Jump to content

A question for Antique Car Experts.


6219_Rules

Recommended Posts

What was the most silent running of the Greats?

Cadillac V-12

K series Lincoln V-12

Packard V-12

Duesenberg J Series

Pierce-Arrow V-12

Thank you for your input... please give reasons and any technical data you may know about these cars.

I am working on a project and it involves America's best luxury models of the 1930s.

Am I correct in believing that Walter Chrysler never made a V-12 Imperial?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a reply I received from a friend up in Canada. I thought it would make for good reading and add to the discussion, such as it is at the moment.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Many of the luxury makes had passed Pierce Arrow in technology by 1936, Cadillac was the de-facto leader in technology by then, the others just trying to catch up.

Packard was perhaps close in some areas having multi-cylinder engines. Their Twin Six was a marvel of engineering. Absolutely silent and supremely powerful, but the Cadillac V-16 overshadowed it in most every respect. It was a technological marvel, 1936 being the last year for the original OHV V-16.

The Chrysler Imperial was in many ways a very advanced car. Especially in the Airflow variations, but the solid axles and L-head straight 8 could bot compare to that of the V-12's from Packard, Cadillac, Lincoln or Pierce Arrow.

The Duesenburg was a very differant animal. The engine was pretty much a high strung race engine. It was very powerful, yes (now they are beginning to admit that even the mighty SJ was over rated) but tended to be pernickity and a bit noisy owing to it's DOHC and mechanical tappet design. But these cars were built in very limited numbers and really could not be considered a real competitior in the luxury class. At $8500 for the bare chassis alone, it put the car completely out of even what could be considered the mainstream luxury market. And even when the last one was built in 1936, the chassis was becoming quite dated.

Cadillac had, in 1936, a wide range of engines to choose from. A new V-8 of 322 or 354 CID design that was state of the art. They had the OHV V-12 and V-16's that were still regarded as one of the most advanced engines of the time. The V-16 was perhaps the most powerful engine available in the land owing to Cadillac's tradition of under rating their outputs. They pioneered independent front suspension in 1934, the turret top the same year. The styling was the most advanced thanks to Harley Earle and his young protoge Bill Mitchell.

In the mid 60's, I think they were looking for a car that could be modified and made to look unique. I suppose the Cadillac was out because it was comparitively common. The Imperial was a unique and fresh design and it was also a very high quality car. These Imperials, had they sold in greater quantities, could have been recognised as the leader in the luxury field. They just reeked of quality. They were so meticulously put together and the quality control inspections ensured that these cars were delivered void of any flaws. Chrysler really sweated over these cars. Even if you have the oppourtunity to drive one today, you will feel the quality and soundness of the cars. </div></div> Mike Jones

FYI: There is an obvious bias as Mike is an expert in Cadillacs, and a life long mechanic with many, many years as a GM Cadillac mechanic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please folks - PLEASE - I am NOT making fun of any individual in here. We are all HUMANS, and as such, have HUMAN failings. People KNOW what they like, and what they want to believe. That is HUMAN . People like to invent "belief systems" to support what they WANT to believe. The "trick" is, to try and let the "logic" side of your brain keep it all in perspective.

Mid sixties Chrysler Corp. products "just reek with quality...meticulously put together"...The Cad V-16 the most powerful..1936 the last year of the overhead valve V-16...

One cannot help but admire the flowery prose. At this point in our history of a culture, I suspect we have gone beyond caring about technological history - we are so determined to become a "service" economy where "precision of speech" and precision of thought isn't just irrlelevant, but an irritation.

Now for a harsh dose of reality. While the Packard Motor Car Company led the industry's down-ward spiral of ever poorer-quality products to its own oblivion, Chrysler wasnt far behind. Chrysler wouldnt be around to be such a laughing stock, were it not for repeated "bail outs" by us taxpayers. Recently, when Mercedes let the news out it was going to sell off the Chrysler entity, its stock went UP...DRAMATICALLY !

I know..I know..I shouldn't bother people with the silly details of reality, from someone who actually owned and worked on the cars mentioned.

The over-head valve Cad. that this fellow for some odd reason wants to believe, ceased in 1936, actually continued in production. 1938 was the first year of the "new" Cad. V-16, which was a whole different animal from an engineering standpoint. Vastly superior in every respect by which internal combustion engines are measured, EXCEPT for the fact that it wasn't as "pretty".

Far from being a "technological marvel" as this poor fellow wants to believe, the 1930-1937 Cad V-16 / V-12 was no better or worse than other luxury car manufacturer's products of that era. Out-dated long-stroke engine, miserable, restrictive "breathing" BOTH from an intake and exhast standpoint, more than compensated for its displacement of 452 cu in. Thanks to its "off center hydraulic "lash" take up (similar to the Packard V-12) it was fairly quiet, certainly smooth. As was the Packard V-12. The reasons why a Packard V-12 was so much faster and more powerful, are several. First, it had a much more advanced and less restrictive breathing design. Secondly, its wedge-shaped pistons could take much better advantage of the ever higher compression made possible by higher octane fuels coming on line. Thirdly, by 1935, the Packard V-12 was a much larger displacement motor.

Perhaps ignorance is the reason why these people failed to mention anything about the 1938-1940 Cad. V-16. Again, a whole different animal than the earlier over-head valve one. I owned two near "mint" '38's - one, the "Mae West" Cadillac V-16, and I still have the '38 Packard V-12. While, from a performance standpoint, the much larger displacement Packard V-12 will run circles around the Cad V-16, anyone who actually KNOWS what they are talking about, KNOWS the '38 - '40 Cadillac V-16 was the smoothest and quietest of the lot.

Here's why. The '38-'40 Cad. V-16 design was light-years ahead of anything else in these respects. First, its designers were able to take advantage of the then latest advantages in engine suspension. Secondly, and this is critical, it was a MUCH SHORTER STROKE. Each of those relatively small pistons had MUCH LESS MASS tearing around. Finally, it had the latest in cam design, and, being an "L" head, had much less "monkey motion" bouncing around. With its modern "insert" connecting rod bearings, it could run all day at extreme speeds & temps, when the 1930-1937 Cad. V-12 and V-16 would develop connecting rod bearing problems.

My '38 Cad. v-16 was the nearest thing to smooth, electric-motor-like propulsion I have ever experienced until recent years, when computers have taken us several light years beyond what earlier designers could do with noise and vibration supression.

Unfortunately, short-stroke designs are not efficient unless combined with good breathing and high compression. A glance at a cross-section of either the over-head valve V-16, or, again, the much more modern "short stroke" flat-head Cad. V-16, shows they had nowhere NEAR the "free breathing" design concept one can see in a cross-section of the Packard V-12. While the much lighter '38- - '40 Cad. V-16 could run away from the earlier version, the full potential of the short-stroke design could not be realized with the octane levels of the day. Cad. engineers recognized that the over-head valve design made no economic sense, given the lower engine rpm's most luxury car drivers would put them to.

A detailed understanding of how automotive technology evolved, must be pretty boring to the generation whose job qualification is knowing how to say " DO YOU WANT FRIES WITH THAT". Hopefully, SOME of you will be interested in what REALLY happened...what these impressive vehicles were REALLY like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't verify it on the Packard but have seen nickles dance on edge on top of a Willys Knight (believe I got the manufacturer name right) sleeve-valve engine while the onwer stood there revving the throttle by hand. (at Hershey late 60's early 70's when the car show was inside the stadium.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent analysis, Pete, as usual. Uh... does that mean that the Packard was or was not quieter than this marvelous Cadillac? I kind of got lost in all of the condoscention and sarcasm oozing out between the lines. Seriously, which is it? And how do they compare to the K series Lincolns or any other of the major luxury models out at the time? Hmmmmmmmm? <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Silverghost

If you are talking teens-20s I believe you must consider the Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost and Phantoms (I/II)...as hands-down the quietest car engines in the world...The USA Built Springfield R~R Ghosts & Phantoms were super-quiet engines...

These became out-dated long stroke in-line six n the 30s...PIII V12 very quiet but not USA built!

The 30s Packard V12 and Cadillac V12 & V16 get my vote here for most quiet 30s engines...

30s Lincolns were good...but not in this same quietness class...

Same for Pierce Arrow, Chrysler Impereial etc...

Dusenberg J and Stutz DV-32 get my vote as the most powerfull advanced overhead cam semi-race 30s engines! Not really quiet... But very very advanced and impressive!

still are impressive today!

Just my opinion folks...!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Randall !

Hope you are well & happy !

There is no real answer to the main point of your question - there are wonderful, fascinating things about all the great classics (for those who wonder what we mean when we say "classic", those who are NOT using the word to sell some old used car, pizza, soft drink, or fast food, use the term to cover only the largest, most powerful, most luxurious, most costly, and most elegant of the "best of the best" cars built roughly between 1925 and 1942 ).

Classic era Lincolns are my favorite when we discuss body construction. Whether it be a KB (some people feel these are the "best" of the Lincoln V-12's, or the KA) I have yet to see one that had anything less than a body of incredibly superior quality, so much so that I would have to say even the marvelous high quality and elegant bodies on Cads and Packards were junk by comparison. But there is a price the laws of physics demand, for those incredibly well-built bodies. Lincoln V-12's were the smallest displacement of the big-engined classics...roughly about 410 cu. in. Because the typical classic-era Lincoln, ready for the road, was significantly heavier than the other luxury cars of its day, it was nowhere near as fast.

But as far as sticking to the "thread" goes, I dont think you could hear a dime's worth of difference between ANY of the big engined super-cars we call "classics", UNLESS you throw in the 1938-1940 Cadillac V-16. Again, as I noted above, for a number of technical reasons, this is the quietest and smoothest of ANY pre-war "super car".

I personally am totally nuts about Packard Twelves. For a number of reasons that are good for me, but may not be valid for others. But, again, since I do have some experience with all of the great classics, I'd be the first to admit a detailed study of ALL of the great classic marques would yield a rich dividend in understanding the evolution of technology. Owning ANY of the great classics (that are properly maintained), is a rich and rewarding experience. I believed that when people laughed at us for trying to save a few, and I believe it now. I believed it enough to mow lawns, work as a helper on construction sites, until I earned the twenty five bucks it took to get my present Packard Twelve. ( wanted a near "mint" 35 LeBaron Town Car, but a Packard Twelve like that, was, then, as now, much more valuable...no way in the world could I have earned the seventy five bucks that car was sold for, in one summer and meet my other financial obligations...).

By the way, not sure how you came to the conclusion I was or am being sarcastic. If you mean I think those who are DETERMINED to make nonsence up to support some silly belief system dont help us learn, you are right. If you mean the old saying is...if you remain silent, and are ignorant, only YOU know...if you open your mouth...you can prove it to the whole world"...yes...I believe that.

That is why I do not understand why people who HAVE the opportunity to learn, and who have access to people and LEGIT literature who DO know the facts, will instead babble out nonsence just to hear themselves talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style="font-weight: bold">That is why I do not understand why people who HAVE the opportunity to learn, and who have access to people and LEGIT literature who DO know the facts, will instead babble out nonsence just to [color:"red"] hear themselves talk . </span> </div></div>

A kettle calling the pot "black"?? <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

I believe this is what Randall may have been hinting at, although, he did follow with, "seriously though". <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Wayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Silverghost

Hello Peter:

I would like to find a $25-$75 investment like your Packard today!

Would you like to Double your money???

Didn't think so...

Guess I was born 50 years too late !!!

Wish I had a Time Machine!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Burg - do you have some specific area and/or era of automotive technology, that you would like to discuss with me, where you feel our contributions would be of interest to and benefit old car buffs, or are you more interested in personality fights ? Discuss, please, how you feel our "posts" support either of the above ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Brad - a time machine wouldnt do me any good ! I didnt have the seventy five bucks it would have taken to get that near "mint" '35 Packard V-12 LeBaron town car off that used car lot on Santa Monica Blvd, in Los Angeles in 1955.

The FIVE HUNDRED bucks it would have taken to get a decent Dusie - well, remember...you'd have to multiply that by about TEN to get its approx. purchasing power today. It's all relative.

But a gardner did have the money for that Packard V-12. I happened to be there when he showed up - counted out the seventy five bucks, traded in his Model "A" pick-up, and tossed his lawn mower, couple of bags of fertilizer, and some other gardening tools in the luxurious PERFECT rear interior of the Twelve, and off he went.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ZondaC12

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

"What cost $500 in 1955 would cost $3621.84 in 2006.

Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2006 and 1955,

they would cost you $500 and $69.03 respectively.

Do you want to do another calculation? "

from that site. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> man i wish i was living in 1955!!!!!!

almost $4000!!!! thats what youd pay for your average 5-10 year old midsize sedan daily a-to-b car! unbelievable. a duesenberg for $3600. if ONLY!!!....

honestly id be happy enough to even see one in person, or hear it run. surely ill be able to do THAT someday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> almost $4000!!!! thats what youd pay for your average 5-10 year old midsize sedan daily a-to-b car! unbelievable. a duesenberg for $3600. if ONLY!!!....

</div></div>

Except that at that time you were talking about a 20 year old orphan make car. It's a bit like buying a 1987 Mercedes 500SL today, only one made by AMC. Think in terms of a high end Delorean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi Peter!

Glad to see you are still here. I am having fun with you... actually I like English and believe it actually <span style="font-style: italic">means</span> something when used appropriately. So I do not believe that double negatives are any more legitimate than dangling participles just because people have become lazy or too modern to care. Perhaps that is redundant. At any rate, I was interested because in 1936 George Trendle and Fran Stryker, the creators of the Lone Ranger, developed a later family member in Brit Reed, the Green Hornet.

Since I have a fascination for pulp fiction, I wanted to know what Black Beauty was supposed to be. In 1966 it was a Chrysler Imperial LeBaron sedan, stretched a bit to open up the back though not enough to be defined as a limosene. While that car is loaded with gadgets, the 1936 car was simply large, powerful and silent. Initially I liked the 1933 Pierce-Arrow Silver Arrow sedan, but that really would not fit. Of course, it would be fine since it is not real. Still in 1936 the choices are the Cadillac, Packard, and possibly a Lincoln. I thought it would have been a V-12 or V-16. That is why I asked this question.

I am doing OK. We have decided to move me in with my ex, which is very generous, to share an enormous house. I am not well. The diabetes suddenly took off. No one ever mentioned that it would be painful, but it is. Very painful throughout the body. So this move is looking like it is a good thing for all of us. I can watch the house and animals while Pat is on work trips, and have a place within shot of a good hospital. But I still love building models. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> The more my hands hurt and shake, the more I work at them, researching the object, car, plane, ship... so that I can make it as accurate as possible to scale. It is like meditation, and very Zen. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I am glad you still have the Packard. That is a gorgeous car. I have a 1956 Cadillac sedan (6219) and love it. Great car... a great drive and better ride. What's not to like? <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I vote for the Packard 12, 1932-1939 as the quiet one. The author shows his prejudice for Cadillacs with his statement re: the V-16. The Packard 12 had ONE carburetor, it was DOWNDRAFT and was fed by a mechanical fuel pump. The Cad V-16 had two updraft carbs, each fed discretely by a Stewart-Warner autovac. A fine pump when everything works, hell (or 1/2 hell) when it doesn't.

Packard at this time was slightly behind the times (compared to later in their history) but they had an iron-clad hand on what worked and what didn't.

Question for herr author: if the OHV Cadillac V-16 was such an engineering masterpiece why did they abandon its design for the wide-Vee flathead varaint later?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for Brad & Mr. Pushbutton:

First of all, let's be clear - the ONLY car that should not IMMEDIATELY be sent to the shredder...is the Packard V-12. It is the best......most this, that...etc...etc..>!

Seriously, guys, may I respectfully suggest you read my above "posts" again.

As to the silence of the Rolls Ghost - yes, that is one quiet car - for its era. But the Rolls Phantom One is a whole different animal. Unlike the Ghost, the Phantoms had a relatively modern over-head valve cyl. head.

There is a lot of "monkey" motion running around in an over-head valve type cyl. head that the earlier "flat-head" Rolls Ghosts did not have.

Is a Phantom One smooth, quiet, and powerful ? Damn right - I will match mine (S138RP in case anyone's interested-wanna see a photo ? ) for anything in its price class. Trouble is, arent too many cars in its price class !. A Packard, Lincoln, Pierce, or Cad. of its year..well..you could have bought four or five of them for what the Rolls cost new, and they are nearly as fast as the Rolls ! The ohv Rolls Phantoms most CERTAINLY are not "hands down" quieter then the above-noted American cars of that particular time-slot.

MrPushbutton - who told you, or where did you read, to get the idea "Packard at this time was slightly behind the times"...? Suggest you get yourself some "elevation drawings" of the engines of the big classics of that era, and tell me which ones in its price class do YOU think the Packard V-12 is behind. Discuss, please..?

Your question as to why Cadillac dropped the 1930 - 1937 (not 1936, as someone who simply dosnt know what they are talking about typed earlier ) over-head valve V-12 & V-16, for a much less spectacular LOOKING "flat-head" V-16 for the 1938-1940 production run is simple.

So that we don't get too far "off thread", again, the '38 - '40 Cad. V-16 was quieter and smoother than ANYTHING else of that era. Its much smaller reciprocating mass-per-cyl. and "flat head" design made it smoother & quieter than its predecessor - again, much more so than ANYTHING yet mass-produced.

Again, the '38 - '40 Cad. V-16 didnt have over-head valves! Since it didnt have overhead valves, that saved a LOT of labor, materials, and "monkey motion". Secondly, it was much cheaper to produce. Finally, its MUCH shorter stroke made for a MUCH more durable engine, given the ever higher road speeds people were travelling as the U.S. Highway system (now called the "Route" system by people who dont know what they are talking about..I cringe whenever I hear someone talking about "Route 66" - we had "State Sign Routes" and "U.S. Highways". "State Sign Routes" could NOT use a similar signage or numbering system to U.S. Highways...THAT is why Bobby Troupe picked the phrase " Getting My Kicks On Route 66" for his 1940's era song - specifically so no-one could claim in litigation he was referring to any real road...)

Over-head valves make no sense unless you need the better breathing it provides at higher rpm's. Really high performance engines have always had over-head valves, at least back thru late World War One. Long stroke engines such as the big engined classics breathed fine at the lower rpm's they are normally operated at. Spin em fast, and they lose efficiency. Dramatically. Look who bought the biggest, most expensive luxury cars of that era. Few of that kind of buyer had a need for extreme speed driving. They wanted the power band down at low rpms where most of them operated their engines. And they didnt like shifting gears, which accounts for the absurdly low final drive ratios.

The development of the "insert" type connnecting rod bearing made for reliability at much higher engine rpms. Increasing fuel octane made ever higher compression ratios possible. Giving up on the very pretty-to-look at 1930-1937 Cad. V-12 and V-16 was the logical engineering decision based on how the product was to be used, and what fuels are coming on line. The vastly superior road system the '38 - '1940 Cad V-16 was designed for, was a whole different world from the road system (what there was of it)....the 1930 Cad V-12 / V-16 was designed for.

mrpushbotton - thank you for praising my favorite - the Packard V-12, as "the quiet one". But, again, to answer the fellow whose inquiry started this "thread", if you parked mine alongside a Lincoln, Pierce Arrow, or pre 1938 multi cyl. Cad, and we blind-folded you, I bet a chocolate chip cookie you could not tell which is which.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Silverghost

WE/I Would love to see photos of your Phantom I...

(I'll show you mine...If you show me your's!)

I agree that these R~R cars were in a price-class all of their own... My Phantom I Springfield cost $16,500.00 in 1927 money!!! What an Insane price!

What would this be in 2007 money???

The Ghost was much quieter than the Phantom I...However the Phantom I had at least 1/3 more Horse Power and ran at a 1/3 hgher RPM than the Silver Ghost...Despite the overhead valves it is still very quiet! Not as quiet as the R~R Ghost...I should know...I own Both a Ghost and Phantom I !

The Phanom I has so much low end torque that I do not need to shift gears very much...

I have no probem keeping up with modern traffic in my Springfield Phantom I (USA-Built)

I cannot say the same with some of my other Big "Cassics"!

I still like an engine that has better breathing ability. (Overhead Valve) or Overhead cam...

The L head (flat) is a much simpler design and much cheaper to build...

Quieter...YES!

BUT... a step backward in my opinion!

I like complicated engines!

Hey...We could all still be driving simple Model "T"s if old Henry Ford had his way...

Buy the way...

Old Henry owned a Silver Ghost as well as a Phantom I for his personal cars!

Most people don't know this fact!

There is a famous story where Henry stopped his R~R to help a stranded model "T" driver...

I bet you know that story!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also like to see pictures of your cars, Peter and Brad. All of your old Classics! I can only imagine what it must be like to drive or ride in such illustrious examples of the Industrial Arts from the Past.

So please do post a few. That would be very nice. Thank you! <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Or send them to me! (greedy) <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> randallmcgrew@yahoo.com

That would be even <span style="font-style: italic">more</span> appreciated!! LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK--first thing: the original poster did not bring up any Rolls Royce product; the brands/engines discussed were all premium American brands. But you can't have a discussion like this without the Rolls crowd bumping in and trumpeting the obvious superiority of Rolls Royce products, the British crown, the Orb and Scepter, instrument panels crafted from veneers selected from an entire forest of burled Walnut trees, blah,blah,blah..................................

Rolls PI and II engines are indeed fine, and quiet (I drove a nice PII last week), and produce a decent amount of power. For what they cost then (and now) they ought to. No argument there.

Re: the state of Packard's engineering in the 1930's--Packard had an exceptionally competent engineering department, which was given an appropriate amount of autonomy in those years and the Packard eight and twelve cylinder engines were well designed and crafted to a fare-thee-well of accuracy. Were they on the leading edge of technology? well, not exactly by the late 30's. In some ways the Buick OHV straight eight was a more technologically advanced engine, but had nowhere near the level of careful craftsmanship and intentional over-engineering that Packard always invested in their engines. Packard, by then was smart enough to stay just behind the leading edge--where you are sure of the results for your customers and no rude surprises.

Of course, I am having a "discussion" with PFH, which is like arguing with a woman--you are never going to be right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry..Mr Push - you cant be right on this one - and dont blame me..blame the brilliance of Packard engineering. Again, I suggest you study "elevation" / cross-section drawings of the various big engined classics of the 1930's before trying to match wits with...NO...NOT ME...with Packard's designs !

A cross section of a Packard Twelve shows something NO other "L" head classic had - a combination of a wedge-shaped piston and combustion chamber, and much better breathing, thru the Stromberg EE-3, by far the largest carb. avail. until the big four barrels of the 1950's. The top of the cylinder block was NOT at right angles to the bore (making re-boring a Packard a real "trick" - you HAVE to have one of the special boring bars and "base wedge" to re-bore a Packard V-12). Thus you wind up with a fully-machined combustion chamber - end result - the Packard Twelve produces substantially more raw power per cubic in. than ANYTHING else of that era in its price range.

Again, I agree - of COURSE an over-head valve concept has better POTENTIAL. But that POTENTIAL had to wait for "insert" type" rod bearings, higher octane fuels and resulting higher compression, to take full advantage.

Look, for example, at a cross-section of either the Buick, Chevrolet, or Cadillac over-head valve engines of that era. They COULD NOT BREATHE. Too many restrictions in both intake and exhaust - small carbs.

Compared to my now long-gone 1938 Cadillac V-16 - (that was the "flat-head" Cad. V-16) the Cad. DOES, as noted above, have a MUCH shorter stroke, again, making it by far the smoothest of the bunch). But from a "breathing" standpoint, it is little more than two Pontiac 8 cyl. engines lying almost on their sides!

I am not intimately familiar with any of the Pierce or Lincoln V-12's (there were several versions, all very fine engines, well-made, each with their own pluses and minuses, all delivering incredible smoothness and power. The Pierce was a trace larger in displacement than the Packard V-12, and did have a LITTLE shorter stroke and a LITTLE larger bore. A bone-stock Pierce convertible, stripped of fenders, top, etc, went out to the Salt Flats and did well over 120 mph in the mid 1930's - the "small stroke" (meaning 1932-1934 Packard did that in 1932 as a factory "stunt", but only when equipped with a left-over 3:31 "Speedster" rear axle ratio).

I really dont know much at all about the Marmon V-16. At around 490 cu. in, it was a slightly larger displacement engine than the Pierce or Packard big-engined cars. I did try and road-race one with my Packard V-12, and lost! By a LOT ! I have a SUSPICION the owner ( a long deceased machinest who specialized in over-hauling Marmon V-16's in So. Calif) had worked that engine over, but...well. who knows..!)

I dont know how to post pictures, but I do know how to E mail them. If anyone really wants to be bothered looking at MY "toys", will be happy to EM them to someone who knows how to "post".

But all this is relative - jumping out of any of today's cars, even the cheapo ones, right into a big engined real classic, would leave you with a puzzled look as to what the fuss is all about. Technology has left the classics so far behind - my Toyota RAV 4 will beat ANY classic up to about 90 mph, quieter, has excellent air conditioning, and thus is MUCH more pleasant to tear across our deserts and mountains in, in summer.....!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PH, see my above post for the email address. I can post here if others would like to see them.

I will not argue the engineering with you on the Toyota. Clearly the engineering is sophisticated and provides the comfort and performance most desire. But I would not take any modern car over the greats, or even the so-sos of the past within the modern automobile definition. My Father is convinced that driving across the desert in my 1956 Cadillac sedan would be unbearable. But I disagree... uncomfortable, most definitely (hope she doesn't boil over), however the superior air flow makes the car completely comfortable at speeds. I would not do it in a 1950 Buick Roadmaster, with all due respects to my Buick friends, because that beast was an oven. The Cadillac is a completely different experience.

And, there are no computers or RTFI chips so Big Brother can pin point you at any turn.

I like reading maps, taking chances on being wrong on a route, and being surprised by what comes around the corner. I drive as defensively, and accurately, as possible to provide the most safety for myself and others, thinking of other drivers first. I love to drive, and I would take a car from the 1940s to 1970 any day over the current crop of plastic computerized jelly beans. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> I know... a curmudgeon.

post-30908-143137930331_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Silverghost

MrPushButton:

The post mentioned America's Best Luxury Models...

The Rolls~Royces I spoke about ARE American-Built cars! Silver Ghost/Phantom I

These Springfield Mass. cars were in fact built by Rolls~Royce Of America Inc. in Springfield Mass...!

They were 100% American Built/Designed by an independant American Company...

Designs differ from their Brittish cousins in many respects...

These were the most costly American-Built High-End Luxury cars of all time...

The Famous Dusenberg "J" $20,000. Grand (Nethercutt) is often stated to be the most costly of all time...

Not so...

American-Built Springfield Rolls~Royces cost that much ten years Before the Dusenberg J !

No Brittish Croud / Orb & Scepter here!

I am 100% American...

So are my Rolls~Royce Cars!

Most people do not know these cars are American!

These R~R should be considered when talking American Luxury makes of the 20s-early 30s...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not consider Springfield RR cars American. Yes, there were some differences between them & the English built ones (left hand drive for instance), but the only reason RR set up a shop in Massachusetts was to avoid having to pay the import tax our wonderful government imposed on them. It's the same thing Mercedes/Simplex did earlier in the century. The bottom line was tax and shipping avoidance. If it were cheaper for them to make all the RR's in Britain they would have done so. Do you consider a Honda built in Marysville, Ohio an American car? I don't. Hey, I used the words "cheap" and "RR" in the same sentence! Do I get a prize for that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you apparently have not looked at a recent "sticker" on the Honda and Toyota products assembled here. In the case of the Toyota van, you will find something like 95% of that car is American. American designed, American parts.

The "Springfield" Roll's used American wheels, American brakes, American transmissions American generators, headlights electrial devices, body fittings - bodies were built here.

But again, getting back to the original question that started this thread, all the great classics were light-years smoother, quitetier and much faster than the ordinary cars of their respective eras. There were subtle differences in any given price class, of course. And then there was the '38 - '40 Cadillac V-16, which, in terms of quiet and smoothness, was in a class by itself.

Oh, by the way, let me "go off thread" for a second - as for the Damiler-Benz 540 SK "Kompressor" model, if you want to know what would happen to one if it tried to pass my Packard V-12 on the Kingman Grade (I-40 climbing out of Needles) on a nice August afternoon - well...just get an English-language edition of its Operator's Manual - and see what its own makers said about sustained extreme speeds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Silverghost

Re: Springfield Rolls~Royce...Every part, nut, bolt.engine, Everything was made in the USA!

Rolls~Royce Of America was a 100% US Corporation funded by sales of American stocK...

What about PIerce Arrow ???

These were Fine cars with very quiet engines...

They sold for quite a bit more than some of the Senior Packards...

And Stutz...A very advanced engine indeed !

The Great American Classics were truly some of the finest machines ever built !

They were ALL fine cars...

In my opinion this Era was the Golden Age of the American Automobile at it's very best!

It is sad to think that the Great Depression put an end to this Golden Age of the Great American classic auto...

Many great builders went out of business or scaled back their operations just to survive...

Others moved into lower price markets...

Most deep-pocket High-End buyers were gone from the market...

It was no longer considered proper to be seen in such costly machines while people were out of work...and standing in bread lines...

Rocks were often thrown at these status symbols.

I often wonder what might have been...had this Era not ended the way it did...

There has never been another Golden American Automobile Era like it!

As I often say...I was born 50 years too late!

I LOVE these GREAT AMERICAN CLASSICS!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brad - there was another reason why people stopped buying the "super cars" we purists call the "REAL classics".

TECHNOLOGY !

Yes, that simple word is the word that really covers why Packard, Pierce Arrow, Cadillac, Lincoln, etc, stopped building those "engineering excesses, magnificently overdone".

The tremendous advancement in engine mounts, fuels, engine bearing design, knowledge of acustics, etc. made it possible to give Joe Six Pack, as we entered the 1930's a car vastly superior to what the ordinary person could afford just a few years before. Just look at the comfort, performance advantages, 5 years after the last Model T was delivered. Cadillac abandoned the last of the greats, the V-16, after the 1940 production run, because by then, its ordinary 8 cyl car was so close in performance and comfort, the additional expense simply couldnt be justified. Car buyers proved it by not buying them. Even those who couldnt care less what the price of an item was, correctly recognized technological progress gave the 1940 Packard "160 / 180" series a nicer, lighter, sportier "feel" that the well over a thousand pound heavier Packard Twelve simply couldn't provide.

Technology - it keeps giving us better products. That road race I spoke of ? Where I KNOW a big engined car like my Packard V-12 could handle the extremes of heat and driving conditions that a 540 SK Mercedes could not ? Fact is, I DO have a Packard V-12 in top shape, and it WILL handle extremes of speed and heat that would kill most other cars of its era...but on that August afternoon we discussed...I'll take my Toyota, with its air-conditioning so efficient, I have to turn it down to "medium" after a while...EVEN IN AUGUST ! (Quieter, inside...too..with the windows up....! )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming stock rear end ratios, the 540k would have a higher top end then a Packard 12. I think it would probably out accelerate it too assuming the blower is set up right. If you wanted to do a road course, the 540k sits 6 inches lower and rides on 4 wheel independent suspension. I love Packards, (my dad has had about 20 of them) but the engineering the on Mercedes is over the top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">wanna race ? Say..across the Mojave Desert...from Barstow, to Kingman...say around 3:00 in the afternoon in early August....! </div></div>

I don't think his Stutz restoration is finished. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> </div></div>

Bob - the engine guys are telling me that with the 4 carbs, high compression pistons, race cam and monster exhaust manifold that the Schumacher will be pushing 180 hp. Considering that the entire body weighs about 100 pounds that would be the car to race with :-).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would not surprise me in the least that Mercedes Benz would build such a car. In fact, the European Super cars were incredible pieces of engineering. I know a little about this, and it stretched into the mass market through Mercedes, and Citroen. The 1950s Citroen highend models were amazing for their time in design, ergonomics and efficiency. My personal favorite is the Mercedes Benz 600 series Limo... air ride (problematic and finicky as the Cadillac's), luxury, power and efficiency, and style. But... that is not American.

So here is a question for you: if the overthetop cars of the 1930s gave way to the more mainstream, mass produced cars, then which of the new post-war cars at the top of the market was the quietest, best riding cars? Consider style and interior appointments too. I suspect it will be Packard with their significantly better suspension but let's see what the experts say. And how do these cars measure up at least in engineering to the Super car of the 30s? Discuss. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good question - Randall - let's see if I can give you an answer that makes sense.

here's the problem. For the first three production years after the war, THERE WERE NO POST-WAR CARS ! Yes, the '48 Cads had a new body, but underneath - pre-war in every respect except for some changes to the Hydramatic.

Same with Packard and Lincoln. As for performance the much lighter Packards and Cadillacs of the early 1940's that became the post-war cars up until the introduction of the modern short-stroke over-head valve V-8 that Cad and Olds had in '49, offered significant performance improvement over the big-engined multi-cyl. cars for several reasons.

First, when you pull weight off a car (the Clipper and "180" series weighed a good 1,5000 lbs less than a similar body Twelve) you are going to get tremendous acceleration advantage all other things being equal.

But they were not equal - the '39 non-Twelve Packards could be ordered with over-drive, and the Hydra-matic equpped Cads had around a 3.30 axle ratio. Compared to the Packard V-12 or Cad . V-16, these later cars had a tremendous advantage in silence and smoothness at speed. How much advantage ? Do the math ! On a cross - continent trip, the big multi-cylinder cars would effectively travel an ADDITIONAL THOUSAND MILES just to do the same trip.

The story of why pre-1940's cars were geared so low, and why some of us have changed the axle ratios of our older cars to give us more comfortable high speed cruising, has been told often elsewhere in these forums.

As to sheer smoothness and silence - hard to say - the post war Lincolns were still using the pre-war "mini V-12", only about 310 cu. in. Nowhere NEAR as fast as those Cads and Packards, but perhaps as smooth, maybe as quiet or even quieter when properly maintained. To my untrained ear, I would venture to guess the Packard "356" engine, with over-drive, made for a pretty smooth and quiet ride at speed - not sure you are correct in your belief its suspension offered any advantage of the post-war Cad - again...both pre-war parts. I'd like to claim the Packard "356" was smoother and quieter than the Cad flat-head V-8, but I'd have to admit they are so close this could just be prejudice on my part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Silverghost

The rapid change-over from dirt & Mud roads to more modern paved roads & highways allowed for more high speed driving...

Changes in design were needed...

Thus the gear ratios needed to be changed for higher road speeds & highway driving...

Some added overdrives...or changed rear-end ratios...

shorter stroke engines needed to be developed that coud run faster at these higher road speeds...

Better engine lube oil systems with oil filters were also developed to handle higher engine speeds...

Long stroke engines were never designed for extreme sustained engine & piston speeds...

Engine babbitt bearings would be pounded out of shape at higher sustained engine/highway speeds so thin steel-backed bearings were developed to better cope with these high engine speeds...

The autos were also smaller and lighter...

Better higher octane fuels gave more power per explosion...W W II Aircraft engine design really developed high octane...along with much hgher modern compression ratios...

Octane ( ability to resist pre-igntion) in the teens-20s-30s was very very low...

Fuels were of low quality...

Compressions of 4 or 5 to 1 was very common...

These older engines could run on almost any sub-standard quality fuels of their day...

Most roads were un-improved...

Where would you drive fast back in this era ???

There were few places where you could drive fast for very long...

The Era of the long stroke, high torque, slow running, large displacement engines was over!

Inproved roads & high speed highways changed the Us auto designs forever!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right that prior to WWII there were very few places you could go fast for any amount of time. This is basically the reason most of the pre-war cars wind out at 80mph. I also agree on the fuel keeping the compression down around 5.5 to 1 or so on average. Most of those engines can survive going to 8 to 1, and with premium fuel and a high speed rear end the top end goes way way up. The Germans had the Autobahn which was basically the first interstate system. In fact, the US system was modeled after it. Anyways, that is part of the reason the 500k/540k could cruise at 75 mph as it was built for those roads.

As for post war engineering, it is still hard to beat a 300SL or 300S. However, my favorite is the 53 Caribbean

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...