alsancle Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 The sidemount discussion is an interesting diversion. I had always assumed that a rear mounted spare was more desirable (not hidden like what we are talking about here) over the fender mounted spares. My bias comes from knowing a little about prewar Mercedes Benz where the rear mounted spare is worth much more (sometimes measured in hundreds of thousands of dollars). The rear spare generally meant "Sporting". There are some early late 20s early 30s Classics where you could order them either way. I have now discovered that many collectors are really in to the side mounted spares, perhaps a majority when the car could be ordered either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesBulldogMiller55Buick Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 On April 7, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Rusty_OToole said: Another thing about twin side mounts is the weight they add to the front of the car. This on cars that already have a forward weight bias and no power steering. I suppose they would be all right on a car used for long trips with a full load of passengers and baggage. That would balance out the weight. But, for normal use, the disadvantages would outweigh the advantages. What I noticed first about driving the '36 Packard was , how light the steering is. Standing still , the wheel can be turned with one finger. As easy as if it does have power steering (it does not have power steering , nor sidemounts, and that maybe your point, it doesn't need either... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cxgvd Posted April 9, 2017 Share Posted April 9, 2017 To take this side mount conversation further I drive and 1913 Buick with a single side mount. The tire is a securely fastened to the running board which renders the car a three door although the parking brake and gear lever are also mounted where the door would have been. The tire also carries my only rear view mirror so the car looks good and is practical. I also have a 1915 Buick with a rear spare. It is poorly supported which has broken the wood around the rear of the body where the side supports are fastened and cracked the frame where the centre support is attached. I have added a u shaped channel inside the frame which of coarse takes away from the originality but adds rigidity to carry the weight of the spare. Sorry to hijack this thread. Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
60FlatTop Posted April 9, 2017 Share Posted April 9, 2017 I like sidemounts on cars with 140" wheelbase and larger. The fenders are too short on the ones in the 120"'s. Some of the '39 and '40 cars should be called cowl mounted. I am a pretty big fan of the Bowman & Schwartz and Brunn cars. They did quite a few smooth fender cars. Bernie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_Mack_CT Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 Yep, depends on the car. All opinion but to me in general, they seem to work better on earlier 30s than late 30s cars. I have seen Model A people convert in both directions. I don't mind the look on my car, as I prefer the roadster without a ton of stuff hanging off the back. I had the car 15 minutes and removed the trunk, a small toolbox fits nicely n the rumble seat area, that's enough! I totally agree that the 120 looks better without them, especially by '38 - '40 with that particular body shell. The Buick looks a lot better with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Roth Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 Our 1937 Buick 80C is a joy to drive - but our Packard is a 1930, so not a fair comparison 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesBulldogMiller55Buick Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 1 hour ago, Marty Roth said: Our 1937 Buick 80C is a joy to drive - but our Packard is a 1930, so not a fair comparison VERY NICE !!! You're right, automotivally seven years is BIG difference 1930-1937 Not such a big difference 2010 - 2017 and, side mounts wouldn't look as good on the Austin Healy....... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_Mack_CT Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 If that Buick could talk it might say "So you are supposed to be a Big Healey?? I am a little confused..." 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldstyle Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 Nice comparisons. I'd like to have a 36/37/38 with side mounts someday. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesBulldogMiller55Buick Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 5 hours ago, oldstyle said: Nice comparisons. I'd like to have a 36/37/38 with side mounts someday. Which one? Packard? Buick? Healy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C Carl Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 (edited) We all love the look of sidemounts on many cars. We all love the look of dual rear spares on many cars. But , BUT : when push comes to shove out where rubber meets road , the same sidemount car will handle better than its otherwise twin with rears. Give it a try sometime on a series of very tight curves. I have mentioned this before. This has to do with polar moment of inertia , and center of gravity. Gabriel Voisin (of course he designed airplanes too) , realized that aerodynamic stability was also becoming important , as speeds were now at the point where aerodynamics were a factor. The center of gravity must be ahead of the center of pressure. All you (model) airplane and (model) rocket tinkerers will know this well. Voisin's son was killed , leading to Voisin's realizing the importance of this in automotive design. But the dynamic stability issue can be felt by just thrashing your dual rear car about with and without spares mounted. They will also tow truer with the spares carried in the tow vehicle , or lashed over the trailer axles. - Carl Edited August 12, 2018 by C Carl Clarification. 2nd ed. : added "trailer" next to last word (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_Mack_CT Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 For Gosh sakes, Greg, where is the update??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldstyle Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 18 hours ago, JamesBulldogMiller55Buick said: Which one? Packard? Buick? Healy? Ha, I guess that would help! Buick. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesBulldogMiller55Buick Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 5 hours ago, oldstyle said: Ha, I guess that would help! Buick. All things being equal, I would pick Buick. A Packard would be very nice, too. (or Austin Healy 3000) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janousek Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 A big plus for the Buick are the reasonable parts guys around. Lots of good vendors with honest prices. I have a 320 engine in barn for one that I bought just because it was reasonable. I don't own a car it will fit. Try that with a Packard and it will hurt a lot more. The Packard will probably bring more attention though. The marque just has more prestigue. I'm a Buick guy but I face the facts that our 31' 90 series is just filler at the big shows. I did a bunch of work on an Austin Healey like that. My wife really thought she'd like to have a small convertible like that. She drove it around the block, called it a roller skate, and asked if it had an engine. Scratched that itch. She'd drive the wheels off a Century though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWLawrence Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 (edited) Actually, a Packard 120 straight eight is probably less expensive to maintain and repair than one of a Buick. Plus, in my opinion, it is a simpler and better engineered engine. JWL Edited April 27, 2017 by JWLawrence revised based on opinion (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Roth Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 6 hours ago, JWLawrence said: Actually, a Packard 120 straight eight is probably less expensive to maintain and repair than one of a Buick. Plus, it is a simpler and better engineered engine. JWL Mr Lawrence, your statement, while probably well-intended, is more opinion than that which could be actually supported with fact. I don't deny the quality of the Packard Eight-Cylinder engine regardless of Junior/Senior Series, but believe that Buick Valve-In-Head engines are also of superb quality. Opinion is certainly welcome, but should be stated as such. Thank you for your input, and by the way, I own, drive, and tour cross-country with both Buick and Packard Eights. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWLawrence Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 Marty, Your comments on my posting are well taken. I have edited my posting to reflect the statement is in my opinion. It is important to keep the conversations here civil and well mannered. JWL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonMicheletti Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 Better engineered? Yes, you see a lot of new flathead engined new cars these days. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWLawrence Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Don, you are right. Valve in block engines were replaced by valve in head engines for better breathing of the higher reving post-war models.. However, the discussion is in the context of the late 1930s and pre-war 1940s. These engines were long stroke and low reving designs and the needed breathing requirements were met by both types. Packard had a more simple design. JWL 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonMicheletti Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 Having driven and worked on both, I'll take a Buick. However, the Packards do feel more solid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now