Packard Twelve versus Pierce Twelve

I'd like to expand this discussion as to which was the overall better engine, the 1932-38 Pierce V-12, or the 1932-39 Packard Twelve. Has anyone unearthed any SAE or vintage tech papers, articles? Hard facts, not opinion. Pierce got good public relations value from Ab Jenkins' 24-hour Bonneville speed runs in a multi-carbureted, finely tuned, stripped down Pierce 12 roadster. Packard owned what luxury market remained in the Depression so probably didn't feel a need for such a stunt, tho' a Packard Twelve did beat a golf ball in a well-publicized event at the Packard Proving Grounds, then the fastest track on earth.

Seagraves used the Pierce 12 in their fire trucks into the late 1950s or early '60s, but rather than this suggest superiority it should be remembered that Seagraves bought the tooling for pennies on the dollar. Similarly, American LaFrance used an enlarged version of the Auburn V-12 with twin ignition.

I'm especially interested in both engines' final guise, the 462-cid Pierce 12, and 473-cid Packard Twelve. The final generation 1936-38 Pierce-Arrow 8 and 12 came with standard Warner Gear overdrive, which the Packard Twelve could've benifited from. But that's a car disparity.

What i'd like to find out is which was the better engine? Which had the edge? Or is it just too close to call?

Paging Dr. Hartmann and others. But i'd really like to hear if there are any SAE papers, etc. Hard facts.

We've had a couple of Packard 12s in the family and still have one, but the ongoing 40 year long restoration seems to have gone over schedule so I can't comment on driving one. I've always liked the Pierce Arrow, although I've never driven one of those either. I'm wondering how the overdrive gear worked on the Pierce? Was the unit integral with the transmission or mounted behind it. Does it work on all 3 gears or is it like Mercedes where it's an over the top gear off of 3rd?

Also have a 48 Lincoln Conv Coupe(not CCCA qulified but much rarer than a continential)

The little V12 will keep up and eat the mighty Packard on the road while getting 18mpg with the edelbrock 2x2 intake in OD.

Another fun car to drive as a daily driver. The ignition is the only pain to work on.

Is the Lincoln stock? I've never driven one myself so I can't comment from experience but I've heard many guys call them dogs - especially complaining if they get stuck behind one on a caravan going up hill. Is this criticism unfair?

AJ also known as Alsancle has asked me to chime in on this post. As I will always honor any request he makes of me, here it goes. A comparison of the Pierce twelve to the Packard twelve. I could do an hour long video comparing and contrasting the two engines. We could talk design, efficiency, power, aesthetics, longevity, ease of service, the list could go on for quite some length. I have had countless experiance with Pierce V12 cars, worked on more than 35 cars that I can think of, and driven more than 25 of them. I have more than 25,000 miles behind the wheel on them. I have driven no less than ten Packard V12's from 1932 to 1938. Total mileage is in excess of 750 miles, at all speeds and road conditions. I have worked on and serviced several of them, and looked over and handled every major engine component of the Packard twelve. I have a good basic understanding of the Packard engine, including roadside tuning and repair. Stock motor comparison the Pierce has 20 percent more power and a quite a bit more torque. The Packard and Pierce properly tuned are both very smooth and have no signs of vibration at idle all the way to full throttle. It seems they both have similar starting and cold blooded traits. Acceleration and pulling power goes to the Pierce hands down, it's a bigger difference than one would expect, the Packard is adequate for its time, the Pierce will impress you with its surplus power. The Packard engine is much more pleasing to the eye and in finished detail. No argument there. The Packard motor is more "flowing and finished". The Pierce engine is more industrial and heavy equipment in nature. In 1932 a Pierce V-12 ran at The salt flats for 24 hours averaging 117.5 miles per hour, NO other American multi cylinder motor could come close pre war........NONE. They were indestructible as long as they had oil in them. That's why Seagrave used them as a power source for fire truck pumpers. They ran at 80 percent throttle for days on end pumping 1000gpm for years serving as front line equipment into the 1990's. I think it's a fair statement that the Pierce 12 was the most powerful and reliable of the great pre war motors. Yup, a J will make more power but it won't hold together at wide open throttle like a Pierce 12 will, and I know of no other power plant pre war that would. I am sure many people will disagree.....but AJ asked. Both Packard and Pierce built GREAT cars, and Packard in general had better styling overall than Pierce, but when it comes to driving them, Pierce is the tops. I am a Pierce guy........and will always will be, my father was a Pierce fan, but owned many more Packards in the old days and always praised them. I guess the son must rebel and carry a different torch. We could go on for pages about chassis, transmission, fuel, oiling, exhaust, ect....... With both cars having excellent construction and engineering methods. Truth be known both of them are great cars. As an interesting side note, a friend of mine has both world class Packard and Pierce twelves. Recently he purchased a new Packard 12 and after driving it for an hour, he brought it back to me and said it's great, but needs to be tuned and dialed in as it just didn't pull the hills or have the power or acceleration of the Pierce. The Packard was running fine and there was no room for improvement, it just doesn't perform as well......... This coming from a owner who has multiple Packard and Pierce twelves. An unbiased opinion. As to my two cents....... I would include several other cars that have great engines and are often not included in the list of GREAT power plants. Marmon 16 and Bently Speed Six are just the first two off the top of my head......but that's another story!

Since Ed was gracious enough to let me drive his 36 Pierce 12 this summer I thought I would bring this back to the top with some comments.   I was really impressed with the power and drivablility.  Just an easy car to handle in general.   Pierce made a couple of small design mistakes with the vent windows (which can cut your fingers off on a sharp turn if open) and the parking brake (which can prevent you from exiting when engaged) but what a great car.  A double lucked out and got to drive a 36 12 Conv too.  This was a fresh restoration and just so easy to handle.

As a side note, we were following Ed's Pierce on the NE Caravan which was following a Duesenberg.  There were spots where the Model J was just flying and the Pierce was hanging right with him.

I come from a Packard family but I have to say that the more I learn about Pierce the more impressed I am.

alsancleOct 14, 2016

I come from a Packard family but I have to say that the more I learn about Pierce the more impressed I am.

Same here. Now that I've spent a lot of time with this coupe, I'm more and more impressed. Compared to the '34 Packard sedan I sold recently, the Pierce has lighter control efforts and man, it's strong! The Pierce isn't quite as smooth as the Packard, but it's a pleasant mechanical feeling, not a flaw, and I'd say that the Pierce will easily outrun the Packard (although it's coupe vs. sedan). I'm also impressed by how over-built the Pierce is: fully boxed frame, oversized suspension components, giant brakes. No wonder they went out of business, that's just too much time and material for a car.

I'm talking eight-cylinder cars, I have no experience with a Pierce 12, but you can count me as a Pierce fan. I wish I could find a way to keep this coupe, I haven't loved a car this much maybe ever.

Ed is the expert for sure on Pierce Arrow engines (and a lot of Pierce information in general!).  Every now and then a Pierce turns up that few people know about, but Ed ALWAYS seems to know the cars!

I don't have the experience Ed does, but I have been into Pierce and Packard engines of the 30's.  I own one of each, so I can say this as a neutral party, even though being stoned by Packard people may be a result:  the Pierce engine almost makes the Packard engine look effeminate.

The Pierce engine is more robustly built, simpler, and overall, just made to last.  It is true that it looks more "industrial" than a Packard engine, I'd never thought of it that way.

For example, look at the mid to late 30's.  Pierce engines had hydraulic lifters (an engine improvement pioneered by Pierce, although I believe early Cadillac V-16;s used them too).  The Packard valve lift system wasn't even a simple pushrod style, but rather a  side rocker arm that moved a pushrod, quite a lot of parts added to engine design and all needing adjustment. 

I can't speak much to metallurgy, except to say that Packard had metallurgical problems in 1938, for sure, in their block castings.  It's well known in Packard circles that 1938 straight eight blocks are of two varieties, those that have developed cracks, and those that will develop cracks.  These are usually cracks in the top of the block between valve seats.  My 1938 1604 is dead in the water right now, because of this cracking, and my block is not repairable.

Someone could probably source the bearing surface areas, that would be an interesting comparison.

My opinion is that Pierce emphasized chassis engineering, and styling was a secondary consideration.  Packard emphasized styling, and while their engineering was quite good, it wasn't the driving force behind selling cars.  This statement applies mostly to cars of the 1930's, as before then, styling wasn't as big a consideration to any car company, form followed function.

Thank you fellas for the nice words........I hope to live up to them some day! It's been a busy and eventful summer. I have had an opportunity to put about 750 miles on Packard 12's since I first posted here, another 1600 miles on several Pierce 12's, and 1900 miles on two Model J's. All great cars, well sorted and running and performing at their full potential. All three cars have a diffrent feel while driving them. How to pick a favorite? We shal try......

If we took the top ten current super models and lined them up on the cat walk in let's say the swim wear competition, and there were three of us judging the ladies........... And I turn to you and say, pick out the best looking of the bunch, the least attractive one of the bunch, and the one that you find overall most appealing taking into consideration all possible aspects of what you find attractive in a lady, the diffrent answers would sure be interesting..........remembering we are trying to pick out the "standouts" of the top ten super models! Would any of us be embarrassed of hesitant of being seen with any of them? No, so I think one can honestly compare the three cars that are the subject of this thread. They are all world class, just with diffrent attributes that make each one special in their own way. Taking any one of these cars........or ladies .......... For a ride will always be a positive experience!

Interesting observations of the cars....... Model J, Packard 12, and Pierce 12.

Overall in the last 24 months I have driven no less than seven Duesenberg's and the most interesting attribute of them is they seem to be the most poorly maintained, poorly running, and suffer from poor workmanship of restoration than any other cars I have ever worked on, and believe me I have worked on a bunch of stuff. You think the owners of these legendary cars would see to it that only the best quailified people would lay their hands on them.......nope, there are lots of collectors who let the cars sit, with old gas, weak batteries, tires with flat spots, exhaust leaks, oil leaks, overheating issues, clutch chatter, wrong parts, ect,ect,ect! When running and sorted properly the J is a GREAT car......and overall lives up to the legend of being the best American car built before WWII, yup it's number one........in style, in power, and performance ..............that is if you like driving a dump truck! Ok, that may be a bit much, but the J is the best.......BUT     It is heavy and a much less refined driving experience. For a short drive of under an hour, it can't be beat. Period. They can be hard to get into and out of, steer heavy, shift hard with their crash box, and burn fuel like it's going out of style, and they tire the driver out pretty quickly. Drive one over two hundred miles in a day,(we did) and when you get out of it, it feels like you got your ass kicked in a school lot fight. You feel,every bump, rut, hill, body sway, vibration, every part of the road gets transferred into your body. Getting out of the car after seven or eight hours driving and you know you accomplished a impressive and special feat, driving the worlds best car, being seen in a true masterpiece of style and engineering, but man, is your ass dragging. We won't even consider purchase cost, or matainance frequency, if money and time were no object, it's the Model J hands down.

The Packard 12........ Is our next contestant. I will refer to the Individual Custom Dietrich series from 1932 to 1934 for this exercise, yup, the Big Boy Toy........ As its Coachwork is most similar to what you find on a J. Beautiful styling, the best, hands down in my opinion the most beautiful cars ever designed, from the start of time to today, the Individual Custom Dietrich Packard 12's are the most beautiful design ever placed on four wheels. The chassis and motor are extremely refined and elegant, smooth and detailed, quality and finish are the tops, road manners are wonderful, and it's almost impossible to find any fault with the cars, and any you can name are almost not worth commenting on as they are so insignificant. Increase the Packards horsepower and torque and I would consider them a perfect motorcar. The power is adequate, it is very smooth and predictable,  a bit under powered............ Only when driving in the 80 percentile and above does it lack anything, and almost no one today drives these cars in that range........ But I do, so thus the comment. Overall the golden era of the custom Packard 12 wins the "best overall road car for the luxury car buyer" no questions asked. The Packard is a gem, if you were going to purchase such a machine today, nothing modern can compare at all, not even close, today's Bentley or Rolls just isn't a third the refinement and attention to detail of the golden era of Packard.  And the Packard Individual Custom Dietrich's biggest downfall is a BIG one........PRICE. No working man can afford one today, they are MUCH more expensive than you think.......think again and double it, and then add your last ten years salary to it. Duesenberg's can be bought on the cheap compared to the Individual Custom Dietrich Packard cars. 

Time me to take a break, I'll get back to Pierce Arrow's in my next post. Ed

"My dog is better than your dog"....?

Enjoyed browsing this "thread" about which is better - Pierce or Packard Twelves....

Fun reading - no question about it - people love to share their opinions,  Who cares about technical facts if we are having fun...!

For example, I   "learned" from one poster ( who claims to be well-versed on the subject..!)  that "Packard V-12's are a bit under-powered".  Another who claims he is "into" these engines tells us Packard V-12's have a "rocker arm that moves a push-rod"...!   And still another tells us "Pierce had giant brakes".....!

Yes, of course in addition to the nonsense, I did find some comments I agree completely with.  One of our contributors pointed out the sad story ( he was picking on Dusies, but unfortunately, his remarks are equally valid for so many of the high-value cars you see displayed today).   

He noted... sad to see so many high-value big-engine classics reduced to little more than very pretty "costume jewelery".   If they can make it from their trailer out to their assigned spot on the show-field, the owners are satisfied.

Back in the real world, there were not separate engineering schools for Pierce Arrow and Packard.  Sorry to have to tell you guys there are not different laws of physics and chemistry for the two makes.

Yes, if you are accustomed to a car of the weight of a Buick, the brakes on a heavier Pierce will seem huge.    Basic law of physics; heavier the car, the bigger the brakes. Tells us something about the technical knowledge (  or lack of it...) of the contributor;  dosnt tell us which is the "better" car.   As a side note, I believe Packard bragged its 12 cyl. cars had the largest "swept area" of brake lining;  if there's a dime's worth of difference between the braking capacity of a Pierce or Packard V12 I have not seen that demonstrated.

As for power and speed comparisons - again - hate to bother you folks with the laws of chemistry and physics - they wont bend to favor any particular make car.   Simple fact is, given the similarity of design, compression ratio, and displacement, you are going to wind up with similar power.   Well...that is....if both engines have been PROPERLY maintained.

Of course there  are variables that can affect performance...weight and "final drive" gearing.  Yes, a stripped down and re-geared Pierce did come close to 120 mph;  in '32 Packard did show their V-12 could beat a golf ball (around 124 mph).  Of course the ones that came out the factory door were geared for the roads of the day - with the exception of the later over-drive equipped Pierce, the big-engine super cars of the pre-war days, again, as delivered with the gear ratios of the day, would be "neck & neck"... lucky to break 90 mph.  No question the over-drive of a later Pierce gave it a tremendous advantage over the Cad., Packard, and Lincoln multi-cyl. cars.

Let's be realistic - at modern prestigious car shows, folks pay good money - LOTS of good money, to be entertained by display cars.    The cars that are selected are often brightly painted with paint technology not available during the classic era,  in colors that are not historically correct,  engine parts that were nickel-plated now brightly chrome-plated.  Hardly the way the cars were when placed in service by the original owners.    The owners of these cars have paid a fortune to make them show-worthy;  how they actually run on the open road is of little or no interest to them - certainly not something the show-goers, again, who have paid to be entertained, would know or care about.

Phil Hill had a bone-stock Packard V-12.   He loved "driving the cat-nip" out of it around the roads of Southern California.  Of course he knew how to make its motor deliver what it was supposed to do ( yes - it was bone-stock).   A Packard V-12 is "a bit underpowered".....well...depends on who is taking care of it!    I rather doubt if anyone who TRIED to catch Phil when he was out fooling around up Laurel Canyon Blvd. or Coldwater Canyon Blvd....would say Packard 12's are "a bit underpowered" or that they don't handle quite well.....!

shinyhubcapOct 15, 2016

there were not separate engineering schools for Pierce Arrow and Packard.  Sorry to have to tell you guys there are not different laws of physics and chemistry for the two makes.

Well, Shiny, you can ignore my comments, but if you want to really know how the cow ate the cabbage, pay attention to Mr. Minnie's thoughts.  He's been around these cars for decades, and knows of what he speaks.

As to Engineers, since I am one, I can speak on that comment.  Yes, there ARE different schools of thought on how things should be built, and how they thus function.  You seem to think that all cars are the same from an engineering standpoint, and nothing could be further from the truth.  I've worked on American and foreign cars, and I also worked in the food industry for over 30 years, traveling to Europe and Japan to inspect, test, and buy food processing equipment.  Engineering in every country is different.

Americans use heavy castings and big bolts and robust parts.  English use lighter weight components, sometimes make simple things very complicated, and in the case of Rolls Royce, "sew" parts together by using a multitude of bolts.  Italians like monkey motion and chains, and if something here needs to be pushed by something there, then you can bet there'll be rods and levers galore.  Japanese are meticulous in precision, as are the Germans, and both design and build machinery that is focused on function.  The French, well, they're in a world of their own, do genius stuff (witness the Citroen hydraulic suspension, a wonderful system), but one needs to really understand it to work on it.

If you don't think Packard and Pierce had different thoughts on how an engine should be built, then you've never looked at one.  Sure, they both have crankshafts and pistons and so on, but they are different.  Suspensions and braking were different, too, with Pierce offering power assisted braking while Packard was not, different steering design, and so forth.

I believe it's a very interesting discussion, and I don't know what your experience is in the antique and classic car world, but it seems your negative analysis is a little over the top for this friendly thread.....

shinyhubcapOct 15, 2016

Let's be realistic - at modern prestigious car shows, folks pay good money - LOTS of good money, to be entertained by display cars.    The cars that are selected are often brightly painted with paint technology not available during the classic era,  in colors that are not historically correct,  engine parts that were nickel-plated now brightly chrome-plated.  Hardly the way the cars were when placed in service by the original owners.    The owners of these cars have paid a fortune to make them show-worthy;  how they actually run on the open road is of little or no interest to them - certainly not something the show-goers, again, who have paid to be entertained, would know or care about.
 

I'll agree with this for the most part.  But after the show life of many of these cars they are used for touring and 150 miles a day of driving will sort out the good from the bad pretty quickly. 

I don't take Ed's comments as downing the Packard so much as explaining the differences (there are a few) between the two approaches.   How many guys out there have really got the chance to drive a V12 hard of either marque?  Ed has driven both in to the ground.  There are very few guys that can say that AND are willing to candidly talk about it.

Ed,  have you ever driven one of the later (post 35) bigger Packard 12s?   Possibly unfair to compare the later Pierce (especially the ones you drive with 500cubes) with the earlier 12.

AJ, I was keeping my comments compared from the 32 to 35 Packards and Pierce cars. Yes, I have driven the later Packard 12's and they are a good bit of a step up from the earlier cars, but still not caught up to the PA. The late Packard chassis are much better than the earlier Packards and the PA marque to the end. I didn't down the Packard, I rated it better than a PA even before I have commented on the PA cars. I'm off to a wedding in my 1936 V-12 right now, I will finish up the post tonight. 

Oh, look who's back under yet another pseudonym...

Interesting, and every post seems confrontational....

Poor Ed, having to drive all those old cars, what a shame...maybe one day he can afford to get a new car, poor fellow....

THREAD TITLE - fellow asks us to discuss the differences, if any, between Pierce and Packard V-12's

"interesting...and every post seems to confrontational"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes Trim - I agree with you - I see that -  my apologies -  clearly, there are some folks in here whose status is such that we do not dare disagree with them. 

I note they apparently not only  kicked out some guy,  but also deleted his comment for his noting something about larger water passages in the Packard V-12's cooling system ( I spotted a reference to that earlier in this "thread" - wondered what that was about ).

For example, as Matt tells us  "the Pierce will easily outrun the Packard".   True, Matt was honest - he stated later in that post   " I have no experience with a PierceTwelve...".   So what ?   - he and some others in here have a greater right to their opinions.  That's the way it is.

So - no problem - I apologize - I will try and remember not to disagree in the future.

edinmassNov 5, 2015

.. I think it's a fair statement that the Pierce 12 was the most powerful and reliable of the great pre war motors. ....I would include several other cars that have great engines and are often not included in the list of GREAT power plants. Marmon 16 ...but that's another story!

Yes, I agree in part......... the Marmon V-16 would certainly be another story - the fellow who started this "thread" did not mention that incredible machine !   

As a side-note ( and apologies for drifting away from the question that started this particular "thread".....! )   "long long ago and far far away"..... ( Van Nuys, California,..! )   a particularly fine fellow, and fellow CCCA member of the "old days"  (  the late Al Bartz ) had  a incredibly well-equipped  hot rod machine shop - a "side business" of his was re-building Marmon V-16's.

He also had a wicked sense of humor....only after he "blew my doors off" one night coming back on the old Coast Highway.... did he invite me to his shop.   I remember shaking my head with disbelief  at the figures,  as he ran up a freshly "tweaked" Marmon V-16 on his dyno.

To this day, "bragging rights" amongst  some Marmon 16 owners is that their engine is a "Bartz" engine.  Al  correctly recognized that the Marmon V-16, with its "modern" over-head valve "cross-flow" cylinder heads was way ahead in its potential, to the "flat-heads" like the ones discussed in this "thread"..... with a little "tweaking" by Al  - capable of vastly increased performance.    Here's a suggestion on how to lose a bet - bet someone with a "Bartz" Marmon V-16 that you can stay with him in a drag race....!

In another thread I listed the great pre war motors as

Duesenberg J

Pierce 12

Marmon 16

Bently 6.5 Liter

Hispano 6 & 12. The big six.

Above average:

Cadillac 16 OHV

Packard 12

DV 32

P III

I may have missed a great / or above average engine, but I am writing this in the back of the church while waiting for the Bride &a Groom. Any wedding you go to that's not you own is a good one!?

edinmassOct 15, 2016

In another thread I listed the great pre war motors as

Duesenberg J

Pierce 12

Marmon 16

Bently 6.5 Liter

Hispano 6 & 12. The big six.  Above average:  Cadillac 16 OHV  Packard 12     DV 32   P III

I may have missed a great / or above average engine,.....

Ha -   caught you...!      (but I may get both of us into trouble with the "purists" in here for  us etting too far away from the original question in this thread.....!)

You did not mention the "flat-head" Cad. V-16  ( as many of our readers know....the very beautiful LOOKING overhead valve Cad. 16 motor was replaced for 1938-1940 production by an entirely different design.  Not nearly as attractive to look at.  The so-called " flat-head" Cad. V-16.

It had as much if not more power as the larger displacement, heavier, more complex motor it replaced.  Much improved pressurized cooling system, down-draft carbs, etc.

Of particular interest to me is its incredibly short stroke - one of the many reasons why it was so silky smooth, and could rev. like crazy, well beyond that at which our older long-stroke beloveds would be tossing rods thru their crank-cases.....- closest thing to an electric motor-powered car I've ever owned.   Makes your and my favorite V-12's feel like single cylinder two-stroke motorcycles by comparison !

Given the low octane fuel of the era,  I am sure you are aware significantly higher compression ratios were not practical for power-plant engineers.  Also,  designers and PR people recognized most of these super-luxury cars would be judged by how they performed at the lower speeds the roads of that era permitted.   So "breathing" and valve timing were set up accordingly.  Given those design criteria,  really wasn't all that much  advantage to more complex and potentially more noisy over-head valves & "cross-flow" heads at the lower rpm ranges these vehicles spent their lives in.

My apologies to Trimcar for picking on him - how many of you understand why I made fun of him for his discussing the "pushrod"  in the Packard V-12 valve system....?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

not exactly new  member - various state and one federal bar (and the bar down the street)

not exactly new  member - various "old car crazy" / historical (also hysterical...?  ) interest clubs

proud admirer of a 1943 Edsel pick up truck...chopped and channeled with J.C. Whitney hub-caps and "fuzzies"  dangling from the rear-view mirror.......you know...the bright yellow one everyone says, when they look at your classic...."we had one just like that"   ..."where do you buy gas for that thing"......"is that a fiberglass reproduction"...... (or, looking right at my obviously brand-new Diamondbacks...)....."can you still get tires for those things".........(or my favorite...."did you buy it new..."  ?  )

Welcome Shiny' ! Looks like you've been around the block a few times , old man. And I take it some very interesting vehicles have transported you there ! Listen : first off , lest I forget to ask , Bob Smits has been looking for a flathead Cad 16. Since you have had same , can you (or anyone else for that matter) help old Doctor Bob out ? He is at the point he wants to drive his '38. I have a '48 manual trans V8 Cad mill that will have to go to the cause unless an 11th hour 16 pops up. Any leads ? (Oh , hey speaking of V16s , did you ever know that So Cal machinist who had that 3400 cu. in. Duesenberg V16 aero engine prototype sitting in his shop years ago ?)

O.K. , now Shiny' , since you are kinda new here these pics are for you. Everyone else has already seen them , but Ed mentioned Speed Six Bentley , so here is a wrecked limousine , rebodied '26 which had just turned a deer into venison a year ago. Therefore the broken headlight , bent numbers plate , and small duct tape patch. About a 40 mph impact. Not bad ! Another big bad six banger is the 1927 S Mercedes Benz. The Indy Duesenberg has a later engine transplant. (No , they are not mine , unfortunately. Things almost worked out , but that is a sad story).

You commented  on the Packard tire pressure thread as to how few folks actually get out on the open road and really drive their old cars. I am sure many more would like to , but any number of factors combine to make this difficult or impossible. Myself , I put 2700 miles on my original unrestored '27 Cadillac sedan early this year. Back road lone wolfing it out to , and then down Coast. Hanging in , and cruising around Santa Barbara area. Next through desert back roads to and around 'Vegas. But everyone else has heard that story , too. In any case , I would spend most of whatever is left of my life driving that car if I could. Do you still have a good ancient long distance cruiser ? 

Look , all the guys and gals here get to kick it around the virtual bench , or under the virtual lift , or out on the virtual road or field  together. Virtual friends here. Almost everyone has had the pleasure of meeting some of their new friends. Under the circumstances , I just felt drawn to make sure you feel very welcome here. You are quite generous with your long postings , and I am sure we all will enjoy more of your knowledge and anecdotes. This forum is made up by wonderful people. You are one of us ! Again , welcome.  -  Carl 

The eight cylinder Packard has the monkey motion pushrod system, I thought the 12 did too.  If not, my mistake, and I deserve to be slapped on the wrist with a bent pushrod......or made fun of, your choice, and deservedly so....

trimacarOct 16, 2016

The eight cylinder Packard has the monkey motion pushrod system, I thought the 12 did too.  If not, my mistake, and I deserve to be slapped on the wrist with a bent pushrod......or made fun of, your choice, and deservedly so.......

Hi again Trim - you are a true gentleman admitting you made an error. A very human one !

C'mon folks....lets be honest - we've all done it - got so wound up in our belief system, so determined to support a theory, that we come up with some silly stuff.  So what  !

So long as we are adult enough to be willing to learn - without getting our noses out of joint ( or seeking people get censored or banned because they disagree with us )   we can all benefit.

Sure - there are no push-rods in the Packard V-12 valve system.   No hydraulic lifters at all by the way - SOLID lifters  - roller cam followers that lift directly on the valve stems.   Yes - there is a "lash-take-up" using engine oil - hardly a typical hydraulic lifter as we understand the term today.

Is it silly to claim that a Pierce 12 can run away from a Packard 12 as another contributor did ?   Given how similar the engine design, bodies, and rear axle ratios were...?

Well...of course we all can get a little carried away supporting our favorite "flavor".    Actually, some truth to that to this extent.....given similar bodies (and their final drive/differential gearing was almost identical)  both will be hard-put to break 90 mph.  Probably "neck & neck" getting there given those nasty laws of physics........but with the flick of a lever, the Pierce (some - not all) has one incredible advantage - OVERDRIVE.

So yes...once we get much above 85-90 mph,  where the stock-geared competitor's motors are screaming themselves at the limits of their induction,  the over-drive-engaged Pierce 12  takes off leaving the Packard 12 in the dust.

Now of course this entire post of mine assumes something that is most likely not accurate in the case of so many "restored" cars today.   As I suggested earlier,  what a shame that so many of these fantastic machines are little more than pretty costume jewelry for display at prestigious auto shows.  Their mechanical restorations often leave them bearing little relationship to how the car performed when it was properly maintained in service.

A mid thirties Packard advertisement claimed you could drive a Packard V-12  over 400 miles in a day and arrive relaxed and rested!   We used to call that kind of statement in the advertising world "puffing" ( just think about the roads of that era - sure it could be done....bet it was done.......).    Could there be any doubt that a Pierce V-12 could give the same level of performance?

There is much to learn here if we give each other a chance, have a sense of humor like Trim has displayed,  and try to remember one of our purposes in here is to preserve automotive history with as much accuracy as possible..

A final "jab" at one of our other contributors in this "thread",  who, in his desire to support his particular "flavor" of classic, said the Packards did not have power brakes..........

You get the idea.....!

Well, as far as the power brake discussion goes, Packard vs. Pierce.....the discussion comparing the V-12's between the two companies (or even 8's for that matter) has to have an end date of 1938, by the very nature of the PAMCC going out of business. 

My 1938 1604 Super eight does not have power brakes.  Did the 1938 Packard 12 have power brakes?  I don't think so, but correct me if I'm wrong, they were standard hydraulics.

Pierce Arrow had mechanically assisted Stewart Warner power brakes much earlier, from 1933 to 1935, and then went to vacuum assisted power brakes until 1938.

So, I don't think the statement that Packard did not have power brakes is incorrect, for the time period of this discussion.

I've never driven a Packard V-12, so can't compare the two.  I have driven a 1934 Pierce production Silver Arrow V-12 (which I owned in the 1980's and now lives on the west coast), and no other pre-war car I've ever driven had the torque and power of that car,  70 mph was no problem, and even without overdrive, the car hit 100 mph when being driven west by the new owner......  

Did Pierce use the same block for all year 12 cylinder engines and simply change the bore and stroke for the different displacements?  Is the 150hp "small" 12 of 1932 the same engine as the "big" 12?

Hi again Trim !

I would like to respond to your above post within the context of what Scott was asking, when he started this particular "thread".  

But first -  yes - you are correct - the  "so called "Super Eight" * *  production of Packard for 1937-1938 did not have the power-brake system of the Packard Twelve.  For an obvious reason.  While the again  " so-called Super Eight"  * * * had the same exterior appearance (because it used the same outside sheet-metal and dash-board),  underneath it was a whole different car.  

To avoid daggers being thrown by present  '37 - '38  Packard   "so called Super Eight" owners,  let me assure them I am confident that series Packard was WITHIN ITS PRICE CLASS, the equal of anything IN THAT PRICE CLASS.   Packard, like Pierce, had a well-deserved reputation for giving the buyer in any of the price-classes it competed, good value for the money.  Comparing cars from different price classes is unfair.

To summarize, the Packard V-12  1937-1939 had a different, much heavier chassis, suspension, bigger cooling system, and thus it weighed more - nearly a ton more - which justified the use of much more competent power-assisted hydraulic brakes.

As a side-note, ALL of the "big" Packards from (   hmmm..was it '32 on or '33 ..?  ) had power assisted brakes.   As did other cars of similar weight.

Again, our desire to glorify whichever "flavor" car of that era most appeals to us,  the simple fact is - those old laws of physics dictated what engineers of that era came up with.  I don't recall now who made the "vacuum booster"  system - yes - there were differences when Packard went to "juice" brakes for the "Senior" line in '37 - whereas Pierce still had cable brakes.  

If memory servies - the vacuum booster on my '34 Packard Super Eight ( the "real" Super Eight )  was identical except for size, to the one that was also factory-equipped on my '36 American La France V-12 ( a much heavier fire engine).

Anyone want to argue that IF the systems are properly set up,  you could tell the difference between braking effort, stopping distance..between a hydraulic brake equipped Packard V-12 and a "mechanical brake" equipped Pierce V-12 ?

But none of this answers the question proposed by Scott in his opening post.

I again suggest both the Pierce and Packard V-12's were superb machines.   To quote one of our early CCCA members  "engineering exaggerations, magnificently over-done".  

I have the unfair advantage over you in that due to an accident of time and circumstance, I can answer Scott's questions with  "some degree" of personal experience......... !

The answer is simple - I love em both - if blind-folded and stuck in the rear seat while someone else was driving,  and not able to feel the door-handles.....I'd be hard-put to tell which one was "better" (whatever that means...!)  ( again..with this qualification....Pierce recognized that with improving roads even as far back as the early 1930's...., highway speeds were increasing to the point that an over-drive was appropriate for "low-geared" cars - Packard, for some reason,  didn't  see it necessary.

Oh - if you want to nit-pic, Packard fanatics could point to the much more modern, more competent independent front suspension of their '37-39 Twelves  - again, given how superior both cars handled,  you'd really have to rough them both up to feel any real advantage.

The above would hold true today.  Continuing with Scott's question - again, given todays speeds, no question the later over-drive equipped Pierce V12 would be my choice over a bone-stock geared Packard 12.  To that extent...ANY r stock-geared big car from that era not equipped with over-drive would be a giant "negative" today.

Scott asked about "reliability", phrasing his question "from a practicality point of view".

Again, I don't see a "dime's worth of difference" - both were "the best of the best" in that regard.  Remember,  electrical-related parts such as ignition and fuel supply were not made by either manufacturer - they were both from outside vendors.  Distributors, distributor caps, rotors, starter-motors... coils, fuel pumps, brake components - these things are obviously vital to that question.  Both Pierce and Packard used the same suppliers.

Oh - I suppose when over-haul time came,  I suppose I could do a Pierce V-12 a little faster - you need a special boring bar to handle the bore-angle-issue of the Packard V-12, and what a nuisance to  have to drop the con. rods out from below.

Are either or both "practical" to have and enjoy ?   Well...good question..and some obviously don't like the answer....depends on who is maintaining them !     Assuming proper maintainence,  either car will perform the same job it was designed to do when new.....provide the owner with the ultimate driving experience satisfaction.

As a side-note, I do quarrel with your comment about the Silver Arrow.....that "70 mph was no problem...and even without overdrive...the car hit 100". 

I think it is a "stretch" to call a Silver Arrow a "production" car - never driven one - never even crawled under one much less worked on one.  So I have no idea what its rear-end gearing and transmission set-up they had. 

If  Pierce used the same rear axle & transmisison the production Pierce's had, it dosnt take much mathematics to figure out why this taxes belief.   70 mph in any low-geared car is brutal to not only the connecting rod bearings, but all the other stuff that goes round and round when the car is moving.   Are you aware of what happens to the torque  and power curves of either the Pierce or Packard 12's once you spin em much beyond 3,000 rpm ?

Remember, the Pierce Silver Arrow had the largest version of that motor.... had a FOUR  INCH stroke. 100 mph with "stock" gearing and no over-drive ?    My suspicion is you over-looked what I THINK was the case - that thing had over-drive and it was engaged.

Bottom line to answer Scott - if you are fortunate enough to get your hands on either a  properly-maintained Pierce or Packard V-12,  or, better yet..both of them,  you are in for a particularly satisfying driving experience!  

There were the five Silver Arrow show cars of 1933, then there were the "production" Silver Arrows of 1934 and 1935.  Some had eights, some had twelves, they were basically the same mechanically as other Pierce cars of 1934 and 1935, just different styling. 

The car I owned and drove was a production Silver Arrow and very definitely did NOT have overdrive, and when I was at 70mph, I could tell there was plenty left.  The person who bought the car drove it from Dallas Texas back to Washington State, on brand new tires, and told me he had it at 100 mph on a long straight stretch of road, and I don't doubt him.

I won't "quarrel" with your real life experiences if you don't quarrel with mine!

I didn't include the flat head 16 as I have extensively worked on and driven them. I am unimpressed. The Pierce IS a faster car than any other except the Duesenberg period. I have driven two open Marmon 16's and they are very quick, not fast, it would make you want to burn your Caddy 16, but they are not attractive, and body and chassis construction are below Buick quaility. I like Marmon 16's and for driving they are hard to beat, but they just plain lack the fit, finish, attention to detail, and refinement on the others. AJ can attest that in extensive conversations in the last 6 months we like the Marmon Conv Coupe over a 30/31 Caddy 16 Roadster. I like the Marmon for one simple reason..........they are much rarer than the Caddy, and I like to drive unusual cars. That why I rated the Packard higher than a Pierce, but only own Pierce Arrow cars. Mr Hub Cap has his opinions, but there are more differences between the cars than he implies, but in his last posting he correctly and fairly addresses several of them. ONLY a Pierce Arrow ran for 24 hours at 117.5 MPH on a stock motor in 1932, for the next few years lots of others tried, and they blew up early in the runs. Seagrave ran the Pierce motor for one simple reason, it was the best big engine that could run for days on end pumping water at 80 percent throttle and not explode. They ran the basic motor into the 1960's so there MUST be a reason. I am very fortunate to regularly drive the best pre war cars in the world, and by that I mean the top 1/10 of one percent. I have driven just about every chassis that is a CCCA Classic. The only two important ones I have not driven is the Doble Steam car and the Alpha twin supercharged car of the late thirties. But all the real oddballs have passed through my dirty hands at one time or another, Railton , Brough Superior , all the pre war Bentleys , Cunningham , McFarlin , Marmon , all the Cadillac's, Locomobile , Sunbeam twin cam, Bugatti Supercharged , ect,ect,ect. Duesenberg is number one, no question about it, the next top three are all a little diffrent and very close, and it would be fair to call them equal. So I will stick with my choices. They are for overall best American cars , and they are......

Dusenberg J

Packard 12

Pierce 12

Cadllac 16

the above three are in random order.......

and all the rest go here.

My current car wish list.....

DV-32

KB

Reo Royal ....just recently added

Crane Simplex

Knox

Now if we consider the European cars things get very complicated. Two diffrent schools of thought, some due to taxes on displacement , and others due to road conditions. As an American I like and think BIG when it comes to the great cars. A supercharged type 57 is a great car, but it's just not fair to compare it to the same vintage American iron. I'll post my Pierce Arrow review in the next day or two. 

It may be interesting to ask the people here to "build" the best possible car using individual components of all cars built between 1929 and 1938. Rules of the build. You must use actual components that were available and in production by routine builders...... the Mormon Meetor is not allowed! Stock chassis components, you can use any mix of engine/transmission/chassis/body builder/body style, wheel treatment, braking system, ect. Post your build here when you figure it out. Also post your ONE choice for your ultimate CCCA "stock built" car that was or could have been available in the era.

My build......

Body..........1932 Packard Individual Custom Dietrich Sport Phaeton 

Chasis .......1938 Packard Twelve frame,suspension,axles,brakes

Engine .......Supercharged Duesenberg J

Transmission .....1936-1938 Pierce Warner three speed with R-1 overdrive

A bunch of custom details for the dash, uhpolstery, lights, ect. You get the idea.

My one choice for the ultimate CCCA car......

1932 Packard Twin Six Custom Dietrich Sport Phaeton .........and the reason for this pick is simple, Duesenberg was basically a race car with a 1928 chassis from start to finish. My choice takes into consideration style and performance with a platform that was reliable and not require the extra attention of a J. Yes, I am implying that a J requir d far more than normal service over realitivly low miles.

edinmassOct 16, 2016

Dusenberg J

Packard 12

Pierce 12

Cadllac 16

the above three are in random order.......

and all the rest go here.

My current car wish list.....

DV-32

KB

Reo Royal ....just recently added

Crane Simplex

Knox

I don't disagree too much except I would add the Marmon 16 in with the 2nd tier along with elevating the DV32 to that list.

Adding the European cars in makes it much more complicated, although the S, SS, Alpha and Bugatti were more race cars in their most desirable configuration.  Everything on your list was intended as a high end road car.

For road cars I would add the Hisso J12 in with the Duesenberg tier, the Issota and the Hisso K in the second tier.

My wish list includes DV32, Peerless Custom 8, Sterns-Knight 8 and Pierce 12.

AJ......the Marmon 16 fit and finish as well as body design and quaility just are not up to the standards of the others, in my humble opinion. The DV-32 was a makeover of a earlier design........ and it's small displacement hurts it also. I do want one..... and have come close twice on a closed car, which I am ok with. I like it's rarity as much as the DOHC motor. Peerless 8 Custom is a neat and rare bird, on my list years ago, but off of it now. I tried to buy a 8-80 Convertible Coupe as a young man but didn't have the skills to pry it out of the guys garage. Sterns Knight eight is a cool car. I have seen several and am intrigued by them, but I am sure their performance is shal we say......lacking compared to the others on the list. Body construction seems very good, attention to detail and fit and finish are at Cadillac standards. Who built their bodies? As for a Pierce Twelve.......mine is at your disposal any time you wish.....take it on a tour if you like. 

I think you guys are getting a bit away from what Scott was asking us....

O.K...I am guilty of it too....let me pick on Trim again about his  "100 mph Pierce that did not have over-drive".

C'mon, Trim - help me get my head around that comment of yours;  can  we have some more info ?. 

Let me explain why I  am having trouble with this  - need more info. on your post - torque and horsepower curves.   Both the Pierce and Packard 12's were deliberately designed to deliver their maximum power at the engine speeds most of their owners were likely to operate them at.   That means, for several reasons (cam timing,  "breathing", etc)    power starts falling off when you spin those monsters much above 2,500 rpm.

Amongst some Pierce enthusiasts there is a rather poor copy floating around, of a 16mm movie clip, taken while Jenkins was preparing for his famous "run".   If you look closely  ( you may have to re-run it back and forth a few times ) ,  you will see how he had to "feather" the clutch  in low gear just to get that thing moving.    To my non-expert eye,  the car was geared so "hi", its rear axle ratio could have been in  near-direct drive !

As for "production" Pierces,  my recollection is their differentials were all geared pretty much the same - in the 4.5 to one range  (just about identical to what they were doing over at Lincoln, Packard, and Cadillac,  for the same reasoning).

As I noted, I am ignorant about the Silver Arrow series -  never even saw one "in the flesh".   Assuming you are correct, the Pierce you had, had a "production" rear axle and transmission set-up.      If that is the case "do the math".....!   How fast would that Pierce motor have had to spin to get it up to 100 ?   That's where you lose me !

Of course cars geared that low could go 70 & beyond.   ( I don't recommend cruising a car geared that low these days, much over 50 mph...sure they can do it...but think of how hard you are beating on not just the motor...but everything attached to it !

Yes, even the   "little" ( 320 cu. in ) Packard "Standard Eight" was able to get up to 90 mph  on a well-publisized   " 25,000 mi. endurance test"   - but that was its top speed.     Spin an old "long-stroke" motor THAT fast,  and it is going to "run out of breath".

Yes - my apologies to Scott..none of this relates or  adds to  my answers to his questions earlier.  ( sure hope the "thread police" don't punish us for having this much fun.....!)

======================================================================

Forgot to add....proud member of local beer-drinking club;  at membership meetings I tell them about the glory the old days....of driving my '43 Edsel pick-up truck...you know...the bright yellow one...."we had one just like that when I was a kid"....."where do you get gas and tires for that thing"...."is that a fiberglass reproduction"........."you buy that new"...etc...etc...

In 1934-35, unlike previous years when body style drove the rear end ratios, the Pierce 8s had 4.23 gears and the 12s had 4.21s.  I have used the McCullough Formula (Google it) to calculate that my 1934 Silver Arrow 8 with 700x17 tires (12s used 750x17, not substantially different in diameter) is turning about 2,950 rpm at 60 mph. Published max HP of the 8 is 140 at 3,400 rpm.  Accordingly, I prefer to cruise at 55-58 mph. I note that David (Trimacar) never claimed that HE drove his SA 12 at 100 mph.  I, too, question 100 mph for a 1934-35 12.

Until now, I've refrained from biting into this apple you guys have created.  I take umbrage, however, at Mr. Hubcap's assertion about non-driven cars.  I've put more than 1,800 miles on my 1918 Pierce 48-B-5 and about 1,000 miles on my 1934 "production" Silver Arrow thus far THIS year--and we still have 2.5 months to go.  Each is an Older Restoration which won't win any Firsts but is still welcome on the field at regional concours d'elegance. Yes, I know people who have fresh restorations who won't drive them for a couple of years.

My 31 Pierce series 42 is a 4.08 to one. 4.10 to one was standard on most big open cars in the 30-32 years. On  the flats any big displacement motor could easily run 3 to one. My stock Cadillac was 2.5 to one...... it easily cruised at 65 mph, and it was built in 1914. I am not familiar with the set up or rules used at the salt flats early on. As far as the Pierce Arrow is concerned,  I am sure stock carburators were required.....bigger venturies and jets were allowed. Fenders and windshields were removed. Standard gearing could not have been used for the speed run, weather it was just the rear end or also the transmission is unknown. I think open exhaust was allowed. Short blocks and most components were stock. 117.5 for 1932 over 24 hours is still impressive. Think tire construction, oil breakdown, ect.  I know for sure on the 117 mph first run they changed out a lifter block while the car was in for a pit stop. I have changed them out on a cold motor in about 20 minutes, with no hood or fenders on the car. I have driven my 1936 Pierce 12 over 100 mph on flat ground, with a sedan body. It still had more to go, but I won't trust the tires today to go any faster or for long sustained high speed driving. The car was working very hard, and I am not inclined to try it again. The only classic car I am familiar with that drives over 80 mph with little to no effort and does it comfortably with lots more to go is a Duesenberg J, 80 mph is literally just a moderate cruise. Add high speed gears and 125 would be easy.

Grimy is correct with 4.23 in 34-35 on closed cars. My 36 has the 4.23 to one also, then figure in the 30% over drive and you get 2.98 to one. My car pulls it up hill with no effort.

Ed, that's why I limited my comments to 1934-35.  My 1930 roadster and other Model B open cars originally had 4.08 (now Phil Hill ~3,53), whereas sedans had 4.42s. You let me drive your former 1933 1247 with about 4.60 gearing. I've also driven a 1937 Packard Super 8 with factory 4.69 gears and a 1937 Packard 12 with 4.60-4.69, both of which pale in comparison for comfortable cruising to my 1936 Pierce 8 with OD (4.58 gears x 0.705 OD = effective 3,22 final drive) which I've driven cross country round trip.

I am confident that the Pierce Salt Flats cars had 2.5 gears or faster.

In the 1921 Pierce (series 32) salesman's data book, there are statements to the effect that PAMCC deliberately geared their cars slow and went to 3 speeds from 4 to minimize the amount of shifting required for normal use. 

BTW, the 1918 5-p touring had 3.33 gears standard; mine has optional 3.53; 50-55 mph cruise is comfortable--where one can trust 2-wheel brakes and skinny tires. Red line is 2500 rpm. Applying the McCullough formula, 55 mph is 1,812 rpm.  I have a spare set of the pistons & rods (4.5" bore, 5.5" stroke), about 7 lbs each, hanging from a bar through the big end in my shop with a sign reading "Pierce 48 wind chimes."

Ed, I just saw your edit to your post #60.  Questions:

1.  Can you substantiate that 1934-35 open cars had, from the factory, diff ratios other than 4.21 (12) and 4.23 (8)?  I think, as I said or implied, that 1934-35 saw ratios standardized irrespective of body style.

2.  From all materials I've seen, all 1936-38s used 4.58 gears--do you have a 1934-35 **8-cyl** 4.23 gearset in your 1936 12? Maybe I'm too nitpicky because it's three hours later for you!  :-)

George, maybe my memory is off, it may be a 8/12 split, not open or closed. With the shot to my head in August my memory has been slightly affected. Names are still a problem, or maybe I'm getting old! The 1936 ratio I posted was from memory, it could be off. 

No biggie, Ed.  After the worm drive "fiasco" of 1933 (lack of education of service people), I think P-A standardized ratios to two very similar ones, 4.21 and 4.23, for 1934-35.  Then in 1936-38, the OD allowed limiting it to one ratio, 4.58, which I find ideal in conjunction with OD. Bob J's 1934 840A conv coupe has 4.23s for sure.

Didn't hear about your head injury but I can relate: 15 stitches in a squamous removal from my head last month, then opened it up Wednesday running into a trailer ramp cable--couldn't have done better overlap if I tried.  What did you say your name was?

Ed, these are some great posts .  Thanks for them.

As stated, and as clear in my posts, I did not drive the Silver Arrow 100 mph.  The person who bought it from me told me he did, I believe him, but that does not mean everyone has to believe him.

I know for a fact that I drove the car 70 mph or more.  I was on a tour in Texas, on the way to the Pate Museum, in the gentle rolling hills of that area.  I'd had a minor problem with the car, and the trouble truck had stopped to help.  Problem solve, we knew we were late for lunch, so I had my foot in the gas.

My speed was verified by the trouble truck driver, who came to me at the Museum, asking if I know how fast I was going.  I said yes, he continued by saying that he was driving around 70 mph and couldn't keep up with me.

The car at that speed was not struggling, nor was the engine over revving, or I would have slowed down.  I respect my cars and don't do anything that I feel would cause undue harm. 

The car did not, and does not, have overdrive.  It's always possible that someone had changed gearing before I bought the car, but I'm not aware of that.

I've always been taught that, if you're going to call someone out, you should stand tall and not do it anonymously, Peter H./Shiny.  This will be my last post on this thread, so any reply from you will be unanswered, the original reply was on topic, but we're getting off it....

We may have gone off topic but this thread is a gold mine.  

I have no idea how I did it but I left the 540k off when I inserted the European. chassis.  I would put it at the very top of the second tier or the bottom of the first tier.   The straight 8 Minerva belongs somewhere.

We need to start a Sterns thread.  I've become very interested in them.  I have seen references to the last big 8 chassis being capable of hitting 100 but I don't remember where and I find that hard to believe.   There were some coachbuilt bodies but I assume that most came from one of the manufacturers, Budd or one of the others.

I'm happy to see you include the Royale since I have become practically a marketing director for them.   The styling was a solid 3 or 4 years early (A lifetime in the 30s) and they did have a real engine.

edinmassOct 16, 2016

AJ......the Marmon 16 fit and finish as well as body design and quaility just are not up to the standards of the others, in my humble opinion. The DV-32 was a makeover of a earlier design........ and it's small displacement hurts it also. I do want one..... and have come close twice on a closed car, which I am ok with. I like it's rarity as much as the DOHC motor. Peerless 8 Custom is a neat and rare bird, on my list years ago, but off of it now. I tried to buy a 8-80 Convertible Coupe as a young man but didn't have the skills to pry it out of the guys garage. Sterns Knight eight is a cool car. I have seen several and am intrigued by them, but I am sure their performance is shal we say......lacking compared to the others on the list. Body construction seems very good, attention to detail and fit and finish are at Cadillac standards. Who built their bodies? As for a Pierce Twelve.......mine is at your disposal any time you wish.....take it on a tour if you like. 

Are you saying there was a Peerless 8-80? I haven't heard of it but it's possible. That sounds more like an Elcar of 1926. Peerless did make 8-125, 8-67, and 8-69 cars...and before that Mod. 56 and 66 eights rated at 70 and 80 h.p....I'll admit it's a little hard to sort all the model numbers out.

Jeff, my fault on the nomenclature numbers, that smack to the head is still causing a few crossed wires. The 8-80 was Marmon series numbers, and Marmon was floating around in my head when we were talking Peerless. My fault! My first barn find as a young man at the age of twelve was a Peerless Conv Coupe, 1930 or 1931. Owned by a local farmer. I chased it down about ten times over the years (40 of them!) and have not been able to locate any information of where it went, which makes me think it's still in my local area. It was a great car, never touched, and just driven one every other year or so to a local show......no plates, just driven about a mile from the farm to the school lot. I'm sure it will turn up some day. Ed

Ed, thanks for the background on the car you saw. It may be one of those virtually unknown ones. If you grew up on the New Hampshire-Maine border or in Wisconsin, I could think of 2 or three cars fitting that description. Did you see the recent story about "1931 Roadster For Sale" on the Peerless Forum? A red Cabriolet that just sold to some gentleman in Missouri. There's one '32 Peerless Custom 8 in Maine that's only been to 1 or 2  car shows that's kind of interesting. It took 1st at The Hodgson's Frozen Custard Knucklebuster's Car Club Show in 2000 in New Gloucester, ME. It has a Fisher or Fleetwood Cabriolet body and appeared to be Purple & Ivory to one viewer and Maroon & Tan to another.

I've enjoyed the discussion here of Pierce-Arrow and Packard twelves. My only comment on that is that the old boy who owns the sole Marmon twelve ought to throw his two bits in.

Jeff

Doubtful Packard nothwithstanding certain similarities.  Suspect ZiS110, particularly considering location.

I've thoroughly enjoyed this thread.

Want to add that In terms of great-driving '30s cars, it's hard to beat a '35 supercharged Auburn convertible sedan with the dual ratio two-speed rear axle (in my case with 4.55 and 3.4 rear end ratios). I cruise mine at 70 running at 2,400 RPM in high range, and it's loafing (I do have radial tires on it). Even in low ratio, I can cruise at 55.

Also, I have a friend with an identical car except its not supercharged. It has a higher rear end ratio and he's running 2,000 RPM at 70 -- I know because he let me drive it. Plus Auburns are light, easy to steer, and easier to keep cool because of the small engine (279 cubic inches).   

Of course, my Duesenberg is unequalled in terms of speed and power, and its vacuum-assisted hydraulic brakes with finned drums are wonderful. And nothing matches the view out over the long hood and cowl, or for that matter the look under the hood.

That said, the quality of my '29 Packard 740 far exceeds that of my Duesenberg in several respects -- easier steering, shifting and clutch, and simpler engine and drive-train layout..

No prewar car moves like a J but you can't shift them.

Remember that clutch had five miles on it when we did that pull. It's slick as can be today with over two thousand miles on it, and I can find the gear 98 percent of the time without making it protest. Ed

jrbartlettFeb 9, 2017

I've thoroughly enjoyed this thread.

Want to add that In terms of great-driving '30s cars, it's hard to beat a '35 supercharged Auburn convertible sedan with the dual ratio two-speed rear axle (in my case with 4.55 and 3.4 rear end ratios). I cruise mine at 70 running at 2,400 RPM in high range, and it's loafing (I do have radial tires on it). Even in low ratio, I can cruise at 55.

I just saw this and wanted to comment.  The 35/35 supercharged Auburn is a great car to drive.  You can put it in "high" ratio and leave it there.  60/65 mph feels very comfortable.   Plenty of pep and the supercharger whine is always a blast.  Styling is awesome too.  My only negative on the Auburn (and the 36/37 Cord to a lesser degree) is that build quality, fit and finish, etc is not what you see in a senior Packard, Pierce, etc.  The Auburn was substantially cheaper at the time so not surprising.   I guess another plus is that parts are readily available - right Curt!

On the Packard 12,  earlier in the Summer I was driving a 35 into a show.  There were maybe 20 cars in the line so things were creeping along at a very slow pace.  I didn't realize until I has made it past the checkin that I had the transmission in 3rd the whole time.  Tremendous torque, no shuddering or hesitation. 

Here is a good video where you can see the tach and the speedo at the same time.  About 2k at 60 mph.

alsancleJul 30, 2017

Here is a good video where you can see the tach and the speedo at the same time.  About 2k at 60 mph.

An Auburn has a great powerplant and gearing all be it certainly is lighter weight which relates to some degree to "lighter quality" than plenty of other CCCA cars, though I will tell you that for touring an 851/852 is probably the second best pre-1953-1955 American made car built (and while a lot of patience is needed to well sort out a Cord 810/812 is probably first).  And, the same problem exists today that existed in 1935 = most people will never be behind the wheel to test drive to figure out its driveability.

John_MerenessAug 1, 2017

An Auburn has a great powerplant and gearing all be it certainly is lighter weight which relates to some degree to "lighter quality" than plenty of other CCCA cars, though I will tell you that for touring an 851/852 is probably the second best pre-1953-1955 American made car built (and while a lot of patience is needed to well sort out a Cord 810/812 is probably first).  And, the same problem exists today that existed in 1935 = most people will never be behind the wheel to test drive to figure out its driveability.

Good point John on the Cord.  As a kid I sat in the passenger seat of a 812 SC from Mass to Akron twice going to my grandparents.  From there we would get left off as my parents continued to Auburn.  My dad would sit at 65-70 no problems and never had a single issue with the car.   Although one year our 59 Silver Wraith blew a water pump on 80 dead in the middle of nowhere.  The owner of the nearest garage was hero on that one.

alsancleJul 30, 2017

On the Packard 12,  earlier in the Summer I was driving a 35 into a show.  There were maybe 20 cars in the line so things were creeping along at a very slow pace.  I didn't realize until I has made it past the checkin that I had the transmission in 3rd the whole time.  Tremendous torque, no shuddering or hesitation. 

Alsancle's above comment underscores the problem with most pre-war cars when we try and drive them on today's roads in today's traffic.  Way to "low" ( numerically high )  final drive ratios.  

Yes, of course any of the big "super-luxury" cars of that era can go 70 or even 80 mph.   And (assuming they are properly maintained )  they will remain smooth and quiet; difficult to tell from the driver's seat that you are beating them to death !

My modern car has a MUCH shorter "stroke" than my pre-war super-luxury car.   So the forces beating on the crank-shaft are far, far less. At 65 mph,  its motor (and everything attached to it...!) is going MUCH MUCH slower.    "Do the math" to get a perspective on this.   A car with a 4.5 to one final drive ratio will have to go FIVE HUNDRED MILES FARTHER in a thousand mile trip, to cover the same distance as a car with, say, a 2.8 final drive ratio. 

True, I could get a Greyhound bus or a "eighteen wheeler" going very nicely with my Honda lawn mower engine,  if I geared it low enough !

The simple "bottom line" here is the product developers of the big luxury cars of the pre war era knew what they were doing.  The idea of a "car buff" who liked to shift gears,  was pretty much unknown. Certainly no point in engineering a product for them !   

Was Packard really that far off the mark in gearing its cars as low as it did,  even tho by the mid 1930's much higher road speeds were practical ? 

No question a bone-stock Pierce with overdrive would be far more practical on the open road than a Packard of the same price class.    But for all its superiority as a result of its overdrive,  Pierce went out of business for lack of sales, and Packard didn't. 

So yes,  any of the big classics will start moving with little fuss in top gear from a dead stop with "stock" rear axle ratios..   So what?

SaddleRiderAug 4, 2017

No question a bone-stock Pierce with overdrive would be far more practical on the open road than a Packard of the same price class.    But for all its superiority as a result of its overdrive,  Pierce went out of business for lack of sales, and Packard didn't. 

Pierce didn't have the 120 & 110 line to support itself.  I think Ed would agree with your first sentence.  I'm a big fan of Pierce although I have only been a passenger and never a driver.  My issue is that sometimes the styling is not that great.  Generally all Packards are attractive, except the Rollson High Hats.

The purpose of the high gear ratio is often forgotten - YOU CAN PULL OFF FROM A TRAFFIC LIGHT OR STOP SIGN AND EVERYONE IS INCREDIBLY IMPRESSED.

John_MerenessAug 18, 2017

YOU CAN PULL OFF FROM A TRAFFIC LIGHT OR STOP SIGN AND EVERYONE IS INCREDIBLY IMPRESSED.

Wow!  Now THERE'S a wonderful reason to buy an expensive car that's wound out at 50 mph!  Or, another technique for a silent departure from the curb is to engage the clutch in 1st without throttle and upshift to 2nd at about 4 mph and a second later add throttle.

For 1936-38, Pierce used the Borg-Warner R-1 mechanical OD with 4.58 gears, nearly as low as Packard's 4.69, but the effective final ratio in OD was 3.23.  It's an excellent combination.

Pierces through 1920 were tall-geared despite the roads of the day and their 25-inch wheels used 1918-20. My 1918 has 3.53s and the standard ratio for 5-p tourings was 3.33.  For 1921 (Series 32), the Company deliberately (per the Saleman's Data Book) went to a 3-speed trans (vs earlier 4-speed) and 4.0 and deeper gears depending on body style to make shifting easier--by not having to shift as frequently.  One would think that the synch-2nd-and 3rd transmissions adopted by both Pierce and Packard for 1932 would have been sufficient reason for them to gear their cars a little taller.  

GrimyAug 18, 2017

Wow!  Now THERE'S a wonderful reason to buy an expensive car that's wound out at 50 mph!  Or, another technique for a silent departure from the curb is to engage the clutch in 1st without throttle and upshift to 2nd at about 4 mph and a second later add throttle.

For 1936-38, Pierce used the Borg-Warner R-1 mechanical OD with 4.58 gears, nearly as low as Packard's 4.69, but the effective final ratio in OD was 3.23.  It's an excellent combination.

Pierces through 1920 were tall-geared despite the roads of the day and their 25-inch wheels used 1918-20. My 1918 has 3.53s and the standard ratio for 5-p tourings was 3.33.  For 1921 (Series 32), the Company deliberately (per the Saleman's Data Book) went to a 3-speed trans (vs earlier 4-speed) and 4.0 and deeper gears depending on body style to make shifting easier--by not having to shift as frequently.  One would think that the synch-2nd-and 3rd transmissions adopted by both Pierce and Packard for 1932 would have been sufficient reason for them to gear their cars a little taller.  

I am laughing, though not sure Great Grandmother ever wanted anything more than a smooth ride from her parking garage to the department store.  

By the way, I was reading RR PI gear ratios and they are outright ahead of their time - the only problem is the car still seems to more about low end torque.

Sidenote:  Every Pierce Arrow owner I have ever met says highest quality car they have ever worked on.

GrimyAug 18, 2017

.  One would think that the synch-2nd-and 3rd transmissions adopted by both Pierce and Packard for 1932 would have been sufficient reason for them to gear their cars a little taller.  

You are under-estimating what the super-luxury market was all about in those days.    Manufacturers, then and now,  TRY TO know something about their market, and tailor their products to meet the expectations of that market. 

Yes, we both know that by the mid 1930's,  paved highways, some absolutely straight for mile upon mile,  made inter-city  high-speed traffic practical.  But think about the "mind-set" of the typical super-luxury car buyer.   He was no "car buff" as we understand the concept today.   He was likely born before the turn of the last century; grew up in an era where he had little contact with mechanical devices.

Shifting gears without a lot of fuss,  in transmissions manufactured before the synchro-mesh era was problematical for many.    Of course by the mid 1930's,  the super luxury cars had transmissions that shifted easily, "like a knife thru warm butter".  Didn't matter;  the less the buyer had to shift, the more that buyer liked his car.

Thus the  interest to develop a "no-shift" car in that became a frenzy in the late 1930's.

Of course modern logic says the manufacturers were nuts to gear cars as powerful as the big "super-luxury" cars as low as they did.  They weren't nuts - they were simply trying to meet the expectations of their buyers !

Yes - most of us know "long stroke" motors impose punishing loads on connecting rod bearings,  at rotational speeds that are many times higher for any given road speed than modern practice.   The engineers had no choice - low octane fuels made those long strokes necessary.  Then we combine the desire of the market to gear the car to shift as little as possible.

Bottom line - I suggest you are in error if you try and understand the pre-war engineer's criteria using the logic of we fellow car buffs !