West Peterson

Limousine in Europe, many years ago anyway, was merely a sedan. It did not necessarily mean it had a division window and/or jump seats. And of course, remember the more recent Lincoln Town Car, which was anything but... and the current Volkswagen Phaeton. The rape of body style nomenclature is almost as bad as the glorious model names that are pasted on current four-door sedans (as good of cars as they may be), such as the 300/300C, GTO, Magnum, Charger, et al. Good grief, take a lesson from Ferrari and kill the name when the configuration takes a significant change. Camaro/Firebird, for instance, should have dropped the name(s) in 1970, Eldorado in 1967, etc.

As DeSoto Frank says, whatever a car company calls it, that's what it is. Just as the Model A Cabriolet is actually a convertible coupe, the Cadillac All Weather Phaeton is just a convertible sedan, and the Cord Phaeton is a convertible victoria.

That was the tour that started from Amelia Island and was headed up toward . It was the reminents of the Millenium Tour that was started by a well-known Silver Ghost owner from Florida. It is not limited to Rolls-Royce. In fact, there was a 1911 Oldsmobile Autocrat on the tour, as well as a 1911 Locomobile, 1930 Duesenberg and a 1931 Nash.

A cabriolet and a convertible coupe are not the same. The cabriolet is the same as a convertible victoria. They would both have a back seat.

I went also, saw every car, and did not see the Buick you speak of. I'll ask Bill Warner next time I talk to him what happened to it. I'd be happy to answer the question as to "what is car 110", but I do not see any numbers on the photos.

Harry J You are correct. My goof. The current owner's name is Locke.

Roger, I believe that see-through hood would have been dealer installed, not factory. They were quite common. Dealer's (not just Ford) bought them to put on the show-room car(s).

I remember seeing a beautiful 1931 Mercer convertible coupe with a Locke body on it (Yes, 1931).

Matt, Email me, please. StelvioGT@yahoo.com

Post deleted by West Peterson

Novaman: There's no mistaking a 1950 Buick. They're the only ones where the grille looks like a whole bowl of spaghetti is coming out of it, right over the bumper. I'd love to have one. Especially a convertible. What a sight!

Restorer32: How did you get over the want/need to have an XKE. I'd like to take the serum.

120,000 dimes. But its location is secret until I've exhausted all possible ways of purchasing it myself. It may not be worth that much, but it is to me since there isn't any rust repair involved. I've seen people pay half that price but for rusty junk. Plus it comes with a new rubber set, NOS exhaust tips and an extra set of correct wheels.

I pulled the sock out to buy my computer equipment.

If you've got a rule that states a maximum displacement, then the ONLY way to get more power is using a substitute. Whether it's a magical octane booster solution or modern technological wizardly, it's a substitute, but I'm not talking about modern wizardry. The engineers at Stutz had no money to develop a 16, so, as I keep bringing up, with 122c.i. less than Cadillac, they accomplished almost the same power (that is, if you can believe the 75-year-old figures). I'll concede that Stutz bored and stroked as much as they possibly could while keeping the integrity of the block. The depended on the engineering finesse of twin overhead cams to get them to the same spot. Let's discuss Apples (it's past dinner time and I'm hungry): Cadillac's unblown 8-cyl. powerplant at the time was 353c.i. -- Stutz' unblown 8 was 322. Cadillac produced 115hp while Stutz produced 156. Packard's unblown 12 with 445.5c.i. produced 160hp. Stutz' unblown 322cid 8 produced 156hp. The Clint Eastwood-type myth that bigger is better can be exploded with 75-year-old technology, not computer-age Wassitz technology. By the way, I think I'd go with the lighter, faster weaponry and make my shots count. But then, I don't know nuthin' 'bout guns or using them.

What your're saying is that there's no substiture for more fuel! By the way, I found my spoon.

I think you're admitting that there IS a substitute for c.i. by stating that the Big CID engine will go faster with the add-ons. By saying there is no substitute, you're trying to say that only more CID will increase power. The 322cid dohc 8-cylinder Stutz was nearly as powerful as the 452cid 16-cylinder Cadillac. What I'm saying is that there is a more efficient way to increase hp. You're it. I quit. (My wife sent me off to work with a bowl of soup and a fork... beat that!)

I believe Miller started blowing after seeing what was under the hood of that 1924 Indy winner.

Still too small.

In a 170-year-old open barn, I've located a rust-free California E-Type Jaguar just waiting for a brake job, some paint and chrome. Interior looks great. Looks fun. Wish I could find the cash to buy it.

Yes, Virginia, there is a substitute for Cubic Inches. Re the claim, "There's no substitute for cubic inches," I'd have to disagree. I'd say that overhead cams, hemispherical combustion chambers, twin ignition and superchargers are definately substitutes for CID. Just read the history of the Duesenberg Bros, Charles Nash and Charles Greuter (Stutz engineer) and you'll find out... or, keep reading this post for a more condensed explanation. Stutz built the most powerful engine in the mid 1920s with a 289cid powerplant, with Duesenberg almost matching its horsepower with just 260cid. Then, when Cadillac was playing with "cubic inches" with its V16 (452cid), Stutz introduced its 322cid (8-cylinder) powerplant. While it didn't match Cadillac's 175hp, it was close with a very capable and sturdy 156 horsepower. Packard's 12-cylinder was only rated 4hp higher. For Stutz, overhead cams and hemispherical combustion chambers was substitute for cubic inches. Duesenberg, on the other hand, substituted superchargers (along with overhead cams) for cubic inches when the racing community kept lowering the maximum displacement for running races. They were able to produce as much or more horsepower with half the amount of combustion chamber capacity. In 1924, when Duesenberg won the Indy 500, no one was aware of the secret until after the race and the hood was opened. Super large combustion chambers do not burn fuel very efficiently, which is where twin-ignition comes into play. Sorry for the long post, but I couldn't resist the challenge.

I think you ought to just enjoy the car, show it, and have fun on car tours rather than try to make a profit. There are many Duesenbergs that are much more desirable than your town car that are selling for much less than $1 million. Even ones with perfect restorations. The Hearst/Davies car has a very old restoration. In my opinion, replacing the wheels with the correct size for when it was originally built would do much for improving its looks.

Thanks for the help/offer. I had been to the Nash club website, but my computer was not yet setup to hit the imbedded email buttons on websites. I finally got a hold of the club's president and he has directed me to a person that can help me out.

What's even more frustrating is trying to figure out a problem that isn't consistent. A problem that picks different times not to work.

I had just finished restoring my 1957 VW Karmann Ghia. I was adjusting something, I don't remember what, but I reached in the window to start the car. It started right up. Unfortunately, it was in gear and proceded to smash into the car that was six feet in front of it. The front bumper of the Karmann Ghia is very low and provided no protection for the perfectly painted front end. I wish I knew where that car was today. I sold it in 1988. Went to Utah. Color: Tomato red with creme top. Anyone??