Best V12 or V16 Classic

[Guest]

Peter Hartmann: What do you think is the best V12 or V16 Classic Car.

[Guest]

Without any doubt in my mind: the V-16 coupe for 2-passengers, built from 1934-1937. BIG, BOLD, BEAUTIFUL, CURVACEOUS, CLASSIC!

[Guest]

there was an interesting comparison report in SIA on a V16 Cadilac vs. V16 Marmon. The Marmon's performance was clearly superior. I will grant you that there were few attractive bodies mounted on the Marmon chassis.

[Guest]

If you think there were few attractive Marmon 16 bodies, you should have seen the one at the AACA National Meet in Denver last year. Don't know much about it, but it was a beauty.

[Guest]

While I personally am a Packard Twelve nut, I would have to admit it would be hard to pick a "best" of the multi-cylindered "super luxury" cars made from roughly 1925 to 1942, which the Classic Car Club of America was originally formed to protect.<P>Each of these "super luxury" cars were "enginering exaggerations, magnificently over-done", which is why we call them classics ! <P>I think it is most unfortunate that so few of these monsters are maintained in road-worthy condition, and used for what they were designed for. I dont know whether to laugh of cry when I see them over-restored cosmetically as "costume jewelry", more often than not by people who have NO interest in how they SHOULD run.<P>There is an interesting series of "road test" articles in recent issues of THE CLASSIC CAR (our Club magazine). Of course I am pleased that the CCCA members conducting the test found enough to like about the Packard Twelve, that they rated it over-all highest. But again, I would be the first to admit that the other cars tested (Perice Arrow V-12 at 480 cu. in) ( Cad. V-16 at 441 cu. in). etc. etc. each were splendid and magnificent machines, so vastly superior to the ordinary cars of their era, that the name "true classic" is all that needs to be said.<P>If anyone DARES to argue that THEIR favorite is the BEST, let's RUMBLE...and debate it !<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs AZ

[Guest]

Mr. Hartmann/ I tend to find that with the exception of Dusenberg, that the so called super luxury from the USA made in the 30's are under enginered.

[Guest]

Unregis Henry....you obviously need to do some more "tending to think"...suggest you learn a bit more why we started the Classic Car Club Of America...in particular..do some reading in technical journals...attend some functions of the CCCA..and look over some of the REAL classics.....or take some of us up on our standing invitation to come visit us personally....after you have gotten a basic education in automotive engineering of that era...and understand the tremendous differences between the ordinary "common folk" cars of that era...and the great classics...THEN we can have a nice discussion.

[Guest]

Octo-Hank, I think you generalize too broadly. I nominate the RR Phantom III to compete with the Lincoln flat head (Continental and brethren) as worst V12.

[Guest]

Well stated PH & 55555. Our Royal cousin does seem a bit off the wall.

[Guest]

For Unregist. 5555<P>Where did you get the idea that the Zephyr - Continental V-12's had "brethern". For your information, many of us opposed the admission of these cars to "classic" status, for two unrelated reasons. First, their styling was "art deco" or "moderne/stream-lined", and thus too "late" in design theory to be called "classic" (the desigh theory in which form follows function...i.e. a headlight is separate from a fender, as each's shape reflects its function). (yes..yes..I know..I know...as our educational standards have fallen ever lower, most younger people today havnt got the foggiest idea that the word "classic" really DOES mean a particular theory of design). The second reason is the "guts" of these cars was hardly superior to the ordinary old car of that era - the Continental-Zephyr V-12 being nothing more than a "stretched" ordinary Ford V-8...my recollection is that they were only about 300 cu. in., and thus gave ordinary performance...no match for the "super powered" super-luxury cars of that era that we now call "classics".<P>But where did you get the idea that the "big" Lincolns...the aristocratic super luxury cars that really DO earn the title of "classic", are "brethern" to the Ford-based V-12. They are MUCH larger, MUCH more powerful, MUCH more durable, built in a separate factory, and placed on superior highest quality luxury bodies. <P>Sure ..a equally well-maintained Packard V-12 will "blow the doors" off a "big" Lincoln V-12 in a drag race, but again, I would be the first to admit that brute power and superior performance is only ONE of the many aspects of what makes a REAL classic car so superior to the ordinary old car of that era. ALL of the "big-engined" classics were superior performers, each offering a bit more of something special than the others...but again....ALL superior.<P>The original post was addressed to me personally - I remain unable to pick any REAL classic and say it was the BEST...all I can tell you..is that I love em all !<P>And on what basis to you extend your scorn to the Phantom III ? C'mon...be honest...you ever owned one...worked on one..or even driven one ? The superiority of these cars to the ordinary "common man" car of that era is so great, that your comments tell us only about your ignorance, and nothing about the cars themselves.<P>Remember, this is a PRIVATE Club. I am NOT a spokesman for the Classic Car Club Of America. But I suspect many of our membership share my view that if you are in the least bit interested in WHAT we are all about as classic car lovers, come to our events, and we will welcome you, and offer you rides, and talk your ears off as to the hows and whys of what makes a true classic so special.<P>But, I must also caution you...if you have some kind of "chip on your shoulder", in that you resent the superiority of the true classic, there are many other fine car clubs within this forum for the person who is most interested in the ordinary old car of the classic era.<P>In either event, good luck in finding a car club and/or forum that meets your needs.<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

[Guest]

Mr. Hartmann/ Would you say that the Cord 810 & 812 had the most sophisticated drive train design of any of the the FULL CLASSICS. Even as advanced as the Cord 810 was supposed to be, it was never a car ahead of its time as alot of peole claim. Think I am Crazy for making the above statement?

[Guest]

Henry - in response to your question about the Cord 810.<P>First of all, let me again assure you that...<BR> 1) I am not an "expert" on ANYTHING !<P> and<BR> 2) My opinions are just that - my<BR> own; while I certainly HOPE that my<BR> "posts" are in accord with the Classic<BR> Car Club Of America, I am only an<BR> ordinary member with NO authority to<BR> speak for the Club.<P>It has probably been a good 40 years since<BR>I last worked on or even driven a Cord 810. I do recall that from a QUALITY stand-point, I found them disappointing. Fittings, finish, quality of materials, all were below the "standard" we expect to find in the "best of the best". The one I drove was not a spectacular performer, but I cannot recall now why that was the case. My recollection is that either my '34 Packard Super Eight OR my '38 Packard V-12 (both had MUCH larger motors) was much more responsive.<P>I am told by people far more knowledgable than I am about the Cord, that they had a VERY "high" axle ratio, and were thus capable, IF properly maintained, of "blowing off" just about EVERYTHING of their era. Certainly, superior performance is ONE of the elements that sets the true classic car apart from the ordinary car of the classic era ( 1925-1942). As you know, most of the big-engined luxury cars were crippled by incredibly "low" final drive ratios, so that their engines were literally "screaming to death" from over-revving, at anything beyond the highway speeds of that era ( which explains why so many of us have changed the "final drive" ratio of our classics, so that they can give good performance at today's highway speeds ).<P>From a DESIGN standpoint, from the little that I know about Cords, I would have to say your comments are WAY off the mark. <P>First, from an APPEARANCE standpoint, they were certainly far advanced for their time, with their stream-lining, concealed head-lights, etc. <P>True, the basic motor block design itself was an ordinary primitive "L" head. However, the drive chain lay-out was most certainly way advanced in concept from other cars.<P>Let me again emphasize that while I am flattered by the attention, I would hardly consider myself an "expert" on all things classic. I strongly recommend to all of you "back-issues" of the THE CLASSIC CAR (again - our Club magazine) for far better and more competent coverage of the issues that interest you, than I could possibly provide myself.<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

[Guest]

Mr. Hartmann? Just think of it a cr introduced in 1934. Front wheel drive, independent front suspension, and four-wheel torsion bar springing, unit body constuction, pushrod overhead valve engine, removeable wet liner cylinders. The car was only 60 inches high, with the wheels set t the extrem corners to provide high stability and excellent handling. This car was more advanced enginering wise than any Full Classic of the time produced in America. This car was the Citroen Traction Avant, mass-produced in France. In 1934 Auburn purchased one of the Avant and shipped to the USA. Auburn engineers used the Citroen as the basis for the Cords drive unit. So much for Cord being a car ahead of its time. Tuesday night the best V12 or V16 ever built and I might add not from America.

[1937hd45]

Did the later Cord use any of the Miller front drive design, or was that only used on the L29 Cord?

[Guest]

Your royal arrogance Mr Hartmann, I am quite well aware of the later Lincoln V12 being a "stretch V8", and as it was used in several models besides the Continental, it was used in the Continental's "brethren". <P>As to the PIII, I have never owned one, but have benefitted from LISTENING (see how annoying electronic shouting is?) to those who have worked on them and the story is a lot less happy than with, you must admit, the Packard or first generation Caddy 12's.<P>And I've been a CCCA and marque club judge, although that makes my opinion no better than anybody else's on this board. I make no claims to any right to be condescending to any person on this board, even those who(gasp) ask about a non-Classic.<P>Mr. Moderator, I ask your indulgence here, as I believe this hobby is about inclusion and assistance. I find it offensive to claim an exclusive franchise on "the light."

[Guest]

For Mr. "Unregistered 5555"<P>I am sorry you are so dissatisfied with other chatters in this particular site. I am unclear as to where you believe I have mis-informed or mis-lead you regarding either the Classic Car Club of America, or attacked you personally. I believe this is wonderful form of communication. Hopefuly, you will review my comments below, and confine your "posts" to the framework suggested. <P>Please again note that this is the"site" of a PRIVATE Club. Some "posters" have apparently come in here by accident, and once here, have failed to note the Rules and customs of this Club, as reflected in the "caption"<P> " PLEASE LIMIT POSTS ON THIS FORUM<BR> TO DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CLASSIC<BR> CAR CLUB OF AMERICA, AND THE CARS<BR> RECOGNIZED BY THE CLUB AS FULL<BR> CLASSICS...."<P>If you are dissatisfied with our Club's rules and customs, you are certainly welcome to join us and attempt to change them, or, find another organization that is more in tune to your liking. <P>I suspect if you use your "search engine" and key in the name of the non-classics you find most acceptable to your needs and preferences, you would find Clubs and sites that meet your needs. My recollection is that the car you keep referring to is a "common man" car, not designed or marketed to the "super luxury" class buyer. If that assumption is correct, I am unclear why you keep bringing it up in here.<P>You claim to be a member of the CCCA. May I draw your attention to TWO items of interest.<P>First, let's try it again as to what this particular "site" was set up for<P> " Please limit posts on this forum to<BR> discussion about the Classic Car Club<BR> of America and the cars recognized by<BR> the Club as Full Classis. "<P>Secondly, I would like to draw your attention to those portions of the CCCA HANDBOOK AND DIRECTORY which refer to the mechanism for terminating the membership of a member whose conduct and actions are below the standard desired. <P>I believe you are in error in your assumption that our Club desires to be "inclusive". My understanding of this particular Club's Rules and customs is that we desire to be EXCLUSIVE. May I have your cooperation in respecting the above ?<P>Peter Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

[Guest]

Mr. Hartmann/ The best had to be the Lagonda V12 produced in 1938 and 1939, Far more advanced than any American V12 or V16. One last thing before departing. The true super classics are from east of the USA. Rolls Royce, Bugatti,Bentley,Hispano-Suiza, and Lagonda. These cars are the true super classics. In many cases cars produced for the mass public over here on the continent, where better engineered cars than many of the American classis. Have a good day.

[Guest Chuck Conrad]

Peter, you are incorrect on the "exclusive" issue and seem to show poor hospitality toward people who visit this forum.<P>It's true, our Club IS very exclusive when it comes to cars, but it is NOT exclusive when it comes to people.<P>Anyone with a sincere interest in our cars, and a small amount of money to pay their dues is welcome to be a member of CCCA. If you have a valid credit card in your pocket, you can join CCCA from the Web site. The process takes about two minutes. That doesn't sound very "exclusive" to me. I know you are aware that it is not necessary to own a Full Classic to be a member. The membership requirements are clearly outlined in our Members Handbook and Roster. It is also pretty clearly stated on our homepage, <A HREF="http://www.classiccarclub.org" TARGET=_blank>www.classiccarclub.org</A> <P>Moreover, this Discussion Forum is a PUBLIC FORUM. While we do ask that people limit their posts to cars or issues relevant to CCCA, the Forums are here for all the world to see and anyone is welcome to participate, not just CCCA members.<P>The forum is intended to help people understand what the Club is all about and increase goodwill and friendship towards all old car enthusiasts. Please help in that goal. Publicly threatening someone with expulsion from the Club because you don't agree with his post is out of line on this, or any CCCA forum.

[1937hd45]

Mr.Conrad, There is a lot of comic relief listening to a broken record. I've almost got the entire song commited to memory.

[Guest Chuck Conrad]

Well, it's true, flame wars seem to be good for Internet traffic, although it would make me much happier if everyone tried to keep things positive. <P>Despite Peter's best efforts, he has become quite an attraction on this Forum. If it wasn't so repititious, it would be fun. I'm pretty sure P. T. Barnum would have really enjoyed the Internet.

[Guest]

For Henry III<P>I agree with you SOME of the "super luxury" cars the Europeans offered in the 1930's, are superior in some respects to our offerings here in the United States. However, to keep this in context, I believe your comparisons are unfair. <P>First, bear in mind that in terms of real purchasing value, you would have to multiply anymid1930's dollar amount by a factor of at least 15 to get its approximate dollar value today.<P>Thus, for example, the typical delivered price of a Cad. V-16, Packard V-12, or KB Lincoln, Pierce V-12, etc was in the five thousand dollar range, or typical of what the most expensive production cars today cost, when you figure the present dollar value. The European cars you mentioned (correct me if I am wrong) sold for MUCH more than the cars you are comparing them with.<P>Personally, my favorite "super car" is the J-2 Hisso V-12's - never even SAT in one..but they sure look neat, and if what I am TOLD is correct (the tech. data I have seen would certianly support this) they would "blow the doors" of my Packard Twelve in performance, as well as have superior quality fittings.<P>Also bear in mind that most of the European super-cars were still equipped, even in the LATE 1930's, with "poured babbit" connecting rods. Take a look at the restrictions wisely imposed by both Damiler Benz and Rolls Royce, on the operation of these engines at sustained high speed. Most of the later big American "super cars" had modern "precision" type INSERT connecting rod bearings, which meant they were much more durable. <P>There is no question that many of the European "super cars" we now call "classic" had advanced suspension systems, and thus could PROBABLY run away and hide from a big engined American car of the same era. I say PROBABLY, because I never had a chance to tangle with one ( as a kid I used to love to "rough up" my '38 Packard Twelve, and systematicaly beat just about everything of that era no matter what the nature of the contest was ( yeah...yeah..you dont have to remind me about the superior performance of the late 1930's Buick Century...but..that is a separate story ! ).<P>Of course our Club welcomes fanciers of ALL of the "classics", and I couldnt agree more with that policy. I do remain convinced, however, that dollar for dollar, by comparison with cars in the same general price class, the American big engined classics were a tremendous buy for the money.<P>Pete Hartmann

[Guest]

For Chuck Conrad:<P>I must disagree with your recent "posts". Part of your confusion may be over the wording in the "caption" of this section, which you appear to be quoting from. There is apparently a clerical oversight, which may have mislead you into what our Club policy is, about "inclusiveness -vs exclusiveness". Please refer to the HandBook And Directory of the Classic Car Club Of America. I think you will find that it is CORRECT to say that ownership of a classic is not mandatory. I have no disagreement with that policy.<P>I think you will find that having an INTEREST in the "classics" is a REQUIREMENT, it is not an "option". <P>Personally, I think the Club made a error in going out "hunting" for memberships. My own recollection is that we all had a great deal of fun, and a highly successful Club, when membership was in the 1,500 to 2,200 range (typical of the years up thru the late 1960's) Our per centage of classic car owners was much higher, and as a result, there APPEARED to be much greater concensus about what we were all about.<P>At some point in time, SOME of our members believed we should go on "membership drives", and seek ever-inreasing membership. OTHERS of us (myself included) felt this was an UNwise policy - since there were only a limited number of classics, this policy by definition would increase the ratio of non-owners.<P>The whole point of this Club was to "recognize" the uniqueness of the classic car, and its DIFFERENCE between the philosophy of the ordinary car of its day. Of COURSE ever-increasing "sales" is appropriate if you are peddaling ordinary merchandise. But we, within the context of THIS PARTICULAR CLUB, are NOT focused on "mass production" and "ever increasing" numbers. If we were, we'd be focused on the Fords, the Chevrolets, Oldsmobiles, and other perfectly satisfactory "common man" cars.<P>I believe our caption <P> PLEASE LIMIT POSTS TO FULL CLASSICS<BR> AS DEFINED BY THE CCCA<P>is an appropriate "exclusive" recommendation. Ironically, the true classic is resented, it seems, just as much if not more these days, as it was when the Club was first formed to preserve them. Which makes sense. After all, what could be more inflammatory to the "common man", than the arrogant superiority of the big engined classics, especially if he is, for some reason or other, "stuck" with an ordinary car.<P>I can not imagine going into another club's forum, and expressing hostility at their definitions and customs. It would not occur to me - I just dont understand why people would come in here, and find fault with us. Obviously, we are not for everyone. Which is just as much OUR right, as it is for the "classic chevrolet" club to have its rules and customs. Can you imagine how silly and bad mannered it would be for one of us to go barging into the "classic chevrolet" site and start critisizing their choice in cars, and / or arguing with them about how much "better" some "NON classic" old Chevie is...?<P>I believe my views are in fact in accord with the overwhelming majority of CCCA members. We LIKE our Club. We LIKE classic cars. We LOVE discussing them, and sharing their high points (and low points) with whoever is interested. But to those who are hostile to us - fine, that is your right.<P>Let me again repeat my invitations to any reader : If you are sincerely interested (or even curious) about what the CCCA is,and why its members are so enthusiastic about TRUE CLASSICS, come to our events, and/or look me up and visit me personally ( in my own case, you will get an ear-full about how fantastic the twelve cyl. Packard is...but that is just my own personal preference).<P>If you are NOT comfortable with the Rules, preferences, and customs of the CCCA, I repeat my suggestion that you use your "search engine" to find some OTHER automotive buff club that has views and machines better suited to your needs.<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

[Guest Chuck Conrad]

For Peter Hartman:<P>If you read my post you will notice that I <B>did</B> say you need to have a sincere interest in the cars we call Full Classics, as well as be able to pay your dues. That is not what I would call "exclusive."<P>I think you'll find that by and large, the people who visit this site <B>do</B> have an interest in these cars. It's quite true that many don't understand what CCCA is all about, but the only way they will be able to learn is to ask questions. They shouldn't be turned away because they aren't quite up to speed. Everyone has to start some place. I'm sure you did.<P>The web site is here to help people and educate them along the way. The fact that it can be fun is an added bonus. Obviously, you have a wealth of automotive knowledge and you are willing to share it. Your recent post about European vs. American Classics demonstrates your knowledge very well. It was a great post. When you make contributions like that, everyone gains from your experience.<P>On the other hand, when you make posts that berate people for their lack of knowledge, nothing is gained, but you've lost the opportunity to be a positive force with them and to the others who also read your reply.<P>If you read a mis-guided statement from someone, it might be helpful if you'd keep in mind that he may be the guy who eventually buys your V-12 Packard (that is if you give them a chance to learn about it). We all know that someday, all of us will no longer want or need our cars. Wouldn't you like yours to go to someone who you've mentored and nurtured to understand it's significance? It's up to you. You could be a great teacher.<P>In the meantime, the lunch invitation is still on, as long as you don't mind riding in a Cord or Bentley.<p>[ 04-24-2002: Message edited by: Chuck Conrad ]

[Guest]

Mr. Hartmann? Please tell US ALL how fantastic and better your Packard 12 is, than say a 1938 V12 Lagonda. Your price thing is very true about American Clssics being cheaper. Just remember inferior products are always cheaper.

[Guest]

What we really need is an exclusive section where Peter Hartmann and Henry VIII can insult each other and the rest of us at will, uncluttered by friendly discussions. It can also serve as a trans oceanic venue for taking cheap shots at various classics. <P>Now play nice, ya heah. ~ hvs

[Guest]

Hey..IVS...relax...this is supposed to be fun and educational. I have NO clue why this Henry 8th guy is so unhappy with me, or with the focus of our Club. I also have no argument with much of what he has to say. <P>I do not see any advantage to either the other chatters, or to the CCCA, of which I am proud to be a member, to your suggestion that we have a "room" just for making aggressive insults either at people's classics or individuals themselves. <P>I've owned, driven, and/or worked on most of the big engined American classics at one time or another, plus a sprinkling of some of the European ones. Is a Packard Twelve or Cadillac V-16, Pierce Arrow V-12, etc. "cheaper" than a Lagonda ? I have no idea ! - never even SEEN a Lagonda that I can recall.<P>I can tell you that every time I go thru Jack Nethercutt's museumin Sylmar, Calif, and see his J-2 Hisso ( a monster V-12 that by comparison, makes my Packard Twelve look like rat droppings...) I get green with envy ! <P>It is all relative - I guess a guy who was accustomed to the performance and quality level of an ordinary old car of the 1930's would get green with envy if he saw my Twelve tearing across the desert. <P>Bottom line - let's try and keep our focus on what we can learn about the true classics, and leave the junior high school agression out of it.<P>Pete Hartmann<P>P.S. Hey...Charles - I'd LOVE to ride in your Cord 810 ! ( Wanna race up the Kingman Grade from Needles, say...around 2:30 P.M. on a nice warm August day....? )<P>P.P.S....I can't contribute much to Henry 8th's discussion about his late 1930's Lagonda...glad he owns one...wish he would tell us more about its technical aspects...how it handles...etc. heck..I dont think I have ever even SEEN one !

[1937hd45]

Just came across another V12, the Voisin, I don't know a thing about it. How does that fit in with the others?

[Guest]

HVS/ I am looking for information on Waterhouse. Can you help me and what do you know about them.

[Guest]

Responses:<P>Peter Hartmann ~ You mention fun. Can't you tell a good clean tongue in cheek statement when you read one. I even preceeded it with a wink graemlin and closed with rolleyes [sarcastic]. Come on, lighten up a little.<BR>I think Henry VIII probably took it as it was written. <P>Henry VIII ~ Was the Waterhouse question for real or an attempt to run me off or try to show me up as lacking knowledge of classic automobiles? I would have assumed that Waterhouse would have been well known to someone with your knowledge. Anyway I am NOT a font of knowledge on the subject. I know that they built, in my opinion at least, some of the most attractive bodies for classic vehicles. I know of a number of Waterhouse bodied Packards and especially like the long expanse of canvas behind the side windows. It makes driving in modern traffic a bit difficult, but my, they are attractive.<P>I imagine Peter Hartmann would be a better source of information than I on the subject of Waterhouse.<P>And before somebody brings it up, NO, I am not currently a CCCA member. After being a member for a number of years, I sold my '31 Cadillac and allowed my membership to lapse some years ago. It's a personal conviction of mine that I do not choose to belong to automotive clubs when I do not own an eligible vehicle. Today I am mostly interested in brass era vehicles. I don't like my "antique" cars to be younger than I am. ~ hvs

[Guest]

Hey...HVS...I know where you are "coming from"....can you imagine how I feel..when the young-un's ask me if "did you buy that new"...(referring to my '38 Packard V-12...!)<P>As for the question about Waterhouse, may I suggest THE CUSTOM BODY ERA by the late Hugh Pfau ? Should be in any big city's main library. Great pictures and explanations.<P>PLEASE....you guys...STOP making me the center of attention - I am NOT an expert on this stuff...my only real area of expertise is the study of Britney Spear's Dance Videos...! I am just another guy with a big old car !<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

[Guest]

HVS/ let me asure you thatI wasn't trying to run you off. Waterhose was founded in 1928 and closed its doors in 1933. They are most famousfor the custom body work they did for Packard. The style you are talking about is the the Convertible Victoria. They also did an oustanding custom body on a Stutz DV32 chassis. Waterhouse's factory was located in Webster Massachusetts. The original design for the Convertible Victoria came from Van den Plas. That is all that I can tell you right now with out doing some looking in my library. Actually I know very little about the Full Classic's compared to another person I know. You over estimate my knowlegde. What car from the brass period do you own?

[Guest]

1937hd45/ On friday night I will try to answer your question about Voisin. Unless you would care to do so Mr. Hartmann

[Guest]

Peter ~ I have Hugo Pfau's book in my library, but have not been into it in years.<BR>I think this thread will send me back for another look. <P>Henry ~ My brass cars are a 1913 Cadillac 5 pass. touring and a 1914 Buick touring. A bad shoulder limits me to electric starting and I am too much of a pureist to alter a non electric start car. <P>hvs

[1937hd45]

Thank you Henry, I look forward to your report.

[Guest]

Voison..? What in hell is a Voison...? Hmmm...now I remember..dont deer hunters go out and hunt em...? Wasn't Bambi's father a Voison...?<P>Seriously Henry 8th...I dont get it..why do you keep directing questions about obscure European cars to me ? <P>I thought you knew I am a red neck Yankee..and PROUD of it -out here in the west, from the first days the classic car movement got started in '52, our club activities have brought out mostly American classics. I know next to nothing about the European classics.<P>There is a logical explanation for this - remember, what is now the Classic Car Club Of America actually began separately at different ends of the continent. The origins, personalities, and the cars...all reflect the differences between the regions.<P>Much of the early writings in auto related publications, that brought the idea of the classic car to the public, came from Robert Gottlieb and the Clymer publications, out here in the west. Much of the early organizational details first began back east with Turnquist and others. <P>Without going into the details, let's just say there was a little "confusion" as to who was the "dog" and who was the "tail", but since the "re-marriage" of the west and east classic car fanciers, engineered by Jack Nethercutt and others in 1958, we are ONE organization<P>Out here in the west, the super-wealthy seemed to put their money into big AMERICAN cars. My own personal prejudice is that this reflects the mechanical toughness of American cars - I can tell you from personal experience I have YET to run up against a big European classic that could stay with a Packard Twelve, Pierce Arrow V-12, etc., going up a long mountain grade under extremes of temp. and speed. I remember the bitter-sweet humor of watching from my rear view mirror as a good friend demonstrated with a rather spectacular blast of black smoke, that a Rolls Royce was NOT going to keep up with a certain Packard Twelve going up the old Cajon Pass on a beastly hot day some years ago. <P>Yes, the Europans built some magnificent classics - some superior in some respects to the great American ones. I simply do not know enough about them to comment much...<P>But again, remember, the fact that in comparitve dolllar purchasing value, a $150,000. Venison or whatever is what it is, (possibly superior..I really dont know)..does NOT change the fact that the $60,000. equiv. you would pay for a big engined AMERICAN classicof the 1930's, got you one HELL of a car.<P>Here's an interesting example that comes to mind. A complete Packard "120" "common man" car was a great buy at the approx. $20,000. it cost in the mid-1930's. Reliable, gave the common man a hell of a bargin for his money...but...a Packard Twelve ROLLING CHASSIS, before it came down to the "body drop" section to be completed, weighed MORE !<P>It is all a matter of comparison. This particular Club was NOT formed to focus on the fact that dollar for dollar, Americans got a tremendous "buy" no matter WHAT price class they bought in. It was formed with a narrow focus on the great classics. That SOME of the great classics cost MUCH more than others, is interesting, but, I, for one, are much more interested in what they were all about as cars. <P>To that end, perhaps Henry 8th can tell us what they were like to drive, how they behaved under the kind of adverse driving conditions many wealthy people subjected their cars to out here in the west, and what he can tell us about their technical features. THAT kind of discussion, I think would be MUCH more interesting, and appropriate, for the chat room specifically set up for fanciers of CLASSIC automobiles.<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

[Mark Huston]

Peter,<BR>In reading the posts by "Unregistered user Henry VIII" he/she does not tell use who he/she is or what their agenda is. I get the feeling from Henry VIII posts that he/she is hiding behind their "unregistered" status to egg you on with questions about obscure European cars. Do you feel like you are in a cage at the zoo with people poking you with sticks? It goes with out saying that we are on this forum because of the love of old cars, Classic or not, that does not make anyone of us an expert on all old cars. No one person can be an expert on all makes of cars, both American and European or Asian. Classic or not. After all, Japan was making cars in the 1920's, should we quiz each other on how much we know about the cars of Japan in 1925? (don't start asking me about Japanese cars - all I know is they made them)<P>If I am wrong on what I perceive from "Unregistered user Henry VIII" posts, I am sure I will be set straight.<p>[ 04-26-2002: Message edited by: Mark Huston ]

[Guest Chuck Conrad]

During the Classic Era, some very fine cars came from Europe. Many are very desirable today, mostly because of their styling, design and quality of workmanship. Performance and horsepower were generally lower than the large Classic American cars of the same era. This is mostly because their native driving environment was quite different than it was in the US during the period. <P>Most Rolls-Royce motorcars were designed for a stately drive around London or the out-lying countryside. Even in the 1930's it would be quite difficult to go much faster than 35 mph in London (which I believe would have broken the speed limit) so there was no practical reason to make a car that could cruise all day at 90 mph. Further, fuel was expensive and the taxing systems were based on horsepower. To cheat the tax man a bit, the European manufacturers came up with some very convoluted ways of calculating "taxable horsepower." Some Rolls-Royce cars claimed only 20 or 25 HP for tax purposes. My lawnmower is larger. If you asked a sales person at Rolls about the horsepower, the usual answer was "adequate." It was for the purpose intended, but I have to admit that my 1939 Rolls has a hard time keeping up with a fleet of 1947 Cadillacs. It wasn't made for long term highway driving.<P>There were of course, some very powerful European cars, like W. O. Bentley's creations, A Mercedes 540K or a Bugatti Royale. These cars were the exception, rather than the rule. Most were much more modest in the brute force department. <P>Many of these small engine cars were actually quite efficient and exhibited an extremely high quality of machining and workmanship. Their designers managed to get a lot of performance out of a relatively small engine and drive train. Some, like a Derby Bentley or Lagonda were actually fun to drive.<P>Then there is the Voison. I beleive I've seen three of them. At the recent CCCA Annual Meeting, there was an incredible example which changed my mind about the marque. Previously, I thought they were the poster child for "butt ugly." Some are, but this one was quite different. It had awesome coachwork and was a very beautiful car. It was luxurious in every respect. Even so, I doubt that it was an extremely powerful car. It looked to me like it should serenely "float" down the streets of Paris at about 25 mph. Somehow I suspect that is exactly what the designers had in mind.<P>There is plenty to like when you study cars from both sides of the Atlantic. If "one size fit all" this hobby wouldn't be anywhere near as interesting.

[Guest]

MANY years ago I recall reading a statement from someone like Tom McCahill that went something like this. An American car will bring you home even while spitting parts out of the exhaust pipe. A forign car won't because of its more delicate construction.<P>I think that idea applies to the phase of the discussion we seem to have just entered.<BR>American Classics were built tougher than their European counterparts for many of the reasons pointed out by Peter Hartmann.<P>Unfortunately, I do not believe the spitting parts but getting you home idea applies anymore. ~ hvs

[Guest]

Mark: First of all I have no hidden agenda or am I trying to egg Peter on. I will refer you to a post Peter made back on 4/20/02 at 9:44 P:M. Stating in a round about way that I knew nothing about the Classics and should do alot of studying first. THEN we might be able to talk. Well I decided to see how much Peter realy knows about Full Claasics in general and the history of the Classics. Turns out he knows his stuff about American Classics, but his knowlegde is some what limited when it comes to the whole picture of the Classics as I hav found out. I am a history buff on Classic cars and can could take the other side of the debate also and tell Henry a thing or two. Being intersted in the classis is challenge in it self and knowing what you are talking about is also challenge. Knowing both sides of the coin is more challenging yet. I seem to have a knack to be able to do both. Read Chucks post that sums up how I feel about the Classics. Peter asummed taht I stupid about the Classics.

[Guest]

Henry 8th -<P>I didnt just SAY you are stupid..I THINK you are stupid...at least if you are going to stick by your earlier "post" that the big engined American classics of the 1930's were "under-engineered". <P>I got a better idea...which I keep suggesting...let's remember the function of this site is to exchange views on and see what we can learn about CLASSIC automobiles...not to engage in petty name-calling. <P><BR>PFH