| tbirdhandyman | -- 01-18-2011 @ 7:22 PM |
|
My 1941 Mercury convertible has lower radiator hoses that I found back in the '80's that have the 19A-8286 part number and MERCURY painted on them with orange paint. All of the parts houses list the '41 Ford and Mercury as having the same part number. Due to the cast iron bottom tank on the 19-A radiator, the Ford hoses will not work. What do the other '41 owners use? Tbirdhandyman
|
|
| supereal | -- 01-19-2011 @ 2:21 PM |
|
The number 91A-8286 is made in several versions denoted by a suffix letter. I assume you mean 91 rather than 19 as in your post. C&G (800/266-0470) shows the 39-41 Merc lower hose as 91A-8286-S. That would be a Ford script type, I think. The green book shows it as 91A-8386-B. All hoses are usually 1 3/4" inside diameter to match the water pump inlet. I'm not familiar with a cast iron tank on a radiator, but I assume the outside diameter of the outlet has to be the same as the pump, or it would require a special molded hose.
|
|
| TomO | -- 01-20-2011 @ 7:46 AM |
|
Supereal, the 19A prefix is the correct one for a 41 Mercury radiator lower hose. I don't think that the 91A hose will fit on the 41 Mercury. The shape is similar, but I think that the straight portion is longer on the 19A hose. The Green Book does not cover Mercury only parts, as Mercury was part of Lincoln-Mercury when it was published. There is a separate Mercury catalog for the 39-48 Cars. I would suggest that the tbirdhandyman contact the Club's 41 Mercury Adviser, Dan Krehbiel for hose replacement assistance. Tom This message was edited by TomO on 1-20-11 @ 8:11 AM
|
|
| supereal | -- 01-20-2011 @ 11:56 AM |
|
Thanks, Tom. I can't find a 19A reference in any of my sources, but I do know you have a better handle on Merc than I do. I've never seen or heard of a cast iron radiator tank, either, but you are never too old to find something new. My '50 Merc was one of the best cars I've owned. I didn't have a problem with parts back then, as some, such as the "coincentric" carb was shared with the big truck engines. Now that Mercury has been shut down, can Lincoln be far behind?
|
|
| TomO | -- 01-21-2011 @ 8:40 AM |
|
Supereal, The 41 Mercury was unique in many respects as Ford was trying to cost reduce the model to use more parts in common with the Ford and still make it a step up. The 42-48 Mercurys have more chassis parts that are shared with the Ford. It is one of the most difficult Mercurys to restore. I think that it was a big mistake for Ford to shut down Mercury. They did not market the brand correctly and therefore it did not sell well, but it did sell more cars than Lincoln, which they are not marketing very well either. The Mercury was marketed as a Ford with a softer ride. If they had kept up with the performance image and reduced the number of overlapping models with Ford and Lincoln, it could have been a very profitable marque for them as Buick is to GM. The Mercury cars should have had a more powerful engine than Ford and Ford should have reduced the option list to encourage buyers to move up to the Mercury brand. Lincoln should be marketed as a luxury brand to compete with Cadillac, Lexus, Infinity and Mercedes. The Lincoln should have more powerful engine options, more luxury options and a better service organization than Ford or Mercury. This is what it was back in the day. Now it is just an overpriced Mercury or Ford. Tom
|
|
| supereal | -- 01-21-2011 @ 9:08 AM |
|
Couldn't agree more, Tom. Over the years, I had six Lincoln Town Cars, and I now have a Lincoln Mark LT. I bought them all to enjoy space and comfort, as well as ease of entry for my aging frame. The current offering under the badge seems to be mostly Fords with a different nameplate and, as you point out, a higher price tag. As in many things, the marketing people seem to have written off we "seniors". I'm glad that Ford, as a company, seems to be doing well, but it is plain that the Lincoln brand is in trouble. Mercury became known as a "woman's car", which hastened its demise, thanks to the marketing wizards, and the image of the Lincoln as an "old man's" car is in conflict with the current campaigns.
|
|
| tbirdhandyman | -- 02-25-2011 @ 7:17 PM |
|
All parts that were first used on a 1941 Mercury began with the "19A" prefix. Supereal assumed I used "19" instead of "91". I found a pair of subject hoses on eBay, and the seller stated: "Someone put 19A on these hoses instead of 91A. He was dead wrong, and listed these very rare parts for buy-it-now for only $9.95. I would have bid $100 for the pair had he not had the B-I-N price. All of the V-8 catalogs are wrong in their listing for '41 Mercury lower hoses. Many parts for this year Mercury are one year only, and very hard to find. The script hoses have been on my car for the last 25 years is why I was looking for a set of script spares. The NOS hoses are like new, and should last longer than I will be driving this car. Robert E. Tbirdhandyman
|
|
| TomO | -- 02-27-2011 @ 4:25 PM |
|
Robert, I am glad that you found a set of lower hoses and got them at a great price. From the photo that ypu posted , it looks like the straight portion between the curves is longer than the 91A hoses. I had thought that the portion the attacehes to the radiator was longer. Do you have any information on this? Tom
|
|
| tbirdhandyman | -- 02-28-2011 @ 2:41 PM |
|
Tom, I posted a photo in my first post that showed the script hoses installed on my Mercury. I was packing the new units in my tour spare parts box and found an old used set of no name hoses that are marked L16A7*AG and L26B7*AG. These numbers are moulded into the hoses. These old units must have been on my car when I found the script hoses years ago. The old hoses are from 1/2" to 3/4" shorter than the scrip units where they attach to the radiator and/or water pumps. The distance between the bends are the same. I do not have a 91-A Ford hose to compare. Robert E. Tbirdhandyman
|
|
| EFV-8 Club Forum : | https://www.earlyfordv8.org/forum |
| Topic: | https://www.earlyfordv8.org/forum/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=16&Topic=2474 |