MTFCA Forum

I believe this bracket was use for other years, but you decide. RV and I were working on this project before his death. RIP Randall. There is a photo of an incorrect repro bracket for comparison.

Here's a 1915 bracket. It's a simplified one piece fitting.

On my 1914 the reed is close to the bulb. Should it be closer to the firewall?

Larry, here is a picture of the original on my 1910 and the one on my 13 which I believe also to be original to the car.

This is the one on my 1909, which I’m pretty sure is original.

One more from an unknown car that is original.

Thanks for posting Kim. The originals are all silver soldered at the ends. The repops not only look incorrect, they come apart easily. It's a better idea when reproducing a part to do it correctly.

-
Here are two photographs of two different original spare horn-tube-brackets in Larry’s collection placed next to the reproduction that is available from suppliers today.

It has been my experience, now with two, with these “reproductions” that they break after a few hundred miles of touring there at the post-to-mountingplate connection. Our permanent solution to prevent this from continuing is to drill and tap a hidden screw from underneath the concave mounting plate out into the post and then reinforce that joint with a machine screw. As seen in photo #3
-

P On my 1914 the reed is close to the bulb. Should it be closer to the firewall?

Marty Bufalini wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 17, 2022 5:59 pm

P On my 1914 the reed is close to the bulb. Should it be closer to the firewall?

The “reed” needs to be at the bulb because the reed requires maximum air pressure. Placing the reed at the horn end creates a problem because the air over the length of the hose cannot be compressed to a pressure necessary to create a solid HONK.

The point I always try to make on my posts is, if you are going to reproduce a part, why not do it correctly in the first place? it irritates me to no end!
Many years ago, because I was unable to find correct parts for a T I was working on. I then secured original parts, and had them reproduced exactly. It blossomed, with the help of a long time friend, we built the business into a successful one. After 20 years, I let my partner take over my part of the business, and he is still at it. Our motto was, if it isn't as good a Ford made it, we won't sell it.

If the repro has lead solder as it appears, it cannot help but break. That should be a silver soldered joint and if it was, it would be invisible and nearly indestructible.

Why is the repro spindle "standout" so long? The repro is nearly twice the length of the original. Twice the leverage purchase requires nearly four times the strength in the base connections! That long standout coupled with a weak connection in the base HAS to break!
If I were going to use one? The first thing I would do would be to cut the spindle down to a near correct length. Then I would consider altering the base piece and welding it to the spindle.

North south
Thanks

The current horn tube brackets were reproduced in the early 60's by Sheldon Greenland. I would think after 50 years, an improvement would have been made. But it doesn't look like it!

Photos of the originals show them to have both stem and bracket easily twice as heavy as the reproduction currently available. Logic would seem to indicate that the leverage and stress the part needs to bear, it would follow that soft solder would soon fail - which it does. I have never understood why so many "reproductions" are not truly reproduced as original. They are like movie props - close enough for the casual observer, but not intended for actual service.

A round of applause and appreciation for those suppliers who endeavor to provide us with reproduction items that are true to the originals in every respect !

Rich, thanks for your thoughts. It looks like we agree on reproduction parts made incorrectly! There is no excuse for it.