Talk:Ford Model T/Archive 1

Can someone remove the graffiti in recycling

Can someone fix the sentence in the main article... "Henry Ford used wood scraps from the production of vagina"

Done - thanks for your concern... You know that you could have done this too right? Take care... Dinkytown talk 16:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This really should be Ford Model T

This really should be Ford Model T, in my opinion, but I'm unclear how to move it with the redirect page already there, and would be interested in hearing a heads-up if I'm wrong about it in any case. Hephaestos 00:47 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

Cut and paste.

cnn carrying an story that contradicts the facts in this article

 CNN  published this article on Aug 12, 2004

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/06/model.t/index.html

that claims the first model t finished production on aug 12. It also has a lot of facts about ford and the model t that are interesting an would be good to site for this article.

Actually it says that production began on Aug 12; however, both of the links (The Henry Ford Museum established by Henry himself and the Model T Club of America which has monthly production data online) say that it was October. Perhaps a prototype was made in August? Rmhermen 04:31, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Photograph of a Model T suspension

I just happened to have this photograph of the suspension of a Model T but I'm not sure how to integrate it into this article. I'll leave it here in hopes that someone can find something to do with it. Triddle 04:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Done! (nice picture) - Adrian Pingstone 09:17, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's a good photo, but please note that the small coil spring shown is actually an after-market shock absorber, and was not original factory equipment.

Yes, that photo is rather misleading. We should consider revising it with a stock configuration.

Also, note that the car in this photo has its hand-crank in the front, which contradicts the "right side, not in front, as commonly believed" line in the "Engine and means of starting" section.

Carburetion day

I've read the T from 1907 used a Holley Model G carb. Trekphiler 20:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

What 1907 T? They don't exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.174.10 (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal comment

I've called the Boeing 737 a "Tin Lizzie" of jetliners (but never in public), because it shares some symbolism with the Model T: mass manufactured and wildly popular among airlines, with an air of cheapness (at least to the airlines; otherwise they presumably wouldn't be purchasing it en masse). I'd also extend the nickname to the Boeing 727 as well (the previous popularity king). At least the Boeing 727s and 737s aren't all in black! — Rickyrab | Talk 21:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Cranky

I changed the "front crank" to "side crank". The '03 T (all early Ts?) were side-cranks. (I've seen pictures, & it surprised me, too.) This appears to have changed; I don't know when. Trekphiler 11:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed statement - there were no '03 Model T's. It didn't come out until '08. Rmhermen 17:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

References to a side crank in '03 most assuridly referred to the original Model "A" (not the '27 to '31 Car of the same name). The original "A" had the engine under the seat and was indeed cranked from the side. All "T" had the engine in the front and a fron mounted crank as did it's predicessors the Models N, R and S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.64.15 (talk) 20:19, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Concurrent Model T Engine Article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_T_engine

The article on the Model T engine is not linked to from the engine section here. The information is more or less the same, but there are several pictures and notes about changes made over time. I will go ahead and add the link and someone can meld it in later if needed. Decatur 19:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to keep it separate since we have so many articles about Ford engines. --216.49.153.98 19:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Add to article

The windshield (how was it cleared from rain, for example) and convertible top (how was it lowered on sunny days?) should be mentioned in the article. Badagnani 01:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Only if these were official Ford items ... these were the days of coachbuilding and a lot of Ts were supplied just as frame, chassis, engine/drivetrain and any other essential parts, leaving you to put the rest of the car on as you desired... 193.63.174.10 (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalization?

The section "Engine and means of starting" contains the sentence "Before starting a Model T deul fucking power with the hand crank, you had to retard the spark, or you stood a chance of damaging the starter or having the hand crank spin around wildly and break your arm." I think that "deul fucking power" is extraneous (and misspelled.) I attempted to edit the document but did not find the additional text in the text offered for editing. I don't know who to proceed in this case and am alerting the community in hopes that the more knowledgeable will fix this. Mark F. West38.112.183.231 19:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Uhh.. Wow, you really take that seriously, don't you?216.110.199.218 (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

eh em. That's so cool! I never new that Tin Lizzie was a model t ford

24.81.23.167 05:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Barbara

Fuel economy

The article claims 25 to 30 mpg, a figure that I've seen on a number of web sites. However, I'm concerned that people may be just parroting the same inflated number. http://www.modelt.ca/faq-fs.html claims "12-14 miles per US gallon" while http://cbs5.com/seenon/local_story_228191600.html and http://www.energy-group.com/automobiles.htm claim "13 miles per gallon in the city and 21 on the highway". Julesd 17:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the article to say "13-21 mpg" based on Ford's own claim at http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=858. Julesd 17:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Color Black

My history professor stated that the color black was chosen because it was cheap, readily available, and had quicker drying times than other colors (which if your trying to crank these out as fast as possible, your going to choose the color that dries the fastest). The article states it was chosen because it was cheap and "durable". 134.121.182.124 02:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The first model T fords weren't available in black at all.

Quoting the talk page of wikiquote:

"

According to the BBC program QI the quote "People can have the Model T in any color - so long as it's black." OR: "Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black." Was never actually said by Henry Ford or at least there is no evidence he did do.

Luke Corcoran, United Kingdom

Really? I won a table quiz on that quote as a kid. I'm disillusioned.

• He did say this; the quote is from his autobiography. Incidentally, the spelling of colour with a 'u' is intentional. Despite being an American, that is how it is spelled in his autobiography. 137.201.242.130 14:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think the point being made in QI was that, whether or not Henry Ford said it, it was untrue - early Model T Fords were not black. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Exactly -- he generated this quip after the more fully adopting the assembly line. After he realized that drying paint took the longest of any step, he had his factory switch to the fastest drying paint they could find, which, of course, was black. --JamesDMurray 14:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"

82.10.108.49 (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Black box

I saw a TV show once that talked about a strange part that was included in an early Ford Model (I think it was the T and I think it was a black box) that no one seemed to know the purpose of. The show was about a superstition that this black box made the car a death machine, that it somehow controlled the car to some extent and caused wrecks. I'm not suggesting we include info on this urban legend in this article, I'm just curious and wondering if anyone here knows anything about this. Callowschoolboy 22:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The idea that the box existed for this purpose is clearly nonsense. The technology of the day wasn't up to doing that kind of thing. Whatever the box was would have had to connect into some major subsystems (brakes, steering...something like that) and the mechanics of the day would certainly have figured it out. These weren't like modern times when you took your car to the dealership to get it fixed. You fixed it yourself - or you found a local mechanic to fix it. In any case, all of the people who are restoring Model T's, we'd have long ago discovered what this mysterious box was for. So at best it was an urban legend of the times. Do you have any references for the fact that people believed it? If not, there is nothing more to be said. SteveBaker (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The things that most of these supernatural TV shows come up with are complete bunk and they're just looking for cheap ways to fill 23 minutes plus ads... you'd be better off watching the X-Files. You said it yourself - "superstition". It was probably part of the ignition system or whatever ... a black box that an uneducated person driving the car and maybe doing more basic maintenance would spot, and think... "what's that?". Perhaps the wires weren't immediately visible. They may or may not then find out what it is, but use this as the basis of a scary story for their kids, and then onwards it grows. There's an awful lot of nonsense talked re: cars, superstitions, manufacturers and unnatural goings-on on the road. It's more likely to have been made up either by drunks and drug users, or outside observers in the early days of motoring surprised at the high attrition/injury/death rate that we now take for granted, looking for a way to explain away yet another awful smash. 193.63.174.10 (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Curved Dash Oldsmobile

As I understand it, the Curved Dash Oldsmobile was the first automobile produced in volume, but it was not built on an assembly line. Ford pioneered the use of the assembly line for the Model T. Even the Ford Model N, for example, was "mass produced", however, not using an assembly line and in substantially small numbers as a result.Andyjwagner (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oddly the Oldsmobile article claims the opposite to this. I think Ford pioneered instead the semi-automated (overhead conveyors etc, running at a constant speed) and division-of-labour (as opposed to a team of workers "walking" the car thru the factory as it came together) assembly line. Maybe more accurate to say that he brought these things together, with automated production for smaller items already being commonplace, as was division of labour in some industries (Pin Manufacturing by way of Adam Smith, 1723-1790 if the £20 note in my wallet is to be believed); and Olds having come up with the early form of the production line idea for cars (i.e. the idea that they could be mass produced commodities, rather than hand-crafted toys for the gentry), and it was this crucial combination that allowed his company to throw these reasonably large, advanced vehicles together at great speed, and at a cost more suited to a gentlewoman's runabout. 193.63.174.10 (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"Historic year"

I'm a bit confused. If the Model T was produced from 1908 onwards, why/how did it set 1907 as "the historic year that the automobile came into popular usage" (as claimed in the opening paragraph)? DH85868993 (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That year was wrong. This article seems to be a frequent target for vandalism that changes the year from 1908 to 1907. Very subtle. 1908 is the correct year for both production and coming into popular usage. --clpo13_(talk) 06:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 06:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Location of he speed selector/Hand brake

It say in the article that the lever is on the left of the Driver's seat yet on BBC's top gear Jeremy Clarkson drove a right hand drive (That wheel on the right side of the car) Model T with the lever clear visable on his right between the seat and the door. I've changed the wording to 'road side' to reflect this. i also removed 'so the Model T was somewhat like a modern automatic transmission vehicle to drive.' because it was in no way like a modern Automatic, the point was in reference to its lack of a cluth, it still required the opperation of a gear stick making it if anything simillar to Triptonic. (Morcus (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.52.246 (talk) 03:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It's better really to state that it's very, very unlike any modern car to drive, regardless of that car's gear system. The Top Gear segment in question was actually where he and James were conducting a survey of historical vehicles to find out which was the first with a "modern" control layout. The T had an advantage in having both a steering wheel (albeit with a go-kart style "direct" connection, and didn't pioneer it in the slightest) and a pair of controls that could pass for "footbrake" (in an unusual place) and "handbrake" (with an element of gearshift thrown in) ... but otherwise it was very alien, barely much better than the DeDeon Bouton they'd tried immediately beforehand (the eventual winner was a mid-20s Cadillac, plus the cheap Austin that copied it and was itself endlessly cloned).

A driver used to a modern day layout would be completely flummoxed without a half hour of tuition and practice beforehand. Three positions on the handbrake? Two pedals that act as combined clutch and gear selector, one of them moving both up and down from a central position? Brake pedal on the right? Throttle - and most confusingly of all, ignition advance - on the steering wheel? Choke sticking out from the radiator (and there's enough young drivers now that wouldn't even know what the choke is; I've never driven a car with one, only been a school-age passenger)? Requirement to reverse up steep hills :D? Etc...

(Oh yeah, and it's NOT an automatic - it's an epicyclic manual...) 193.63.174.10 (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Man in black

" However, this theory is not supported by fact, and the earliest Model Ts were not available in black at all." IIRC, Georgano supports it with facts. And it's not "the earliest Model Ts" where black became standard, but the mass-production 1914-26s, which were unquestionably all in black, probably for the stated reasons, durability, cost, & fast-drying. I'd suggest fast-drying was the decider, since the cars were coming off the line every 93m; if the paint didn't dry pretty fast... Trekphiler (talk) 07:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The claim is that black paint was not faster drying than other colors but that the switch to black only speeded production by eliminating changeover times in the paint shop. Rmhermen (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That, too. Trekphiler (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"black was chosen because it was cheap and it was durable." Revisiting the issue, I'd say there's some clarification needed. It's not black as a color that's important, it's the formulation (Japan black, specifically, IIRC) that was "cheap and durable". TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 12:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

By the numbers

Does anybody have total production figures for after 1915, by year? I think they'd be of interest. Trekphiler (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

First Car

I don't see any thing mentioning that Henry Ford invented the automobile, and that the Model T was the world's first car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.186.56 (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That's because Henry Ford didn't invent the first automobile and the Model T wasn't the world's first car. Henry Ford is considered to have invented the manufacturing assembly line, while the Duryea brothers are credited with being the creators of the first gasoline-powered automobile in the US in 1893, three years before Ford created his first automobile and a full fifteen years before the Model T was produced. Even still, the Duryea brothers' efforts were 124 years after Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot invented what many consider to be the first self-propelled mechanical vehicle in 1769. Since I'm sure you're not the only one who thinks that Ford invented the first automobile, and the Model T was the world's first car, perhaps there should be a section addressing this myth. Skiguy330 (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about?! Henry Ford did invent the first automobile, the Model T. USA! USA! USA! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.186.56 (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't cite Cugnot too readily; there's doubt his trike actually ran. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 22:55 22:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

WHAT OF BENZ AND DAIMLER FOR CRYIN' OUT LOUD? Mid 1880s with concurrent developments of the first practical internal combustion engines (4 and 2 stroke respectively) and a couple of example vehicles (a trike and some kind of tramcar-like thing) to show them off in? Sorry guys, the Europeans got the drop on you SO hard, you'd do well to stop pretending any of you "invented" the car. And if you persist, I'll have to drop Trevithick & Stevenson's steam coaches on you, which would have brought on the same sort of revolutions about 50 years earlier in a wetter, hissier manner if only the roads were a bit smoother and the governments of the day (esp. the British one) hadn't got their panties in a bunch and more-or-less banned them (and the drivers had been less careless in making sure the fires were damped down when stopping off at the inn...) 193.63.174.10 (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather say that its the first SUV since its geometry is similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boxstaa (talk • contribs) 01:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Pricepoint.com?

"competing cars often cost $2000-$3000"? That's the conventional wisdom; Clymer (Treasury of Early American Automobiles, 1877-1925 {New York: Bonanza Books, 1950} mentions several contemporary cars under the T's starting $850, including (but not only) the Oldsmobile Runabout at US$650 (p.32), Western's Gale Model A at US$500 (p.51), the Brush Runabout at US$485 (p.104), the Black went for as low as $375 (p.61), and the Success at the amazingly low US$250 (p.32), to name just a few. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 01:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You couldn't really call any of those "competing" cars, though, could you? The Brush comes closest, but it still has half the engine power and half the available seating (yes, I know all the bodies were coachbuilt anyway, but if nothing else it has a distinctly shorter wheelbase and the only pictures I can find are 2-seaters). Next closest is the Black, which is a flippin' "high wheeler" (ie it looks like a pioneer wagon) and was more or less extinct for that reason by the time the T came on sale. Both of those struggle or fail to hit 30mph when the T can reliably do more than 40. The rest aren't even in the same ballpark - low single figure horsepower (the Black has a sub-200cc engine!), diminutive and often coach-derived bodies, it's like comparing a golf buggy (or more appropriately, a Piaggio Ape) to a daily driver hatchback. The buggy (or ape) is cheaper, to be sure, and if you really, REALLY need an all-new vehicle at the cheapest possible price it's the one to go for... but it's not a same-bracket competitor to even the most modest "real car", even the Tata Nano. You'd really posit the very-nearly-19th-century (tiller steering! open front!) Curved-Dash Olds as rival to the Model T, basis in some forms (with an unmodified engine and basic frame) to 6-seater station wagons, speedsters or ton-trucks? 193.63.174.10 (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

EDIT --- see much further above, where the rest of the quote you've cherry picked from then goes on to say how the ORIGINAL $850 asking price eventually dropped to $300. Of course it wasn't going to be at its cheapest at the start of production, when they've just spent time designing it then had to shell out for a brand new, innovative factory... Pretty much all of the other cars you mention were established and even somewhat out-of-date designs. 193.63.174.10 (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Twisting axles?

Under the section "Suspension and Wheels", what does the following sentence mean?

"Ford twisted many axles eight times and sent them to dealers to be put on display to demonstrate its superiority"

I am having trouble trying to understand what this means, especially in what way the axles were twisted and why specifically eight times? Maybe it's my thick skull but this seems very unclear.

Thanks Sbreheny (talk) 02:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not just you. It definitely needs clarifying. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 23:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It was to demonstrate the strength and flexibility of his vanadium steel parts (such as you find used in a lot of hard-wearing workshop tools). Competing axles from other manufacturers would have either buckled and sheared (mild steel) or just cracked and snapped (harder, brittle carbon steel). Of course, you're never going to put a real axle under that kind of insane pressure, but early roads and suspension systems were bad, and the engines may not have had much power but they certainly had big gobbets of torque - and low gearing. This ability to stand up to torsional strain afforded - going by the claims at least - the ford parts much more durability in the face of conditions that would lead parts made of the competing materials to either deform until they became useless, or succumb to metal fatigue and break apart a lot earlier. (Tin liz parts WOULD still break down, but it would need much more repeats of the same force; and the twisting demo likely also had a secondary purpose in "it can get this screwed up and still be sort-of-functional"... yknow, just in case you're stuck miles from anywhere and have just damn near buckled the axle trying to get out of a bad rut)

'course I don't have any source for this right now, I just remember reading it quite some time back, so I'm afraid I haven't anything I can put in the article without it being flagged both for NPOV *AND* OR. I'm neither pro- nor anti-ford on this particular point - this is the facts of the company's little marketing exercise as they were presented to me by someone else. 193.63.174.10 (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

It seems the "Criticism" section, based only on Time/Neil, isn't really focussed on Ford Model T. The critique is about the proliferation of automobiles. A relevant criticism, might be what people said against it, at the time, usually in reference to other available options. It's like including a critique of a specific film, by somebody who thinks film is a bad thing in general. For something less famous, anything written by Time would be considered noteworthy, but surely for the Model T, there's some more noteworthy criticisms, that belong, instead of this. It's also inappropriate to have such a critique, blaming wars on it, without any counter balance. But, giving balance to it, would risk sending the article off the main topic. If we do keep it, I don't see where it said anything about the Middle East (beyond a vague reference to sand under soldiers' feet). --Rob (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Concur: I would tend to agree. It seems out of place, overly general, and not really particularly relevant to the article. I would prefer to have the criticisms of the mechanical elements rolled into relevant parts of the article, and have any automobile-targeted criticism migrated out of the article. If it is kept as a separate section, the material not specific to the Model T should be removed. Jo7hs2 (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed: An editor has removed the section in question per this discussion. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Racing history - new section?

I see that the Model T has just been added to the cat for Le Mans cars. I'd raise an eyebrow at that, and would suggest that it needs further expansion. AFAIK, no Model T never ran at Le Mans. The nearest was the Belgian Charles Montier (there's one of my Six famous Belgians) who used a Model T as the basis for a majorly different special that did run at Le Mans in (I think) the first 3 years (1923 - 1925). So the cat isn't wrong, but it is somewhat misleading without explanation (or else a stock Model T that I'm unaware of).

Did the Model T have any other notable involvement with motor racing? Do we have enough to add a new section to cover it? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The T didn't directly, but the T block was the basis for a lot of hot rod & midget racing engines in the '30s & '40s, & inspired work by (just to name a couple) Vic Edelbrock & Ed Iskenderian. Without the T, IMO there wouldn't have been midget racing, or hot rodding, as we know it. Is it worth a new section? Absolutely. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 01:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of "Tin Lizzie"

Why did people name it Tin Lizzie? Where the steel sheets covered with tin in that time? Did this provide a reasonable protection from rust? Why Lizzie? It was just a common surname for someone helping in the house? And why Model "T"? Counted from Model A to T, while there where many different evolutions, all sticking to the name "Model T"? --Traut (talk) 07:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, but it seems most likely to me that it was a jocular reference to the fact that the Model T was replacing horses. It is easy to forget now, but at the time, motor cars, motor trucks, and tractors were just starting to cause the horse to disappear from everyone's daily life as a means of motive power for transportation and farming. Every farmer or carriage driver had his "Old Dobbin" or "Old Bessie" (referring to his horse). When he got his "Tin Lizzie", he had joined the ranks of mechanization. The "Tin" doesn't necessarily refer seriously and literally to what finish the T's body panels had. If you jocularly referred to a submarine as "this old tin can", you wouldn't be speaking literally. As for your final question, I don't understand what you're saying there. — ¾-10 04:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If you owned a Model T you would know that the fenders flap and the car rattles and squeaks a lot. Thus the tin part. Lizzie was a slang term of the time for a faithful servant girl. Thus the term tin lizzie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.192.174 (talk) 04:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Urban myth or truth? Crates as body parts

The following Wikipedia paragraph is now all over the Internet, quoting Wikipedia as the authority. What is more difficult to find is any certainty of its truth. Some specialist forums [1] suggest this may be a myth, and there is a specific reference where the first writer asks "In all the years I have been involved with T's, I have heard that Henry used the boxes from suppliers for the fabrication of the floorboards in the T's." and one of the answers states "Trent put this tale to bed as an old wives tale many years ago." where Trent appears to be a university historian. I have emailed the most likely Trent tonight. In the absence of factual reference, I have flagged the entry accordingly. Also, I suggest that writing "He specified..." should be replaced with "Henry Ford specified", noting that it is unlikely that Mr. Ford disassembled crates. Sloppy writing, but I'll leave it alone for now, as the whole thing may need to be rewritten as a myth.

"He specified how to make the wood crates that outside suppliers used to ship him parts. Then he disassembled the crates and used the preformed wood pieces in the bodies of his cars. He also used wood scraps to make charcoal and sold it under the brand name Kingsford, still a leading brand of charcoal." —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClassicalScholar (talk • contribs) 06:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Can't say where from offhand, but I've seen it in a published source, so, hard to believe, but true. (Providing the source isn't wrong....) Henry seems to've insisted on economies everywhere, so I wouldn't be surprised. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 13:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The latest research in Ford's archives hasn't found any mention of crate material used for any part of the vehicle itself. Perhaps Ford used the material for other transports within the Ford organisation - he was good at eliminating waste, so that would be in character. But the floorboards were most likely never made out of crates. Reference: the MTFCA forum during ten years (full of experts including McCalley) and Bruce McCalley's Model T Encyclopedia (1994). Hepcat65 (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Was the Model T engine small for it's time?

I edited out the "small" before the specifications of the engine, since a 2.9 l four cylinder engine isn't small by any measure - it was soon reverted to "small for its time". Well, that depends on what time (1909 or 1927?) or what kind of competition you are comparing the T to. There were smaller & cheaper cars in 1908 - the predecessor Ford model NRS was smaller, cheaper & lighter - & there were lots of other cars much heavier & more expensive - but there were also cars in about the same weight & size class, like the Flanders "20" & the Buick model 10. Flanders had a 155 cui 4-cylinder engine & the Buick had a 166 cu i 4-cylinder engine - both smaller than Fords. About the mid 20's there were other cars in the same segment, like Chevrolet & Durant Star. The Chevy had a 171 cui 4-cylinder engine & the Star had a 130 cui four. Now, will you agree Ford's engine displacement wasn't particularily small (or big) for its time & competition. It was the class leader everybody looked at.

Though, I think I know what you're at: Ford, in their early advertising used to point to their cars *lightness* compared to luxury cars like the big Buicks & Cadillacs, sometimes giving the Ford a lead in racing on bad roads, the heavier cars got stuck in the mud. So the Ford was a light car with an engine of average displacement for its class. Hepcat65 (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking of the 6 liters I've seen mentioned, & the up to 20 liter monsters that seemed pretty common in Europe. Having seen your comparo, tho, I'd say, if you can source any of those, put in a couple or four for contrast. It's widely believed the T was always the cheapest thing on the market, but wasn't; the displacement comparo will also offer some sense of "period" & context, & of the competition the T faced. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Put it on Diner's Club

To be clear, IMO fn aren't limited to refs, & can legitimately include info that doesn't belong even parenthetically. (I've had such info deleted elsewhere, too...) Also, it's connected to Ford's effort to encourage sales, so not OT. Any strong objections? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand each of the words you wrote except fn, but still don't get what you are proposing?? Can you elaborate, please? Hepcat65 (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Ireland <==> United Kingdom

Can this controversy be discussed and then ended for once and for good? For me, Cork is in Ireland, even if Ireland was a part of the United Kingdom at the time of Ford T production. But most of all, I am annoyed by changes and changes back without any discussion, let alone a concensus. Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a place for explaining some geographical locations to new readers, not for arguing politics. Ireland / England is by far the more useful description, not UK/UK. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed: This becomes more a history of UK politics than present locations of the T production. I'm also suspecting that all this heat is generated by one person via sock-puppetry. No registered user (that I found), all single-issue unregistered users. Maybe semi-protection is in order... Dinkytown talk 17:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and I would add that we could just say something like, "... in Cork, Ireland (part of the UK at the time)." Then no one could cobble together any excuse for messing with it ever again—even users who are ignorant of WP talk pages. — ¾-10 02:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with ¾-10. That solution is simplest & least contentious, & has the benefit of adressing the ignorance of those (such as myself ;p) who don't keep track of which parts of Ireland are, & aren't, in UK. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"Ireland (part of the UK at the time)"

8-( I can't think of a worse edit, or one more likely to escalate this into a left-foooted arse-kicking contest. Now it's a Ford car, so we're going to have American involvement in the article, but there's no reason to put in a piece of text so incredibly ignorant or provocative. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"Left-footed arse-kicking contest?" Why have rules at all? How about "... in Cork, Ireland (member of the UK at the time)." (bold mine) ..egh, we have more Irish here in America, than across the pond in Ireland. Hasn't anyone heard of Kennedy over there? Dinkytown talk 17:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Andy, it didn't occur to me that it could be interpreted as insulting, but I guess you're right. I'm an American and would not take the slightest offense to a phrase like "...Charleston, South Carolina, USA (a colony of England at the time)". However, we ought to be able to cobble together some string of words in the English language that can express the intended idea in a neutral way. — ¾-10 23:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, nor me either. (Canadian....) Find me a mirror? :( :( TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I am agreebly surprised with the amount of support I got, I feel a tendency towards political correctness that I find _in_this_case_ counterproductive. We are discussing a synopsis table, after all, and the first aim should be to be concise. Therefore, it is Cork, Ireland for me and not a single iota more. Actually I am even unhappy with the Walkerville, Ontario (now part of Windsor, Ontario); for me it could even be Walkerville, Canada. But as I live a long way off, and am not acquainted neither with the place's history nor with the local subtleties, I'll leave this to others. Jan olieslagers (talk) 05:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Originator of the basic idea

The basic idea of Model T (together with assembly line) was invented by József Galamb. He was the originator of the basic idea. Henry Ford, Childe Harold Wills and E. Farkas were just co-desigers who engineered the system. It must be mentioned in the article.

Source? ^Jguy_Talk^Done 16:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=28540

It is well known, that assembly line and the idea of model T was Galamb's first work at Ford Company. Others were engineers of Model T, he was the originator. Moreover that time he was the chief designer (the second man in the company after the owner H.Ford) of the Ford Company. http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/ford.htm http://www.omikk.bme.hu/archivum/angol/htm/galamb_j.htm

In those sources, I see that Galamb was a co-designer, I see no mention that Galamb invented the assembly line or even the full design of the Model T, only the cooling system, gearbox and ignition device. The metion that Galamb was connected to the model T is noteworthy though. I'll fit it in to the article tonight if it already isn't done when I get back from celebrating Thanksgiving here in the US. Thanks! ^Jguy_Talk^Done 17:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

PS: Please make sure you sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~)

Ah, I see you already did that. I'll source your addition, though. Thanks! ^Jguy_Talk^Done 17:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/ford.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.36.77.103 (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

http://books.google.hu/books?id=GONRMmAZRz4C&pg=PA124&lpg=PA124&dq=blackboard+galamb&source=bl&ots=qGtfzw3vqw&sig=vVxkMADFnhKrwZX1JOcQ90glBcI&hl=hu&ei=87TuTIvjJI3KswbLr6yeCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2009/4/2009_4_36_print.shtml

http://www.thehenryford.org/education/erb/From%20the%20Curators%20Henry%20Ford%20and%20Innovation.pdf

http://www.fordmotorhistory.com/history/model-t.php

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel3/4825/13329/00608050.pdf?arnumber=608050 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.36.77.103 (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

" By March, 1908, we were ready to announce Model T, but not to produce it, On October 1 of that year the first car was introduced to the public. From Joe Galamb's little room on the third floor had come a revolutionary vehicle. In the next eighteen years, out of Piquette Avenue, Highland Park, River Rouge, and from assembly plants all over the United States came 15,000,000 more."

http://www.u3acastlemaine.com/dabbling_in_history_group/HENRY_FORD_CHANGES_THE_WORLD.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.36.77.103 (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

(this is transposed from my talk page, so that others can partake in the discussion.)

I'm not trying to argue with you. But the fact that the most known icon for the Assembly line has always been Henry Ford. I don't see anything in any of these references that says that Galamb was the sole person to invent the Model T, the production/assembly line.

"There, draftsman Joseph Galanib set up blackboards and a drafting table to convert the design ideas of Henry Ford and his chief engineer Childe Harold Wills into blueprints."

"Early in 1907 Ford ordered the construction of a room in the northeast corner of the Piquette Avenue plant’s third floor, behind whose padlocked door he installed Joe Galamb and his drafting table. Besides Galamb, only a handful of people had access to the room: Wills, machinist C. J. Smith, Ford himself and his 14-year¬old son, Edsel, and perhaps Sorensen. Together they created the Model T in that room."

It may have been born on Galamb's blackboard, but lots of men had a hand in designing, building and selling the Model T, not just Henry Ford, or not just Galamb. Same with the assembly line....In MANY sources too numerous to list, Henry Ford was the main designer of the assembly line, please see pg. 10 of your provided source: http://www.thehenryford.org/education/erb/From%20the%20Curators%20Henry%20Ford%20and%20Innovation.pdf

I'm not saying that Galamb had nothing to do with the design, production, construction or sales of the Model T, but he was not the only one that did it. ^Jguy_Talk^Done 19:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

As for giving credit, where does it stop? With the packing plant guys who did it before that? How about the wagon builders in the 1860s who used interchangeable parts, or the bicycle manufacturers before that, or Oliver Evans, who conceived something like it around 1810? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I propose merging the article Ford Model TT with this article. The TT article consists of only a single paragraph and a list of production statistics. Since the TT was in essence a heavy-duty T, I think that information should be included in this article. --Brendanmccabe (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No objection. Merging TT into this article seems reasonable to me. It could always be spun off again at such time as anyone was really going to build a substantial article about the TT. Under WP:SUMMARY, it's reasonable to merge stuff into one article when the content is small, and consider splitting later if/when the content grows enough to justify it. — ¾-10 20:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Weak oppose Model T is a fairly large article already, sufficient to justify a separate articvle on its engine alone. It should contain a paragraph and a more... section on the Model TT, but anything more than this, especially to the detail of a production list, would be WP:UNDUE. There's no good need to merge these, there's some reason not to. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Weak oppose This doesn't seem necessary, as when researchers want to look up just Model TT automobiles, they would have to look through the, as already stated, "fairly large article" of the Model T. A better suggestion would be for people to add more on the Model TT, if possible. DSWiiLOrd1o1 (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)]

• Oppose The TT was a one-ton, & different enough Ford decided to rename. Leave it at that. So it's stubby: add to it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose' Expand the TT article. The T article is larger enough already and I'm sure the TT can equally have as large an article. Dinkytown talk 03:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: I have had a look at both articles and the TT is small and needs detail, but the T has no sub model sections in it. I think I would open the floodgates if the pages were to be merged. IMO. Starfleet Academy "Live long and prosper." 02:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Consensus came out as "keep as-is". I'm gonna go remove the tags. — ¾-10 00:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

DEC PDP-11

• by the time Henry made his 10 millionth car, 50 percent of all cars in the world were Fords.

Wasn't there a time when the most common computer in use in the world was a PDP-11? --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The same can be said for many other high tech devices but the average reader probably won't relate to them. Also, the PDP-11 was hot in the 1970s - well after the pioneering computers of the 1940/1950s. The PDP-11 would compare better to a Model A - but the average reader still wouldn't relate to it.  Stepho  talk  04:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

D'uh - of course ! Rcbutcher (talk) 05:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

How many wheels ?

Some images show 4 wheels, other show 3, but there is no explanation. ?? Rcbutcher (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Always four wheels - one at each corner of the car. If you can only see three then the fourth is the furthest away from you and is hidden by the body of the car.  Stepho  talk  00:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

D'uh - of course, it's obvious now ! Rcbutcher (talk) 05:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Fuel economy units

Since km/L is a unit rarely (if ever?) used, I've converted it and changed it to L/100km manually. If anyone can work out how to put it into a template please do so. ozkidzez91 (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You mean like this: {{convert|13|-|21|mpgus|mpgimp L/100 km|abbr=on}} 13–21 mpg_‑US (16–25 mpg_‑imp; 18–11 L/100 km)? Which does produce a kind of odd L/100km range, doesn't it...? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Please review the 3rd paragraph of the introductory text

Ref paragraph 3 of the introductory text...

The 2nd sentence and the last sentence shown below regarding the Model A, is what is confusing me. Sentence 2 says the Model A was the first model, but then the last sentence shown below states the Model A was a "follow-up".

"There were several cars produced or prototyped by Henry Ford from the founding of the company in 1903 until the Model T came along. Although he started with the Model A, there were not 19 production models (A through T); some were only prototypes. The production model immediately before the Model T was the Model S,[6] an upgraded version of the company's largest success to that point, the Model N. The follow-up was the Ford Model A and not the Model U." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.248.6 (talk) 10:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The key is the next sentence after your quote; "Company publicity said this was because the new car was such a departure from the old that Henry wanted to start all over again with the letter A". So, there were two Model A's. The timeline at the bottom of the page (click on show) shows this: Model A/AC • Model B • Model C • Model F • Model K • Model N • Model R • Model S • Model T • Model TT • Model A • Model AA.  Stepho  talk  10:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what Stepho said. I am pasting the links here so you can click through (if you didn't already click through from the article):

Ford Model A (1903–1904)

Ford Model A (1927–1931) (this is usually the one that people are talking about when they say "Ford Model A"—there were way more of these than the original Model A)

Hope this helps. — ¾-10 00:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Talking about model years in 1909 is misleading

It's somewhat anachronous to try to assign "model years" to Model T, especially when it comes to saying that one built in autumn 1908 was a 1909 model-year car. That's almost nonsensical, because the concept of model years is based largely (albeit not entirely) on the concept of the annual model change. And the annual model change did not exist in 1908, or 1909, or even 1918. A Model T built in 1909 was not a model 1909 car; it was a Model T. And so was one built in 1915. They were both the same model, nominally. Even though it is true that some design changes had (actually) occurred, the model was still nominally (i.e., in name) the same model. In other words, the "same" model (nominally), with quote marks. I am going to tweak the article to make clear that assigning "model years" to model Ts is something that people (such as collectors) went back and did retroactively. — ¾-10 16:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

That's no more "misleading" than saying a '56 or a '70 Type 1 are "models". Changes were made in materials & parts. They weren't dead identical year to year even among Model Ts. Beyond that, if you're going to use production year, "1909 model" or "1915 model" is still apt, since they were built in different years... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:00 & 01:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

left or right cranking

The article says that that choke is controlled by the left hand while the crank handle is turned by the left hand. A recent change (not by me) to make the choke done by the right hand was reverted. Does anybody know which hand was typically used for each function? If we don't know then perhaps we should remove the mention of which hand was used - better than requiring two left hands.  Stepho  talk  22:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This wasn't unique to the the Model T. Other engines and cars also had choke or (more commonly) ignition timing controls arranged for use during the first cranking strokes before the engine fires. For small single-cylinder diesel stationary engines in the 1930s, there would be a decompressor lever that made hand cranking easier. Such levers were arranged to be worked by the left hand. As most people are right handed, engines were started by a right hander turning clockwise, so as to be pulling upwards nearest to the body (as the adductor muscles of the arm are stronger than the abductor muscles). Even left handers crank right-handed, as it's very difficult (and dangerous) to start an engine by cranking it with the "other" hand. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra details Andy. I take it then, that the crank is turned with the right hand (requiring a fix to the article) and the choke is operated by the left hand (in agreement with the article).  Stepho  talk  23:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy's quite right on all points. Regarding the choke, as well as any compression releases and spark timing advances, and the question of what hand is used, it's often/usually the case that this need not be done at the exact same moment as the cranking itself. So, for example, the operator will usually work those controls (with whatever hand), then crank, then work them again as soon as the engine starts running. On many machines (car, truck, tractor), you actually can't reach them all simultaneously, or at least you wouldn't want to. — ¾-10 00:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of jury-rigged tractors, and the like, where a control has been extended to the cranking position with a length of fence wire, so that you can start them single-handed.

The Field-Marshall tractor had a nice gadget. A single-cylinder Diesel, it could be started by either hand-cranking or a smokeless powder power cartridge. The decompressor lever had a roller on the end that was placed, before starting, in a spiral groove on the flywheel. You cranked it over and the first few turns allowed the flywheel to come up to speed, as the decompressor dropped out it would begin to fire. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that was a clever one. Speaking of tractors, I like the ones whose flywheel served as the crank. You gave the wheel a pull and then hoped that you won the lucky prize (of a start on the first pull). Kind of like roulette. Regarding controls rigged by the users themselves: some of them were so smart that I imagine some salesmen in the field, upon seeing them, must have cursed the company for not providing that feature from the factory, as a selling point. — ¾-10 23:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

ENGVAR Tag

Being tht the article already extensively used the spelling "color", and being that this is a quintessentially American product (designed by a US company, built primarily in the US, and an utterly fundamental part of Americana), I changed the tag above to the far more appropriate American English one, following the idea at WP:TIES. Frankly, the idea of the article on the car the launched the automobile age in the United States being written in British English is offensive. And, as I already noted, it already wasn't. oknazevad (talk) 04:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

So now the Model T is now extinct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.18.80.18 (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Flivver

Why was this car called a "flivver"? It doesn't appear to be addressed in the article. PogoStick5645 (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)