After Long Thread, a majority opinion?

Earl,

Both are beautiful cars. If they are not already and it was up to me, Buick factory semi-custom bodies on top of the line chassis prior to 1942 would be admitted. How many of those open front town cars did they build? Not many I would imagine. The conv sedan is trickier but I would be inclined to admit it based on it's comparison to the Cadillac. I would see this as minor in the dilution argument - especially when compared with the outright atrocity that the Town and Country admittance is.

When you mention great cars after WWII, such as the Halo cars, I have an easy answer. It was a mistake admitting anything after the Classic Era ended prior to WWII in the first place. So anything after WWII should not even be part of the conversation.

regards,

A.J.

Special to alsancle. There just the ONE 1940 car built, and shown at the Waldorf Astoria. It was like a test car for the proposed 1941 Brunn-bodied Limited cars that Curtice had on tap. It was then put into Buick zone service in New York state, and thought lost to time. Quite by accident a man in a Chicago, Illinois suburb found the car, owned by an unappreciative collector who advertised it as a "limosine" in Hemmings, having no idea of what it was. I visited that man, who remains current owner, this summer and took pictures of this fabled car from the National Geographic ad of 1940. The body, paint and interior is absolutely original and there is no body number, only the Brunn emblem. Somehow it had gotten out of Buick ownership and into the ownership of a Ms. Libby of Libby Owens Ford Glass. She had an estate in New York.

OK, here's how this should work. Put together a comparison, item by item, of the Buicks in question, along with the closest vehicles now accepted by CCCA. Engine size, original cost/price, wheelbase, production numbers, engineering features, etc. See how they compare, then ask the question again. I don't know a reasonable answer without seeing the facts.

Mr. Coco that will be easy for me to do, except maybe the cost. I am unsure if I have that information at hand, but can probably get it. Weather here in Central Florida is lousy, bet it's worse in Winchester. My first car event was the Apple Blossom Festival parade in Winchester in 1958, and I have it on 8mm here somewhere. Took my wife there for a date and broker her in right before we even got married. If you know Art Bragg, Bob Pierce, Bill Sandy and Tom Rissler tell them all I said hello. There is also a nice light green 1932 Pierce Arrow there in Winchester, if it hasn't been sold. I'll try to put up that information before 24hours. Thanks for your response.

Whoops, wait a minute....if you want those facts back to 1931, then I'll need longer. I was thinking about just 1941. I can do most of it though. But if I do all the years, I might as well make the submission.

Dynaflash8,

In response to your original question regarding the admittance of the “the 1931 through 1939 Buick Series 80 cars and the 1941 Buick Series 70” I will have to plead ignorance to their qualifications. I am a Studebaker guy, always have been since I bought a 1929 Studebaker when I was 17 as my first car. This does not detract from my appreciation of other car makes and models. I think Buick made some fantastic cars in the 1930s. From what you have stated here in the forum it sounds like you have the knowledge and skills necessary to put together a comprehensive application to the CCCA nominating committee for acceptance of these two series of Buicks. Will it fly? Who knows, but you won me over on there merits and maybe you can win over the nominating committee. Nothing ventured, nothing gained?

Thank you Mark Huston. If Steve Moskowitz hadn't thrown out all of those old issues of Antique Automobile in the basement, with my 1971 Buick Straight 8 history in the May-June issue, heck, I'd just mail that to the committee. Now I will have to clear all the cobwebs from my brain to come up with all the answers Mr. Coco has asked for. Lots of work. Guess that's why I'm testing the waters. Have a friend in Baltimore with a '29 Studebaker President....what a car. Years ago he ran the socks off of my '39 Special coming down I-95 from Havre de Grace to Baltimore. I know you have a real car there.

Philosophically, I have much less of a problem adding cars that are well within the Classic Era 1928-1938 then going past WWII. The CCCA is as much about the times the cars were made as the cars themselves (at least to me). This is why the halo cars, or the RR or Bentleys of the 1950s do not belong in my opinion.

as far as the comparison, I think it's informative to consider (with no "right answer"):

41 Cadillac 62 (wearing the bullseye)

41 Packard 160

41 Lincoln Continental

41 Buick Limited

41 Buick Roadmaster

40 LaSalle 52

41 Buick Century

41 Packard 120

41 Lincoln

41 Chrysler New Yorker

There's room for a number of opinions , but I think this is a pretty good sample of the border zone. Of course "none of the above" is another opinion.

I don't have time for a long post right now, but all of you consider this. If you're going to let 80 series Buicks in, then what's the arguement against 61 series Cadillacs? They're the exact same chassis as the 62 series, and the interiors are just a little plainer. See, you're sliding down that slippery slope again. Also consider late 30's up to 1940 LaSalles. Almost the same engine as the Cadillac (slightly less HP), and in many cases shared the same body & frame. Again, we're sliding down the slippery slope. Then why not model 120 Packards? Need I say more? You 're letting the "best of the average" in instead of "the best of the best."

Thank you bkazmer for your opinion. I respect it, although my opinion does differ with your selection. This would be mine. Notch #1 full classic. I would agree with moving the LaSalle down a notch, but not up a notch. Just my opinion, and you know what they say about opintions..

41 Cadillac 67

41 Buick Limited

41 Packard 160

41 Lincoln Continental

41 Cadillac 62 and 63

41 Buick Roadmaster

step down to

40 LaSalle 52

step down to

41 Buick Century

41 Chrysler New Yorker 8

41 Lincoln Zephyr

step down to

41 Packard 120

41 Buick Special

41

K8096. I will put both you and bkasmer in the "NO" column. However, let me comment that you're upgrading the Packard 120 in my opinion anyway. I contend that the Buick Roadmaster is superior to the late-thirties LaSalle and equal to or better than the Cadillac V8. Nobody has to agree with me. We are into a period of GM slopping over one brand into another and in 1941 Buick under Harlow Curtice set out out to surpass Cadillac and got their knuckes rapped for the effort. However, that was done by GM after the cat was out of the bag, so the car still was produced and existed. Beginning in 1942 Buick was put back into it's place in the lineup.

Where are you putting the Cadillac 61 in your ladder?

It shouldn't be taken personally.

Hi- yes, Art, Bob, Bill, and Tom are still here and I know them all. My point about the specifications can be applied to the Packard 120. To say that they are "Classics" is a generalization that could not be supported by facts. Yes, they are 8 cylinder, but they were smaller, cheaper, higher production numbers, etc. One has to go back and look at the criteria upon which the CCCA based decisions at some point in time, and that had to do with the, as mentioned, "best of the best." This is not necessarily a super exclusive club, however, as there is a study that was done of production numbers, and over 1,366,000 cars were produced that met the previous guidelines. This study can be found on the CCCA website.

Again, not saying that the Packard 120, for instance, wasn't a nice car, but it does not meet the definition of Classic. If you intend to fight the fight, and at least attempt to get another model of Buick classified as such, then you need to have the statistics to back it up, if indeed the numbers show the right thing.

K8096 I didn't think of the Cadillac 61. With the Buick Century, or on an equal scale with the LaSalle 52, okay? The 1941 Buick Century was basically an early "Muscle Car" or racer, not a high quality prestige car alone. It was a souped up Special in other words.

West, was that "you voted yes before you voted no" or "you voted no before you voted yes".

LOL - it just struck me funny

Yes, Mr. Coco, you and Mr. Huston make important points. I've said where I place the Packard 120....I was with my Mom & Dad on Rt 236 in 1947 between Annandale, VA and Arlington when he decided to race a 1939 Packard 120 with his 1939 Buick Special, over my Mother's loud objections....I was 9 years old. I personally watched the needle exceed 100 and the Packard was left in the dust. A hotrod 37-38 Chevy joined the race and couldn't keep up but hung in for awhile. My Dad was never into excitement and I don't know what hit him that one time, but it thrilled me, even if I did live to tell about it. I think that tells you why I put the Packard 120 where I did in my lineup.

After dinner I'll get out the Buick Book by Gaston & Dunham and put up some of the numbers you asked for Mr. Coco.

I didn't mean the list to be in order, only to be 2 groups - currently accepted and others. Glad to see it's generated some friendly discussion. I forgot the Cadillac 61 but it basically replaced the LaSalle 52 for 1941. (very obvious if you've seen a picture of the 1941 LaSalle prototype).

Personally, I think the top Buicks were superior cars in some ways to the lower series Cadillacs. I threw the Century in because if one thinks that the excellent Buick engine is a reason to include Buicks, why not the fastest variant? I don't think the Special belongs on the list - that drags in a whole 'nother pile of competitive vehicles.

bkazmer I was just trying to answer your post and arrange my view of the similar cars in a way that complemented your list. Under no circumstances should a Buick Special be considered, nor a Packard 110 or 120. I don't know enough about how a Clipper fits into the picture, but I think it was on a par with the 120 with a new name. If you go after the War, I've seen one Clipper (it might have been called a Super Clipper) that was pretty fantastic. It was a gray and blue fastback 1947 Clipper that I saw at a car show when I lived in Virginia. But we're not talking about after the War on this thread anyway.

Based on your earlier post I put you into the NO column. Now I don't know where you stand on the Buick Series 80 and the 1941 Series 70. Maybe you want to straighten me out.

Mr. Coco, et. al. You've given me a big order, but I'll start with production numbers and come back with the rest later. Heck, I might as well go ahead and write the letter to the Committee.

Buick Series 80 & 1941 Series 70 production figures

Left to right=year, series #, number built, body style

1931 Series 86 3579 Coupe

Series 87 14731 sedan

Series 87X 38 export

1932 Series 86 1800

Series 87 4089

Series 87X 3

1933 Series 86 758

Series 86C 90 conv coupe

Series 86S 401 sport coupe

Series 87 1545

Series 88C 124 phaeton

1934-1935 No Series 80

1936 through 1939 Series 80 cars carried name Roadmaster

1936 Series 80C 1064 4-door conv

Series 80 CX 165

Series 81 14985 sedan

Series 81CX 343

1937 Series 80C 1040 humpback conv sedan

Series 80CX 115

Series 81 14637

Series 81X 344

Series 81F 452 formal divider window sedan

Series 81FX 37

1938 & 1939 Series 80, 320.3 cid, 141 horsepower

1938 Series 80C 350 flatback conv sedan, 320 cid, 141 hp

Series 80CX 61

Series 81 4505

Series 81X 199

Series 81F 247

Series 81FX 49

Series 87 466 flatback sedan

1939 Series 80C 3 flatback conv sedan

Series 81 5460

Series 81X 159

Series 81C 311 humpback conv sedan

Series 81CX 53

Series 81F 303

Series 81FX 37

Series 87 20

1940 Series 80 cars carried the name Limited, 141 hp, 320.3 cid

1940 Series 70 cars carried the name Roadmaster, 141 hp, 320.3 cid

1940 Series 80C 7

Series 81 3810

Series 81X 88

Series 81C 230

Series 81CX 20

Series 81F 248

Series 81FX 22

Series 87 14

Series 87F 7 flatback formal sedan

1941 Series 70 Roadmaster cars engine dual carbs, 165 hp, 320.3 cid

Series 71 10431 sedan

Series 71X 122 export sedan

Series 71C 312 conv sedan

Series 71CX 14

Series 76C 1845 conv coupe

Series 76CX 24

Series 76S 2784 sport coupe

Series 76SX 50

I will add cid and horsepower for the pre 1938 cars next time.

wow - that Buick is splendid. No question - once we let the '41 Cad. 60 Special in, who can argue that your car isn't also a 'classic"....!

Great table Dynaflash. But I think this has all been done just a few years ago, at least for the 31-39 80 series.

Classification committees come and go, but in the past the committee would have a real problem with the high production numbers (well over 10K per year) for the model 81 and 71 sedans. The committee does not respond well to arguments that the car being proposed is "as good or better than the Cad 62" -- since many felt the 62 was an anomaly.

I am struck by the incredibly low production figures for the phaetons, 81C and 71C. I think you might have a better chance trying to get these individual models classified. They clearly are very unique amongst all the prewar Buicks, they are even more unique than the 90 series cars. CCCA has not done that, except you might say that the Chrysler T&C or Lincoln Continental are just special models within a production series.

Good luck, I suggest you contact the classification committee and ask them for any material they may have regarding the previous proposal to classifie the 80 series Buicks.

Bill.

I vote yes on the big Buicks. 1931 to 1941.

No long winded explanation as this has been well covered thus far, but that's my vote.

Buicksplus I'm told that the 1940 80 Series went through without a bit of problem. It is significant that the only difference between the 1940 80 Series and the 1937-1939 80 Series was the nameplate that said "Limited" instead of "Roadmaster". Frankly, in a 1939 car, I like the lines of the 40 and 60 series cars the best, but they are definitely not Classic, even with low production numbers, i.e. there were only 80-some 1940 Century club coupes. Production numbers don't get it done. There has to be a lot more. I would suggest not including the sedans for those years, but as I understand it, it's all or nothing. Besides, there were 103,000+ 1939 Special sedans and 5460 Roadmaster sedans, plus a few more Roadmaster Formal sedans (303) which had a divider window. That's a whole lot less. We'll see. I'm still just listening to people who know a lot more about the process than I do.

Thanks Jake (BJM). I'm still counting. I truly appreciate all of the thoughts and advice from all you guys, for or against. But, I still need time to do some more research as Mr. Coco asked. Somewhere I have 1939 prices, but I'm not at all sure where. The other years should have been similar I suppose.

And, to clarify, would that it was so simple as, OK, if it's a wheelbase of more than 125 inches, and cost more than $2000, and they only produced 200 each year, and it had an engine more than 300 cubic inches....again, not that simple, but a place to start for Classic justification.

Interestingly, Auburns may or may not qualify based on some specifications, but it was a sister car to Duesenberg and Cord, that's a tough one, and remember, the 6 cylinder Auburns are excluded from CCCA list. Look at the approved list, and there are exclusions for some well respected names, Locomobile, Peerless, Cadillac, and of course Packard.

Just pointing out that getting specific models of a marque classified as Classics is an interesting process.

That sounds like advice Mr. Coco. If you would like to give me more, off of the thread, it would be welcome at Forever39z@aol.com. Earl Beauchamp

PS: The Roadmaster was over 125 inches, sold for over $2,000, had an overhead valve straigt 8 engine with over 300 cid. I think you knew that. Auburn built a V-12 you know and the '35-36 car was extroadinarily beautiful with a Supercharged Straight 8, flathead like Pontiac and Oldsmobile of course, but if a guy was a young, dashing, playboy who really wanted to sport at the Country Club, an Auburn Speedster straight 8 worked just about as good as any car. A late buddy of mine loved the 1935 and 1936 Auburn Speedster, and his widow still hoards the car in her garage today, not far from where you live. But he liked Buicks too and owned a string of Buick convertibles, but he often told me that a Buick was a lot better car, but it just didn't make his blood run as fast as his Auburn. Nobody will get that unfinished Auburn Speedster as long as his wife lives. Even I could never get it, but I sure would like to have it. But I'm off of the subject.

you guys have a great argument. no-one questions those '41 Buicks as being magnificent cars. Anyone who hsn't personally driven a '41 Limited or Roadmaster shouldn't question the statement that they were at least as good as a Cadillac in most areas (just dont try and "corner" one with the same year Cadillac, or keep up with it for very long, on a long extreme-speed trip....!)

No-one questions that our culture has changed, and 2,000 years+ of western culture is now falling apart, so you can assign any meaning you want to any ole word.

Who CARES about accuracy and precision of speech in a country that transferred its industry and much of its machine tool business to Asia ? Let's be happy !

I am especially pleased to see the word "classic" no longer means "form follows function".

I remember the disappointment when we had the post-war Lincoln Continentals shoved down our thoats on the grounds it would "help increase membership". That was in our earliest years ! And those Auburns ! Ah...good argument - ACD made Auburns as well as Duesenburgs. So why not. Why not Model T's and Model "A" on that logic - after all, the Ford Motor Co. made those superb "L" and KB series Lincolns - so why shouldn't we call a Model "A" a "classic" car, if you use THAT reasoning.

In a few more months, my '81 Toyota Corolla will be an "antique". There is a movement now to stop being so "restrictive" and start calling newer model cars "classics" - after all, one major publication has an article that confirms "any car you like should be a classic, even if it is a new one".

Please - guys... GIVE IT UP ! We are old car buffs ! We can't reverse the flow of history. The fight over which cars should be called "antiques" or "classics" was lost YEARS ago. Let's just relax, enjoy our hobby, and help our fellow hobbyists out with the best info. we can get them.

Sic Transit Gloria...

My comment about Auburns may have been misinterpreted, TW. I don't agree that they should have been included just because they were sister cars to the Duesenberg and Cord. Every marque (and model) should stand on it's on merits. My comments was that, at least, the 6 cylinders were excluded. Aren't there some of the Town and Country models that are 6 cylinder cars? I can understand the reasoning of including large 20's cars, when 6's were the norm, but a 1940's car with a six?? Doesn't make sense to me.

I actually think that the single make car clubs have it easier, things don't get this twisted. Model A Club, don't see any '31 Chevrolets in that. The Pierce Arrow Society, of course a favorite of mine, no question there what's accepted.

I'll look forward to you (TW) bringing your Toyota to Hershey. I may not walk down that row, by choice, but the AACA will be willing to have you bring it. And, as a collector, participant, lover of old cars, it's all about choice, correct?

Twunk Rack, I'll put you in the 'NO' column. I think I understand where you're at, anyway.

Trimacar I haven't had time to do anymore research then I did last night.

Okay Twunk Rack, I'll put you in the YES catagory then. I guess there aren't enough people who come on the web site for me to really know what to expect. Well anyway, after Feburary when I go off the AACA Board I'll have free time on my hands, so I'll sit down and gather the facts and write up a "case report" and submit it. As I said before, nothing beats trial but failure.

'47 Cadillac and '48 Buick are same identical body also, only difference is the pontoons.

QUOTE: From Davie Fields - I vote yes on the big Buicks. UNQUOTE. Thanks Dave. Appreciate your support. I'm still thinking.

QUOTE: Then why don't you restart the Milestone Car Club instead of constantly trying to water down the CCCA? UNQUOTE

The days of cold starting a club are, in my opinion, over. It's going to be all the current clubs can do, just to survive. Young people today are interested in electronics, computers and such; but not cars. We who number among current car enthusiasts are, on average, arriving at an advanced age. It's no secret what happens to each of us as we progress through advanced age. The cars young people see and drive are just no more than complicated, jelly-bean styled blobs on wheels to go from here to there, very dependably with little care, as well as with little ability to arouse enthusiasm. That's a good thing for John Q. Public, but not something that will instill lasting enthusiasm in automobiles. Modern automobiles have become throw-away chattel and nothing more, even the most expensive of them.

I did join CCCA, so I can speak as a member for now, and therefore do not feel like an interloper in giving my opinion. I've just finished reading a 1956 Trends Book again called "Classic Cars and Specials" by Robert Gottlieb. Gottlieb was one of the original guru's of the Classic car hobby. He refers to "Special Interest" cars and "Semi-Classic" cars in that book, repeatedly. It seems to me that a smart direction for expansion without dilution would be a separate Division of the Club where specifically identified autombiles, identified by an expert panel, would be designated as meeting those criteria (to be identified that panel or a separate panel of experts) that set them apart from the ordinary; and invited into a parallel but separate Division of the Club. As part of that, there could even be some redefining of current status; meaning those automobiles already involved in heated discussion. Or, they could be grandfathered. That seems to me like a very logical course that is both conservative and progressive. And again, the idea of there being cars that almost did, but didn't quite meet the definition of a "full Classic" was advanced by Mr. Gottlieb over fifty years ago; long before he could have realized there may come a day when there could be an "aging" of the old car hobby. A number of one car clubs have gone to having a separatge Division for "modified" cars of their brand, a road, in my opinion, gone too far. Of course that's my predjudice perhaps, that I don't need to go into here; other than to say that all of the clubs are recognizing the aging problem, and different ones are facing it in different ways.

The Milestone Car Club Forum sure isn't getting much use. Maybe they should change their name to the Postwar Classics Car Club or the Postwar Thoroughbred Car Club and cater to the people who like Packard Caribbeans, 50's Lincolns, 60's Bentleys, etc. NOTE: When I wrote this, I hadn't noticed that this forum had been deleted.

I had no idea the Milestone Car Club was defunct. Although I had not heard anything about it, I assumed it was operational.

The AACA replaced it. The CCCA - that people can understand. The Milestone Car Club, what does Milestone mean to the average Joe and where would that end?

I saw the cars on the latest CARavan in the Classic Car and I will say on that particular tour I'd have to eat my words. But many times you read the line up and it's about 30 - 40% 1941 & 1947 Cadillacs, and about 20% 1940's Packards.

Earl,

Pardon my intrusion on your thread, but I took the liberty to fill in the blanks on price and wheelbases,

using my Red Book National Used Car Market Report data, which is period and irrefutable.

1931 Series 86 3579 Coupe $1535 124”whb

Series 87 14731 sedan $1565

Series 87X 38 export $

1932 Series 86 1800 $1540 126”whb

Series 87 4089 $1570

Series 87X 3

1933 Series 86 758 $1540 130”whb

Series 86C 90 conv coupe $1575

Series 86S 401 sport coupe $1495

Series 87 1545 $1570

Series 88C 124 phaeton $1845

1934-1935 No Series 80

1936 through 1939 Series 80 cars carried name Roadmaster

1936 Series 80C 1064 4-door conv $1565 131”whb

Series 80 CX 165

Series 81 14985 sedan $1255

Series 81CX 343

1937 Series 80C 1040 humpback conv sedan $1856 131”whb

Series 80CX 115

Series 81 14637 $1518

Series 81X 344

Series 81F 452 formal divider window sedan $1641

Series 81FX 37

1938 & 1939 Series 80, 320.3 cid, 141 horsepower

1938 Series 80C 350 flatback conv sedan, 320 cid, 141 hp $1983 133”whb

Series 80CX 61

Series 81 4505 $1645

Series 81X 199

Series 81F 247 $1758

Series 81FX 49

Series 87 466 flatback sedan $1645

1939 Series 80C 3 flatback conv sedan $1983 133”whb

Series 81 5460 $1543

Series 81X 159

Series 81C 311 humpback conv sedan $1983

Series 81CX 53

Series 81F 303 $1758

Series 81FX 37

Series 87 20 $1543

1940 Series 80 cars carried the name Limited, 141 hp, 320.3 cid

1940 Series 80C 7 $1952 133”whb

Series 81 3810 $1553

Series 81X 88

Series 81C 230 $1952

Series 81CX 20

Series 81F 248 $1727

Series 81FX 22

Series 87 14 $1553

Series 87F 7 flatback formal sedan $1727

1940 Series 70 cars carried the name Roadmaster, 141 hp, 320.3 cid Series 76S Sport Cpe $1277 126”whb

Series 71 Tour Sed Trk $1359

Series 76C Conv Cpe $1431

Series 71C Conv Sport Phae Trk $1768

1941 Series 70 Roadmaster cars engine dual carbs, 165 hp, 320.3 cid

Series 71 10431 sedan $1364 126”whb

Series 71X 122 export sedan

Series 71C 312 conv sedan $1775

Series 71CX 14

Series 76C 1845 conv coupe $1457

Series 76CX 24

Series 76S 2784 sport coupe $1282

Series 76SX 50

Larger. This is Red Book data pertaining to 1937 Packards, but it provides a glimpse of the info that these sweet little books provide. Notice the comparable prices of the 120's to those of the Buicks.

What I can't find are the "X" export car prices, but Dave Corbin should be able to supply those to you. For what it's worth, if the Cadillac Series 60's are Classics, then, so too should be these Buicks, but then all the Junior Packard kids would want a seat at the table. Good luck on your nomination process, and, should you wish to, you can thank me personally for this small contribution at Philly in February.

Regards,

Tom Gibson

Thanks TG57Roadmaster. You've added a lot for sure. I will look forward to meeting you in Philly in February. I still don't know if I have the stomach to involve myself in what I'm afraid would be a difficult and unrewarding effort. I went through all of that 35 years ago in AACA. But, I'm still thinking and wondering about it.

X-100 - There was one 1940 Buick Roadmaster by Brunn, called the Townmaster, and it is still existing, and in the Chicago area. Mr. Brunn told me there were a half dozen or more of the 1941 Limited Brunn cars, and provided me with pictures of three different ones, as well as a 1941 Roadmaster Brunn convertible show car. To date, only the one 1941 Burnn has ever surfaced as a survivor, and it came out of Pittsburgh. It was shown one time, at Hershey, in rather poor condition, about 20 years ago. I have no idea where it might be today, and yes it or one like it was advertised at those prices in Hemmings some years ago.

I thought Richard Kughn up in Michigan owned a dark green 1941 Buick towncar. 100 point car. I saw it at a Grand Classic about 15 years ago at the Dearborn Inn in the pouring rain.

All of the posted info shows why the Buick is not a classic. Small displacement of 320 CID, and a relatively short wheelbase, as well as a very low sticker price. Very fine automobiles and a very good bargain for the money. But still not a classic.

Very short wheelbase? Wheelbase of 127 inches on the Roadmaster as I recall. Now that's a lot longer or as long as a lot of Cadillacs, Packards, Auburns and others edinmass. But, your comment is sort of what I've expected to see. As for price, I'd have to have comparables to agree or disagree. We're not talking about a Special, Super, or even a Century here. In 1941 the Century and Roadmaster outmusceled every other car in America for standard horsepower. Have a Happy New Year.

K8096 the Brunn-Limited that was brought to Hershey many years ago just for show, was sort of maroon, as I recall, and it looked amost like it was painted with a brush. I assume it was purchased and restored; probably as the car you know about.

Dynaflash8, I have owned more than a dozen CCCA Classic cars. Not one of them had such a short wheelbase as 127", or only 320 cid. As I look in my garage 147" is the norm, with average displacement over 450 cid. My favorite car tips the scale at 6250 lbs. List price when new was 7500.00 . While I like and admire the Buicks of all the 30's and think they were one of the best cars for value on what the customer spent per dollar, I invite you to park it next to a 1931 P 1 Springfield Rolls, a 1933 Pierce 1247, or any of the other American super cars and while the Buick is a very fine machine, it can't hold it's own against them. P. S. A 32 Buick series 90 roadster has been on my want list for more than 20 years, I just have not found the right on yet. I have actually started collecting hard to find spare 32 90 series items and literature in anticipation of getting my hands on one.

QUOTE: with average displacement over 450 cid. UNQUOTE Will it generate 165 h.p? I don't think so. And this is done in 1941 with the 320 c.i.d. Prior to that it was 141 h.p. Pretty good engineering. And further, the point is too that you don't have one each of every recognized classic in your garage; just those which meet your personal criteria. Things change over time and different people have different interests. Although I can't tell you the cid for every recognized classic, I am certain that many have no more than 320 cid or a wheelbase longer than 127 inches, which in fact was only 126 inches in 1941; however the Series 90 was 139 inches with the same engine. So, then, how long was the wheelbase on a 1941 Cadillac, 1941 Packard 160? I don't know, but I think not much longer and the Cadillac mustered 150 hp. There are so many different things that can go into consideration, that no blanket approval or condemnation is appropriate.

Earl,

Here's some comparative data for '41...

Packard Super Eight 160; whb 127," 138," 148"

356cid, 160hp, 9 main bearings.

4-door sedan (127"whb) price, $1,795; 3,995 lbs.

Cadillac Series 62 V-8; whb 126," including 60-Special

346cid, 150hp, 3 main bearings.

4-door sedan price, $1,495; 4,030 lbs.

Buick Series 70 Eight; whb 126"

320.2cid, 165hp, 9 main bearings.

4-door sedan price, $1,364; 4,010 lbs.

Chrysler New Yorker Eight; whb 127.5"

323.5cid, 137hp, 6 main bearings.

4-door sedan price, $1,389; 3,775 lbs.

Lincoln Zephyr V-12; whb 125"

292cid, 120hp, 4 main bearings.

4-door sedan price, $1,541; 3,710 lbs.

Packard Eight 120; whb 127"

282.04cid, 120hp, 5 main bearings.

4-door sedan price, $1,291; 3,535 lbs.

Packard Eight Clipper; whb 127"

282.04cid, 125hp, 5 main bearings.

4-door sedan price, $1,420; 3,725 lbs.

TG

Thanks TG57Roadmaster. You must have some good data stuff there in your library. For my money you have to give some credit to Buick for superlative advanced technology with the engine......165 hp with 320 cubes. The Packard Super 8 was a wonderful engine, but they were having to go to 356 cubes to get 160 hp, and Cadillac was pulling more weight (by a smidge admittedly) with 15 hp less.

Earl, you have my support on this issue.

I vote to include the 80 Series Buicks, or at least the big-series Convertible Sedan / Phaeton.

Two of our other cars are recognized, and the 1937 Model 80C is a good example of why recognition should be granted.

I consider my 1937 Buick 80C Phaeton, which is more accurately a Convertible Sedan, to equal or to surpass many other already-accepted examples. The Series 80C '37 Roadmaster 131" wheelbase was unique among Buicks, in that only the 80C had all four doors hinged at their front edge, eliminating the "suicide-door" danger. Specifically, this particular car is a 10,548 mile original car which was owned by the City of New York, and used as Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia's Parade Car for the many dignitaries and Generals of the WWII-Era. Its 320 ci. valve-in-head eight cylinder is dramatically more powerful than the 320 ci. eight cylinder engine of our 1930 Packard 7-Passenger Phaeton. That being said, it doesn't diminish my enjoyment of the Packard, nor does the "only" 126 inch wheelbase of the 1941 Cadillac Cabriolet Convertible Coupe diminish its virtue in comparison to the Packard's 134-1/2 inch wheelbase.

We drive them all, and enjoy them all. That, I believe is the true measure, but recognition is overdue.

The big Buicks are already Classics, it's called the 90 series.

QUOTE: The big Buicks are already Classics, it's called the 90 series. UNQUOTE Since I'm the guy who wrote the case to make that happen, I feel like I am in the best position to speak to this comment. I didn't try for the 70 & 80 Series in 1974 because I didn't want to push the bubble. I also did not apply for the 1940 Series 80 car, but it is now considered a Classic, by somebody elses request. It is the exact same car as the 1939 Series 80. So, the difference could only be labeled as nonsense. The biggest difference is that the Series 90 was longer, more finely appointed and a closed car. The only open cars were in the Series 80 after 1933. The Series 80 was discontinued in favor of the Series 70 in 1940, and in fact there were Brunn bodies contracted by Buick in 1940 and 1941 on the Roadmaster chassis as a trial, just the same as on the Series 90 chassis and I have pictures to prove it. However, Buick President Harlow Curtice decided to offer the Brunn through catalog and dealership only on the Series 90 chassis in 1941. Then, in fact, GM stopped him from doing that. If you go up to the Buick Club thread you'll see a long thread on the Buick Brunn-bodied cars of 1940 and 1941. If anyone cares to find a copy of the May-June 1971 issue of ANTIQUE AUTOMOBILE they will discover all there is to know about the Buicks built from 1931-1942, 19 pages worth. During the time that article was being written I personally corresponded with Hermann Brunn, William Hufstader, Charles Chayne and Edward Ragsdale. All were living at the time. If I felt there was an open mind to be found, I could easily establish the Classic properties of the Buick Series 80. However, I've come to the conclusion that this is not the time, based on what I've seen and heard. Why beat a dead dog?

I would think that '38/'39 Buick 80 series ,especially the very low production Phaetons (350 +/- units produced each of these years) would be "pre approved" for CCCA certification as their only signifocant differences from the certified '40 80 series Buick are in the design of their dashboard and grill. This aside I won't show up yet at a CCCA event with my '39 81-c in an effort to spare others any embarrassment until what must be an oversight is corrected. As far as the engine size/wheelbase/low production/price measurements go the '38/'39 80 series Phaetons meet or exceed the qualifications of many CCCA Classics from A.C.,Auburn,and Bentley to Wills St. Claire. Interesting,these late '30's Buicks were favored by royalty in Scandinavia and the United Kingdom,so much so that Rolls Royce purchased a 1939 80 series car for engineering inspection (see Rolls Royce & Their Competitors '06-'65),and they were particularly impressed with it's 320 inch straight eight. As an aside, for those who find wheelbase of great importance,the '37 80 series cars had a shorter wheelbase than the 133" wheelbase found on the '38-'39 cars.

Looking strictly at '38, '39 & '40, something's not right, as the Packard Super Eights

on their 127"whb are much shorter than all the Buick 80-Series. For '38 & '39,

the Buicks outpower the Packard, and outweigh them in '39 & '40, ...

(Sedans used for comparison).

1938 Packard 1603: 127"whb; 320cid, 130hp, 9-main brg; 4,530 lbs; $2,790

1938 80 Rdmstr: 133"whb; 320cid, 141hp, 5-main brg; 4,245 lbs; $1,635

1939 Packard 1703: 127"whb; 320cid, 130hp, 9-main brg; 3,930 lbs; $1,732

1939 80 Rdmstr: 133"whb; 320cid, 141hp, 5-main brg; 4,247 lbs; $1,543

1940 Packard 1803: 127"whb; 356cid, 160hp, 9-main brg; 3,825 lbs; $1,632

1940 80 Limited: 133"whb; 320cid, 141hp, 5-main brg; 4,400 lbs; $1,553

Cost between the two was ever-narrowing; production numbers shift, too;

1940 saw many more Packard Super Eights made over the Buick 80,

so the "rarity in numbers" theory gets the boot.

1938 Packard: 1603, 1604, 1605, Super Eight, 2,478 prod.

1938 Buick 80, 6,100 prod.

1939 Packard: 1703, 1705, Super Eight, 3,962 prod.

1939 Buick80, 6,479 prod.

1940 Packard: 1803, 1804, 1805 (160) 5,662 prod; 1806, 1807, 1808 (180) 1,900 prod.

(No breakdowns of 127"whb models were available).

1940 Buick 80, 4,446 prod.

If it boils down to an engine thing, Packard's nine main bearings have

an advantage over the Buick's 5 mains, at least for '38-'40.

TG

<O:p</O:p

This has brought out, at least to me, that there are engineering considerations and coachwork considerations, and to some extent they fight each other. F=ma still, so the best performance comes from the Century and the 127" wb 160's, not Roadmasters or lwb Packards! Yet from a coachwork standpoint of course the big cars were more luxurious and generally rarer (I suspect the fastest 160 is the business coupe and those are pretty rare).

It seems the current "rules" slightly favor the coachwork aspect over engineering. I don't think we are going to reach a right answer, just a number of generally well-informed opinions.

Isn't the pre-war Nash production convertible(1940?) eligible now? That certainly seems a coachwork driven case.

It was a great Brunn bodied car and only one was made. I'm certain CCCA would recognise it as a "Classic"

Yes, I'm sure they would if they haven't already recognized it. Just a matter of making an application. Consider that junior Packard 120s when fitted with custom coachwork have been accepted. Even a couple of similarly bodied Fords and many other non-Classic chassis with unique coachwork.

TG57ROADMASTER You have some wonderful stuff. Now I wonder, are there any policy-makers reading this thread?

Dave, the car you pictured above is a 1936 Buick; although if Brewster worked on it for two years, it could have been first registered in 1938. In Maryland, that would have given it a 1938 title at the time. A friend of mine in California owns an unrestored 1938 Buick Brewster-bodied car, which he purchased years ago at an auction in Southern California. Many years ago there was a 1940 Buick Brewster-bodied car shown yearly at Hershey; however that car did not look like a Buick, in that it had the heart-shaped grill similar to the Ford's that had a Brewster body. This would have been the first Buick to win in AACA''s Class 19 I believe. If I'm right, that man's name will be listed in the AACA Winner's Book. The first regular Limited to win in Class 19 (Classic class) was a 1942 Buick Limited that belonged to woman golf-star Gayle Mann's brother. My 1941 Buick Limited was the second one to win; that being in 1976.

One would think that if Buick had lumped the 80 & 90 Series cars together

earlier under the Limited moniker, that there would be no issue

for the 80 Series' recognition by the CCCA.

Larger, from the November, 1938 BUICK Magazine.

Larger, sorry for the bluish cast of this 1940 brochure image...

I have no dog in this fight, just an admiration of the largest Buicks, but, as mentioned before,

the later Series 80 cars are same in everything but name only.

TG

You always have good stuff TG57Roadmaster

Correct. Noel Thompson. I remembered the name the minute you typed it.

Well folks, I was sent an application. For better or worse I filled it out, wrote a long letter, provided some pictures and backup information, and a copy of the May-June 1971 issue of ANTIQUE AUTOMOBILE in which I authored a 19-page researched history concerning the 1931-1942 Buicks. This article was written with the help of personal correspondence with retired Buick leaders, Charles Chayne, William Hufstader, Edward Ragsdale, and custom body builder Hermann Brunn. That's about all I can do. This thread has been fairly split, but I got the feeling that the result was leaning toward agreement that the rest of the big Buicks of the period should join the Limiteds. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. As of now I will close this thread, insofar as my continuing comment. I want to thank everyone who has offered and provided help, and offered their thoughts, both positive and negative. Now let's get this cold weather behind us and go have some old car fun.

Good luck, Buick friend. I would not give it much of a chance since the committee rejected an application a few years ago for 31-39 80 Series Buicks. But times and committees do change, congrats for your initiative. Without it, surely nothing would change. I hope your proposal sails through, I think it would be good for the CCCA.

Earl,

I hope your application is successful, and that your Buick is certified.

Following that, I hope to see my 1937 Buick Model 80C Phaeton certified as well.

Best wishes,

Thanks guys, but brrrrr, it's still cold here in Florida, brrrrr

Well, it's finally warmed back up here in Florida. I sent a second package this week, this one of statistical stuff, and it has been received. So, there is nothing more I can do except sit back and see what the verdict is. If anyone else wishes to send a letter of support, be my guest.

Only 20 more days until the AACA Convention in Philadelphia when, after 15 years of service on the Board, I'm going into retirement. It was a good ride, and I enjoyed almost every minute of it.

Well Buick guys, the meeting is Feb 21 coming up and we'll see if I was able to send enough documentation on the 1941 and earlier Buick Series 70 and 80 to turn the heads of the Committee at all. I did my best and what will be, will be. I didn't include the 1942 model 70 as it is too similar to the 1946-48 model 70. It's always best not to over extend.

Earl,

Today is Tuesday 2/25/10. What is the result of the meeting and presentation of your request for your car? for my car? I certainly hope that they recognized the large series Buicks of these years.

The Committee meets and reviews the materials; or, that is what I understand. If they vote for the proposal it then still has to be presented to the entire membership. That is how I understand it. If they turn the proposal down, then I guess the presenter is sent a letter, or maybe a letter either way. There hasn't been time for a letter to be written, mailed and received here in Florida. Most Clubs and other organizations don't conduct business with members by email or open website. So, Marty, I think it's a case of being patient.

Hello Folks. I submitted a large amount of background and supporting information. I have been told that because of this, the Committee will study that information and reflect on my application again at the next meeting in June. Have patience. I think I did a good job with the support information. We were not summarily rejected, and I appreciate that, as we all should.