears to have been directly lifted & copied from page 44 of the 1956-1957 Continental Mark II Master Parts Catalog Chassis and Body Manual (MD-10138) as published in August, 1959 by the M-E-L Division of Ford Motor Company. (BTW, in the manual there is only 1 part number listed for the frame, 4050571, not 2 separate part numbers.)

Upon close examination of the copied FoMoCo frame illustration (pg 44) in the Authenticity Manual (pg 16), you can clearly see where someone amateurishly doctored the frame illustration to eliminate the #4/center frame crossmember.

As I said earlier, I'm compiling a list of verified '57 Mark II vehicles & have yet to find an example with a factory "lightened" frame. These cars so far range from #3588 to #3969, the 20th from the final car produced. I invite anyone with a '57 Mark II (#3419 being the 1st '57 model manufactured) to verify that their frame is in fact just like all the rest. It's WAY past time to correct this error...

Incidently, I am also researching a "rumor" that 2 mark II's had frames that were constructed from aluminum for Alcoa employees. I'll follow-up if I find out any information about these "rolling beer cans."

[Don Henschel]

This should prove the rumor to be fact. All you other Mark II fogies out there get down on your back and look under your cars! I can't be the only one!

[Barry Wolk]

What's that funky patch ting in the corner. That doesn't look factory.

[Don Henschel]

There is some sort of a mount under the seat. Looks like some sort of a mount for possibly seat belts (a spring latch setup for removal). Those of you with factory seat belts, how are they mounted to the floor? The way these plates are shaped and fit it looks like something ment for the car (dealer installed)

[Barry Wolk]

What you describe is what I've heard the seat belt attachments were like.

The book said 3391 didn't have them installed at the factory, but there were a group of cars made shortly after that that had factory belts. Maybe your car was used as a test fit.

However, the installation looks more dealer-add than factory. That installation doesn't look right.

[Huffstutler]

If the B Pillar (center) rail was removed by the dealer simply to aide in transmission maintenance, they spent a lot of time cleaning up the rails removing the factory welds. Possibly there were some cars sent out the door without it? Like Don said, look and see what your own car has - or - hasn't and let us know. His can't be the "only" one and knowing the car's number may give a clue if a group of them were like that.

[Don Henschel]

Just to clarify my post, my frame is exactly like the late 56-57 model frame as shown on the picture I posted from the authenticity manual. The center frame is still there but the two connector frames from the side to the center (fourth cross frame member) are not there. After Barry questioned the plates I looked above and under the drivers and front passenger seat are chrome plated mounts which have a round sloted hole on top with a flat spring within the mount just below the hole. These look like they were designed to allow the end of the seatbelt to be snapped in or easily removed. I never noticed them before and if they were factory/dealer installed they would be nice to have, but are long gone! They were probably dealer installed because there is no mention of seat belts on my dealer invoice.

[chenevix]

Kewl, Think I started something,.....Again,..!! Lets settle it here once and for all!

[Huffstutler]

Don... It is understood the Y backbone rail is still there... the confusion may be the word "center" which we see as the B pillar ladder cross beam which attach to the backbone and side rails as per the picture you are citing. Still, they would have had to do some cleaning up of damaged rails from the welding and then chiseling process to remove them unless they did some sort of filler and grinding afterwards?

Anyone else out there with this wide floorboard support beam missing?

[selwyngent]

I've been working on my braking system lately and present more confirmation on the 1957 frame issue with observations:

-the skid plates are confirmed but are concerning at first glance because it appears an 8 inch section has been cut or replaced but is apparently factory original. As others have commented, it looks homemade.

-The Y is open on the 1957 and does not have a lower plate welded to it like the 1956. See 1956 pic below.

-There are clearly no center crossmembers and no evidence that anyone went to great extent to remove or conceal them.

-On either side of the driveline, there are two unusually clean circular areas with a center hole that don't have undercoating on them. Appears that something may have mounted there at one time but other 1957s I've seen show the same. Perhaps those were used to support the body during assembly.

Sorry- I had to resize these to thumbnails due to forum rules.
Pics are of Driver's side #3741. Car has A/C and no seat belts.
Then Passenger side
Then 1956 sample pic last.

[selwyngent]

Spoke to Forum member George Smith and his 1957 (#S3935) shows the same lightened floorboard pattern.

http://home.comcast.net/~stench1/1957Frame/25.jpg

[Huffstutler]

So, what would the final ruling on this be? That 1957 models do not have the support brace under the front seats where it is present in 1956? Any other 1957 confirmations pro-con... or maybe there was a modification early on in the 1957 model year run (until they ran out of pre assembled frames from 1956?).

[Huffstutler]

Ian Cowie posted part of a Press Release that pretty much states the brace member was removed for 1957:

Extracted from 3 Oct 1956 Press Releases:

A reduction in the shipping weight of the car from 4825 to 4797 pounds, due largely to frame weight reduction, has been achieved without sacrificing the exceptional torsional rigidity and smoothness of ride gained from the frame as it was originally designed by Continental engineers. Transfer of this rigidity to the body is aided by the use of steel in place of rubber shims in some areas.

So there you go...

Eric

[Don Henschel]

And it was for sure before Oct. as mine is a Sept. model with those removed as well.

[Don Keller]

My question is a practical one. As the concensus is that all '57s are lacking the frame brace, can the transmission therefore be removed to replace seals, etc. wiithout pulling the engine?

Thanks.
Don Keller
C56R3838
"Hi ho Lumpy away!"

[Barry Wolk]

I would say, from this picture, that the answer would be no, because the trans sits atop the lateral support.

http://home.comcast.net/~stench1/1957Frame/25.jpg

[Don Henschel]

Not at all :-(.
The transmission sits on top of the frame and these missing frame peices are not a factor in this case. The transmission has to be slid forward, up and out.
Refer to the 4 man hood removal, 2 on each side, 1 on the front, and 1 to remove the bolts. Use lots of masking tape, then duct tape over the masking tape on edges of hood and fenders, scribe hinge location outline with a good finetip marker and remove hood. Barry recommends drilling small holes for using a drill bit for realignment but I never did. The manual shows pulling engine and transmission as a unit for removal as both but I pulled each seperately to shorten the length. If you pull both keep in mind the position of the lifting device on the engine to change the balance point to allow the transmission to droop way down in the back to allow removal up and over the grill and rad support. Otherwise hook a lifting device on the engine so it is balanced to sit level when separated from transmission. Remove your torque converter cooling shroud, intake screens etc, and first unbolt your torque converter from the flex plate and gently slide it away from the flex plate (dont forget any bolts!). Next support the bell housing and unbolt the engine from the transmission (engine supported by engine lift and starter removed at this point along with exhaust wiring etc) and carefully lift out your engine.

[Don Henschel]

Sounds bad but have you ever removed an engine from most newer cars? Alot of them you have to drop the engine out the bottom of the car.

[Barry Wolk]

Yeah, but, I saw one come out with 4 bolts. I think my Porsche engine comes out the bottom with 4 bolts.

The mechanic that pulled mine took the radiator and coolers off the front, removed the grill and cross brace and didn't have to lift it nearly as high to get it out.