| std1940 | -- 01-15-2011 @ 7:32 AM |
|
I am looking for original pricing information for the 1940 ford car line and options including accessories. The ideal solution would be an original new car sales invoice or a copy for 1940 std coupe-5w 01A-77A Thanks Tom.
|
|
| supereal | -- 01-15-2011 @ 9:56 AM |
|
Tom: My books list the 77-A 3 passenger coupe price as $660. In all, 33,693 were sold. It was the least expensive Ford car that year, and many were sold for fleet use. In almost all cases, accessories, (radio, heater, etc), were dealer installed options, and did not appear in factory invoicing.
|
|
| kubes40 | -- 01-15-2011 @ 12:59 PM |
|
Hi Tom, A 5 window coupe? What model are you referring to exactly? Package tray car I assume? What options? Let me know and I will see what documents I have here. mike
|
|
| std1940 | -- 01-15-2011 @ 1:03 PM |
|
Supereal: Thanks for that info. What books did you find that information? Thanks Tom.
|
|
| std1940 | -- 01-15-2011 @ 1:39 PM |
|
Hi MIke, I have 1940 5-window coupe 01A-77A with package tray . Accessories: wheel trim rings, single ford script wide whitewalls,oil bath air cleaner,locking gas cap and spare tire lock. Thanks Tom. This message was edited by std1940 on 1-15-11 @ 2:16 PM
|
|
| kubes40 | -- 01-15-2011 @ 3:13 PM |
|
Hi Tom, Super was correct in suggesting the retail price of you car was $660if it is an 85HP equipped vehicle. 60HP cars were a tad cheaper and the Merc (95HP) equipped cars, a tad more. The dealer would have paid approximately $520 for this (85HP)vehicle. Realize please that was the suggested retail price. Dealers then, as today, discounted the prices and when the opportunity presented itself, increased them as well. The accessories you mention... well, the oil bath air cleaner was an authorized option with a suggested retail price of $3.75. The outer trim rings were also an authorized accessory. A set of five had a suggested price of $6.75. Locking gas cap? Authorized with a suggested retail price of $1.25. All of these could have been installed at the factory OR the dealership. Single whitewalls were not available until VERY late (June, 1940) in the model year so it is perhaps a moot point to offer a suggested price for these. Prior to that date, only black wall and double white wall tires were available. I can provide a price for these if you desire. 85HP car? Spare tire locks were never an authorized option on any 1940 Ford passenger car - only commercial vehicles. I suppose the possibility exists that a customer might have demanded one but it would have had to have been a 'service part'. Retail? $1.20 Hope this helps. Mike This message was edited by kubes40 on 1-15-11 @ 3:14 PM
|
|
| std1940 | -- 01-16-2011 @ 7:23 AM |
|
Hi Mike, My car is 85HP, MFG. March 1940. Thanks for all your help. Tom.
|
|
| kubes40 | -- 01-16-2011 @ 8:17 AM |
|
Hey Tom, A March date would clearly indicate single whites were not an option. Thus, I can't offer a retail price for them. It is possible the dealer installed them but on the concourse, you'd have to provide that proof to a judge that knew to deduct for same. By the way, even though radios, heaters, filters, etc. were often installed at the dealer level, some items were available directly (installed) at the factory. As the model year progressed more items were available factory installed than in previous months.
|
|
| std1940 | -- 01-16-2011 @ 9:01 AM |
|
Mike, Thanks Tom.
|
|
| supereal | -- 01-16-2011 @ 10:34 AM |
|
I defer to Mike on all things 1940. I consulted two books, 90 YEARS OF FORD, by Geo. H. Dammann, and FORD CHRONICLES, by Flamming and Lewis. The first book did state "Wide whites were coming into popularity in this ere, but it is doubtful if too many were installed on Standard Coupes". The arrival of WWII certainly ended a move to white walls, as tires of any kind were rationed, and very hard to fine. Even then, the "35 mph" variety was the only kind available for non-military use, in most cases. As to the 60HP version, it says "very few were ordered". For the record, the standard coupe with the 60 was priced at $599, according to the CHRONICLES book. It doesn't give the amount produced due to the very small number.
|
|
| ford38v8 | -- 01-16-2011 @ 10:55 AM |
|
Mike, In regard to the spare tire lock not being an authorized accessory on a 1940 Ford, I would offer this: Then, as today, a buyer of an automobile was given the opportunity at the dealerships to outfit his new car with options. The options offered would be anything that would fit his car and was available at the dealership. As spare tire locks predated the 1940 model year, a lock could reasonably have been included in the sale of a 1940 Ford. On the EFV8CA Concourse, such an accessory would not be cause for a point deduction unless it presented in poor condition. While it is always the owners responsibility to present documentation of any questionable item, spare tire locks are widely known to have been available, so it is highly doubtful that this particular accessory would be noted. Some owners do push the envelope, itching to prove a Judge wrong, and I say good for them if they can! Keeps the Judges on their toes! Alan
|
|
| kubes40 | -- 01-17-2011 @ 6:04 AM |
|
Alan, With all due respect, I can't fully agree with you on this one. If an item were allowed on the concourse simply because it was fitted at the dealer prior to the car being delivered to the first owner, then what about (example)Arvin heaters? Many Ford dealers sold them. What about all the other stuff the dealers sold that were not authorized for passenger car use? The spare tire lock is clearly a commercial vehicle item only. Yes, it could have been purchased and installed on a car but clearly it was not intended to be. How about truck mirrors on a car? They could have been purchased at the dealer and put on a car.The lost goes on... Nope, just because the possibility existed, does not make it acceptable.
|
|
| TomO | -- 01-17-2011 @ 9:06 AM |
|
Mike, I have seen the 1940 Ford Salesman Reference that say the spare tire lock was standard on the 39 & 40 Mercury. I don't have a copy of this reference book any more, so I cannot copy the page for you. This would seem to contradict the commercial use only for the spare tire locks. All of the other sales literature that I have does not list the spare tire lock as an accessory or as standard equipment. Benny Boodle did have one installed on his 40 Mercury and no point deduction was taken due to the Sales Reference handbook information. The parts catalogs do show that the lock was available on the 38-40 cars and commercial vehicles, so taking a point deduction for these years would be subject to dispute. The 41-48 are not listed as having the spare tire locks except for SW and other commercial vehicles. Tom
|
|
| kubes40 | -- 01-17-2011 @ 10:41 AM |
|
Unfortunately my knowledge of 40 mercury's is lacking so I can't offer comment in that regard other than to say a comparison to a Ford may or may not be 'apples to apples'. Benny's cars and how they were judged? With due respect to the late Benny, I choose to stay pretty far away from that subject. Please do recall (as examples) that Benny also insisted that Ford script water pumps were proper. He received no deduction for those either. Nor did he receive a deduction for a 40 convertible painted a Mercury only color. Also, one thing that seems to be very prevalent is the belief that what the parts book offered is what in fact was utilized in the construction of our 40 Fords. This is very often not the case. The parts books are service parts. Right down to the nuts and bolts listed. Occasionally the parts will match the way the car was built. On other occasions, not so. I am not certain I would deduct a point for a tire lock within a passenger car. I do know I would at the very least make a note of it for the owner. Respectfully, Mike
|
|
| ford38v8 | -- 01-17-2011 @ 8:26 PM |
|
Mike, I fully agree that minor items be at least noted if no point is taken. This practice rightly puts an owner on notice that he may be docked at the next meet. I don't know how often this is done by other Judges, but I always do it, in the spirit of "Don't kill the car". There is a line in the sand where a deduction must be made: Your example of Arvin Heaters crosses that line. Those dealers who sold Arvin Heaters did so at risk of severe penalty from Ford. On the right side of the line lies those items that don't interfere with Henry Ford's profits. On our Concourse, Ford parts that were available at the Dealers at the time of the sale and could reasonably have been a part of that sale are recognized as such. Truck mirrors, your other example, would not seem reasonable, so as a Judge, I would request documentation such as the original bill of sale for the car to show that they were indeed installed. On a related subject, there were examples of non-Ford "accessories" that Ford not only approved of, but cooperated in their installation. Those examples would be Marmon-Harrington four wheel drive, Columbia two speed axles, and any number of special bodied passenger cars, commercial vehicles, and conversions. These are all welcome on our Concourse without deduction, as they were available through Ford or it's Dealers. By the way, I understand that the newest non-Ford "accessory" is in the works: The new Ford Shelby! Alan
|
|
| kubes40 | -- 01-18-2011 @ 6:09 AM |
|
Alan, I am enjoying our banter on this subject. I believe you and I have different psychologies in regard to how our cars are judged. I admit to being more 'hard line'. If the car is wrong, sorry dear owner, it's wrong. Why award the same points to a car that is wrong to a car that is correct? If we do that, how can we continue to encourage folks to do proper restorations? Think of the guy that puts 5 rib plugs (bases painted) in his car and the guy that spends $400 for a set of the correct 2 rib (NOS) plugs. All other aspects of the two cars (in theory) are identical. The guy with the five rib plugs gets the same points as the guy with two rib plugs? NO WAY is that fair. One guy did it correctly, the other chose not to. Yes, the concourse should be fun / enjoyable. But let's not forget why we are there. If it is simply to make all feel good, then I for one, am out. Okay that being said I will respond to your latest post. You say truck mirrors are too far a stretch to be installed on a car but the tire lock isn't. Why? Both are clearly for a truck. To reiterate, WHY accept one but not the other? Is it because one may appear more "in place"? Or, is it because one had perhaps a more likely chance of being installed? Columbia's? We know for fact that Columbia's were NOT an authorized accessory in 1940. Yes, the club accepts them. Yes, I have installed them in a number of my restorations. Are they correct? NO, simply they are not. We have the proof that this is in fact the case. I have never deducted points for a Columbia but I do let the owners know they are not authentic / authorized. As you are certainly aware, politics play a role in (nearly) all aspects of life. Te Columbia acceptance rule is no exception. There were a lot of political 'wrangling' years ago to get Columbia's an accepted item within our club. Respectfully, Mike
|
|
| ford38v8 | -- 01-18-2011 @ 7:05 PM |
|
Mike, I too enjoy the banter! We all get something out of it, not least of whom are the silent readers of our exchange. I'll start off today with an admission of misunderstanding: The spare tire locks I thought we were talking about was the lug nut lock. My '38 is a Convertible Coupe, and has it's spare upright behind the driver, as does the '37 and the '39, vulnerable to theft as all are open cars. Apparently you were talking about a different animal, I hadn't even thought about any other spare lock that the one in my own car. Coke bottle plugs are expensive, but a very cheap investment to save a whole lot of points on the Concourse. We have no argument on that issue, and I don't even know why you brought it up. If that's what you thought I meant about "don't kill the car", you're wrong. That has been a directive from Chief Judges on every Concourse I've judged on for a lot of years. Agree or not, the judging team has 20 minutes, and frankly, I've judged cars that have been so wrong that nobody can write that fast to get it all down. You do the major stuff and don't have time to inspect the zerk fittings and the script water pumps and the schedule 8 bolts ground flat and enameled black. You barely have time to make no -point notations for the ones you see, let alone try to count 5 incorrect fasteners for a one point deduction. Not that I haven't done it and made the deductions, but no, you don't kill the car. Politics has no justifiable place on the Concourse. I've seen it done and have nothing good to say about the practice. The Judges who are guilty of this are reprehensible brown nosing cowards in my book. I can say that I believe it happens much less frequently than in the early days of the Club, and that those Deputies who are discovered going light on certain cars are not chosen as Deputies again. If we don't follow the guidelines and be as fair as we know how to be, everyone loses when our Concourse loses it's reputation as the best in the hobby. Alan
|
|
| kubes40 | -- 01-19-2011 @ 6:16 AM |
|
Hi Alan, I can't speak of 38's as I know so little about them but in 1939 and 1940 the lock YOU describe was not authorized for passenger cars. I made a note in regard to plugs as I've seen this overlooked time and time again. It even states the modern are acceptable in the old '40 book. You and I are apparently on the same or very close to the same page in our beliefs. The 20 minutes suggested in my opinion is only a suggestion. Some cars warrant more time, some less. I feel a fellow that has taken the time (efforts) required to get ON the concourse deserves his fair shake. If that takes 45 minutes, so be it. Most guys want to know what's wrong with their cars. Many guys from my experience that got a 'too quick' judging only to find many new 'discoveries' at the next concourse are seemingly more upset than should those items have been brought to his attention the first time. That would allow him the chance to correct same BEFORE the second concourse. I agree 100% that politics has been less intrusive upon the concourse than in past years. At least from what I have observed. Still, there is much room for improvement on the skill sets of judges. I like the idea of novice judges as we all need to learn. however, as in done in certain other clubs, the deputy is made aware prior to the concourse who will be on his team so he might make a more informed decision as to who judges what area. He (deputy) may also at that time be able to work with each judge to sharpen their skill set in their respective areas. All this would indeed allow for a smoother day of judging, a more fair (standardized) application of standards and an owner knowing he got a fair shake. What say you? Anyone?
|
|
| ford38v8 | -- 01-19-2011 @ 10:57 AM |
|
Mike, now you see why the club is anxious to get the old book revised! These books are intended to show how the car was built, and such items "permitted" in the old books usurp the authority of the JSC, giving owners a bum steer on how to build their cars. Your standing firm on authorized parts is a good safety net for owners unsure of what is correct on their cars. On the spark plug issue, I was surprised and had to go look it up, as I hadn't seen that before. Such inconsistencies as this mean trouble on the Concourse, and as you know, are the very reason that all new books must be reviewed by the JSC. In my opinion, the way to improve the Judges expertise is to obtain permission from Rouge owners to hold training sessions earlier in the week. This could be an immensely popular event in itself, and would not require the final list of Judges be determined to do it. We all like seminars, and a morning scheduled for these sessions would enhance everyone's knowledge. The Concourse would go faster and smoother when the Deputies don't have to spend so much time to train the Novices. Alan
|
|
| kubes40 | -- 01-19-2011 @ 6:03 PM |
|
All good and valid points. i brought three coupes to Dearborn in '08. A pair of 40's and a fresh '39. The deluxe 40 is probably one of the absolute best and most authentic restorations in the country. I bought it from the original owner and have documentation with it galore. This particular car has been judged numerous times. 998, 999, 998. I brought it to Dearborn in '08 for precisely the reason you mention. that is, let the novices take a look and maybe learn. in reality the person in charge of the concourse told me directly they didn't want to spend time on my car. I insisted and ultimately it was judged. The problem was the loss of a great opportunity. Oh well, I tried. Kind of a funny (related story)... one of the judges docked me for an incorrect clock. Yes, it's the ultra rare electric (option)clock. Yes, I got the points returned. 'Nuff said?
|
|
| TomO | -- 01-20-2011 @ 7:34 AM |
|
It would be nice if the novice judges could be trained before the Concourse day, but most people go to the meets to enjoy the activities as well as the cars. Probably the best way to teach the novice judges would be to have some Rouge cars at each meet and have a knowledgeable person give a seminar on the vehicle and video tape the seminar. If one year was covered at each meet and the videos were made available to all judges, the Club would have a good start on approaching consistent judging. If this cannot be done, the next best would be to video tape Rouge cars and then point out the areas that should be judged and what is correct. The cost of video taping and distribution of the material could be covered by selling copies of the video. The 32 was done at the last Grand National, It would be nice if a 36 was done this year. Tom
|
|
| Lincoln | -- 01-20-2011 @ 12:35 PM |
|
On the subject of tire locks, I think that the focus is on the lock used for the trunk-mounted spare tire. My sources reveal the following: 1939 Passenger Cars: A 11/13/38 Buffalo Branch Sales Letter states that tire locks were standard equipment on FORDS. A 11/13/38 Green Island Letter states that tire locks were standard on MERCURYS. A 3/15/39 Cleveland Letter confirms they were furnished on MERCURYS. 1940 Passenger Cars: All Branch Sales Letters, but one, starting on October 6,1939 and continuing through 1939, did not mention that the spare tire lock was included as standard equipment on FORDS and MERCURYS. BUT a 10/9/39 Green Island Letter stated that both the V-8 and Deluxe V-8 FORDS were to be furnished with the tire lock as standard equipment. (Was this an error?) (Which was correct?) Did not review the 1940 Branch Sales Letters to see if Ford changed their Sales Policies. Using another reference, the Ford Sales Reference Book, Form 7218 of 10/39 made no mention of Fords having the spare tire lock, but did mention that Mercurys had them. This reference book was released to the Dealers about the end of November,1939. Faced with the info given, I believe all the 1939 and 1940 Fords,and Mercurys, came equipped with Spare Wheel Tire Locks as standard equipment. Ford had assigned a part number for the lock which was a carryover from 1936, and the Dealer carried these in stock in case they needed replacement. No doubt these locks were lost or misplaced whenever the spare had to be used. How many ORIGINAL, or restored, cars still have one these locks still in place? Aftermarket spare tire locks were also available at the time but they do not match the ones that Ford offered. Lincoln.
|
|
| Stroker | -- 01-20-2011 @ 2:30 PM |
|
Perhaps it was because Ford considered a Station Wagon a commercial vehicle, but my dad's 38 Ford Station Wagon came with a spare tire lock that matched the ignition key. The spare of course, lives behind the front seat, so would be locked in the car if the doors were locked. We seldom used the lock, and it normally lived in the glove compartment. The special,long v-grooved wheel nut still resides on the spare wheel mount however. All our trucks had these locks, but because they were never parked overnight off-premise, we would take them off and pitch them. I still have the 38 wagon lock, and while I'll never enter a concourse, I believe it is correct to this particular vehicle.
|
|
| TomO | -- 01-21-2011 @ 8:57 AM |
|
Thank you Mr. Lincoln. These letters confirm the information in the Chassis Parts Catalogs from the period and IMHO would be the final word on the locks. The Sales Reference Book and Chassis Parts Catalogs are more likely to have errors than the letters, as they were sometimes released before policy was determined. The Branch Sales Letters were only issued after policy had been finalized. Tom
|
|
| EFV-8 Club Forum : | https://www.earlyfordv8.org/forum |
| Topic: | https://www.earlyfordv8.org/forum/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=14&Topic=2448 |