Who cares?
Anyone here going to turn down a Duesenberg in your garage? Anyone?
I thought not.
Rich men's toys! And I am not against Rich men or their toys.
I will probably never even SEE a Duesenberg, let alone drive one. Marvels of the time? I guess. Today we have four cylinder cars that could run off and leave them. At a fraction of the price. But who wouldn't want one if he could afford one?
I agree with the article.
Ben
In my experience anyone that disparages the Model J has not driven one, or least has not driven enough other prewar cars to understand the difference. Would be interested to know what Mr. Simanaitis's experience is with prewar cars. Especially 1929 era cars. The only thing that I have driven that compares with a Model J is a Speed Six or an Eight Liter Bentley. I have never driven an SS but would certainly like to.
Like so many before him, Simanaitis has his head up his arse………I have driven Model J’s thousands of miles, at speeds that fewer than 20 human beings still alive have done………there is no handling issue with them, except they are a very fast dump truck. A Speed Six is a very fine machine and a toss up with a J. Obsolete two years after 1929……..absolutely anyone who would say that has zero clue. I have driven almost every great early platform….. I will take the J, thank you very much.
Have to say thank you AJ and Ed but I'm just a SV Stutz guy can only imagine!
Every discussion of the Duesenberg J generally centers on developed horsepower. In the relatively lower compression/long stroke era, developed maximum torque at what rpm would seem a better metric to understand the usable power of an engine.
70 mph with admittedly the optional 3.80 rear end. Turning about 2700 on an engine designed to go to 5k.
This is an SJ with the exhaust fully open. He is NOT leaning in to the throttle. What other prewar car sounds and drives like this?
was there any other engine that used the same firing order?
Ben
alsancleJul 4, 2025 This is an SJ with the exhaust fully open. He is NOT leaning in to the throttle. What other prewar car sounds and drives like this?

At just 4,000 pounds, the Packard 734 Speedster would be competitive with the 5-6,0000-pound Duesenberg. At least it would be if I was driving it.
I, too, am curious as to why no current engine builder has ever revealed the real horsepower rating of a Duesenberg. Certainly they've been put on dynos.
The 734 was a purpose built speedy car by Packard. Need to compare Limo to Limo, or use this as the comparison to the Packard Speedster.

I've owned a Duesenberg J, Packard Super 8, super-charged Auburn, and a couple Locomobile Model 48s, and driven early 30s Cadillacs and LaSalles. By comparison, the Duesenberg engine is head and shoulders above these others, particularly considering the heavy weight it's pulling (my dual-cowl weighed 6,000 pounds even). Punching the throttle was awe-inspiring at any speed. Sorry, I've not owned some of the other outstanding marques, like Pierce, Marmon, etc., so my comparison is sort of limited. But having owned a Duesenberg, it gets my vote every time for power. Mine had 7-to-1 compression, so it was really peppy. As far as driving dynamics, it's had to beat a '35 Super-Charged Auburn.
jrbartlettAug 24, 2025 I've owned a Duesenberg J, Packard Super 8, super-charged Auburn, and a couple Locomobile Model 48s, and driven early 30s Cadillacs and LaSalles. By comparison, the Duesenberg engine is head and shoulders above these others, particularly considering the heavy weight it's pulling (my dual-cowl weighed 6,000 pounds even). Punching the throttle was awe-inspiring at any speed. Sorry, I've not owned some of the other outstanding marques, like Pierce, Marmon, etc., so my comparison is sort of limited. But having owned a Duesenberg, it gets my vote every time for power. Mine had 7-to-1 compression, so it was really peppy. As far as driving dynamics, it's had to beat a '35 Super-Charged Auburn.
You haven't driven the right Packard, yet. ??
Expected this defensive golly gee whiz rah rah car porn. The Walter Mitties are impressed, the vestigial 12-year-old in us all stirred. Does n o t address the points Dennis Simanaitis makes nor questions i asked.
Is English a second language here?
Dennis has long experience with everything Abarth to Zagato, i Auburn through Zephyr, and again, a friend's on his t h i r d J.
Big, rorty engine, nice sounding exhaust, unpassable in the day on long straight road. Impressive beasts. We get it.
F o c u s . Price point. The much missed Special Interest Autos ran a driveReport back in the '90s about a '31-'33 Chrysler Imperial entitled "Better Than a Duesey?' We get it. That's a stretch. Or, adjusted for price variance, is it? Again, for those bereft of critical thinking: Are dohc, box of gears flashing lights at fluid intervals, and another 10 mph top speed worth four or five Imperials or an entire neighborhood of upper middle-class homes, an entire street of mayors' and bank presidents' houses ?
Perhaps there are reasons it took eight years and several iterations to dispatch 480 Js? Even during and just after the Depression, there were still plenty of wealthy folks. They were uninterested, despite many of them liking mass, flash, dash.
Everyone knows about twin cams and the craftsmanship. But did it cost four or five times the price of an Imperial to build a Duesenberg? I think we're getting carried away.
Let's allow that a J was fully twice as good as a Marmon 16. Was it three or four times as good? Because that was its price. See where we're going with these questions? Let's cool it with the barroom rants about who has how much money. We're here gathered as vintage car buffs harking to perspective, regardless whether driving customers' cars, friends', or your own. Machinery at a price.
Why is this important? It's not, other than raving about a cost little object supercar diminishes too many fine cars costing a fraction the price, their owners tired of being second-tiered by something adjusted for price having explaining to do.
Dennis Simanaitis made and brought up good points, yet unanswered. And 265 hp was advertising bolshoi. Remember why adroit car salesman E. L. Cord picked that figure, and asked a stiffer price than it cost to build, return healthy profit margin, but to enhance desirability. Marketing 101. Except Cord overdid it, stepped on his ...., another reason for sparse sales over eight long years.
BTW, Cadillac never turned a profit for GM until 1949. Cord knew his supercar was both vanity project while imbuing run of the mill Auburns with panache. But unlike GM, he couldn't afford the advertising write off, another reason Js were so expensive, A-C-D a money loser, gone after 1937, Cord having moved on to real estate, radio stations, uranium, politics.
Cord had some fun building a ridiculously expensive world beater for a very few. He was a stock market marauder the sort the SEC was created in '34 to police. To escape litigation, Cord kept a manse in England, citing concern for his then teenaged son and daughter, the Lindbergh baby kidnapping still in everyone's mind. Fred Duesenberg wanted to build something the size of his earlier Models A and X, about that of a Stutz SV16/DV32. among others.
Double clutching reduces crash box graunch. My old ex-War II Pacific motor pool staff sergeant, Packard, Hudson, Pontiac dealership wrench setting up winning Hudsons for the Capitol and Sacramento speedways before starting his own renowned shop in 1958 tuned my friend's first J. He wasn't impressed beyond the size of the engine, the obvious build quality.
In 1940, Augie Duesenberg was selling a marine version of the 254-ci Hudson L-head inline eight. A couple Sceptered Isle Railton owners reported 200,000 miles before major engine work. Ever take out a Railton 8? No dohc, but faster than a Bentley for a third the price. Like the J and others, it also makes enchanting sounds.
Su8overdriveOct 23, 2025 ...F o c u s . Price point...
Are you serious? Comparing a Duesenberg J to other makes based on cost? It's supposed to be ridiculously expensive. It's supposed to be a money is no object car. Have you seen their advertising campaign that doesn't even show the car, it just shows rich people doing rich people stuff?
Cost is not the proper measure to use when evaluating a Duesenberg model J. Your whole point seems to be class envy anyway.
Class envy? You miss the point, only lob another low and outside.
Ball one.
Did this become a hatchet job because there is so little left of the axe you are grinding ??
You started this thread with an obvious appeal to the authority of Simanaitis ( so he's an editor and mathematician, great, so what?! ) and then switch to ad hominem attacks on Cord ( however justified , nothing really to do with the car itself.)
Your main beef seems to to be that a superb product was built and the some marketing hyperbole was laid on to convince people of means to part with their money. Tale old as time from Gucci bags to fine china.. So what? Is Royal Doulton worth 10 times the cost of Corelle when you just need a bowl to eat you soup out of? Is a comparison with the Model T next because both will get you from A to B ?
Still happening. People currently pay $2,000,000 for cars that with go in excess of 200MPH . The current value of a Mclaren F1 is eye-popping but is it really worth that much more then a Corvette of similar vintage? They are marvels of engineering but entirely impractical and hardly worth the price point between them and a Prius.
You seem to have discovered the concept that goods are worth what the market perceives there value to be. This is hardly novel. It was true when the J was built and still applies to the value assigned to it today. As you point out , original sales struggled because there was a limited market of people willing and able to pay for the vehicle; not to mention that the 7 years it took to sell them in a rapidly changing design and engineering world made the cars somewhat dated. Being able to cruise at 60 or 70 was very much a novelty in 1929 but not so much in 1936. Currently , the market for J's seems to be doing much , much better than Cord could have imagined. Mostly because he could only sell 480 or so of them although I suspect that if there were another 2000 J's , the market would still be healthy.
As I'm sure you know 0-60 ( or 70 ) times are irrelevant to these vehicles. Adding this comparison to the conversation completely misses the point of the vehicle. They were never designed as sports cars and the variability in gearing and the weight of the coachwork makes any legitimate comparison impossible. The market really wanted torque so they didn't have to shift as often. Might as well compare on the basis of modern crash-worthiness. ( here's a hint, its not good)
The question for you is, from an empirical basis, have all of the other manufacture's HP claims that you and Simanaitis have cited as comparisions actually been tested with the same rigor and scrutiny that has been applied to the Duesenberg J post production? Has anyone actually dyno'd all the competitors, (Cadillac V16, Marmon V16, Imperial and J) on the same dyno under the same conditions? Both torque and hp? Now that would be legitimately interesting information for a conversation.
This 12 year old still wants one, at least I don't have to keep the photos I can afford under the mattress!
Long sigh. Hardly an attack on E. L. Cord, BradLad. Only a two-sentence overview, again, that vaunted p e r s p e c t i v e seeming to elude some here gathered. Cord was obviously a quick study, sharp, despite nearly blind in one eye, learned to fly in two weeks, and endowed a classical music station in Los Angeles simply as he thought LA should have one. Two thumbs way up, a solid 10 on that latter one alone.
BTW, those wanting more on E. L. Cord, as well as 1936-37 810-812, should order a copy of the masterful tome published by my longtime compatriot and stellar graphic artist Bob Pease, written by the late Josh Malks, Cord Complete. cordbook@yahoo.com (925) 899-3411
The respected engineer and auto historian writer Maurice Hendry and others compiled lists of vetted hp/torque of various '30s heavyweights. But that, Brad, is not the point. Not remotely. As Special Interest Autos and others pondered, let's say a J is fully t w i c e the motor car as Chrysler Imperial by virtue of the former's dohc and box of gears tripping fluid check lights,
but is it f i v e times the car? Of course not. The kneejerk surface read accorded my posts tantamount to kids' ire over suggesting Superman or Batman not all that, overlooking my acknowledgements.
We get it, some of you, even if not owning, have worked on and/or sold such behemoths. Like Yankees fans, you've ego and interest invested.
Plenty of impressive barouches from the '30s, or like the J, the late '20s, inc. Bugatti Royale, certainly the Bentley Speed Six and Eight Liter. Was a J f o u r times better than a Pierce 12? Or, conversely, but half the car as a Bugatti Royale?
Calm down, sports fans. What was IBM's slogan? Think.
High and inside. Ball two.
Matt HarwoodJun 26, 2025 Who cares?
Anyone here going to turn down a Duesenberg in your garage? Anyone?
I thought not.
I found a Duesenberg unknown to the Duesenberg Historian at the time that is quite ugly, bald tires, looks more like a Farmall tractor from the front, unrestored. But I still would put in in my garage if I could get it out of the obscure collection it's in.
jeff_aOct 26, 2025 I found a Duesenberg unknown to the Duesenberg Historian at the time that is quite ugly, bald tires, looks more like a Farmall tractor from the front, unrestored. But I still would put in in my garage if I could get it out of the obscure collection it's in.
Jeff, A or J? Randy didn't know about it? My understanding is the last real unknown Model J to show up was the Maharajah Gurney Nutting. That was 1963.
Al, there were other historians too.
Fred Roe comes to mind....
tom_in_nhOct 26, 2025 Al, there were other historians too.
Fred Roe comes to mind....
Fred was a GREAT guy and his book is the bible for Model J Duesenberg. Ray Wolf was the original. Randy is the goldfather and Chris Summers is the young prodigy.
But I stand by there are no undiscovered Model J Duesenbergs and none have been "found" in decades. Would be cool if one is found. Love to be wrong.
So I can do a video of a 12 cylinder Packard going through the gears like this. Problem is it will put you to sleep. And I LOVE 12 cylinder Packards.
Good timing. Audrain just published this driving video of a 35 Packard 12. A great car. But not a Model J Duesenberg.
Donald's expression in these videos always looks like he's moments away from careening out of control.
Matt HarwoodOct 31, 2025 Donald's expression in these videos always looks like he's moments away from careening out of control.
I think the reflection of the tires was in his eyes.
Hemi JoelOct 24, 2025 Are you serious? Comparing a Duesenberg J to other makes based on cost? It's supposed to be ridiculously expensive. It's supposed to be a money is no object car. Have you seen their advertising campaign that doesn't even show the car, it just shows rich people doing rich people stuff?
Cost is not the proper measure to use when evaluating a Duesenberg model J. Your whole point seems to be class envy anyway.
1910 Maytag
1919 Pan
1929 Cord L29 Cabriolet
1929 Duesenberg Murphy convertible coupe
1931 Plymouth coupe Hemi
1933 Auburn V12 Salon speedster
1948 Plymouth Convert
1949 Plymouth Convert
1957 Desoto Adventurer Convert
1963 Corvair Spyder convert
1967 Plymouth GTX 426 Hemi convert
1967 Olds 442 convert
1968 Dodge SuperBee 426 Hemi
1968 Dodge D200 Crew Cab
1969 Olds NinetyEight convert
Of your list of vehicles that you own, your '68 Dodge D200 crew cab appeals to me the most. I aways liked the look of the 1963-'71 Dodge & Fargo crew cabs.
Craig
To join in the conversation, you must be a club member.
You’re welcome to read and like every post. Members can reply and start topics of their own.
