MTFCA Forum

said to be a 1904 any thoughts

thanks for your input
Dave

The rear axle and spring look possibly to be Ford.
The rest kinda looks like a conglomeration and some parts homemade. Does it have an engine ?
More pictures might help.

Looks like about a 1915 Fordsleigh. More pictures from different angles would be helpful.

Not a real car, made up of random parts including a buggy, model t parts, and who knows what else parys.

A pastiche. Model T wheels 1919 or later, being demountable. The rear axle is not Ford T. The seats are most likely from a horse-drawn vehicle, as well as part of the "body" they're sitting on. No telling what's up front, really nothing "1904" about any of it.

Look at the relationship between the left rear wheel and the axle. If that wheel is mounted, it either has some kind of doodlebug reduction gears or it's a clown car with the wheels mounted eccentrically. It's an interesting item, and may have some interesting parts in it.

Definitely something interesting about the rear end. If there is anything 1904, it would be the buggy seats.

I believe this is the same car with the full body panels on it!

If anyone said it’s a mutt or a mongrel, it would be an insult to mutts. The wheels are just sitting near the axles, nothing to do with model T or any other car as far as that goes. The kindergarteners had a great time putting it together.

If it's for sale, then STAY AWAY FROM IT.

If it's for sale,the price would be the determining factor.

It seems to have motor, green one. But the whole thing is sitting on angle iron framing.

Certainly never ran in the shape it is in.

Cowl and dash are very interesting. Might be a mutt, but it started from something!

I believe that hood is from a portable power unit. The engine may also be. It looks like a Continental or Hercules or one of those type engines. The horse era parts may be valuable and the wheels look worth saving. I'd want to know what all the parts were before I tossed anything out. The seating could be used for a nice T-based parade vehicle. The cowl is an odd looking piece.... could it be the left and right rear portion of a late T roadster body welded together at the bottom edges and stood on end? Nah... it looks more like part of something like a late 1930s coupe, perhaps the area behind and below the rear window and ahead of the trunk opening, or the same area off a late T coupe.

The pumpkin/differential is definitely interesting, unless I'm not seeing it right. As for the car itself, I'm looking at it for what it started from. I can see what it isn't.

Unfortunately, Johnny Cash has left the building.

I wouldn't take it for free....

Jerry VanOoteghem wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 10, 2021 9:02 pm

I wouldn't take it for free....

A quote from my father. Any f..l can throw sh.t away. No offense. Dad did just fine because of that!

Its not a 1904 but a 911. May be worth it if they pay you to haul it away.
Rear cross member cut off, looks like a square block stuck inside the rear axle differential housing. Cowl would be good on a speedster - besides the buggy seats, it may be the only other thing of value
Is that the steering shaft for right hand drive? Generator , dip stick, oil filler

Thanks for the input, a friend had sent me the screen shot, its on facebook in vero beach florida and there's a couple more pictures there, haven't seen the car in person, thought the tiller steering was interesting

Michael Peternell wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 10, 2021 9:24 pm

Jerry VanOoteghem wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 10, 2021 9:02 pm

I wouldn't take it for free....

A quote from my father. Any f..l can throw sh.t away. No offense. Dad did just fine because of that!

No offense taken. I would usually agree with your dad

Don’t get Ralph started !!

I can't believe no one recognizes this car. It is a 1904 Henweigh. Very rare!!!

Dick C about 6pounds

It was two days ago that I read the entry in Wikipedia on Tom McCahill, the automotive reporter for Mechanics Illustrated Magazine.
McCahill was apparently given an exclusive to be the first automotive journalist to drive the first Chevrolet sub-compact, the Corvair.
McCahill, being a bit portly, gave it absolute rave reviews. McCahill even went so far as to purposely slide the car and flip it over under power. No dice. Mind you, this is one of the first Corvairs built in 1959.
Then, here comes little Ralphie Nader, his "Unsafe At Any Speed" book single handedly slandering the name of the Corvair from coast to coast, eventually forcing Chevrolet to discontinue the Corvair eleven years later and replacing it with a true turd of a car. The Monza.
After all was said and done, it came out that Nader never did possess a license to operate a motor vehicle. He never drove a car in his life, and never even owned a car. However, he did possess one important thing. He was a member of the bar and had the ability to figuratively sell ice cream to Eskimos during February in the middle of a blizzard.
Way to go Ralph! Make more room for sales of the little rear-engined, air cooled car from the land of the Iron Cross. Ach Tung!

That malignant puke couldn't sell me a $5.00 bill for 50 cents, then or now.

modeltspaz wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 11, 2021 8:29 pm

It was two days ago that I read the entry in Wikipedia on Tom McCahill, the automotive reporter for Mechanics Illustrated Magazine.
McCahill was apparently given an exclusive to be the first automotive journalist to drive the first Chevrolet sub-compact, the Corvair.
McCahill, being a bit portly, gave it absolute rave reviews. McCahill even went so far as to purposely slide the car and flip it over under power. No dice. Mind you, this is one of the first Corvairs built in 1959.
Then, here comes little Ralphie Nader, his "Unsafe At Any Speed" book single handedly slandering the name of the Corvair from coast to coast, eventually forcing Chevrolet to discontinue the Corvair eleven years later and replacing it with a true turd of a car. The Monza.
After all was said and done, it came out that Nader never did possess a license to operate a motor vehicle. He never drove a car in his life, and never even owned a car. However, he did possess one important thing. He was a member of the bar and had the ability to figuratively sell ice cream to Eskimos during February in the middle of a blizzard.
Way to go Ralph! Make more room for sales of the little rear-engined, air cooled car from the land of the Iron Cross. Ach Tung!

As long as the thread has already diverged into Ralph Nader…

Few people remember that Ralph wasn’t about to give VW a pass either. But the new book was peddling the same story at a different target and the public had moved on. Additionally, the industry was on to the scheme and pushed back, so the second book had little commercial impact on VW sales. An interesting note, with the primary focus on “hazardous handling” related to the swing axle rear suspension, both manufacturers had resolved those issues by moving on to modern, double jointed independent rear suspensions before their respective books were published, Corvairs for the 1965 model year and VWs with their 1967s.

From Wikipedia:
Small - On Safety: The designed-in dangers of the Volkswagen is a nonfiction book written by the Center for Auto Safety, with an introduction by Ralph Nader. The book looks at the deficiencies in the safety aspects of the vehicles sold by Volkswagen. It was published on September 11, 1972 by Grossman Publishers. The book is based on a study released in September 1971 by the Center entitled The Volkswagen: An Assessment of Distinctive Hazards. The book concluded that "the Volkswagen Beetle is the most hazardous car currently in use in significant numbers in the United States" and that "the VW microbus or van is so unsafe that it should be removed from the roads entirely."
Background
Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile, written by Ralph Nader, was published in 1965 and became a best seller. The book was instrumental in the passage of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966. The Center for Auto Safety was founded in 1970 by Ralph Nader and Consumers Union to continue his work in studying and advocating for automobile safety. The findings from the Center's study on the Volkswagen were not based on any independent testing by the Center but instead were based on tests by other organizations. These included Consumers Union and Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory's Automotive Crash Injury Research Center. The study also looked at complaints by owners and litigation involving accidents.
Findings
The study urged the recall of all Volkswagen vehicles to correct safety defects. Defects noted in all Volkswagens included: faulty door latches, a poorly designed fuel system and gas filler cap, a swing axle suspension combined with the rear engine that caused hazardous handling, weak seatbacks, sensitivity to side winds, and side impact vulnerability. Additional defects noted in the VW bus included poor acceleration, inadequate protection in front end crashes, and frequent horn failure.
Responses
In response to the 1971 study, Volkswagen said that the cars "meet or exceed all safety standards."
The most detailed response to the 1971 study was by Road & Track magazine. In its April 1972 edition, they published an article entitled Ralph Nader vs. Volkswagen, and subtitled An evaluation of 'The Volkswagen: An Assessment of Distinctive Hazards.' The article was written by John Tomerlin, a writer of novels and television scripts. He was also a sports car enthusiast who wrote for Road & Track and Car & Driver magazines. The article concluded that "Ralph Nader [should] observe the 'ethical imperative' to recall the VW Report and publicly retract its inaccuracies."

Eric

Stoned-out hippies drove dilapidated VW buses from heck to the moon and back, and nearly all of them survived. If you have an old Corvair, keep good shocks and tires on it and be aware that the engine is in the back, like a Porsche. Buses are buses, and must be driven accordingly. Today, one rarely sees a hippie bus on the road, but watch out for those Teslas. Some people think the damned things can drive themselves. They can't, and if one of them hits you, it will hurt.

Is it just me, or is anyone else detecting a certain consistency of writing style?

Yes. Its elementary gibberish.