ClassicCar

ESSX28-1 wrote:

In my 28 Essex Coupe the hinge of the suicide door is just rear of the back of the seat so no opportunity to lengthen the door rearwards & the dash sets the front of the door.

Dave;

If he's beating all these panels from scratch, a longer door (and thus cockpit!) should only be a bit more time & metal. Trick is to get the proportions right, and I think he will. The hinge issue would disappear if he installed a track...

heh heh...

RL Chilton wrote:

4. As far as the front, have you thought about maybe incorporating a '36-'37 style Hudson or Terraplane grille, but shortened? Shoot the style into the '30's era as opposed to the '20's era. Just a thought, I know how you like the '20's style racers.

Uh, Russell... that might actually work...



:eek:



[ATTACH]9212[/ATTACH]

If you went with Coachcraft, London, England (there were 4 or 5 shops building the Railton designed cars at that time) you could have a coupe, drop head coupe (or the roadster like we have here--by the way, this example was not built by Coachcraft--and the "folks in the know" want you to call them "Hudsons built in England" if they have the waterfall grill rather than the Railton grill") Coachcraft built the Saloon that is shown in this ad. There were no records of production styles or numbers built from the Coachcraft shop so it is hard to tell how many were built but only a handfull of the three main styles are known today. More of these "Drop head coupes" are availavle than any of the other styles.



Now that we have covered that, lets get back to the Boat-tail. I am excited to see more photos and I expect that it will be finished by Oklahoma city? If it is I can park my English "Saloon" next to it and perhaps add a bit of class to the photos folks take of the boattail?

Bent-

Sorry, I've been out of the loop for this month and just getting back to getting caught up on the forum.

I know we've e-mailed some on this subject, but thought I would post "for the record", as it were.

1. The Railton above? See, I like that. That grille looks right at home. Change that rear around to a BT, drop the low-curved doors, change a few proportions so it's not quite so Euro. I still think it's probably a little too tall for late-'20's to early-'30's. Possibly some more rake (lean back) might help as well. A sketch would go a long way.

2. What are those pieces on your table, above? Fender to splash, maybe?

3. Your Dad's BT is looking superb, by the way. I'll bet he's beside himself with glee on your progress. He has just got to be really proud of your talents. I know I am.

4. Doors: Yes, stretch the doors. One thing to remember is that people are much larger and taller in the 21st century than they were 80 years ago. Cars on doors were really quite small until the late 30's. Lengthening the doors adds style, grace and better proportions, as far as design goes. And, as far as function goes, easier ingress and egress is always a plus. Mercedes gull-wings pop into my mind. Have you ever got into one of those cars? Very difficult car to get in and out of. Suicides are not only cool, but extremely . . . sorry, EXTREMELY elegant in design (especially with a pretty lady involved). With lock-outs, they can be made safe, as well.

However, not just the doors need the lengthening, but the cockpit as well, and this could be done behind the doors. Longer legs need more room in the cockpit. Also, longer cars look better. These 106" wheelbases are "sporty", 110-112" wheelbases on these older cars are more "elegant". Depends on the look you are after.

5. Can't remember all the questions in your post, but one of them had to do with the rear bumper. Food for thought: Imagine the front bumper on a '33--'34 Ford. The outside is smooth, rolled at the ends, and has a distinctive dip or 'V' in the middle of the bumper. Chrome plated, of course. This 'V' would highliht the BT dramatically and effectively make it longer when viewed directly from the rear (essentially brings the point of the BT down further). Just like you would eliminate the rear spare, so as to not "hide" the lines of the BT, a bumper would not need to detract from the lines of the car, but add to it's beauty. Essentially the lines of the car would flow right down to the point of the BT.

6. Windshield: I could be way out in left field, here, but I don't think there was a Duvall Car, so to speak, at least not of that time period. I know of the windshields from the Hot Rodding world, and I always thought the windshield was named after it's designer, but that's just what I always grew up thinking. The windshield itself was just representative of the style used in the early to mid-'30's. Regardless, I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but one thing to keep in mind:
Hudsons of the '30's to the '50's had an ongoing theme in windshields, in that they all ready looked chopped from the factory, and the proportions were always "spot-on", IMO. Need to keep it short, glass size in the 7"-10" range, I think. Wind-wings would not be out of place, here, but would need to be decided upon when manufacturing the windshield proper.

Hudson people need to see the car and remark, "Wow! That's a cool-looking Hudson!" (or some such accoloade), not, "Wow! What manufacture of car is that?"

Anyway, I could ramble a lot more, but at least now I'm somewhat caught up.

I went back and read the other comments.

Rounded doors: Was referring to the bottom corners of the door itself. Square doors placed it up to the beginning of the '30's or so. Rounded bottom corners are much prettier, and place the car well into the '30's. Again, depends on the time period your looking for. I, of course am partial to the rounded corners on the bottom of the doors, especially the front one on a suicide door. Also, really looks good when the front edge of the door rakes back to match the angle of the windshield, or at least compliment it. Also, makes the car appear to be moving when sitting still. Small thing, but big in appearance.

If I were going to go more thirties, maybe something like one of these.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://images43.fotki.com/v1381/photos/2/223020/6583961/AuburnSectionedRH07-vi.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php%3Ft%3D348867&usg=__V9jjmtdedGgolvRAMj1iIMDV_gw=&h=427&w=750&sz=70&hl=en&start=19&itbs=1&tbnid=RogsWl9Gite-QM:&tbnh=80&tbnw=141&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dduvall%2Bwindshield%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1



I like the black fast back coupe with the rib down the middle, maybe with a '36 grill?



But I'm starting to drift off subject, again.

bent metal wrote:

If I were going to go more thirties, maybe something like one of these.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://images43.fotki.com/v1381/photos/2/223020/6583961/AuburnSectionedRH07-vi.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php%3Ft%3D348867&usg=__V9jjmtdedGgolvRAMj1iIMDV_gw=&h=427&w=750&sz=70&hl=en&start=19&itbs=1&tbnid=RogsWl9Gite-QM:&tbnh=80&tbnw=141&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dduvall%2Bwindshield%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1



I like the black fast back coupe with the rib down the middle, maybe with a '36 grill?



But I'm starting to drift off subject, again.

Wow... some gorgeous "rolling sculptures" there!

Flush mount, suicide doors with a rounded corner and edge that matches the windshield post angle. Sectioned a few inches. Maybe everything in front of the door should come down an extra inch? Needs wire wheels too.



Hey, is that a blue Durham in the background? haha:D

I like the changes. I like the lowered body and the suicide doors with rounded corners. The side vents are a plus. Dad had a car with them. They did a good job cooling the legs. Moving the seating back will help improve leg room. Wire wheels I think is an improvement.



Can you do another picture with the cowl lowered the same as the body and lower the steering wheel just a tad and move the step plate back a hair to see a comparison. This might make the front end look longer even though the length hasn't changed.



You've made some good improvements on the looks of the car. Thanks for sharing your ideas.



Lee

Lee, this is with only the front lowered/channeled. Nothing else.

RL Chilton wrote:

Bent-



Sorry, I've been out of the loop for this month and just getting back to getting caught up on the forum.That's a good thing, your work must be busy.



I know we've e-mailed some on this subject, but thought I would post "for the record", as it were.Ok,



1. The Railton above? See, I like that. That grille looks right at home. Change that rear around to a BT, drop the low-curved doors, change a few proportions so it's not quite so Euro. I still think it's probably a little too tall for late-'20's to early-'30's. Possibly some more rake (lean back) might help as well. A sketch would go a long way.I agree, but not for this car. For what your talking about I'd like to see the grill just the way you said, no splash aprons, full fenders like 36ish but tighter on the wheels/smaller fenders. Then make it a fast back two door with real round door openings and a layed back windshield, split back window and an overall look of a Cross Fire, sorta.



2. What are those pieces on your table, above? Fender to splash, maybe?It's kind of a decorative piece that the hood latches down to. It transitions the hood to the fender.







4. Doors: Yes, stretch the doors. One thing to remember is that people are much larger and taller in the 21st century than they were 80 years ago. Cars on doors were really quite small until the late 30's. Lengthening the doors adds style, grace and better proportions, as far as design goes. And, as far as function goes, easier ingress and egress is always a plus. Mercedes gull-wings pop into my mind. Have you ever got into one of those cars? Very difficult car to get in and out of. Suicides are not only cool, but extremely . . . sorry, EXTREMELY elegant in design (especially with a pretty lady involved). With lock-outs, they can be made safe, as well.I like the suicide doors too. Class it up a bit (IMO), and if I extend into the cowl a bit and into the tail a little bit, the overall length wouldn't be changed.



However, not just the doors need the lengthening, but the cockpit as well, and this could be done behind the doors. Longer legs need more room in the cockpit. Also, longer cars look better. These 106" wheelbases are "sporty", 110-112" wheelbases on these older cars are more "elegant". Depends on the look you are after.I'm hoping that the lower car will look longer without having to change the wheel base. ...I've never sat in one of these with a proper seat installed. I don't know how much leg room it has. Maybe the seat could be altered, if it's a problem?



5. Can't remember all the questions in your post, but one of them had to do with the rear bumper. Food for thought: Imagine the front bumper on a '33--'34 Ford. The outside is smooth, rolled at the ends, and has a distinctive dip or 'V' in the middle of the bumper. Chrome plated, of course. This 'V' would highliht the BT dramatically and effectively make it longer when viewed directly from the rear (essentially brings the point of the BT down further). Just like you would eliminate the rear spare, so as to not "hide" the lines of the BT, a bumper would not need to detract from the lines of the car, but add to it's beauty. Essentially the lines of the car would flow right down to the point of the BT.You might have something here, it needs a bumper, or something to cover the otherwise exposed frame in the back. I'd like to see a drawing, but my first thought would be to make it straight and roll in on the ends. Like '34 Terraplane bumpers? Maybe front and back? Hmm? I'd need to see a couple of variations there.



6. Windshield: I could be way out in left field, here, but I don't think there was a Duvall Car, so to speak, at least not of that time period. I know of the windshields from the Hot Rodding world, and I always thought the windshield was named after it's designer, but that's just what I always grew up thinking. No idea?! I guess I just assumed it was a car from the eary thirties or so.The windshield itself was just representative of the style used in the early to mid-'30's. Regardless, I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but one thing to keep in mind:

Hudsons of the '30's to the '50's had an ongoing theme in windshields, in that they all ready looked chopped from the factory, and the proportions were always "spot-on", IMO. Need to keep it short, glass size in the 7"-10" range, I think. Wind-wings would not be out of place, here, but would need to be decided upon when manufacturing the windshield proper. You might be surprised to know this,.... the original windshield opening is only 7" to start with! haha When you see it in person it looks chopped. It's awesome! I hadn't thought about wind wings. But I did think about making roll up windows. So it would be a convertible instead of a roadster? But I just like the sound of saying "It's a roadster."



Hudson people need to see the car and remark, "Wow! That's a cool-looking Hudson!" (or some such accoloade), not, "Wow! What manufacture of car is that?" I agree. That's one reason why I don't want to totally change everything. I like the car as original, but for reasons I stated earlier, I need to tweak it. Beyond anything that could be reasonably reversed. ...I think. Besides, if it's going to be for me, I want to add some subtle design changes to it.



Anyway, I could ramble a lot more, but at least now I'm somewhat caught up.

Add more, add more! I think we're getting close to nailing down a plan. I'm taking in all suggestions and I'm going to go with whatever I feel is right. And saving some ideas in the back of my head, for later reference on a different car. I hope there are people out there that disagree with me a little bit and a few that think I'm totally screwing this up! Enough that it inspires them to build something that they think is the way things should be. If anyone out there is thinking this, Please post pictures! I'd love to learn, and maybe get inspired too.

Another view, I'm still not done with it. I wanted to get it back on the car to check fit and looks before I smooth out the welds all the way and rivet on the support bracket.



Looks OK.

Bent-

Got your PM. That fender on your Dad's BT looks mighty fine. If it was me doing it, I'd probably be smoothing it out and filling with lead. I wish my metal skills were as good as yours, or heck, half as good as yours! Such nice, clean work. Looks really good.

As far as the dream-machine BT goes, I think you're on the right track. Best to do some concept drawings, or have them done for you. Always good to work off of a plan, or at least a basic concept drawing. Gives you something to work towards.

RL Chilton wrote:

Bent-



Got your PM. That fender on your Dad's BT looks mighty fine. If it was me doing it, I'd probably be smoothing it out and filling with lead. I wish my metal skills were as good as yours, or heck, half as good as yours! Such nice, clean work. Looks really good.Thanks Russell, I know you have high standards. So seriously, thanks for that.



As far as the dream-machine BT goes, I think you're on the right track. Best to do some concept drawings, or have them done for you. Always good to work off of a plan, or at least a basic concept drawing. Gives you something to work towards.

I agree with you, again. A plan set up ahead of time to keep a project on track is really important.

essexcoupe3131 wrote:

Hi Perry,

If you keep talking about restoration we are going to have to bump you to the other side

surprised they haven't done that already as a lot of people are missing out on all the good stuff you are doing

its a pity Geoff Clark isn't over there he would be the man for all the mechanical stuff and would have that engine purring like a kitten

As always superb work



Mike

Funny you should mention that. My Dad and I were just talking about the engine for this car. He has been reluctant to start on the engine because he thinks they are gutless. He is considering using a different motor, maybe a four. I'm personally against this, I want to keep it all as original as possible. He did however bring up the comment that Mr. Clark and some others over in your part of the world seem to be able make them run pretty well. Strong enough to pull travel trailers etc. One of the biggest problems looks to be the intake. But that's cast into the block. Which pretty much limits what you can do to it.

So what's the secret to making one of these old sixes run good?

Browniepetersen wrote:

Might be worth the effort/expense to ship the engine down there to Geoff and have it rebuilt? Just a thought...

I'd be happy to oblige, and test run it before shipping back. In my opinion this is such a rare car it would be a shame not to keep it absolutely original. As far as performance is concerned, the original engine was rated at 44 b.h.p., but with some tweaking to the camshaft, carburettor, and compression ratio, porting etc, it can be got up to around 60 b.h.p. With such a light body, this is perfectly adequate for everyday motoring. With raised h.p. and a higher geared back end this would be a great touring car. Incidentally, the 1929 boat-tails had an overdrive option. This entailed internal modification of the transmission, to give an overdrive ratio in what was normally the 2nd gear, and a roller bearing in the input shaft pocket in place of the usual bronze bushing. The shift pattern was then (in the terms of the original transmission), Low, top, 2nd, and the straight cut gears must have really sounded something at 60 m.p.h.! the ratio was 30%, and with the optional 5.1 rear end gears this gave an overall 3.6:1.

Ok, so we're going through literature on these cars. Which there isn't much of, and my Dad is looking at color options that would be "correct" for the car. Guess what? There isn't any! Options, that is. They list one color option for a Series I, 1927 Speedabout. That's it. And to boot it's not a very pleasing color in my opinion. It's a bright green color. Malorney green, or something like that. Whatever it's called, it's a bright green.

So, is this information correct? I know I've seen a few "straw" colored Series I boat tails. But the book says that option wasn't until Series II.

If anyone has any more information please let me know, soon. The paint color on this project will be made in a week or two. Once it's done, it's done.



All this work to try and keep things original, we would like to keep to a factory color option. ....But man-o-man, that green is ugly.:cool:

rambos_ride wrote:

Originally that car was probably painted in nitrocellulose lacquer.. which is now unavailable to my knowledge. I know 30 years ago PPG sold nitrocellulose lacquer but it only came in 1 color - black.

Ah, Diamond black. Man that stuff shot so easy and flowed so nice. :rolleyes:

Hi Bent metal, With what they are doing to our national film achives here (restoring very old film) maybe we could touch them up for any of the old film add some chemicals and you would just have to add some color and you would have the old Lacquer would be year perfect:rolleyes:

Mike

VicTor, I'd like to see more of that car. Maybe from a couple of steps back so I could see the whole thing.

[attachment=8140]DSC01944 Small.JPG[/attachment]

[attachment=8140]DSC01944 Small.JPG[/attachment]
Thanks "Ric West In", very interesting news paper article! That opens up a lot more doors/options. By the way, I removed the latches from the hood and underneath was some of the original color. Never exposed to UV light, I think this is going to be the best shot at seeing the correct color. For the green anyway. It's not exactly John Deere green. Which I also would of called it. But a little darker then that.