Continental "cowbelly" frame

[depmike38]

Barry, In the authenticity manual they make note that the center crossmember that bisects the chassis was deleted mid-production. Did they do this because they had already decided not to have a factory-built convertible or just to save weight?

[Barry Wolk]

My friend Al, has a '57 and his has the cross-member. I think the missing cross-member is some kind of Mark II myth.

In fact, while the Mark II was penned as a convertible as early as 1953, the idea was stillborn as the levels of Mark II's sales were unimpressive.

Interestingly, the Mark II program was cancelled around the time the Derham car was introduced at the Texas State Fair, in October of 1956.

The frame on my car has been beefed up by the addition of an additional layer of steel (3/16") cut to match the serpentine shape stitch-welded the length of the frame. They also added 1" diameter schedule 80 steel tubing to form an X under the front passenger area, strengthening the "A" and "B" pillar attachments.

I don't know what values that technically added to the structure. Their engineers added it for a reason, I'm sure. All I can state is that it is the smoothest riding automobile I've ever owned.

[depmike38]

That's what had me puzzled about the statement I found. Jim had three of these cars at one time, two 56's and a 57, and all of them had that crossmember. You're right about the strength as I've seen 1-ton trucks that didn't have as heavy a frame.

[Huffstutler]

Can someone post a photo or manual scan of what the Convertible Frame (including the extra X tubing) looks like?

Thanks.
Eric

[Barry Wolk]

There was no "X" tubing on the stock frame. My car has additional bracing, but it hardly seems necessary as the cowbelly frame was designed for a convertible body.

[Huffstutler]

True, the stock frame did not have an X configuration. It was quite unique - almost Hudson style. But as you mentioned, the convertible did have extra bracing and from what I read was 1-1/2 diameter tubing in a cross shape placed between the A and B pillar supports. I am trying to picture just how they would fit at the Y backbone area? Do you have a sketch/drawing/photo of this configuration so I will know exactly how it was laid out?

Also, when one speaks of "cowbelly" design associated with Ford products, I think of the traditional curved side rails starting with the 1957 model Ford / Mercury automobiles like the Fairlane. Since the Continental's side rails were straight, I consider it more of a modified Ladder frame. Am I wrong to think that?

Thanks again!
Eric

[Barry Wolk]

Cowbelly refers to being lower in the center than at both ends.

[Huffstutler]

The way I understood it was the bowed, rounded side rails that look like the bloated sides of a cow hence cowbelly frame for the 1957-1964 Fords.

[Barry Wolk]

Hmmmmm.........................

Wouldn't it have been called a cow-side frame then.:)

[Barry Wolk]

Here are some pictures of my car. I need to detail it.

This picture is looking at the undercarriage from the rear wheel well. You'll note the tube that runs from the "B" pillar area to the center of the three cross members. All 4 tubes from both "A" and "B" pillar locations meet in this area. A large metal plate, approximately 12" square is welded to the frame and cross members, tying all the braces together. in the center. Still working on a drawing.

Also note in this picture the method of strengthening the frame. Art Sears told me that they took the body off the frame and flipped it over. They made cardboard templates of the frame and boxed cross members. They cut 1/4" steel plate and beautifully stitch-welded continuous steel pieces from front to rear. The cross members that weren't round were plated in a similar manner. Many a professional welder has told me that these results could only have been done with the chassis upside-down. Having just done a bunch of overhead welding, I can attest to the difficulty of it.

http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg18/barry2952/1%20Mark%20II%20docs/IMG_3912.jpg

The tubing interfered with the floor pans so they were artfully hammered away creating clearance.

http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg18/barry2952/1%20Mark%20II%20docs/IMG_3911.jpg

This picture is looking from the "A" pillar area on the driver's side rearward. You can see the bracing for the much larger front seat floor pan.

http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg18/barry2952/1%20Mark%20II%20docs/IMG_3913.jpg

A closer look at the center connection for the tubing. I've never looked, are there corner braces on a stock Mark II frame?

http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg18/barry2952/1%20Mark%20II%20docs/IMG_3910.jpg

[Huffstutler]

Barry,

This alone helps I am sure not only myself but others. Am what I seeing here are tubes meeting in the center at the B pillar cross brace and the backbone? In essence, they do create an X but probably looking straight up (or down) will form a star shape with the existing braces - similar to a '55 Packard frame but with the added Y backbone. Anxious to see your sketch to verify.

As for the corner bracing, don't think it is on the coupe but will check. Believe this was unique to the convertible to give strength and protection to where the extra tubing connected by Hess & Eisenhardt.

Looks like you have bottomed out a couple time with the first frame picture by the resonator :)

Oh yeah, overhead welding is a booger to do. I have done aluminum mig welding overhead at a shipyard and can attest to that!


Eric

[Barry Wolk]

I'm sure I have, Eric. I drive mine a lot. Although, it's been on so may transports that scrapes could easily happen while loading or unloading.

[Huffstutler]

Oh, I can believe that. You are just lucky not having banged up the fenders or sides going in and out of transports or onto trailers. With such a rare vehicle, I would be on pins and needles every time it moves! I am sure just trying to match the paint or getting a flawless finish would be a challenge. Since this paint has color shift characteristics, have you had to try and duplicate it in the past? If so, who or how was it acheived in this day and age? It is very hard to find "artists" with a spray gun... too much junk, too thin, fish eyes, or orange peel let along trying to "match" color and not blotch up the color shift base. When it comes to paint I'm a painter's nightmare!

Eric

[Roger Zimmermann]

Interesting pictures (also for my own purpose). The heavy steel plates welded at the bottom are clearly visible. From a mechanical point of view, there should be the same plates on the top of the frame. Is there any? Maybe it was not possible due to the limited clearance.

[Barry Wolk]

I don't think top plates were necessary as the top of the frame is in compression, requiring less support.

[Roger Zimmermann]

I don't think top plates were necessary as the top of the frame is in compression, requiring less support.

That makes sense...

[Huffstutler]

I read that 1/8-inch was shaved from the body bushings to allow for the extra plate height on the rails so not sure about the tops of them? But yes, you can clearly see the "stich" pattern aka serpentine.

Eric

[Barry Wolk]

Serpentine, aka "snake-like" refers to the shape of the frame rail and not the type of welding. Stitch welding leaves a gap in-between welds to allow for some flexibility while gaining strength. Stitch welding also keeps whatever you're working on from warping due to concentrated heat.

[Huffstutler]

There seems to be all sorts of variable interpretations about frame rails ;)

[Huffstutler]

Here is a shot from the Sinatra project Mk II coupe frame . No corner bracing except for the rear suspension where one of the tube ladder cross members goes.

http://memimage.cardomain.com/ride_images/3/1574/4401/28934700020_large.jpg

[Barry Wolk]

Do you have a picture of the bottom side of the frame? It looks like there's stitch welding holding the top of the rails.

[Barry Wolk]

Here's the layout of the cross-braces.

http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg18/barry2952/1%20Mark%20II%20docs/chassis2.jpg

[Huffstutler]

Glad you added your picture after mine, gives a contrast. But as I suspected, not an X-Frame by the traditional standard but still an X-Frame just the same in the end result. Slightly resembles the 1956 Packard frame below but the Continental has the added Y backbone. Substitute the I beam girders of the Packard with the round tubing and flat ladder runs and you have an idea. Just kind of reminded me of it.

http://www.aldrichrestores.com/Pages/chassis4_op_800x600.jpg

[Barry Wolk]

Perfect. There's a picture of an exhaust system that weaves through the frame. That's what's often been inaccurately described in the old Mark II write-ups. At no point does the Mark II exhaust go through the frame.

[Huffstutler]

No stiching on the bottom of the coupe frame.

[Roger Zimmermann]

Here is a shot from the Sinatra project Mk II coupe frame .
Very nice picture! Do you have more? It is for my project described in my presentation.

[Huffstutler]

You might want to check with the owner about use of the photographs though were posted on the web. Here is a link to the project in progress but not up to date so not sure of the status:


http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2893470

The car # is C56A1884

[Huffstutler]

Barry, so I am wondering since Ford used X-Frames design for strengthening of its Skyliner retractables, if the prototype Mk II retractable used a similar frame as your convertible and in turn, ended up on the Lincoln Futura concept car? In the wheel well photos I have seen of the Futura, I don't detect a bellypan as the Revell/Minogram kit suggests and it definately wasn't a '66 Galaxy ladder frame that others have depicted just because the Batmobile #1 used it only AFTER the original Futura frame was removed and scrapped.

[Mark_II_Mark]

Now THAT would be the Mark II to own, next to Elvis's and Superman's of course...

[Roger Zimmermann]

You might want to check with the owner about use of the photographs though were posted on the web. Here is a link to the project in progress but not up to date so not sure of the status:



Thank you for that link, it's fantastic! I will never be able to see such details in Switzerland.

[Barry Wolk]

I don't believe there's any obligation to contact the poster for permission on material that's clearly not copyrighted.

[Huffstutler]

I don't believe there's any obligation to contact the poster for permission on material that's clearly not copyrighted.

I hear what you are saying but there is a gray area here. People often misuse the "fair use" acts when they don't apply to personal items like these pictures. One may argue that they are "personal possessions" while others will cite that the owner posted them online for all to "see" but not necessarily "use". It is always better to err on the side of caution and ask first rather than assume especially if you are going to use them for some sort of presentation in print or video. I know, I work at a law firm and we have attorneys that deal with intellectual properties.

If you spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars to have your car professionally photographed and you post them online but these photos are not legally registered with the copyright office, would you sue a magazine for using them? That is the gray area and where many people end up watermarking the pictures posted..

Eric

[Barry Wolk]

Or, simply post low-res versions.

I think the real determining factor in a lot of cases is whether the images were used for commercial gain. Using an image as an educational tool should not be considered in the same light.

I'd be hard-pressed, as a juror, to find fault with using an image in this nature.

[Roger Zimmermann]

In my case, these very good pictures will never quit my computer or my office/workshop as they just will be used for the purpose of building a scale model. If you go further with your thinking as a jurist, I should also ask Ford for the permission to build that model. If for resale, yes, most probably, as the design is protected, but not for a private use.

[Barry Wolk]

Ford is very protective of their logo. I don't think it would be a problem if you asked, yet I find it unnecessary.

I have a friend that's a Ford staff attorney, not in that area, but he knows who to talk to. Let me know if your request is denied.

[Huffstutler]

For scale model construction for your own use, not a problem. Just like you are allowed to make copies of a music CD you purchased for your own personal use. When you give the music away P2P or bootleg it, that is where the problems begin.

Are you making the convertible? If so, don't forget the angle braces (corner braces) and the square flange in the center that is on Barry's car where the tubes connect. If you are simply wanting a coupe, believe you can get a 1:18 scale diecast of that for reasonable price already built. The convertible (not sure how accurate the frame is) was also produced but in limited more expensive editions. I have an older 1:43 scale of the coupe produced by the Bradford Exchange years ago but the chassis is not accurately detailed, just represented in proper configuration. No floorpan details and the B pillar brace is not completely correct.

I am all about accuracy when it comes to scale models hence my trying to confirm just what the frame on the '55 Lincoln Futura concept car really looked like unlike people cheating using the '65 Galaxy frame, '62 T-Bird unibody floorpans, or something else I have seen. Curbside models are not for me ;)

Let us know what you decide and if you build one from scratch, keep us posted to your progress.


If you go the diecast route, here is one possibility pretty cheap but detailed and comes in different colors:

http://www.diecastmodelswholesale.com/servlet/the-4770/1956-Lincoln-Continental-Mark/Detail

Eric

[depmike38]

:confused:Looking at all the frame photos I'm beginning to think maybe a great deal of them were x-type frames in the beginning and after a while they dropped it on sedans and hardtops to save a few dollars in production costs. I have a 51 Cad convertible in the shop that has one but for no useful reason I can see the 50 Mercury Monterey we're working on has one too.

[Roger Zimmermann]

For scale model construction for your own use, not a problem. Just like you are allowed to make copies of a music CD you purchased for your own personal use. When you give the music away P2P or bootleg it, that is where the problems begin.

Are you making the convertible? If so, don't forget the angle braces (corner braces) and the square flange in the center that is on Barry's car where the tubes connect. If you are simply wanting a coupe, believe you can get a 1:18 scale diecast of that for reasonable price already built. The convertible (not sure how accurate the frame is) was also produced but in limited more expensive editions. I have an older 1:43 scale of the coupe produced by the Bradford Exchange years ago but the chassis is not accurately detailed, just represented in proper configuration. No floorpan details and the B pillar brace is not completely correct.

I am all about accuracy when it comes to scale models hence my trying to confirm just what the frame on the '55 Lincoln Futura concept car really looked like unlike people cheating using the '65 Galaxy frame, '62 T-Bird unibody floorpans, or something else I have seen. Curbside models are not for me ;)

Let us know what you decide and if you build one from scratch, keep us posted to your progress.

Eric

There is no decision right now. The convertible is tempting, but the mechanism to open and close the roof may be a nightmare. The cloth for the roof could also be a problem; however, problems are here to be overcome.
I have a 1:32 Revell model and a 1:24 Franklin Mint model. With some exceptions, Franklin Mint models are crude in regard to what I can do at 1:12. For example, the lenses of the rear lamps are held with tiny screws (diameter 0.024" or 0.6 mm)...

I never asked GM to build the Toronado and even I got plans for help! Pictures of my Avanti model were recently published in the Avanti Magazine without nasty questions. I have no intention to ask Ford (I have no idea where to ask. If it's like GM, I should ask Ford Switzerland; my question will land to a help desk where the people just deal with actual cars and have no idea what a car more than 50 years old could look like).

This forum will be informed about the construction on a regular basis ; as I wrote in my introduction, I have to finish the Avanti first.

[Huffstutler]

Wow Roger, great details. What medium are you working with? As I said, I seriously doubt that you will have problems making a one-off model as long as you don't commercially sell them. Any more pictures of your work? Would like to see them!

Eric

[Roger Zimmermann]

Wow Roger, great details. What medium are you working with? As I said, I seriously doubt that you will have problems making a one-off model as long as you don't commercially sell them. Any more pictures of your work? Would like to see them!

Eric
Thank you for the flowers! The main material I'm using is brass. Cut, hammered, bent, machined with a small lathe, and so on. Body is polyester; maybe the body of the Mark II will be mainly brass as there are some advantages over polyester (disadvantages too...). More pictures are in my presentation under "car model". I don't want to overload the server by putting them here again.

[Huffstutler]

:confused:Looking at all the frame photos I'm beginning to think maybe a great deal of them were x-type frames in the beginning and after a while they dropped it on sedans and hardtops to save a few dollars in production costs. I have a 51 Cad convertible in the shop that has one but for no useful reason I can see the 50 Mercury Monterey we're working on has one too.

In general, X-Frames were pretty much standard on many cars from the 1930s-1950s and some into the 1960s. It seems the larger vehicles and convertibles were given preference as the X-Frame was rigid and gave strength to the middle of the heavier car preventing it from flexing and binding doors, etc. The frames were heavy and expensive but eventually a ladder frame was developed to give the strength without the hard ride and allowed floorboards to be recessed between the rails. Mechanics also had to be adjusted adding more parts - more dollars and more maintenance. Chrysler never used them except in some large 1930s models and convertibles. Chevrolet also didn't until 1958-1964. Buick was the last to keep an X-Frame with the 1970 Riviera. Convertibles were the exception - always using them except for some post 1951 Ford models which used a K-Frame instead. Cadillac always had them until 1965. Ford used them until 1949 and Mercury until 1952. And Lincoln until the 1958 unibody came in.

Eric

[Huffstutler]

Roger...

Searched for the thread that shows your Avanti and Toronado. I can see that the exterior of the Avanti needs a bit more detail but your Toronado is something to behold! Can't tell it from the 1:1 real deal. Bet you could use it in a Hollywood movie!. Only down side with these scale models and a tell-tale sign are the tires. If they don't look like they have some weight on them (distorted at the bottom or soft) then they either 1) look like they are sollid rubber or 2) a model. But you can't improve on any of the other details!. Like to see the chassis of these. Any pictures of those? I always look at model chassis to make sure they are top quality - depends on their detail.

In the mean time, can you use one of the 1:18 scale Continental diecast models as a starting point for dimentional and outline drawings to get blueprints started? Especially body dimentions? Details you can find in the various restoration projects and photographs of restored cars - such as the Sinatra restoration site I pointed you to. I'll look for more as well, unless someone here has one going and online?

Me, I would love to have an accurate scale model of the 1957 Cadillac Coupe de Ville. I have yet to find one from anybody except a resin kit with an incorrect chassis from a Chevrolet. That is my birth year so most interested in cars of that time frame. Could kick myself because many years ago I had an opportunity to purchase a coral color one at a Cadillac dealership in which an elderly woman brought it in for transmission work and never picked it up. There was only a mechanic's lean on it for something like $150 and I didn't grab it in time. :mad:

Not sure why GM hasn't let modelers release a 62 Series but only the Eldorado and Biarritz?


Eric

[Huffstutler]

Roger... also look at this recent post which shows the frame and gives some descriptive detail information that may be of use to you:

http://www.markiiforum.com/showthread.php?t=407

Eric

[Roger Zimmermann]

Roger...

Searched for the thread that shows your Avanti and Toronado. I can see that the exterior of the Avanti needs a bit more detail but your Toronado is something to behold! Can't tell it from the 1:1 real deal. Bet you could use it in a Hollywood movie!. Only down side with these scale models and a tell-tale sign are the tires. If they don't look like they have some weight on them (distorted at the bottom or soft) then they either 1) look like they are sollid rubber or 2) a model. But you can't improve on any of the other details!. Like to see the chassis of these. Any pictures of those? I always look at model chassis to make sure they are top quality - depends on their detail.

In the mean time, can you use one of the 1:18 scale Continental diecast models as a starting point for dimentional and outline drawings to get blueprints started? Especially body dimentions? Details you can find in the various restoration projects and photographs of restored cars - such as the Sinatra restoration site I pointed you to. I'll look for more as well, unless someone here has one going and online?

Me, I would love to have an accurate scale model of the 1957 Cadillac Coupe de Ville. I have yet to find one from anybody except a resin kit with an incorrect chassis from a Chevrolet. That is my birth year so most interested in cars of that time frame. Could kick myself because many years ago I had an opportunity to purchase a coral color one at a Cadillac dealership in which an elderly woman brought it in for transmission work and never picked it up. There was only a mechanic's lean on it for something like $150 and I didn't grab it in time. :mad:

Not sure why GM hasn't let modelers release a 62 Series but only the Eldorado and Biarritz?


Eric
The Avanti is not yet completed; missing are wheelcovers and different tires. That's the reason why I cannot start the Mark II project right now. Anyway, the "new" tires will not deflect under the wheight of the model; it could be possible by choosing another silicone rubber, but maybe this would open the door to other problems. As you like frames, I will include some pictures!
A 1:18 scale model will not be very informative about dimensions, they are too crude. Furthermore, to feel an object, you have to see it. This is why I will go during spring time to a man who has 3 Mark II, about 10-15 miles from home.
Too bad you missed that '57 Cad; such oportunities are not so common!

I saw also the new thread you indicate; you may well imagine I'm reading all in case an info is there!

[Barry Wolk]

What frame is this from?

http://www.markiiforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=368&d=1261587264

[Roger Zimmermann]

It's the Avanti frame. The first picture shows the frame assembled, but unpainted.

[Huffstutler]

Like I said, can't tell the difference from the real thing... down to the smallest details. I assume for the micro parts you are doing photo etching?

For anyone not familiar with the size comparison using the 1 Euro coin, it is approximately the same size as our US Quarter .25¢ piece.

Going to ask what may be a stupid question but probably not considering the level of detail. Are there gears inside the differential and engine block?

I can't see it but I am sure the chain drive is there for the Toronado transmission.

As for the tires, if they were not "rolling" you could heat the area that touches the road up and push down to distort it to give it a flattened area and bulged appearance. Or a softer material for the tires? Maybe 2 sets of tires, one for roll and one for show? How heavy are the models when finished?

Wasn't quite sure how accurate details are for 1:18 models. Just figured that with today's technology that they had already done the measuring and had lasers carve a mold or something along those lines for accuracy and also considering how fast they are manufactured too?

Eric

[Roger Zimmermann]

Like I said, can't tell the difference from the real thing... down to the smallest details. I assume for the micro parts you are doing photo etching?

Going to ask what may be a stupid question but probably not considering the level of detail. Are there gears inside the differential and engine block?

I can't see it but I am sure the chain drive is there for the Toronado transmission.

As for the tires, if they were not "rolling" you could heat the area that touches the road up and push down to distort it to give it a flattened area and bulged appearance. Or a softer material for the tires? Maybe 2 sets of tires, one for roll and one for show? How heavy are the models when finished?


Eric
Photo etching? That would simplify my "work". Unfortunately, I don't have access to that. All is hand work with very few machine work.
In the Avanti, nothing is functional except suspension, steering and parking brake as well as side windows and doors, trunk lid and hood. In the Toro, yes, there is an electric motor in the V8, 2 speed transmission, reverse. The transmission of torque from the flyweel coupling to the transmission is done with gears, not a chain. Windows are elctric; the Mark II will ahve electric windows too as there is no base model with manual window lifts.
The pain with the tires...Sorry, I don't bite at it, it's already a pain to have 5 good tires.
Weight: the Toronado was done as light as possible due to the motor. For the Avanti, I had not that kind of consideration; both cars are about 5 pounds each.
The Avanti now is in fact a reconstruction of a model I did 40 years ago. When I was put in early retirement, I decided to "refresh" that model with only small improvements. In fact, this is a new construction at 90% with full of compromises.

[Huffstutler]

For some reason in my mind I was thinking of an exposed chain drive going to a differential driving the front wheels rather than a transfer box? Where did that come from??? I know I saw that somewhere. I do know the Toronado did have a chain drive called Hy-Vo but was covered.

[Huffstutler]

As I describe a cowbelly frame being the type used on the 1957-1964 Ford and Mercury cars with the wide curved side rails while others with straight side rails are called box or perimeter frames (even if they have drops), I wanted to pass on if anyone is interested that Lincoln "did not" use the nicknamed cowbelly for their 1957 cars but stayed with the same straight side rail type used in the 1955-1956 models. Not sure why Lincoln didn't adopt the new base Ford style frame unless they knew ahead of time it would only be a 1-year thing as they switched to unibody design in 1958. Does anyone know why for sure?

This obviously doesn't include the proprietary Continental frame.

Eric

[Hal W May]

I am currently restoring C56Q3689 (1957)-and there is no crossmember. However, above where it would have been, and pressed into and part of the floorpan is triangular girderlike reinforcement of the floorpan-due to the front seat being bolted to the floorpan in that area. Also, just aft of that there are two (one on each side) shields or deflectors welded to the bottom of the floorpan-for obvious reasons-since the rear seat foot detented floorpan is just aft of the deflector. If pictures would help-let me know. Hal W May

[Roger Zimmermann]

For my own education I would like to see pictures! I suppose the body is still on the frame; therefore you cannot show the frame from above...

[Huffstutler]

Yes Hal, please do for everyone rather for validation, curiosity, or educational purposes. Who is to say that there wasn't several 1957 cars without the wide center brace running under the driver seat between the side rails? Only 444 cars were produced 50+ years ago and how many registered and/or rolling '57 models still exist? And how many read this forum to be able to say one way or another if the brace is absent?

(NOTE... sorry if I refrain from using the word "cross member" as some get it confused with X member which is different)

Thanks!
Eric

[Barry Wolk]

I dunno, a cross is a cross (+) and an X is an (X). Shouldn't be terribly confusing.

[Huffstutler]

Barry, you must be kidding? You need to think on a level with "all" and not just a few because people DO get them confused. I'll use a word that you used a while back... symantics.

Eric

[Hal W May]

per your request-Hal W May

[Huffstutler]

Thanks Hal for taking the pictures. The triangular shape imprint on the floorboard you mentioned is on all of the Mark II floorboards. I am zeroing in though on the central Y backbone where those missing members would have been attached. The welding looks a bit rough there and wondered if the rail was removed? Yet, looking at the outboard side rails I can still see that stitch welding intact which would indicate they were not disturbed. Anyone else's opinion here? To me it looks like another car made without that 'B' rail.

Eric

[Roger Zimmermann]

per your request-Hal W May

Thank you for the pictures. There is also a difference at the floor: there is a sheet metal plate welded right behind the central brace as well to the rear pan. This plate (one each side of the floor) can be well seen on the left on the middle picture.
I hope you understand what I means; unfortunately, I cannot modify the pictures to mark what I'm writing about.

[Huffstutler]

I see what you are saying Roger and possibly Hal can tell us more? They may be something done due to rust or other damage? They don't conform very well to the floor pan contour though these L shaped plates. I highlighted them in the picture that shows them on both sides but you will also note that one is longer than the other... one goes from the driveshaft hump to the side rail while the other stops several inches before the side rail.

I also want to add that contributor Don Henschel who also ownes one of the "lightened" '57 cars does not show these plates on his.

But one idea to ponder... since there are so few '57 versions over the '56 and initially the frame was designed to accommodate any body style yet by '57 they decided only a coupe will be made, possibly at that point they dropped the central brace since the body already had the triangular reinforcing strap where it was?

[Roger Zimmermann]

I see what you are saying Roger and possibly Hal can tell us more? They may be something done due to rust or other damage? They don't conform very well to the floor pan contour though these L shaped plates. I highlighted them in the picture that shows them on both sides but you will also note that one is longer than the other... one goes from the driveshaft hump to the side rail while the other stops several inches before the side rail.


Yes, it's exactly what I means. Such simple things are often difficult to explain in a foreign language; fortunately you could follow me.
You are right, they could have been added later to hide something. Now we have created a problem to Hal!

[Don Henschel]

Thanks for the pictures Hal W May! Your car frame is just like mine! I guess this isn't a myth after all.

[Roger Zimmermann]

Don, do you have also the sheet metal pieces welded on the floor we discussed yesterday with Eric Huffstutler?

[Hal W May]

On my #3689-the (what looks to be) original skid (L shaped) plates are 18 inches long. There are 2 extensions, 6 inches long, one on each side, that appear to be less professionally made (almost amateurish) that extend the skid outward almost to the chassis rail. My guess is that they are there to protect the lower, unprotected area of the rear portion of the belly pan. Do the earlier MKii"s also have this skid plate?? Hal

[Barry Wolk]

No, because it has the center cross-member. I'd be willing to bet that this car probably got hung up somewhere in it's travels and this was their solution to riding over the obstruction. I'd be curious to see the area under the seat to see if it was smashed and one time and bumped out.

[Barry Wolk]

Does your car have seat belts?

[Don Henschel]

Don, do you have also the sheet metal pieces welded on the floor we discussed yesterday with Eric Huffstutler?

This is what I have on mine.
http://www.markiiforum.com/showthread.php?t=401&page=3

[Don Henschel]

Does your car have seat belts?

If anybody has factory seatbelts please post a picture including the floor mounts.

[Roger Zimmermann]

This is what I have on mine.

Thank you for the reminder Don. Obviously, you have a "clean" floor.