Parts valuation, Pierce Arrow

[A. Pontiac]

Hello, I'm looking for advice on how to find out what some Pierce Arrow parts are worth.   I've got a nearly complete straight 8 and should have a transmission and everything in between.  It sits on the what is presumably the front 1/2 of the frame.   Assuming this engine was running when it was put in the barn (about 40 years ago) and is a complete (from hand crank to flywheel, carb to starter) and rebuildable engine,  how can I find a fair market value?

[Graham Man]

First I would post pictures.  There is a wealth of information here, the more information you have the better.  Might be rare and valuable, might be scrap metal, with interesting parts (parts might be worth more?).  Either way you are looking at a lot of money to rebuild, 5k and up.  So your valuable engine might be worth $1500 to the right person.

 

Good Luck

[hddennis]

Pictures and serial numbers are what is needed. Some are rarer than others and you need to determine exactly what it is to figure out it's value.

 

Howard Dennis

[Grimy]

3 minutes ago, hddennis said:

Pictures and serial numbers are what is needed. Some are rarer than others and you need to determine exactly what it is to figure out it's value.

What he said!  It's not hard to drop $15-18K on a full 8-cyl rebuild, $40K on a V-12.

[KRK Sr.]

A, if it has a ser. number it will be on the drivers side half way back at the top of the block. If that's not there then a casting number will be in the block just in front of the starter on that same side, that will give us a date the block was cast. Detailed photos and location would help to set a value and sell it too. Karl

[mercer09]

You can use ebay to value your parts or just ask Ed in Mass- he sells PA parts regularly.

[A. Pontiac]

Thank you for the tips.  I hope to get photos after the weather cools.

[edinmass]

Photos and engine numbers would help. Value can be all over the place, as some engines are harder to find than others, but to put it in perspective, in our shop up north we have more than thirty Pierce engines from 1929-1938 on the racks. Both eights and twelves. In most instances the engines are very close, and unless you have an open car, a engine that is plus or minus a year more often than not won’t effect the cars value. It will be interesting to see what is in the barn..........best guess is a 1929 Series 133 as they are the most common of all the Pierce eights. 

Edited August 17, 2018 by edinmass (see edit history)

[Grimy]

1 hour ago, edinmass said:

best guess is a 1929 Series 133 as they are the most common of all the Pierce eights.

And a 1929 engine number can be easily identified as it consists of the letter A followed by four numbers.  All other years' engine numbers consist of six numbers, the first two of which tell us the year and model. You'll find the engine number, as Karl has said, on the left side of the block midway, just below the head gasket, on a flat pad, but you may need to use a wire brush to be able to read it.

[A. Pontiac]

Engine number appears to be 102559.

[Grimy]

Engine number 102559 was applied to a 1930 Model C (smallest series, 132" wheelbase), bore 3.375, stroke 4.75, for 340 cubic inches.  The 1930 Model A (144" wb) had a 3.5 bore, 5.0 stroke for 385 cid;  Model B (134 and 139 wb, depending on body style) had 3.5 bore, 4.75 stroke for 366 cid.  The good news is that all three blocks are the same casting number, so that the 3.375 bore can be taken out to 3.5 plus up to 0.040 overbore.  Obviously, the 4.75 stroke crank can only be used to achieve 366 cid with standard bore (the 5.0 stroke crank is different).

 

We need to see photos of generator, starter, condition of exhaust manifold (this is a biggie), and carburetor to help evaluate.  Will the engine "turn over" by crank or is it stuck?

[lump]

For you Pierce guys, a question re engines... 

 

I THINK I recall my Dad telling me that certain older fire trucks used the same exact engines (or short blocks, maybe?) as certain Pierce Arrows. Back in the 1960's, I THINK I recall my Dad and other adults talking about finding a "worthless" stripped-down fire truck with an engine that would be correct for a fellow they knew who needed an engine block for his Pierce. 

 

Am I just hallucinating, or is there some truth to that? 

[A. Pontiac]

I think the exhaust manifold is cracked.   I think the engine is stuck, but I'm not certain.  It's stored in such a way to make it nearly impossible to check or to take a very photogenic pic of it.  

 

Did those engines have a wooden pulley for a governor assembly?

[Grimy]

46 minutes ago, A. Pontiac said:

Did those engines have a wooden pulley for a governor assembly?

No governor from the factory; that was likely added when the engine was converted to use as a stationary engine.

The exhaust manifold is, as I alluded, a biggie:  Cracked manifolds are common.  reproduction manifolds are >$2,000.  I think it would be worth your while to pull the spark plugs and add about 3 or 4 ounces of a 50/50 mix of acetone and ATF (or Marvel Mystery Oil available at Walmart & O'Reillys) to each cylinder, then put the plugs back in finger-tight.  Let sit for a week before trying to rotate the crankshaft.  If it will budge at all when you go to sell it, it will be worth more than a stuck engine. Valves may well be stuck in the guides, prohibiting rotation, but don't worry about those for now.

 

1 hour ago, lump said:

For you Pierce guys, a question re engines... 

 

I THINK I recall my Dad telling me that certain older fire trucks used the same exact engines (or short blocks, maybe?) as certain Pierce Arrows. Back in the 1960's, I THINK I recall my Dad and other adults talking about finding a "worthless" stripped-down fire truck with an engine that would be correct for a fellow they knew who needed an engine block for his Pierce. 

 

Am I just hallucinating, or is there some truth to that? 

Lump, Seagrave bought Pierce-Arrow 8 and 12 cylinder engines in the 1930s, machined but parts-matched-yet-disassembled.  They bought the tooling for these engines when Pierce was liquidated in 1938.  Seagrave modified the engines to use dual ignition (2 plugs per cylinder) and other  mods.  Seagrave used the 8-cyl thru WW2, and the V-12 through the late 1960s, albeit in modified form.  I have a 1941 Seagrave 8-cyl as a backup engine.  I won't use the dual ignition head, but almost all other components interchange, and it came with TWO of the Delco 662-J distributors used on 1933-36 Pierce 8s. 

 

Seagrave 12 engines moved the distributor drive to the front of the engine (2 12-cyl distributors) and thus had different camshafts and timing covers than Pierce 12s, as well as dual ignition heads.

[edinmass]

Interesting, a 1930 Series “C” engine would make it one of the harder engines to find,  also probably the least value to 99 percent of the people. That’s the smallest, lowest horsepower eight Pierce ever built, and most of the bolt on accessories won’t interchange with the other years and series as this was done intentionally to limit the least expensive model from competing with the Series A & B Cars. With a stuck engine, the value will also be even more limited. Before anyone says anything, I am NOT intrested in buying it. With the condition issues, location will also greatly effect its value. Think in the hundreds of dollars range, not thousands...........at last count there were very few Series C car in the club roster, and known survivors are also very low. It will sell, no doubt about it. But you won’t retire on it. Best of luck with the sale. 

Edited August 18, 2018 by edinmass (see edit history)

[A. Pontiac]

Thanks for the info.  I'll try to soak it and free it up in my non-existent free time.

[Grimy]

My opinion differs from Ed's.  I have had a 1930 Model B (3.5 x 4.75) for 16 years. On accessories, only the Model C distributor is different from the A & B; starter & generator the same. Early Cs had one barrel carbs, later Cs had the same 2-bbl as A & B; manifolds for 2-bbl Cs interchange with A & B. I haven't researched in the parts manual where this engine lies on the 1 vs 2-bbl carb issue but it's a fairly late engine number. OP, perhaps you can see if yours is 1 bbl or 2 bbl.  BLOCKS ARE THE SAME CASTING. So a C (3.375 bore) can be bored out to 3.5 (standard for A & B and use standard not oversize pistons.  The market is then not only to C owners but also to B owners--same crankshafts.  An A owner with a bad block can use this block IF he uses his A crank and rods.

[carbking]

56 minutes ago, Grimy said:

 Early Cs had one barrel carbs, later Cs had the same 2-bbl as A & B; manifolds for 2-bbl Cs interchange with A & B. I haven't researched in the parts manual where this engine lies on the 1 vs 2-bbl carb issue but it's a fairly late engine number.

 

Should you be in your parts manual sometime, I would love to have a copy of the page showing this. I would then update my database.

 

There is no reference in the factory Stromberg documents (index, reference book, or prints) that show the Model C using the two-barrel. Of course, if Pierce decided to use the two-barrel AFTER they purchased it from Stromberg, and did not tell Stromberg, then Stromberg would not have known.

 

Jon.

[Grimy]

Jon, the parts manuals were done year-by-year, each early in the year.  Fortunately the PAS Library has the notes of PAMCC engineers Hale and Anson. Founding PAS member Bernard Weis has listed specifics of running changes from the notes of these engineers in his 'recension tables.'  I just looked through that portion of the recension tables pertaining to 1930 C model carburetors, and here's what Bernie Weis has listed about carbs:

 

"Eng. no. 101326 this engine no. starts UU-2 carb instead of previously used U-4. Also different manifold used to #102262. Ref. Hale #2498 4/23/30, Anson #19-10 4/28/30

 

"Eng. no. 102263  Duplex UU-2 carb with long choke rod used from this engine.  (Hale)"

 

I emphasize that I have not personally reviewed the Anson and Hale notes.  They are part of the PAS Collection at the AACA Library and copies can be obtained through the AACA librarians.

[carbking]

Thanks, will update my computer database, and will update the internet listings when I have time.

 

This is one of the "gotchas" that can give restorers fits. And why one MUST have an open mind! And view even factory sources with a "grain of salt".

 

It would be interesting to know WHY the change, but we probably never will know. Did Pierce run out of U-4 carbs, and Stromberg wanted a minimum amount for a run? Did the UU-2 give better performance? Did Pierce acquire a better price from Stromberg for the UU-2 for a larger run? Or did some "seer" anticipate that 50 years from then the U-4 castings would be garbage, and there was sufficient usage of the UU-2 that the castings could be reproduced?

 

Again, thank you.

 

Jon.

[Grimy]

Hi, Jon, I agree that this is one of those crazy issues.  I suspect that the U-4 was unable to provide sufficient power.

 

The 1929 P-A was all-new, "mistakes were made" as in many introductions of totally new vehicles, and numerous running changes were made in the very similar 1930 and 1931 models.  A couple that I know off the top of my head:

 

Mid-1930, Pierce introduced a "kick shackle" on the front of the LF spring "to reduce wheel fight." (My car doesn't have it).  The kick shackle occasioned a minor change of shape in the front of the LF fender, and Pierce just had to be symmetrical, so there are different L & R front fender numbers 50 frame numbers after the kick shackle was added.

 

FIVE different radiators were used, but AFAIK, each will interchange with another.

 

This topic brings up the hazards of relying on factory literature which likely went to print before production began.  Ideally, as in the case of companies like Buick, factory parts manuals were published covering several year models, and supersessions were usually cited with a previous (original) part number.  Not so for Pierce!  One parts manual per year, published early on in the year.  As production decreased (1,740 cars in 1934 with 3 engines, 4 wheelbases, 19 body styles; 875 cars in 1935; 787 in 1936; 167 for 1937), resources diminished.  Apparently NO stand-alone parts manual was printed for 1934, but there is a combined 1934-35 parts manual, yet NO parts manual is known to have been published for the final years of 1936-37-38.

 

And, Jon, thank you for posing the question.  We all "know stuff" but it helps to be pushed to validate what we claim off the tops of our heads!

[carbking]

Have updated both database and website, here is the link: http://www.thecarburetorshop.com/PkitP.htm#PPIERCEARROW

 

The displacements on the 125, 129, and 139 seem suspect, but that is what Stromberg had in their records.

 

If you see any errors, omissions, etc. would like to see documentation. I try to make these listings as accurate as possible.

 

Jon.

 

 

[Grimy]

Jon, I will review and get back to you.  A quick one: Among 1929 cars, they were marketed as 133 (wb) and 143 (wb) but the engineering codes were 125 (AKA 133) and 126 (AKA 143). The 125 and 126 designations are everywhere in parts mfrs' catalogs.

[lump]

On ‎8‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 11:45 PM, Grimy said:

No governor from the factory; that was likely added when the engine was converted to use as a stationary engine.

The exhaust manifold is, as I alluded, a biggie:  Cracked manifolds are common.  reproduction manifolds are >$2,000.  I think it would be worth your while to pull the spark plugs and add about 3 or 4 ounces of a 50/50 mix of acetone and ATF (or Marvel Mystery Oil available at Walmart & O'Reillys) to each cylinder, then put the plugs back in finger-tight.  Let sit for a week before trying to rotate the crankshaft.  If it will budge at all when you go to sell it, it will be worth more than a stuck engine. Valves may well be stuck in the guides, prohibiting rotation, but don't worry about those for now.

 

Lump, Seagrave bought Pierce-Arrow 8 and 12 cylinder engines in the 1930s, machined but parts-matched-yet-disassembled.  They bought the tooling for these engines when Pierce was liquidated in 1938.  Seagrave modified the engines to use dual ignition (2 plugs per cylinder) and other  mods.  Seagrave used the 8-cyl thru WW2, and the V-12 through the late 1960s, albeit in modified form.  I have a 1941 Seagrave 8-cyl as a backup engine.  I won't use the dual ignition head, but almost all other components interchange, and it came with TWO of the Delco 662-J distributors used on 1933-36 Pierce 8s. 

 

Seagrave 12 engines moved the distributor drive to the front of the engine (2 12-cyl distributors) and thus had different camshafts and timing covers than Pierce 12s, as well as dual ignition heads.

Thanks, Grimy! I feel better now. At least there was some basis for that foggy old memory of mine! 

[mercer09]

Grimy,

cheers for your knowledge on this topic. Info that would have been lost to posterity!

[Grimy]

29 minutes ago, mercer09 said:

Grimy,

cheers for your knowledge on this topic. Info that would have been lost to posterity!

Thank you very much, Mercer09, but I'm just passing on the info that prior generations of Pierce aficionados read, saved, documented, and interpreted.  It's tough when there are (1) no factory service manuals (Pierce never published any), (2) no supersession info in which later parts replaced original parts, and (3) no factory records left--as they were fed to the furnace in 1938.  Thanks to engineers who kept their own notes and made them available decades later, saved service bulletins to dealers, etc.

 

Here's one for amusement: In early 1932 Pierce was apparently very proud of its new synchronized gearbox, so made an offer through dealers to heavily subsidize its installation in customers' 1929 (3-speed crash box), 1930 (4-speed Clark crashbox, one year only), and 1931 (crashbox with button-in-knob freewheeling) cars.  So a 1932 box can be factory-authorized in a 1930, but I know of only one such car existing today.  We know of that through a dealer service bulletin, which the Pierce-Arrow Society reprints for its members.