Rusty_OToole

Hemi with overdrive is a rare combination. You should have hot rodders lined up at your door to buy the engine and trans.

Would be interested in the details of the disc brake swap. If you find parts to fit your car they should work on pretty much all DeSoto and Chrysler postwar cars until they went to ball joints in 57.

Ask an old radio fan. There are collectors of old tube radios with bakelite cases that have this down to a science. There is a special polish for bakelite but I don't remember the name. There are several BBS for antique radios, they will be able to tell you. ...........................................Later.................................... Did a quick Google search and came up with these http://www.radiolaguy.com/info/clean-shine.htm http://www.antiqueradios.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=78776

Auto parts stores used to sell universal cables. You cut them to length and clamp on the ends.

The Story of a Stanley Steamer by George Woodbury. Book written in 1952 about the purchase and restoration of a 1916 Stanley. He lived in New England, and was close enough to the Stanley works in distance and in time, that he had a mechanic work on the car who built them in the first place. One story from the book. When he went to go and pick the car up he hired a truck with a burly driver and his assistant. When the car was loaded on the back of the truck, the driver chose to lol on the leather back seat of the Stanley, smoking a cigar, while his helper drove the truck. When they stopped for a stop sign in a small town a passerby yelled " Hey Mac, what kinda car is that?" the truck driver replied " Stanley Steamer - late model". Ha ha ha ha ha. http://www.amazon.com/Story-Stanley-Steamer-George-Woodbury/dp/B004YTNC4Y/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

If Pierce had brought out an independent suspension chassis it would have had to have been much heavier built than the Studebaker. Don't forget, they would have used the same basic chassis, in different lengths, for the straight eight production models, long wheelbase straight eight custom models like limousines and professional cars, and also the 12 cylinder equivalents. They would have needed a heavier suspension and also a more sophisticated one to give the ride quality demanded of a Pierce Arrow. A new IFS and chassis design would have been expensive to tool, but could have been used with minor modifications for 10 years and on various models. Brakes and rear axles could have been bought from the usual suppliers with no expense for new tooling. This would have been practical IF they could have sold enough cars. From the statements above, they cut their costs to the point where break even was only 1000 units a year but that was producing existing designs. If they could have got sales up to 5000 or 10000 a year they would have had the money for a new chassis. They would have had to put all this in hand long before 1937 or 38. It should have been part of future planning in the early 30s, but this assumes the Pierce Studebaker merger had continued after 1933 and that the combination was not so strapped for cash they could not afford new tooling. Indeed, before the depression Studebaker and Pierce were both in a very sound condition financially but some bad decisions dissipated their resources and left them financially weak. It is easy to play the what if game. But if they had done things a little differently both Pierce and Studebaker could have come through in much better shape.

According to an old book on Pierce Arrow, the Pierce and Studebaker had nothing in common. There was some confusion about this. Pierce brought out a new straight eight about the time of the merger and some have assumed the Pierce engine was a reworked Stude. Not true, they were completely different engines. The Pierce engine was designed in Buffalo by Pierce engineers. Some parts were made by Studebaker in South Bend. This was a common sense use of Stude facilities. Castings were made using Pierce supplied tooling, using iron alloyed according to Pierce specs. In other words, the same as if Pierce had bought castings from any outside foundry. I thought Pierce built bodies in their own shops with traditional aluminum panels over wood frames. Would be interesting if they did use Stude bodies in the early thirties. Of course any customer could order a Pierce chassis and have it bodied by their favorite custom body company. By the late 30s the industry had gone over to mass produced all steel bodies. Even for expensive cars like Packard and Cadillac the mass produced jobs accounted for probably 90% of sales. There was no reason for Pierce to produce a "tin lizzie". But if they could have put a car in the showrooms, of Pierce quality and appointments, to sell in the $2000 to $3000 bracket they should have been able to sell 5000 to 10000 per year. Especially if the larger Studebaker dealers had also been able to handle Pierce sales and service. I believe one of the problems Pierce had was their image. In the New Deal age they resembled a throwback to the bad old days, a car for dowagers and tycoons, the sort of people who were blamed for the Depression. If they could have mounted some sort of publicity or advertising campaign to update their image, possibly by associating their product with famous actors and actresses, athletes or successful young business and professional men and important government figures it might have helped sell the car to younger buyers. And of course, you can always sell a young man's car to an old man but you can't sell an old man's car to a young man.

Can anyone tell me how many Airflow Chryslers were produced or sold and how many Airstreams? And Chrysler production numbers a year or 2 before and after the Airflow? The reason I ask is that once again the story that the Airflow is a failure has popped up. I don't believe this is true. Walter Chrysler wanted to bring out something sensational to celebrate Chrysler's tenth anniversary. The Airflow was it. They knew it was too avante garde, and too expensive, to stand alone so they made the more conventional and cheaper Airstream. From a technical standpoint the Airflow was a trend setter. Every car maker in America copied the Airflow design. Look at the typical 1933 car, then look at the 1934-37 Airflow, then look at the typical 1938 car. They all copied the Airflow layout and Airflow silhouette. The biggest "improvement" they made was bigger fenders. So far as I can tell the "Airflop" story was yet another rumor started by General Motors in hopes of staving off the competition from Chrysler. Does anyone have production or sales figure and prices of Airflow vs Airstream? I already did a web search with no result.

I don't know if Pierce should have considered a lower price market. Studebaker had that covered. Pierce Arrow dealers dualled with Studebaker would have had a lower priced bread and butter line if they needed it. Looking at the Silver Arrow from 1933, I think the first mass produced car to integrate the front fender line into the body in this way was the 1947 Studebaker. Wonder what a 1947 Pierce Arrow with Land Cruiser body would have looked like?

There are a lot of gas tanks available new including universal fit or hot rod tanks. The only thing to do is measure your old tank, or measure the available space and start looking. Gas tanks can be modified if necessary at least the metal ones. Holes can be welded or soldered, fill pipes added or relocated as necessary. Brand new tanks for late model cars cost as little as $80. For older model cars, $150 to $250. You could even have one made from scratch but that would run into $$$$ money. Or you could visit a junkyard with a measuring tape. You never know your luck.

There is another "trick" for getting a bigger body out of the existing tooling. That is to make a body with interchangeable front and rear doors. The Studebaker already had rear hinged rear doors. What if you made a longer body with the same front doors also used as rear doors? You would have a longer roomier luxury car body at a minimal cost of tooling. Cord did the same trick with their sedans. Only they used a "trim die" to cut a notch in the bottom of the rear doors for fender clearance. This would not be necessary on a long wheelbase Pierce. Look at the Chrysler Airflow. I don't know if they used interchangeable doors but the rear doors certainly resembled the fronts, and had no notch. ....................... On second glance it looks like you already took advantage of this idea in your Pierce renderings. You have a good theme going. If Pierce and Studebaker could have stuck together, it might have been possible to keep Pierce alive. In a few more years all car plants were converted to war production anyway. The Allies could have used the Pierce expertise in high quality production for aircraft engines, tanks etc. And in the car hungry post war world there might have been a place for another luxury car. Packard more or less conceded the top spot to Cadillac without a fight. It would have been interesting to see what Pierce might have done in the fifties.

Pierce's big problem was the obsolete solid front axle chassis. Other makers were going to IFS, only a few cheap cars did not have this feature. It was not just the IFS ride they were after. Designers were moving the engine forward, between the wheels, to get more passenger room on the same wheelbase chassis. It is impossible to make the car low, and still have room for axle movement under the engine. The combination of forward engine, low build and decent suspension movement demands IFS. Could Pierce have afforded a new, lower chassis in the modern mode with their own IFS design? If they could, then offering a modern lower priced straight eight with mass produced bodies would have made sense. Would it have been possible for Studebaker to make the bodies by using Studebaker sedan sides and doors with a wider roof panel? This would have required tooling a new roof along with fenders, grille etc. Was the Stude body wide enough and roomy enough for an out and out luxury car? Studebaker could have supplied bodies in white i.e. unfinished body shells with no glass, upholstery or instruments, for Pierce to finish to their own high standards. Such a car with 150 HP Pierce straight eight, IFS and all steel body would have been strong competition for senior Lincoln Cadillac and Packard . They might even have made inroads in the Buick, LaSalle Lincoln Zephyr and Chrysler market.

I like the idea of making a single use puller out of 2X4s. You can contour the wood to cradle the hub of the wheel. Since the wheel is now old and possibly brittle, and the hub and shaft grown together over the last 80 years something that will apply a lot of force in a gentle manner seems called for.

As the US, Europe and the British Empire were already involved in total war with the Axis powers it is hard to see what more they could have done.

AW-32 is fine, AW-22 even better if they have it.

Stanleys were more or less made to order and differed one from the other more than a mass produced car like a Model T. They even differed in the way the plumbing was installed to the power plant depending on which mechanic installed it.

You may have an "early series 1949". The true 1949 models were not ready in time so they sold some 1948 style cars as 1949s.

Don't have the figures for Ford six but 1950 Ford V8 Starting motor make = Autolite, Lock test - amp draw = 550, Lock test - volts = 3.75, Lock test - torque = 15 ft. lbs., Drive type = Bendix. Given that the six and eight were practically the same displacement and horsepower they probably used the same starter. Maybe a Ford fan can confirm or correct this info.

St. Regis nameplate was first used for 2 door hardtops about 1955. I think they had another model name for 4 door hardtops but don't remember what it was.

Appears to be a custom job based on a 1946 - 50 Kaiser. The modifications are so extensive as to practically make a new car, but you can see some Kaiser in the lines and grille - parking light area..

You have to use your own judgement here. If you warmed up the engine with a 10 mile drive before draining the oil, then there will be oil in the bearings etc when you start up after the oil change. It may take 10 seconds to refill the filter, this will do no harm. But if it makes you nervous you can take the lid off and top up the filter housing.

Have you visited Detroit lately?

Just goes to show what can be done by unions, management and government all working together. Now if they could only figure out how to improve things rather than run them into the ground they would be doing something.

The decline and fall of the British auto industry was a long drawn out process. Take the MGA. Its basic engine, suspension and other parts debuted on the Austin A40 in 1947. They were state of the art for that time. The OHV engine was very efficient in terms of fuel use. But more than 30 years later they were still building cars with basically the same engine and suspension. There were a lot of problems in the industry. The result was a lack of development of new models. There was a deterioration in quality and an increase in costs. In the seventies car makers had to have 3 or 4 sources for every part because of wildcat strikes. They had to buy from whatever source they could get regardless of quality or price. In the fifties they were competitive but as time went on they had less and less to say for themselves. By the eighties all that was left of a once proud industry was a pathetic remnant.

Read an article years ago on lubrication in a magazine of about 1920. It stated more and more car makers were using heavy oil because it lubricates better, extends the life of parts by 300% to 400%. Don't know why they specified heavy oil but must have had a reason. I find on old cars, and a lot of other things, it pays to go by factory recommendation. They did a lot of research and testing to figure these things out.