Debated whether to post this in the vintage photo and ads thread, but decided it needed its own space to help finding it down the road.

Has anybody known of this before? Factory optional DRWs on the F-3s. I ran this past Chuck and he had heard of it, and has this brochure, but had never seen one. And from the spec page it shows 16" wheels on an F-3, and standard 4.11/1 rear gears! If I didn't have this brochure in my hand I'd think it was an April Fools photoshop joke. Stu

 

I'll throw this in here as well. Can't say I've seen a real life example though.

 

Nathan - that was another question I had. Did they fit a totally different Timken with wider WMS to WMSs to afford room for the inner duals, or were there adapters? From your diagram it looks like a totally different axle, is that correct? Stu

 

Stu, The axle shaft is 21Y-4235 which would make me think that it is a '42 Tonner axle shaft. Maybe the wheel mount flange on the hub is in a different position, as the hub does have a Canadian part #.
Not to highjack this thread but, sometime back someone posted some Canadian specs and I noticed that the F4 in Canada was available with a 157" W.B. Did anyone else see that, or was I reading it wrong?
Mark

 

Confusing. The 21Y 4235 is shown in the green book for 42-47 one tons, 33.75" long, but it's also listed under the same number for 48-52s in their book. All those C8 part numbers are Canada specific I guess, and I find no record in the hub sections of either book to explain how they avoided rubbing the inner dual. I do recall the F-105 wheelbase discussion, but would have to go find it to see what was said. Stu

Edit - here's the thread with the whole Canadian numbering sequence, and the F-105 was available as a 134" and 158" chassis.

https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...fo-thread.html

 

Even the axle housing has a Canadian prefix on both halves. I'm with you, it looks like the axle would have to be longer for the inner duals to clear the springs. But is obviously not if it uses '42-'47 tonner axle shafts, unless that 21Y part # is a typo. I also find it odd that the front hubs weren't modified to use the same wheels all around. interesting!
Mark
Thanks Stu, That is the page I remembered. I thought it was odd at the time that a 158" F4 was offered in Canada.

 

I'm thinking through this as I write, which is dangerous sometimes, but a couple details contained in the spec info tell us this is a late 1951 brochure. That assumes Canadian specs aligned with US specs on key features. The parking brake is on the transmission, and the wheels are 16" which dictated the use of 12" rear drums. The late 51 and 52 axle housing is slightly wider than earlier axle housings due to the switch to Bendix brakes. The earlier Lockheads must have been a physically wider assembly, perhaps due to the parking brake function.

I know this because my project truck has a combo of both eras in its axle. Chuck professionally rebuilt both my axles and transfer case. The original 1952 MH rear housing I took Chuck was trashed, and the one he sourced to replace it was an earlier version. So I today have a slightly narrower rear track because I have the later narrower Bendix brakes mounted on the early narrower housing. The later half shafts were too long to use. Iirc it's only 5/8" or so on each side, but it's real. What I don't know is whether the shafts are of equal length on each side, or if perhaps they are unequal length enabling the Canadian folks to team pieces with their own housings to yield a slightly wider assembly. After all, Nathan's diagram shows only one side. All this supposition could yield no rubbing of the inner duals. The inner duals sit about 3.5" closer to the frame and springs on each side, so somehow it was made to work. Stu

 

An offset center member is entirely possible. Although the drawing shows the part # for both RH and LH axle housings it only shows one axle part #. Everything else shown would be common to both sides with maybe the exception of the wheel studs and nuts. Would it have used LH and RH threads?

 

A standard F-3 US spec would be just right hand threads both sides. Probably same up north. This takes me to wheel nerd speak. The diagram shows the wheels have a single nut dual mounting system. That works with the center discs having what's called an interlocking "coined in/out" feature that prevents movement and holds the wheels in position.

Edit - another thing that matters, the 16" rear wheels are only 4.5" wide with 6.50-16" tires. The standard 17" x 5.5" widow makers with 7.50-17" tires would have a much wider section width that the 16s. Stu

 

This might clear up some things:
-Uses 6 bolt wheels rear only with 9/16 RH thread studs
-Lists 14" and 12" drums with the 16" wheels. Different than SRW.
-The bolt pattern is unknown. They are the only drums listed in the chart without a bolt pattern.
-Appears to use the same rear shoes and wheel cylinders as the SRW.

Wasn't the 1942-47 Tonner available in DRW with its 5 bolt wheels? The 1951 brochure says the rear duals are only 16x4.5".

Could they not have made longer axle tubes to use the 1942-47 DRW axle shafts, new hubs and drums and kept the rest on the axle the same?

In comparison my Dana 70B axle shafts are 35.05" long vs 33.75". I know the Dana rear axle hubs are longer than the Timken ones. Then compare the newer 16x6" vs the 16x4.5" wheels. It would seem like it is more than possible it would work.

 

I'm not sure if this is helpful information or if I'm just mucking up a perfectly good thread, but here goes. I have a 48-51 Canadian parts catalog. It makes no mention of a DRW setup for the F3. The housing parts have a different part number than that shown in the drawing above, C8Y 4010-C (rh) and C8Y 4011-A (lh). Interestingly, the axle shafts are the same, 21Y 4235. They appear to be the same l&r. Hub assembly for the F3 single is C8Y 1115.

Perhaps the difference in the axle housing has to do with the brackets for the brake backing plate, and the room needed for the DRW is made up in the hub, not the axle?

I also have a pretty detailed, full line 1952 Mercury truck brochure, and it doesn't say anything about DRW being optional in the M3. I didn't find a printing date on it.

 

I'm gonna have to ponder Wayne's info a few minutes. But Nathan's post again takes me to wheel equipment. During the war years it was real common for "conservative", in the truest sense, truck owners to increase load capacity of their trucks by adding DRWs. The common bolt pattern was 6 lug x 7.25". It would not have been a far reach for Ford of Canada to offer one of these kits as an option. The difference, though, was that all the kits included a spacer that mounted to the stock hub/drum and moved the wheel mounting surfaces out about 3". Why wasn't that a feature of the Ford option?

Edit - I don't recall there being tonners with DRWs mounted to their 5 x 6 7/8" hubs, other than ones MH supplied spacers for to match the 5 x 8" pattern of their front axle. Stu

 

Even more curiouser in my catalog(ue), they list the C8YS 1015 wheel as 16x4.5, used with 6.50x16 tires, 4 required, and an asterisk denoting special equipment for 1951. None of the other "special" part numbers are found in my book.

 

I keep staring at the drum/hub in Nathan's diagram. Unique Canadian numbers, and the drum looks like it mounts behind the hub like on a big truck. Might that be an integral spacer on top of the drum and under the WMS. Am I not right that a normal F-3 drum mounts flat on the hub and directly under the wheel. Stu

 

All the part numbers for the DRW are in the 1952 supplement to the 1948-51 parts catalog. Most of the part numbers are listed in the 1948-60 Master parts catalog.