scott12180

Packard Twelve versus Pierce Twelve

Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

 

Edited by edinmass (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Edited by edinmass (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, edinmass said:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Edited by edinmass (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

 

Edited by shinyhubcap
just because (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by edinmass (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!  :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2016 at 5:57 PM, edinmass said:

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.

Edited by jeff_a (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Edited by jeff_a (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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..

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2017 at 0:36 PM, jrbartlett said:

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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