Talk:Ford Model A (1927–1931)/Archives/2012

Revisions to idea of firsts in control design
"The Ford Model A is generally credited for the first automobile to use the now standard set of driver controls, such as throttle pedals, brake pedals and gear shifter, previous models used controls that would seem alien to a modern driver." Surely not. Maybe the first Ford to be so equipped. Malcolma 17:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Top Gear actually did some research into this, the first car to be so equipped was released in 1912, i think it was an Oldsmobile or a Packard, but I don't remember. The first mass produced car to use such controls was apparently the Austin Seven 82.153.230.138 (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The above was copied from Ford Model A which is now a disambiguation page. Malcolma 11:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Technical data expansion
Good Day,

I'm hoping to expand the technical data about this vehicle in the near future. Any one have any suggestions for format or style?

(Mthunder15 17:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

Gallery section revisions
I am going to start making some edits to the Gallery section of this article. The collection of photos here is a little haphazard and doesn't well represent the range of body styles available -- for example, I see no roadsters, pickups, or AA trucks. Many, if not most of the cars, have very visible modifications yet are not labeled as such, making it impossible for the reader to understand what these cars actually look like. My hope would be to see this article feature photos of the most authentic restorations in a variety of body styles, or original photos if possible. We also need one or two photos providing good examples of hotrods or ratrods -- I am probably not the best judge here, suggestions would be appreciated. In order to best contribute to the content of this article, photos need to be labeled with year, body style, and notes on non-authentic features. Ideally, we would see photos that could highlight the changes made to the car over the years of production. My mom has a copy of the | MAFCA Restoration Guidelines and Judging Standards which I believe would be the definitive reference on authenticity. I will try to provide some citations as applicable.

Round 1: I am removing:
Bdentremont (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Round 2
I adding existing photos from Wikimedia commons to cover unrepresented body styles as well as engine and interior

Bdentremont (talk) 06:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional comments
I would like to incorporate the gallery photos into the article, moving the GAZ-A, Ramblin' Wreck, interior (driver controls), and different body styles to the right sections. We really need some text on the AA truck and differences from the Model A.

Round 3
I re-added the custom, because it shows As survive & continue to be valued. I also deleted the Brooklands, because both the black '31 & the '31 Deluxe show more. TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  00:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that I hot rod, suitably labeled, is appropriate. However, this one has a Model B (1932) radiator.  You can tell that the body -- what is left of it -- is indeed 1931 due to the fuel fill cap on the top of the cowl forward of the windshield, but I think it would be preferable if we had a picture of a Model A hot rod retaining a model A radiator shell, as the one that we have now looks much more like a 1932. -- Bdentremont (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Valid points. I doubt most readers will know the difference (I wouldn't), & the '32 grille shell is a pretty common change. Besides, "custom" implies changes. If you'd rather re-label it to indicate the changes (sourced, I hope), do; if you can, add them here, too, will you?  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  00:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears that you are right that the use of these '31 Ford bodies (which are fairly available) to make hot rods that appear to be based on a 1932 is typical use of the Model A in the hot rod world. The label "customized" is great and I only wish others would do the same when putting pictures of non-original cars in articles on the originals.  Itemizing changes would be nearly impossible; this is really a complete custom job with a body taken from the Ford.  The steering wheel, the fuel cap, and perhaps the rods that hold the radiator to the firewall are the only other parts visible in the picture that look to me like they might have come from the original car. :-)  Thanks for the response.  Best regards and keep up the good work. Bdentremont (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to do it. Honestly, I wanted it because it's a beautiful example of a stock-appearing Deuce roadster, with very subtle changes only a specialist (which you appear to be ;D) would ever notice, & that, IMO, is the mark of a great custom. (It's also guaranteed to win points from judges, BTW.) The A frame rails tend to get used 'cause (IIRC) they're a bit wider, so the (most often, roadster) cabin is a touch more comfortable.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  15:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Logical article name change
I've been thinking for a long time that it would be more logical to name this page "Ford Model A (1927-1931)" rather than its current name "Ford Model A (1927)". I'll give everyone a week or two to suggest any reasons why this shouldn't be done. Thanks all. — ¾-10 00:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me! It might be appropriate to change the other article to read "Ford Model A (1903-1904)" as well.  -- Bdentremont (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Done and done! Regards, — ¾-10 02:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ¾-10, Good idea. I changed links on three four other pages to reflect your name change.
 * Model T Ford
 * Model A Ford (disambiguation page)
 * Model B Ford (1932)
 * Model B Ford (1904)
 * The old ones were still functional, but indirectly via redirects. Best regards,-- Bdentremont (talk) 23:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Vic Edelbrock, meet J. P. Morgan
Can somebody offer a defnition of "fiscal horsepower"? I've often seen it used, but never explained. TREKphiler  hit me ♠  22:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Or not... There's a link here, so I imported it...  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  22:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Color of Model A picture in lead - was the 1927 model produced in black?
According to the last few words of the lead paragraph, the 1927 Model A was produced in multiple colors, "but not black". Since there are other colors represented in the photos in the gallery, should another be used? Which was most popular? -- Scray (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. I swapped the image with one in the gallery.  I believe that they could be special ordered from the factory in black (as I have been told was the case for the late model T's which weren't standard in black either, but were farely commonly ordered that way.  I've swapped the picture with another from the gallery, which I believe is a better picture of a nicer and more representative looking car.  I don't know off hand whiether that is a factory paint scheme for that year either, but looks plausible.  Perhaps at some point I can drag out Mom's paint and judging standards book for the A an figure this out. -- Bdentremont (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There is NO 1927 Model A. In 1927 ford was still making ford model T's. In 1928 the ford model A was introduced. -- 75.232.210.249, 13:49, 13 February 2010


 * 75.232.210.249 -- I've reverted your edits to other people's discussion above and signed your comment. I agree that the labeling of the photo is suspect.  However, I also know that the Model A production began in 1927.  I'm also told, that at least some cars of the era were labeled based on sale year, rather than than date of manufacture or the model year concept as it exists today.  Thus, the labeling of the article 1927-1931 based on total production dates might be the best option, even if production in 1927 was trivial.  As to the black car we are discussing above, it has the flatter, hemispherically shaped headlight backs and a metal band around the cowl behind the hood, both of which I believe to be indicative of 1930 or 1931.  Either the car is a 1930 or 1931 or someone has been swapping parts.  I'm going to remove this photo.  -- Bdentremont (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

On the historical context of the model's development
Guys, respectfully, if the history-of-technology context of the model's development doesn't interest you, then you are welcome to leave this section of the article to others that it does. The section is not so long as to present any kind of harm or navigation difficulty to any users. Everyone who's not interested in its content can easily ignore it. It is harmless and ignorable to everyone, and has legitimate value to some users. This will have to escalate to arbitration if these few paragraphs are deemed as something whose existence cannot be suffered. This is not to be a dick at all, it's just that this content does not need to be obliterated by any stretch of the imagination. — ¾-10 23:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not an issue of disinterest, it's an issue of off-point. The article isn't a history of the social effects of technology, it's on the development of a car model. Compare it to the T, the Traction Avant, the Pontiac Master Six, even the Series 355, if you want; that offers a relevant context. Compare it to cellphone & PC & you leave me cold.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  03:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your position. The notion I'm getting at isn't irrelevant, but I have failed to show how it's relevant. I'm not comparing the Model A to a cellphone; I'm comparing the emergence of new car features (eg, rubber motor mounts and many others) to the emergence of cellphones, as instances of a common abstraction, which is how technological advances go from being viewed by humans as needless novelties to, eventually, as minimum requirements. The writing of the section, incorporating your latest revision, is getting close to succeeding and being final. But it still needs some minor tweak, because right now it reports that HF1 disdained the new features, but doesn't clearly address why. It wasn't just that he was perverse; it was because he saw them as needless. And many of his contemporaries agreed, for understandable reasons. ("I don't need no stinkin' electric starter; my daddy used a hand crank, and by God it's good enough for me, too. I don't need no vibration dampening; if it's going to add $10 to the cost of a car, then I'll take the damn vibrations like a man.") But many other people were beginning to disagree. And they weren't wrong, either; our mode of living today depends on post–Model T automotive features. Anyway, I can do without belaboring the abstraction or its other instances (which is the paragraph that you most hated, I believe), and I'll settle for a minor rephrasing of your existing version that manages to say "why" in a single sentence without soaring off into abstraction. In other words, almost exactly what you've got now. I'll revisit it tomorrow night. — ¾-10 05:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I did get the sense you were going that way. My problem was with the examples you were using, which were a bit far afield. If you can limit yourself to automotive advances (& good luck with it, the coverage of '30s cars on WP seems pretty lousy, tho if you can find sources...), no objection from me. The "We don't need no stinking electric starter!" approach is a good one, the right one IMO; in fact, you could very well go from the T right up to today with it: today, a car without air conditioning is a hard sell, & in the '50s, power windows were factory standard (on Cadillacs), but radio & heater were optional (even on Caddys)... :/ (Come to think of it, if there are enough good examples, a separate page on "expectation creep" {for want of a better term} might be possible.)  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  07:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I really like the latter idea (a separate page on "expectation creep" {for want of a better term}). I would love to cover the general topic, citing various instances of it. I'll have to be cautious about achieving it without delving into OR. Maybe a section within the article Disruptive technology. Regards, — ¾-10 23:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanx. ;D At a glance, I wouldn't put it at DT; this process is more sociological than production-oriented. History of the automobile, maybe? And post a Q here, here, and here as to where it'd be best placed.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  02:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)