“Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.” So what to do if the aging 1930 Model A Cabriolet you’re using to deliver the mail isn’t cutting it in the heavy snows of typical Montana winters? If you were Milton Hill, of Bloomfield, MT (the post-original owner who first used it for mail delivery), you hire one Roman Chupp to convert the Briggs-bodied car into a ‘snowmobile’ capable of riding the drifts on huge Goodyear 11.25″ x 24″ tractor tires.
From the current owner’s eBay listing (which ended without meeting reserve), “The rear axle and wood spoke wheels are from a 1919 – 1927 Model TT Ford one ton truck. That axle assembly was installed in order to get the higher numerical axle ratio to handle the larger diameter tractor tires. The front wheels are made from mid 1928 – 1929 21″ Model A Ford wheels. The outer row of spokes was long enough to reach the dropped section on the inside of the 24″ tractor rims. The inner crossed spokes were too short to reach the tractor rims. They were completely removed and replaced with spokes about 3″ longer. All welds on this conversion were done with an acetylene torch because electric welders were virtually non-existent in rural Montana back in 1936 when this conversion was done.”
Be sure to click through and read the extensive history of the car on the eBay listing. One section that caught my eye reads, “At a recent Modal A meet… it was very interesting to note how people reacted to this gem. I would say the majority of them appreciated it for what it was made into and encouraged me to preserve it they way it is now. Several people simply could not understand how anyone could “hack up” a car as scarce and desirable as a Model A cabriolet is. Every time, I patiently reminded them that any Model A cabriolet was most likely nearly worthless in 1940 or 1941…”
Sounds mighty similar to the comments we get around here when a Donk or ‘art car’ is posted! I guess we’ll never get everyone to agree on what’s “right” for an old, worn-out car — who could have predicted that this old Model A, or a tapped out GM B-body, for that matter, would eventually change status from ‘just an old beater’ to something highly desirable?
At any rate, I was able to find a couple other converted Model A mail cars online – but apparently this was a fairly rare conversion, and only a few survive today. I’ll finish with a few more photos of this unique piece of Americana, and you can see more at the now-closed listing.
God I’d love to drive this thing through the streets of my native Bronx. It also should be pointed out that this was a practical hack for a specific purpose not someone’s idea of art.
There is an important difference. This car was modified to make it more suitable for a specific practical purpose. The same cannot be said for donks.
No argument there! (c:
I actually like the Vega 4×4…..cars on truck frames were all the rage in the 70s and 80s it seems like. I had a few Stompers as a kid that were car based. Funky, goofy yes…but pretty cool!
Getting bitches is practical.
The origins of the Monster Trucks?
My “problem” with “Donk” cars is that they take a near worth car and make it even more worthless. Cars are jacked up, ruining the suspension/ride and steering just to make a statement and/or arrive at a certain look. Yet, in the 60s and 70s folks put “big and littles” under cars for the same effect among their peers.
I used to really cry inside when I would see things like pristine 60s Camaro convertibles on trailers heading to my local dragstrip. Why not use a Chevelle sedan instead of a near perfect SS/RS Camaro convertible?
Traditional rear wheel drive Chrysler products have higher chance of being spared from that, I think the torsion beam suspension contributes to that. ( even deep in Detroit where the donks paradise in crowd around typical areas like McNichols Rd and Livernois Rd, I never see an M-Body with donky size wheels, even though there are few wannabes with bigger wiring rims without jacking up)
However there are always few smart guys managed to lift up those cars with torsion beam suspension no matter how.
I’ve seen an M-body Diplomat SE on 20+” rims. Not entirely sure how it was done…
Found the photo:
It looks a lot different. ( I don’t think Chrysler bothered touching too much under the hood between M-Body and F-Body )
“I’ve seen an M-body Diplomat SE on 20+” rims. Not entirely sure how it was done…”
Well this guy didn’t do it this way, but out of sheer morbid curiosity I thumbed thru a donk magazine…it had an article on grafting the live axle out of a 2wd X/Z/WJ Cherokee or GC onto a donk for max liftage…guess that’s a ‘dead’ axle? Solid axle swaps (SAS) are extremely common on 4x4s since most have IFS setups. Fine in stock form for the street, but you can only go so tall, theyre not ideal for the kind of offroading that requires huge tire upgrades, and theyre relatively fragile.
This guy COULD have taken the subframe from another car, or even a midsize truck and swapped it under the Dippy. Either way…YUCK.
Not Mopar, but “there you have it!”
I always feel the torsion beam suspension can protect those cars from donk unless it was dumped/skipped first.
But there is always a weird K frame to entertain them too.
( There was an African young man asking to buy my Volare on 8 Mile Rd in Detroit. Even though not try to stereotype but I just feel he wanted to donk it. I can’t imagine what he would feel seeing the front suspension though )
“Why not use a Chevelle sedan instead of a near perfect SS/RS Camaro convertible?”
Very likely for the same reason no one raced sedans back then–theyre a horrible platform for performance. More weight, less rigidity in the body structure, more overall crap hanging on it that does nothing to enhance performance. The same can be said for convertibles, but you rarely see those being raced either. Roadsters being the exception. Back in the day, the 2 door sedan with a B pillar was the best combination of strong, light, and cheap…AND all the go fast goodies could be installed, with little else. 2 door hardtops and convertibles were for personal use…which could include racing but not necessarily a dedicated race car. Sedans were for family types.
“My “problem” with “Donk” cars is that they take a near worth car and make it even more worthless. Cars are jacked up, ruining the suspension/ride and steering just to make a statement and/or arrive at a certain look. Yet, in the 60s and 70s folks put “big and littles” under cars for the same effect among their peers.”
Agree 100%. The difference in a California Rake with big n littles is that its actually emulating something (drag cars) that actually DO serve a purpose. No different than lifting a 4×4…some do it to enhance offroad performance, some just want the look. Donks…um…… Yeah.
What ties all 3 ideas together is that it can be done properly, or it can be done for sh!t. Just like cheeseball lift shackles on raked cars, or leaf sprung 4x4s can be had for next to nothing….AND will make your ride a death trap…there are also kits that cost a bit more (still relatively inexpensive) which are properly engineered and are actually far better than the factory parts. I did a 3/4″ shackle lift on my ’95 YJ. I bought an American made shackle kit that looked atom bomb proof compared to the cheesy factory plates. Any more than an inch of shackle lift up front of a 4×4 is asking for all kinds of handling issues and spring stress. Ive seen work on old CJs that was likely done by rednecks with wrenches in one hand, beer cans on the other…it can be downright frightening.
Im sure there are donks that are properly engineered and safe, if extremely dumb looking *opinion alert*. Ill lay odds that the majority are held together with bailing wire and cheap Chinese components. God help you if that lets loose going down the road….
These cabriolets are the ONLY cabriolets that truly deserve the name! (From French slang: ‘like a leaping goat’.)
Early cars like the Model T, because of lousy early roads, were effectively SUVs (or at least UVs), with lots of ground clearance & suspension travel. Adding large tires to its light weight (probably lighter than a Willys MB), I can easily see how a Model A would be desirable in this role.
I think the purpose is similar, but I prefer to trust wheels than blades.
That reminds me of a Kégresse half-track. Joseph-Armand Bombardier came up with his a bit later.
Model As ran 21 inch wheels initially with a drop dowm to 19s for the 31 improved A like this one the pic with it on big an littles is with it on later V8 rims not A rims those donk rims arent really much bigger than stock.
Now that is a conversion with purpose, and a very interesting one too! I wonder how well the stock drum brakes dealt with the extra unsprung weight?
The listing indicates the car has no rear brakes at all!
I hope his mail run wasn’t in a heavily forested area!
I used up about half the morning reading the extensive history posted in the ad. Great find. So it didn’t sell for over 38k. That appears to me to be good money for this one off. It does look great! I think it should be preserved, but would it be worth more to restore it back to stock, even after restoration costs? A fun read, and really speaks to the innovation people had back in the day to create what is needed for a specific task. Of course it helps that the machines were so much simpler back in those times. Really enjoyed this write up.
Wow, this is cool! One thing interesting to me – I have heard old-timers swear that the reason old Model Ts and As were so great in snow was because of their tall, skinny tires that would cut through it much easier than modern, wider tires. This design would seem to go counter to that. But it must have worked if the guy used it for all these years. Perhaps country-style drifts required this kind of ground clearance.
Driving in snow is one of those subjects that seems to inspire a variety of approaches. Not growing up in a very snowy part of the country I don’t have enough experience to have formed my own opinion but I’ve heard a wide range. Some folks seem to think that a light FWD car will go over drifts and ruts, and generally ride atop the mire other cars may sink into. Another school of thought maintains that a heavy FWD car will grip the substrate better and that greater weight on the tires equals greater control, especially on icy surfaces. There is the skinny tire versus wide tire debate that you alluded to. And then the whole 4wd/awd angle, which seems to be generally agreed as superior but always with some vocal doubters.
I think the only thing everyone can agree on is that snow tires are far superior to all-season in the white slippery stuff. Narrow or wide though?
The folks at Tirerack recommend narrower than stock tires for winter and I tend to agree. Modern cars and light trucks have wide, low tires for looks and dry handling, but the contact patch is way less than ideal for winter conditions, even with optimal tread pattern and compound.
The next set to go on the Tundra will be 225/75-16 in place of the stock 245/70-16 since snow seems to require putting it in 4×4 mode to make forward progress more often than I remember in my previous trucks that came with 75 series all-seasons.
But in the deep snow that this thing probably needed to negotiate wouldn’t wide tires pack the snow giving the rear drive something to grab?
Plus the kind of high ground clearance and slow turning of the wheels that would probably help in the really deep stuff.
Now I want to see just how he gets the mail into the boxes from way up there. 🙂
montana snow is different. really. out west snow tends to be really dry and fluffy, esp at elevation. not at all like we see in the midwest or in the eastern portion of the country. large tires like this allow the driver to push through large drifts somewhat effortlessly. of course eventually there is a point where there is too much snow, even for western fluff and tractor tires. at that point the weight of the car probably has a lot to do with it too.
California snow tends to be more the heavy kind, called “Sierra Cement”. Narrow tires can better dig in and get a grip instead of sliding over the top with wide ones. Carrying chains is also mandatory here.
I grew up in Snow Country and though narrow tires were the way to go on any snow…
-Nate
Skinny tires give far better handling on ice or a reasonable amount of snow. Wider tires will float you better in deep deep snow at low speed, but turning could be an issue. Skinny tires with a set of chains in the trunk will take you anywhere.
Yup, this has been my experience too. From driving in northern Minnesota as a kid and many years in mud it has; the skinny tires of these years reputation for digging thru the top layer was in mud, maybe with I late spring break-up layer of snow on top.
That thing looks just way too cool. I usually prefer to keep old classic cars all original and something like this with its history and original purpose should really be protected in a museum. Much of the original design and history could be preserved if it was just kept as a show piece, but I would rather drive it around if I had the choice.
I imagine that it would need some sort of extensive restoration and modifications to actually make it road worthy. The combination of rust from all the Winters, thin sheet metal and old technology means that replacement parts might need to be fabricated. New tires and custom made (similar style) rims should definitely be added for safety with proper working brakes. Much of the patina could be preserved. I still have to admire the design and work that went into it though.
This is cool, but I’m mildly surprised it didn’t sell at that price. Having said that, I didn’t read the listing as it was migraine-inducing.
Doesn’t seem to have space for much mail.
These mini-monster cars look awesome, and would be great in deep snow; but I’ll bet they were a handful on hard packed slippery snow or glare ice, like a merry-go-round and around.
I didn’t see jp’s comment above; but many years driving in snow taught me: deep snow, wide a lots of tread. light packed snow, narrow and studs or chains if icy.
Very cool – I want one! These would be perfect vehicles for a backwoods weekend picnic 😀
What a survivor! And the seller practically wrote a book on it at the original auction (I copy-and-pasted the whole thing as a draft in my email for posterity, and legibility since I saved it as plain text).
Pretty cool and I think it should be saved more or less as – is , de rusted & re painted of course because ” RUST NEVER SLEEPS ” .
‘A’ Model Fords had very thick steel indeed , there were plenty of then still driving ’round rural New England in the 1960’s albeit with rust holes here & there .
The ” push & pray ” mechanical brakes were not good when new and only having front axle brakes meant this thing was driven very slowly and carefully .
Nice to see the original add on heater , it worked off the exhaust manifold and had to be removed in Summer to avoid cooking the passengers , leaving it’s internal ” waffle iron ” heat exchanger sticking up .
-Nate
This is fantastic it is a hipster honkey-tonk ba-donk “A” donk. Looks like a mad cross between a rat rod, a donk, a 4×4, a swamp thing, a doodle bug and a fat tire bike.
I wonder how much steering angle there is though.
What more recent more available car could this be done to, in terms of runing similar diameter and width wheels modifying the fenders instead of a lift? An original beetle? A jeep? A Dodge pickup? A PT Cruiser?
Should have used an axle from an AA Ford truck so it would have had rear brakes!