[ChrisSummers]

West, J-200 has been restored, but the restoration is over 50 years old and was done to the standards of the time, and J-159 has had a cosmetic restoration. J-564 is claimed as unrestored but old photos of it clearly show a darker paint color.

Thank you for the photo of J-242. It's the first recent picture I have seen of that car.

It's not so much that unrestored J's are "gone," it's that they are unavailablee. Except for J-159, all of the above cars aren't going anywhere soon, to my knowledge. J-200, in particular, is owned by the Museum of Science & Industry, Chicago.

Flackmaster, I am very interested in that photo as well. Please post it if you find it, I'm sure others are interested, too.

[bobscads]

West, is J -242 still owned by the same long time guy in Ca.? Bob

[West Peterson]

Still owned by the longtime owner in Ohio.

[keiser31]

Don't know the car number, but there used to be a "Colonel Porter" in Poway, California that had a red and black Duesenberg (touring or phaeton, I believe).

[Ivan Saxton]

In reference to a car in Paris, Ray Wolff told me that about 50 cars that went to Europe were unknown, even I understood original ownership. The J may be an icon now as in its currency; but the A is probably a better car with respect to its contemporaries. In 1983 I spoke to the original owner of the A that has been in Melbourne since he ordered it and took delivery at the factory in 1923 when he was 23. (I understand he lived into his late 90's.) With the highest option of compression ratio they would provide, and the quickest axle ratio, he was given a certificate that they had timed it at the Brickyard at 106mph. I understand the current owner has this. Fred Duesenberg took him for a ride on the Speedway in the new car, with the inside wheels of the bricks because it was smoother. Model A was under-rated. The cars that are not valued as they deserve are those with the Rochester Duesenberg engines, and they can really shift the scenery; though original brakes do not match the performance. Ivan Saxton

[West Peterson]

"quickest axel ratio"???
That would lower the top speed, wouldn't it?

Ian
I agree what you say about being underrated: I've talked to more than one Model A owner, one who is VERY well to do and owns an X and an Z and who could easily afford to buy a nice J. I asked him why he hasn't completed the triumvirate, and he basically said what you have and has no interest in the Model Js.

[Ivan Saxton]

Easiest way I reckon to understand is that the axle ratio is the number of turns of the crankshaft for exactly one turn of the back wheels. For instance, Ralph Buckley had a 2.9 to one gearing in his Series 5 Mercer Raceabout, when the usual was 3.2. My 1918 Series 4 Sporting, which has longer wheelbase and is heavier than a Raceabout has 3.6 to 1, but I reckon it would handle a 3.2 without effort. Alan Powall told me they did offer him a choice of ratios. With a lower numerical ratio your acceleration would suffer, but you could go faster before you heard valve-bounce. The 1922 A that Ray Wolff insisted I bought from his friend Manuel Yglesias Davalos in Mexico was a Bender sedan: yet with 3ft cut out of the chassis as a racing car they were timed for a flying kilometre at 106mph about 1940. (I have restored the chassis to standard length). The J is as big as a truck to me, too. A magnificent thing, but huge. Remember that Augie always continued to cherish his personal A, which is in the Speedway Museum. Now people have variously believed and written over the years that the Stutz DV32 was copied and inspired by the J: Still a big car, but not vast like the J. Now if you re-read the Stutz chapter in your copy of John Bentley's 50's book "Great American Automobiles", he quotes factory statement that they tested DV32s for a couple of years on the Speedway, deserts, and mountains before it was put on the market. Now I have cast iron confirmation of that. Engine number DV30004 was cast June 27 1928, with the word SPECIAL cast upside down on the left of the block, and cored for extra wall thickness for 3 3/8"bore on a BB style block. The main bearing caps are massive, about 1.5"deep. (They must have been aware of the weakness here. A fellow in Syney some years ago had a centre main bearing cap break on his BB stutz on a club run. This may have been what happened to the Stutz that failed in the match race with Weymann's 8 litre Hispano at Indianapolis.) Now all I can learn is that my engine surfaced in New Orleans, and passed through various ownership as people ratted bits off it and puzzled over the numbers and why it had holes drilled in the crankcase. (Two extra breathers, like the 1929 supercharged Stutz from LeMans.) What it means is that Stutz were running multiple DV32 prototypes at exactly the same time Duesenberg were running their J prototype around town. When you look at the dates, it is highly likely that Frank Lockhart was involved in the development of the DV32 before his last drive at Daytona .
Ivan Saxton

[West Peterson]

I understand axle ratios. When you said the "quickest" axle ratio, I took that to mean it would get the car up to speed the quickest. That type of ratio, however, would not be the type that would take that car past 100mph, let alone 90mph. Am I not correct? Or am I totally confused?

[alsancle]

The A Duesenberg is a great car. Many A engines found their way into race cars which you cannot really say about the J. From a collectible standpoint, the A suffers as all 20s era cars do when compared to those of the 30s. I think much of this has to do with styling.

[alsancle]

Originally Posted by Ivan Saxton

Easiest way I reckon to understand is that the axle ratio is the number of turns of the crankshaft for exactly one turn of the back wheels. For instance, Ralph Buckley had a 2.9 to one gearing in his Series 5 Mercer Raceabout, when the usual was 3.2. My 1918 Series 4 Sporting, which has longer wheelbase and is heavier than a Raceabout has 3.6 to 1, but I reckon it would handle a 3.2 without effort. Alan Powall told me they did offer him a choice of ratios. With a lower numerical ratio your acceleration would suffer, but you could go faster before you heard valve-bounce. The 1922 A that Ray Wolff insisted I bought from his friend Manuel Yglesias Davalos in Mexico was a Bender sedan: yet with 3ft cut out of the chassis as a racing car they were timed for a flying kilometre at 106mph about 1940. (I have restored the chassis to standard length). The J is as big as a truck to me, too. A magnificent thing, but huge. Remember that Augie always continued to cherish his personal A, which is in the Speedway Museum. Now people have variously believed and written over the years that the Stutz DV32 was copied and inspired by the J: Still a big car, but not vast like the J. Now if you re-read the Stutz chapter in your copy of John Bentley's 50's book "Great American Automobiles", he quotes factory statement that they tested DV32s for a couple of years on the Speedway, deserts, and mountains before it was put on the market. Now I have cast iron confirmation of that. Engine number DV30004 was cast June 27 1928, with the word SPECIAL cast upside down on the left of the block, and cored for extra wall thickness for 3 3/8"bore on a BB style block. The main bearing caps are massive, about 1.5"deep. (They must have been aware of the weakness here. A fellow in Syney some years ago had a centre main bearing cap break on his BB stutz on a club run. This may have been what happened to the Stutz that failed in the match race with Weymann's 8 litre Hispano at Indianapolis.) Now all I can learn is that my engine surfaced in New Orleans, and passed through various ownership as people ratted bits off it and puzzled over the numbers and why it had holes drilled in the crankcase. (Two extra breathers, like the 1929 supercharged Stutz from LeMans.) What it means is that Stutz were running multiple DV32 prototypes at exactly the same time Duesenberg were running their J prototype around town. When you look at the dates, it is highly likely that Frank Lockhart was involved in the development of the DV32 before his last drive at Daytona .
Ivan Saxton

Ivan, this is very interesting and you should really re-post it in the Stutz forum. I know that the DV-32 (which was a better overhead cam setup the the J) was developed independently but I'm amazed at how many people think that Stutz copied Duesenberg.