58L-Y8

Thanks Ed for your assessment of both engines from considerable personal experience, something most of us lack. To what engineering features and details of the Pierce-Arrow twelve engine do you attribute the more robust character? Bore/stroke ratio? Bearing surface size? Oiling and cooling system design? Metallurgy?

If you can find a motor number stamped on a surface, it will be much easier to identify what models and years Chandler used that engine. Chandler had at least three different sixes with a further displacement variations on two in its last five years. The largest was a 288.6 ci in the Models 32, 33, 35, 1924-26 respectively, 1927-28 Big Six, and '29 Big Six enlarged to 331 ci. It was 3.50" X 5.00", long stroke unit. In those Depression years when recycling useful items was a necessity, a low-revving, long-stroke engines with transmission sourced from large, cheap used cars to power a sawmill or pump was common. Most like that was why that unit was saved and re-purposed.

Paul, Thanks for the kudos for my bridging strategy, something had to stem the freefall to create the situation that would allow the cars you've described and designed. They looks magnificent, what a shame no one had the vision as the time! "What we don’t know is whether a fourth category - expensive fine cars with excellent craftsmanship, new-school engineering and advanced styling (such as the proposed Pierce-Arrow) would have sold well. We can't know because none ever existed." At $3,000 and above, nothing was ever created specifically that would fulfill all those qualities described in one car. From their lack of action in that direction, one can infur the Pierce-Arrow management hadn't the vision or imagination to create such a car from the time they took over control from Studebaker. But, not to indict them too harshly, neither did any of the principals of the relatively financially healthier luxury car makers either. Packard would have been the most like candid to try, but the mindset had changed: if it wasn't mass-production, it wasn't worth the expense or bother. With Pierce-Arrow and ACD defunct, Packard settled for the few coachbuilt semi-custom formal styles and Darrrin customs to serve whatever demand arose. Cadillac, after the flathead Sixteen died, contented itself with a few Fleetwood formals on the 75, allowed a handful of cars to Derham and Bohman & Schwartz. Edsel Ford kept Brunn building Zephyr-chassis town cars for family and associates; the Continental really his preferred project. The '41-'42 Lincoln Custom lwb cars seem an almost an afterthought, created to hold onto the few K owners loyal to Lincoln. The Chrysler Crown Imperial was a pale effort, though Derham based a few worthwhile efforts on that late pre-war chassis.

Even the highest quality car that was out of step with what the market wanted in size, features and price as well as the tenor of the times would fail, which was exactly what befell the late-years Pierce-Arrow, and its peers, the Lincoln K V-12, Packard Twelve, and Cadillac Twelve and Sixteen. At the close of Lincoln K production, Edsel Ford said it wasn't that "We stopped producing fine cars, just that people stopped buying them" If those who still could afford such a car felt ill-at-ease driving one, it didn't matter how well they were crafted. Perceptions of quality are an ever-changing target in the auto business, relative to everything else available. Pierce was still a profitmaking enterprise just like any other car company, and the primary management charge was to run the company with that as their main objective. My prior comments regarding the 1932-33 product developments for 1934 should have been prefaced with the proviso that a very narrow window of opportunity existed to grab public attention and generate sufficient sales to fend off the mid-1934 receivership and eventual bankruptcy in August of that year. Intended to avoid that situation, the $1,900-$2,000 model described would still have had a high degree of quality engineering and construction. What they built ultimately wasn't profitable for the reasons stated above, were exercises in futility. To decide that in the distressed economy and rapidly changing tenor of those depression years that a degree of production component sharing was somehow anathema to their quality standards and a guarantee of an inferior product, when the unchanged path they followed lead to demise is to misunderstand the bigger picture. Simply put, they didn't have the luxury of continuing as they always had in the face of economic and industry trends, engineering and styling progress. And as important, changing social outlook that came to despise the class who were blamed for bringing the Depression on and trapping of their continued insulation from that distress i.e. expensive ultra-luxury cars. Many a once long-time Pierce-Arrow family understood the situation, chose an egalitarian car as cover for their transportation. No amount of quality craftsmanship could change that view. Packard 120's, Lincoln Zephyrs, LaSalles and Cadillac Series 60 while above the mass-market offerings in price and features, weren't preceived to be so far above or as haughty as were their last grandiose luxury cars. Could management have brought themselves to develop and field an owner-driven, $2,000 premium sedan of modern, Silver-Arrow-inspired styling based on production components shared with Studebaker President? If it meant corporate survival?

Hi AJ If you have a copy of Special Interest Auto, Apr-May 1972, Issue #10, page 28 & 29, there is an article titled "4-Speeds of the Early 1930's". It has a good description of the functions of each type, and a list of year, makes and transmission manufacture and model, ratios and differential axle ratio. For 1931, REO Royale isn't listed. What is listed follows: Chrysler, Packard and Pierce-Arrow manufactured their own. Durant 6-17, Franklin 153, Gardner (all), Graham Special & Custom, Peerless Standard & Custom 8 and Windsor 8-92 had either Warner Gear model T5 or T5B. Franklin 152 and Stutz LA, MA, MB employed Detroit Gear & Machine model RS. Good to see you at Hershey, you're making great project on a wonderful rarity! Steve

The object of the $2,000 price wasn't to get into that highly competitive, high volume segment which was already crowded. Generating sales of a few thousand while maintaining prestige and building a new clientele was the primarily thought. The Packard Light Eight 900 sold very well in that range, accounted for 40.7% of their 1932 total production, just didn't generate profits because they weren't versed in low-cost, mass production.

A little late to the party, but here's my take how they could have started their market revival. At a critical meeting in late 1932, the sales and marketing general manager, with support of the company president, would have put the assembled on notice that the company could no longer survive solely on the sale of impressively-sized, bespoke-crafted, fine carriages for the uppermost socio-economic strata. If they didn't broaden into lower price ranges and attract new customers, they could kiss their company goodbye by 1940! After the heated discussions of the future direction were settled, he would have then outlined what their 1934 model development would be: a smaller, owner-driven, five passenger fastback sedan with Silver Arrow-inspired styling, snappy performance, priced significantly below their most recent lowest, in the $1,900-$2,000. In order to create this new car, manufactured on a cost-affective basis for a good unit profit, a high degree of assembly and component sharing with Studebaker President would be required, including recycling major President components as basis. These compromises were absolutely necessary, however distasteful they might be to P-A traditionalist. The specification would then be laid out: a 130"-132" wb, running the current President 337 ci. straight eight and running gear fitted into lengthened, double-dropped version of the 1934 President frame . The body would utilize major 1934 President stampings sections then in development such as the cowl, front doors, floors, modified to fit the larger chassis. With the Silver Arrow debuting at the Century of Progress shortly, as much of its styling would be incorporated into further unique stamping as possible. Lowered enough to delete the runningboards, with pontoon fenders, V-windshield, fastback and verbatim copy of Silver-Arrow frontal styling, it would be a industy sensation. As support for his concept, he would note that Packard's base models such as the recent 726 and 826 comprised the majority of sales as was their current foray into this lower price range, the Light Eight 900. Industry chatter held that while they were selling in volume, Packard was losing its shirt on every car sold; indicating they didn't know how to manufacture at lower unit costs. P-A couldn't afford to make that mistake; fortunately they had Studebaker as resource for less-costly components and volume manufacturing expertise. The basic straight eight Presidents were designed to sell in the price range in which P-A would be entering, presumably engineered and manufactured with greater cost efficiency than were Buffalo's own units. Their size, power and even appearance similarity making them an indistinquishably ideal for the new car. Shortly, they would have the example of the '34 LaSalle as further proof of concept: it being an Olds eight chassis mounted with a smaller yet strikingly modern styling at an attractive price. Their new car wouild be similar in concept, larger in size, much more powerful, a short step-up in price with cutting-edge styling. It would be but the first move toward regaining market and corporate health that would lead to the other progressive concepts presented. Even as the events of 1933 unfolded, as the buyout was negotiated, the terms detailing ongoing collaborations in engineering, manufacturing, component sourcing and sales/marketing would have been included. Steve

Parts I've seen plated with bright nickel have a nice appearance, more appropriate for driver condition cars, not show cars but much less expensive to do.

The model pictured in post #17 is identified as Gordon Buehrig's design for the "Wowser" while he was employed by Budd for a short time after ACD. Photos are found on page 113 of the book Rolling Sculpture, A Designer and His Work by Gordon M. Buehrig with William S. Jackson.

From The Marmon Heritage by Hanley in describing the Model 8-125 (HH): "The bodies however were a new generation of Hayes designed bodies shared with Franklin Olympic and the REO. It was not another Teague work of art, but an automobile quite a bit about the rest of the crowd. It was a spectacular performer... in this regard a fitting companion to the SIXTEEN. It was powered by the 125 horsepower engine introduced for the Big Eight but the engine was mounted in a chassis where the 5-passenger sedan weighed a surprising 3400 pounds. The specific weight was only 27 pounds per horsepower, just about the same as the SIXTEEN! It not only had GTO type acceleration, it also had a wide track of 58.5 inches front and rear." Just an observation, but the Marmon 8-125 and REO Royales appear to share the same make of headlights.

Hi Gary You raise an interesting point, the Studebaker President engine was five main bearing from 1928 through 1930, then changed to a nine main bearing engine for 1931, same as the Pierce-Arrow. One wonders what the motivation or need to do so was? Hendry described how the Pierce engine casting were different from the Studebaker. But given the drastic drop in sales as the Depression set in, perhaps the companies found it more cost-affective to rough cast one block that could be used by both?

Hi Vermontboy That's a good point, wonder if Seagrave bought not only the engine tooling and equipment but also the service parts supply along with it as an ancillary business.

Hi Kirk The best sources are these books, others will cite their favorites: Packard, A History of the Motorcar and The Company, Edited by Beverly Rae Kimes, published by Automobile Quarterly. The Classic Era by Beverly Rae Kimes and the Classic Car Club of American The Coachbuilt Packard and The Custom Body Era by Hugo Pfau The aforementioned www.coachbuilt.com is a good on-line source, though the books give context to the culture that gave rise to these art-on-wheels masterpieces. If you have a penchant for stellar engineering, magnificent design, bespoke craftsmanship within their respective era, the Classic and coachbuilt automobile will fascinate for life! Thanks for the photos, it's an absolute stunner! Is it your Packard or owned by a customer?

Hi vintagerodshop The Packard factory catalogued a Dietrich convertible Victoria in the Models 833 and 840 Individual Custom lines only. The Deluxe 845 list only 5 passenger Sedan and 7 passenger Sedan-Limousine as factory installed body types. Deluxe 845 Convertible Victorias would have been customer ordered at the Custom Salons. Whether Rollston or Waterhouse, they are the most elegant and extravagantly luxurious of Packards for those years.

Hi Trimacar Yes indeed, some of those self-anointed old car experts of yesteryear came up with some crazy tales. From what I recall about him, if he were still with us, you could show him your 160's engine, point out how it differed from the Pierce and he'd still argue he was right! He definitely was one who wasn't to be persuaded with facts........!

This one, a '41 160 Model 1904: http://wilmington.craigslist.org/cto/4818284129.html

Hi Trimacar Thanks for the answer, I've seen Seagraves with their modified version of the Pierce Twelve but can't recall any with the straight eight. That might be because I just missed the few left that have them. Seagrave must have bought the tools and dies for those engines very cheaply. One reason I ask was an old-time collector here years ago swore the Pierce straight eight engine tooling was bought by Packard to create their 356 ci engine for 1940. I have no idea how he got that idea but it was just one of the choice bits of "inside" knowledge he was glad to retell.

Love the club sedan, such nice proportions! BTW, interesting Packards in the background. Please tell us about them.

Reading late company history named Seagrave as the buyer of the twelve cylinder engine tooling, built the engine until the late 1960's. So, the question is, did another company buy the straight eight engine tooling at the 1938 auction and build engines with it?

Seeing these concepts makes me wish Edsel and E.T. Gregorie had more time and resources to concentrate on filling out the Continental and Custom model lines with elegant custom styles, even if only a handful of each were built.

Anyone who dismisses an old car because it's a four door does himself an immense disservice. That outlook overlooks better than half of all the rich automotive history represented in that body style. For those who primarily equate 'worth' with return on dollars invested, I'd recommend they look elsewhere for a more satisfactorily remunerative hobby........ and leave the old cars alone for those who truly understand and appreciate their intrinsic value.

Better they should have given a program such as this a try rather than continued as they did. Waiting for the market to completely kill off any chance of revival when all was lost and no financing could be had was a lousy business strategy. Thanks for giving us a look at what should have been.

Pinin Farina, along with other Italian coachbuilders, did not seem to have a design feel for large cars. Almost without exception, their efforts in that direction come off as awkward, unattractive, even amateurish. If the Jacqueline was built with the objective of garnering further coachbuilding for GM after the last of the 1960 Eldorado Brougham production, perhaps they simply should have ask Bill Mitchell for designs he selected from the various studios worthy of being built, had chassis shipped to them as blank slates. If they had done so, we might have had a series of worthwhile Pinin Farina 1960's GM concept/dream cars in addition to those built in-house.

I knew these suggestions would generate discussion which was the original purpose, as well as suggest ideas that might contribute to the show enjoyment. We've all been to meets that become set-in-stone, are almost interchangeable year-to-year. They become stale and eventually participation falls off. While I doubt if Hershey is in any danger, a little mixing it up every once in a while keeps things fresh. As far as the spaced-parking suggestion, leaving enough space between so doors on each car can be opened without danger of contacted the car next to it would help not only the owners but participants move among them. The diagonal and spaced parking tried out in DPC initially would be a good test case whether it can be accomplished and if folks like it. For HPOF, merely suggest to car owners in their registration packets that they park next to another car built within ten years of their car's model year. Let them work out the logistics as best they can. No hard and fast rule, just let their intelligence take over and organize the decade grouping. Hope these will be considered and tried if it can be done without major disruptions of what is a pretty fine show now.

A real time capsule! And so rare! Hope to see it at Hershey in HPOF. Quick, someone buy and preserve this treasure before a despoiler obliterates it for a quick buck.