Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Discussions27,073
- Orphaned Marques
- ↳ Hudson21,138
- ↳ Street Rods807
- ↳ Off Topic574
- ↳ American Motors149
- ↳ Kaiser - Frazer70
- ↳ Nash70
- ↳ Packard163
- ↳ Studebaker122
- Classic American Cars
- ↳ Ford Motor Company956
- ↳ Chrysler Corporation477
- ↳ GM Corporation1,396
- ↳ Post War Chevrolets75
- ↳ Pontiac Forum119
- General
- ↳ All makes1,962
- ↳ Poll Discussions24
- Swapmeets & Events
- ↳ Events130
- ↳ Swapmeets108
- Hot Rod Corner
- ↳ Ford Rods90
- ↳ Lead Sleds67
- Special Interest Groups
- ↳ The Flathead Forum139
- European marques
- ↳ MG Car Company2
- ↳ Mercedes-Benz2
In this Discussion
- 46HudsonPU March 2012
- 5433HET March 2012
- StillOutThere March 2012
HMN's '32 Essex-Terraplane Article
-
Hemmings.com's article regarding the '32 Essex-Terraplane is found at:
http://www.hemmings.com/hmn/stories/2012/03/01/hmn_feature1.html
It repeats the absolute inaccuracy of auto writer Bill Vance who wrote many years ago in Canada's Auto.CA site that the floor pan is WELDED to the frame to provide early unit construction. WRONG!
The HMN article states:
"This was only one aspect of a redesigned frame that eliminated some heavy central I-beam cross members in favor of a new floor pan that was welded directly to the frame's side rails in 20 locations."
This is absolutely wrong. It would be ridiculously impractical to try to stick weld a painted body floor pan to a painted car frame on a moving assembly line where the chassis already had exhaust system and brake cables and fuel line already running through it.
The '32 Essex-Terraplane most certainly had a newly engineered frame with a generous X-member with belled, oval stamped strengthening holes, all saving considerable weight over previous designs. This design was adopted by Hudson cars as well for 1934. However the floor pan was BOLTED to the frame at some 20 positions and not welded.
One of my pet-peeves is when automotive writers do inadequate research and find incorrect, undocumented, non-factory statements and then regurgitate them in their own writing perpetuating inaccuracies and making a sham of, in this case, Hudson engineering history. And that is what Matthew Litwin has done on Hemmings.com and gets paid for doing so. -
That very article, and another that appeared in HCC, really threw me a curve. I have been planing to do a "frame up" restoration on my '33, and this really had me scratching my head! I talked to another '33 owner who removed his body from the frame, and never heard of such a thing. Thanks for setting the record straight!
33NoWindshield.jpg800 x 478 - 30K -
Yup, sounds a bit like the current writer may have copied key aspects of an old article, and applied his name to the updated article.
One way to keep employed with a minimum of effort. Look through the archives, regurgitate previously written articles, grab a paragraph here or there, adjust the wording and how it is presented - make them your own.
That's the most likely explaination on how these inaccuracies seem to continue on... -
In Don Butlers book, The History of Hudson, page 145 states "A pressed steel panel on top of the chassis served as the body floor pan,and unified body/chassis construction was claimed"
Clear as mud! -
5433HET wrote:In Don Butlers book, The History of Hudson, page 145 states "A pressed steel panel on top of the chassis served as the body floor pan,and unified body/chassis construction was claimed"
Clear as mud!
Hudson did specifically name the '32 Essex Terraplane many-bolted body to frame "Unit Construction". They weren't the first to do that in the auto industry but with the X-member frame, it was an amazingly rigid platform for its day. And without doubt the ET use in '32 and big Hudson application in '34 and all later cars were the forerunners of the thinking that developed into Stepdown "Mono-Bilt" construction as the principles were carried out to the max.
