Packard Twelve versus Pierce Twelve

[Guest shinyhubcap]

On ‎11‎/‎4‎/‎2015 at 7:44 PM, edinmass said:

.. I think it's a fair statement that the Pierce 12 was the most powerful and reliable of the great pre war motors. ....I would include several other cars that have great engines and are often not included in the list of GREAT power plants. Marmon 16 ...but that's another story!

Yes, I agree in part......... the Marmon V-16 would certainly be another story - the fellow who started this "thread" did not mention that incredible machine !   

 

As a side-note ( and apologies for drifting away from the question that started this particular "thread".....! )   "long long ago and far far away"..... ( Van Nuys, California,..! )   a particularly fine fellow, and fellow CCCA member of the "old days"  (  the late Al Bartz ) had  a incredibly well-equipped  hot rod machine shop - a "side business" of his was re-building Marmon V-16's.

 

He also had a wicked sense of humor....only after he "blew my doors off" one night coming back on the old Coast Highway.... did he invite me to his shop.   I remember shaking my head with disbelief  at the figures,  as he ran up a freshly "tweaked" Marmon V-16 on his dyno.

 

To this day, "bragging rights" amongst  some Marmon 16 owners is that their engine is a "Bartz" engine.  Al  correctly recognized that the Marmon V-16, with its "modern" over-head valve "cross-flow" cylinder heads was way ahead in its potential, to the "flat-heads" like the ones discussed in this "thread"..... with a little "tweaking" by Al  - capable of vastly increased performance.    Here's a suggestion on how to lose a bet - bet someone with a "Bartz" Marmon V-16 that you can stay with him in a drag race....!

 

 

[edinmass]

In another thread I listed the great pre war motors as

 

Duesenberg J

Pierce 12

Marmon 16

Bently 6.5 Liter

Hispano 6 & 12. The big six.

 

Above average:

Cadillac 16 OHV

Packard 12

DV 32

P III

 

I may have missed a great / or above average engine, but I am writing this in the back of the church while waiting for the Bride &a Groom. Any wedding you go to that's not you own is a good one!?

 

 

[Guest shinyhubcap]

6 hours ago, edinmass said:

In another thread I listed the great pre war motors as

Duesenberg J

Pierce 12

Marmon 16

Bently 6.5 Liter

Hispano 6 & 12. The big six.  Above average:  Cadillac 16 OHV  Packard 12     DV 32   P III

 

I may have missed a great / or above average engine,.....

 

Ha -   caught you...!      (but I may get both of us into trouble with the "purists" in here for  us etting too far away from the original question in this thread.....!)

 

You did not mention the "flat-head" Cad. V-16  ( as many of our readers know....the very beautiful LOOKING overhead valve Cad. 16 motor was replaced for 1938-1940 production by an entirely different design.  Not nearly as attractive to look at.  The so-called " flat-head" Cad. V-16.

 

It had as much if not more power as the larger displacement, heavier, more complex motor it replaced.  Much improved pressurized cooling system, down-draft carbs, etc.

 

Of particular interest to me is its incredibly short stroke - one of the many reasons why it was so silky smooth, and could rev. like crazy, well beyond that at which our older long-stroke beloveds would be tossing rods thru their crank-cases.....- closest thing to an electric motor-powered car I've ever owned.   Makes your and my favorite V-12's feel like single cylinder two-stroke motorcycles by comparison !

 

Given the low octane fuel of the era,  I am sure you are aware significantly higher compression ratios were not practical for power-plant engineers.  Also,  designers and PR people recognized most of these super-luxury cars would be judged by how they performed at the lower speeds the roads of that era permitted.   So "breathing" and valve timing were set up accordingly.  Given those design criteria,  really wasn't all that much  advantage to more complex and potentially more noisy over-head valves & "cross-flow" heads at the lower rpm ranges these vehicles spent their lives in.

 

My apologies to Trimcar for picking on him - how many of you understand why I made fun of him for his discussing the "pushrod"  in the Packard V-12 valve system....?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

not exactly new  member - various state and one federal bar (and the bar down the street)

not exactly new  member - various "old car crazy" / historical (also hysterical...?  ) interest clubs

proud admirer of a 1943 Edsel pick up truck...chopped and channeled with J.C. Whitney hub-caps and "fuzzies"  dangling from the rear-view mirror.......you know...the bright yellow one everyone says, when they look at your classic...."we had one just like that"   ..."where do you buy gas for that thing"......"is that a fiberglass reproduction"...... (or, looking right at my obviously brand-new Diamondbacks...)....."can you still get tires for those things".........(or my favorite...."did you buy it new..."  ?  )

[C Carl]

Welcome Shiny' ! Looks like you've been around the block a few times , old man. And I take it some very interesting vehicles have transported you there ! Listen : first off , lest I forget to ask , Bob Smits has been looking for a flathead Cad 16. Since you have had same , can you (or anyone else for that matter) help old Doctor Bob out ? He is at the point he wants to drive his '38. I have a '48 manual trans V8 Cad mill that will have to go to the cause unless an 11th hour 16 pops up. Any leads ? (Oh , hey speaking of V16s , did you ever know that So Cal machinist who had that 3400 cu. in. Duesenberg V16 aero engine prototype sitting in his shop years ago ?)

 

O.K. , now Shiny' , since you are kinda new here these pics are for you. Everyone else has already seen them , but Ed mentioned Speed Six Bentley , so here is a wrecked limousine , rebodied '26 which had just turned a deer into venison a year ago. Therefore the broken headlight , bent numbers plate , and small duct tape patch. About a 40 mph impact. Not bad ! Another big bad six banger is the 1927 S Mercedes Benz. The Indy Duesenberg has a later engine transplant. (No , they are not mine , unfortunately. Things almost worked out , but that is a sad story).

 

You commented  on the Packard tire pressure thread as to how few folks actually get out on the open road and really drive their old cars. I am sure many more would like to , but any number of factors combine to make this difficult or impossible. Myself , I put 2700 miles on my original unrestored '27 Cadillac sedan early this year. Back road lone wolfing it out to , and then down Coast. Hanging in , and cruising around Santa Barbara area. Next through desert back roads to and around 'Vegas. But everyone else has heard that story , too. In any case , I would spend most of whatever is left of my life driving that car if I could. Do you still have a good ancient long distance cruiser ? 

 

Look , all the guys and gals here get to kick it around the virtual bench , or under the virtual lift , or out on the virtual road or field  together. Virtual friends here. Almost everyone has had the pleasure of meeting some of their new friends. Under the circumstances , I just felt drawn to make sure you feel very welcome here. You are quite generous with your long postings , and I am sure we all will enjoy more of your knowledge and anecdotes. This forum is made up by wonderful people. You are one of us ! Again , welcome.  -  Carl 

 

Edited October 16, 2016 by C Carl
Simplification (see edit history)

[trimacar]

The eight cylinder Packard has the monkey motion pushrod system, I thought the 12 did too.  If not, my mistake, and I deserve to be slapped on the wrist with a bent pushrod......or made fun of, your choice, and deservedly so....

[Guest shinyhubcap]

6 hours ago, trimacar said:

The eight cylinder Packard has the monkey motion pushrod system, I thought the 12 did too.  If not, my mistake, and I deserve to be slapped on the wrist with a bent pushrod......or made fun of, your choice, and deservedly so.......

 

Hi again Trim - you are a true gentleman admitting you made an error. A very human one !

 

C'mon folks....lets be honest - we've all done it - got so wound up in our belief system, so determined to support a theory, that we come up with some silly stuff.  So what  !

 

So long as we are adult enough to be willing to learn - without getting our noses out of joint ( or seeking people get censored or banned because they disagree with us )   we can all benefit.

 

Sure - there are no push-rods in the Packard V-12 valve system.   No hydraulic lifters at all by the way - SOLID lifters  - roller cam followers that lift directly on the valve stems.   Yes - there is a "lash-take-up" using engine oil - hardly a typical hydraulic lifter as we understand the term today.

 

Is it silly to claim that a Pierce 12 can run away from a Packard 12 as another contributor did ?   Given how similar the engine design, bodies, and rear axle ratios were...?

 

Well...of course we all can get a little carried away supporting our favorite "flavor".    Actually, some truth to that to this extent.....given similar bodies (and their final drive/differential gearing was almost identical)  both will be hard-put to break 90 mph.  Probably "neck & neck" getting there given those nasty laws of physics........but with the flick of a lever, the Pierce (some - not all) has one incredible advantage - OVERDRIVE.

 

So yes...once we get much above 85-90 mph,  where the stock-geared competitor's motors are screaming themselves at the limits of their induction,  the over-drive-engaged Pierce 12  takes off leaving the Packard 12 in the dust.

 

Now of course this entire post of mine assumes something that is most likely not accurate in the case of so many "restored" cars today.   As I suggested earlier,  what a shame that so many of these fantastic machines are little more than pretty costume jewelry for display at prestigious auto shows.  Their mechanical restorations often leave them bearing little relationship to how the car performed when it was properly maintained in service.

 

A mid thirties Packard advertisement claimed you could drive a Packard V-12  over 400 miles in a day and arrive relaxed and rested!   We used to call that kind of statement in the advertising world "puffing" ( just think about the roads of that era - sure it could be done....bet it was done.......).    Could there be any doubt that a Pierce V-12 could give the same level of performance?

 

There is much to learn here if we give each other a chance, have a sense of humor like Trim has displayed,  and try to remember one of our purposes in here is to preserve automotive history with as much accuracy as possible..

 

A final "jab" at one of our other contributors in this "thread",  who, in his desire to support his particular "flavor" of classic, said the Packards did not have power brakes..........

 

You get the idea.....!

 

Edited October 16, 2016 by shinyhubcap
fixed a typo error (see edit history)

[trimacar]

Well, as far as the power brake discussion goes, Packard vs. Pierce.....the discussion comparing the V-12's between the two companies (or even 8's for that matter) has to have an end date of 1938, by the very nature of the PAMCC going out of business. 

 

My 1938 1604 Super eight does not have power brakes.  Did the 1938 Packard 12 have power brakes?  I don't think so, but correct me if I'm wrong, they were standard hydraulics.

 

Pierce Arrow had mechanically assisted Stewart Warner power brakes much earlier, from 1933 to 1935, and then went to vacuum assisted power brakes until 1938.

 

So, I don't think the statement that Packard did not have power brakes is incorrect, for the time period of this discussion.

 

I've never driven a Packard V-12, so can't compare the two.  I have driven a 1934 Pierce production Silver Arrow V-12 (which I owned in the 1980's and now lives on the west coast), and no other pre-war car I've ever driven had the torque and power of that car,  70 mph was no problem, and even without overdrive, the car hit 100 mph when being driven west by the new owner......  

[alsancle]

Did Pierce use the same block for all year 12 cylinder engines and simply change the bore and stroke for the different displacements?  Is the 150hp "small" 12 of 1932 the same engine as the "big" 12?

[Guest shinyhubcap]

Hi again Trim !

 

I would like to respond to your above post within the context of what Scott was asking, when he started this particular "thread".  

 

But first -  yes - you are correct - the  "so called "Super Eight" * *  production of Packard for 1937-1938 did not have the power-brake system of the Packard Twelve.  For an obvious reason.  While the again  " so-called Super Eight"  * * * had the same exterior appearance (because it used the same outside sheet-metal and dash-board),  underneath it was a whole different car.  

 

To avoid daggers being thrown by present  '37 - '38  Packard   "so called Super Eight" owners,  let me assure them I am confident that series Packard was WITHIN ITS PRICE CLASS, the equal of anything IN THAT PRICE CLASS.   Packard, like Pierce, had a well-deserved reputation for giving the buyer in any of the price-classes it competed, good value for the money.  Comparing cars from different price classes is unfair.

 

To summarize, the Packard V-12  1937-1939 had a different, much heavier chassis, suspension, bigger cooling system, and thus it weighed more - nearly a ton more - which justified the use of much more competent power-assisted hydraulic brakes.

 

As a side-note, ALL of the "big" Packards from (   hmmm..was it '32 on or '33 ..?  ) had power assisted brakes.   As did other cars of similar weight.

 

Again, our desire to glorify whichever "flavor" car of that era most appeals to us,  the simple fact is - those old laws of physics dictated what engineers of that era came up with.  I don't recall now who made the "vacuum booster"  system - yes - there were differences when Packard went to "juice" brakes for the "Senior" line in '37 - whereas Pierce still had cable brakes.  

 

If memory servies - the vacuum booster on my '34 Packard Super Eight ( the "real" Super Eight )  was identical except for size, to the one that was also factory-equipped on my '36 American La France V-12 ( a much heavier fire engine).

 

Anyone want to argue that IF the systems are properly set up,  you could tell the difference between braking effort, stopping distance..between a hydraulic brake equipped Packard V-12 and a "mechanical brake" equipped Pierce V-12 ?

 

But none of this answers the question proposed by Scott in his opening post.

 

I again suggest both the Pierce and Packard V-12's were superb machines.   To quote one of our early CCCA members  "engineering exaggerations, magnificently over-done".  

 

I have the unfair advantage over you in that due to an accident of time and circumstance, I can answer Scott's questions with  "some degree" of personal experience......... !

 

The answer is simple - I love em both - if blind-folded and stuck in the rear seat while someone else was driving,  and not able to feel the door-handles.....I'd be hard-put to tell which one was "better" (whatever that means...!)  ( again..with this qualification....Pierce recognized that with improving roads even as far back as the early 1930's...., highway speeds were increasing to the point that an over-drive was appropriate for "low-geared" cars - Packard, for some reason,  didn't  see it necessary.

 

Oh - if you want to nit-pic, Packard fanatics could point to the much more modern, more competent independent front suspension of their '37-39 Twelves  - again, given how superior both cars handled,  you'd really have to rough them both up to feel any real advantage.

 

The above would hold true today.  Continuing with Scott's question - again, given todays speeds, no question the later over-drive equipped Pierce V12 would be my choice over a bone-stock geared Packard 12.  To that extent...ANY r stock-geared big car from that era not equipped with over-drive would be a giant "negative" today.

 

Scott asked about "reliability", phrasing his question "from a practicality point of view".

 

Again, I don't see a "dime's worth of difference" - both were "the best of the best" in that regard.  Remember,  electrical-related parts such as ignition and fuel supply were not made by either manufacturer - they were both from outside vendors.  Distributors, distributor caps, rotors, starter-motors... coils, fuel pumps, brake components - these things are obviously vital to that question.  Both Pierce and Packard used the same suppliers.

 

Oh - I suppose when over-haul time came,  I suppose I could do a Pierce V-12 a little faster - you need a special boring bar to handle the bore-angle-issue of the Packard V-12, and what a nuisance to  have to drop the con. rods out from below.

 

Are either or both "practical" to have and enjoy ?   Well...good question..and some obviously don't like the answer....depends on who is maintaining them !     Assuming proper maintainence,  either car will perform the same job it was designed to do when new.....provide the owner with the ultimate driving experience satisfaction.

 

As a side-note, I do quarrel with your comment about the Silver Arrow.....that "70 mph was no problem...and even without overdrive...the car hit 100". 

 

I think it is a "stretch" to call a Silver Arrow a "production" car - never driven one - never even crawled under one much less worked on one.  So I have no idea what its rear-end gearing and transmission set-up they had. 

 

If  Pierce used the same rear axle & transmisison the production Pierce's had, it dosnt take much mathematics to figure out why this taxes belief.   70 mph in any low-geared car is brutal to not only the connecting rod bearings, but all the other stuff that goes round and round when the car is moving.   Are you aware of what happens to the torque  and power curves of either the Pierce or Packard 12's once you spin em much beyond 3,000 rpm ?

 

Remember, the Pierce Silver Arrow had the largest version of that motor.... had a FOUR  INCH stroke. 100 mph with "stock" gearing and no over-drive ?    My suspicion is you over-looked what I THINK was the case - that thing had over-drive and it was engaged.

 

Bottom line to answer Scott - if you are fortunate enough to get your hands on either a  properly-maintained Pierce or Packard V-12,  or, better yet..both of them,  you are in for a particularly satisfying driving experience!  

[trimacar]

There were the five Silver Arrow show cars of 1933, then there were the "production" Silver Arrows of 1934 and 1935.  Some had eights, some had twelves, they were basically the same mechanically as other Pierce cars of 1934 and 1935, just different styling. 

 

The car I owned and drove was a production Silver Arrow and very definitely did NOT have overdrive, and when I was at 70mph, I could tell there was plenty left.  The person who bought the car drove it from Dallas Texas back to Washington State, on brand new tires, and told me he had it at 100 mph on a long straight stretch of road, and I don't doubt him.

 

I won't "quarrel" with your real life experiences if you don't quarrel with mine!

[edinmass]

I didn't include the flat head 16 as I have extensively worked on and driven them. I am unimpressed. The Pierce IS a faster car than any other except the Duesenberg period. I have driven two open Marmon 16's and they are very quick, not fast, it would make you want to burn your Caddy 16, but they are not attractive, and body and chassis construction are below Buick quaility. I like Marmon 16's and for driving they are hard to beat, but they just plain lack the fit, finish, attention to detail, and refinement on the others. AJ can attest that in extensive conversations in the last 6 months we like the Marmon Conv Coupe over a 30/31 Caddy 16 Roadster. I like the Marmon for one simple reason..........they are much rarer than the Caddy, and I like to drive unusual cars. That why I rated the Packard higher than a Pierce, but only own Pierce Arrow cars. Mr Hub Cap has his opinions, but there are more differences between the cars than he implies, but in his last posting he correctly and fairly addresses several of them. ONLY a Pierce Arrow ran for 24 hours at 117.5 MPH on a stock motor in 1932, for the next few years lots of others tried, and they blew up early in the runs. Seagrave ran the Pierce motor for one simple reason, it was the best big engine that could run for days on end pumping water at 80 percent throttle and not explode. They ran the basic motor into the 1960's so there MUST be a reason. I am very fortunate to regularly drive the best pre war cars in the world, and by that I mean the top 1/10 of one percent. I have driven just about every chassis that is a CCCA Classic. The only two important ones I have not driven is the Doble Steam car and the Alpha twin supercharged car of the late thirties. But all the real oddballs have passed through my dirty hands at one time or another, Railton , Brough Superior , all the pre war Bentleys , Cunningham , McFarlin , Marmon , all the Cadillac's, Locomobile , Sunbeam twin cam, Bugatti Supercharged , ect,ect,ect. Duesenberg is number one, no question about it, the next top three are all a little diffrent and very close, and it would be fair to call them equal. So I will stick with my choices. They are for overall best American cars , and they are......

 

Dusenberg J

 

Packard 12

Pierce 12

Cadllac 16

the above three are in random order.......

 

and all the rest go here.

 

My current car wish list.....

DV-32

KB

Reo Royal ....just recently added

Crane Simplex

Knox

 

Now if we consider the European cars things get very complicated. Two diffrent schools of thought, some due to taxes on displacement , and others due to road conditions. As an American I like and think BIG when it comes to the great cars. A supercharged type 57 is a great car, but it's just not fair to compare it to the same vintage American iron. I'll post my Pierce Arrow review in the next day or two. 

 

Edited October 16, 2016 by edinmass (see edit history)

[edinmass]

It may be interesting to ask the people here to "build" the best possible car using individual components of all cars built between 1929 and 1938. Rules of the build. You must use actual components that were available and in production by routine builders...... the Mormon Meetor is not allowed! Stock chassis components, you can use any mix of engine/transmission/chassis/body builder/body style, wheel treatment, braking system, ect. Post your build here when you figure it out. Also post your ONE choice for your ultimate CCCA "stock built" car that was or could have been available in the era.

 

My build......

 

Body..........1932 Packard Individual Custom Dietrich Sport Phaeton 

Chasis .......1938 Packard Twelve frame,suspension,axles,brakes

Engine .......Supercharged Duesenberg J

Transmission .....1936-1938 Pierce Warner three speed with R-1 overdrive

A bunch of custom details for the dash, uhpolstery, lights, ect. You get the idea.

 

My one choice for the ultimate CCCA car......

 

1932 Packard Twin Six Custom Dietrich Sport Phaeton .........and the reason for this pick is simple, Duesenberg was basically a race car with a 1928 chassis from start to finish. My choice takes into consideration style and performance with a platform that was reliable and not require the extra attention of a J. Yes, I am implying that a J requir d far more than normal service over realitivly low miles.

 

Edited October 16, 2016 by edinmass (see edit history)

[alsancle]

1 hour ago, edinmass said:

Dusenberg J

 

Packard 12

Pierce 12

Cadllac 16

the above three are in random order.......

 

and all the rest go here.

 

My current car wish list.....

DV-32

KB

Reo Royal ....just recently added

Crane Simplex

Knox

 

I don't disagree too much except I would add the Marmon 16 in with the 2nd tier along with elevating the DV32 to that list.

Adding the European cars in makes it much more complicated, although the S, SS, Alpha and Bugatti were more race cars in their most desirable configuration.  Everything on your list was intended as a high end road car.

 

For road cars I would add the Hisso J12 in with the Duesenberg tier, the Issota and the Hisso K in the second tier.

 

My wish list includes DV32, Peerless Custom 8, Sterns-Knight 8 and Pierce 12.

[edinmass]

AJ......the Marmon 16 fit and finish as well as body design and quaility just are not up to the standards of the others, in my humble opinion. The DV-32 was a makeover of a earlier design........ and it's small displacement hurts it also. I do want one..... and have come close twice on a closed car, which I am ok with. I like it's rarity as much as the DOHC motor. Peerless 8 Custom is a neat and rare bird, on my list years ago, but off of it now. I tried to buy a 8-80 Convertible Coupe as a young man but didn't have the skills to pry it out of the guys garage. Sterns Knight eight is a cool car. I have seen several and am intrigued by them, but I am sure their performance is shal we say......lacking compared to the others on the list. Body construction seems very good, attention to detail and fit and finish are at Cadillac standards. Who built their bodies? As for a Pierce Twelve.......mine is at your disposal any time you wish.....take it on a tour if you like. 

Edited October 17, 2016 by edinmass (see edit history)

[Guest shinyhubcap]

I think you guys are getting a bit away from what Scott was asking us....

 

O.K...I am guilty of it too....let me pick on Trim again about his  "100 mph Pierce that did not have over-drive".

 

C'mon, Trim - help me get my head around that comment of yours;  can  we have some more info ?. 

 

Let me explain why I  am having trouble with this  - need more info. on your post - torque and horsepower curves.   Both the Pierce and Packard 12's were deliberately designed to deliver their maximum power at the engine speeds most of their owners were likely to operate them at.   That means, for several reasons (cam timing,  "breathing", etc)    power starts falling off when you spin those monsters much above 2,500 rpm.

 

Amongst some Pierce enthusiasts there is a rather poor copy floating around, of a 16mm movie clip, taken while Jenkins was preparing for his famous "run".   If you look closely  ( you may have to re-run it back and forth a few times ) ,  you will see how he had to "feather" the clutch  in low gear just to get that thing moving.    To my non-expert eye,  the car was geared so "hi", its rear axle ratio could have been in  near-direct drive !

 

As for "production" Pierces,  my recollection is their differentials were all geared pretty much the same - in the 4.5 to one range  (just about identical to what they were doing over at Lincoln, Packard, and Cadillac,  for the same reasoning).

 

As I noted, I am ignorant about the Silver Arrow series -  never even saw one "in the flesh".   Assuming you are correct, the Pierce you had, had a "production" rear axle and transmission set-up.      If that is the case "do the math".....!   How fast would that Pierce motor have had to spin to get it up to 100 ?   That's where you lose me !

 

Of course cars geared that low could go 70 & beyond.   ( I don't recommend cruising a car geared that low these days, much over 50 mph...sure they can do it...but think of how hard you are beating on not just the motor...but everything attached to it !

 

Yes, even the   "little" ( 320 cu. in ) Packard "Standard Eight" was able to get up to 90 mph  on a well-publisized   " 25,000 mi. endurance test"   - but that was its top speed.     Spin an old "long-stroke" motor THAT fast,  and it is going to "run out of breath".

 

Yes - my apologies to Scott..none of this relates or  adds to  my answers to his questions earlier.  ( sure hope the "thread police" don't punish us for having this much fun.....!)

======================================================================

Forgot to add....proud member of local beer-drinking club;  at membership meetings I tell them about the glory the old days....of driving my '43 Edsel pick-up truck...you know...the bright yellow one...."we had one just like that when I was a kid"....."where do you get gas and tires for that thing"...."is that a fiberglass reproduction"........."you buy that new"...etc...etc...

 

Edited October 17, 2016 by shinyhubcap
just because (see edit history)

[Grimy]

In 1934-35, unlike previous years when body style drove the rear end ratios, the Pierce 8s had 4.23 gears and the 12s had 4.21s.  I have used the McCullough Formula (Google it) to calculate that my 1934 Silver Arrow 8 with 700x17 tires (12s used 750x17, not substantially different in diameter) is turning about 2,950 rpm at 60 mph. Published max HP of the 8 is 140 at 3,400 rpm.  Accordingly, I prefer to cruise at 55-58 mph. I note that David (Trimacar) never claimed that HE drove his SA 12 at 100 mph.  I, too, question 100 mph for a 1934-35 12.

 

Until now, I've refrained from biting into this apple you guys have created.  I take umbrage, however, at Mr. Hubcap's assertion about non-driven cars.  I've put more than 1,800 miles on my 1918 Pierce 48-B-5 and about 1,000 miles on my 1934 "production" Silver Arrow thus far THIS year--and we still have 2.5 months to go.  Each is an Older Restoration which won't win any Firsts but is still welcome on the field at regional concours d'elegance. Yes, I know people who have fresh restorations who won't drive them for a couple of years.

[edinmass]

My 31 Pierce series 42 is a 4.08 to one. 4.10 to one was standard on most big open cars in the 30-32 years. On  the flats any big displacement motor could easily run 3 to one. My stock Cadillac was 2.5 to one...... it easily cruised at 65 mph, and it was built in 1914. I am not familiar with the set up or rules used at the salt flats early on. As far as the Pierce Arrow is concerned,  I am sure stock carburators were required.....bigger venturies and jets were allowed. Fenders and windshields were removed. Standard gearing could not have been used for the speed run, weather it was just the rear end or also the transmission is unknown. I think open exhaust was allowed. Short blocks and most components were stock. 117.5 for 1932 over 24 hours is still impressive. Think tire construction, oil breakdown, ect.  I know for sure on the 117 mph first run they changed out a lifter block while the car was in for a pit stop. I have changed them out on a cold motor in about 20 minutes, with no hood or fenders on the car. I have driven my 1936 Pierce 12 over 100 mph on flat ground, with a sedan body. It still had more to go, but I won't trust the tires today to go any faster or for long sustained high speed driving. The car was working very hard, and I am not inclined to try it again. The only classic car I am familiar with that drives over 80 mph with little to no effort and does it comfortably with lots more to go is a Duesenberg J, 80 mph is literally just a moderate cruise. Add high speed gears and 125 would be easy.

 

Grimy is correct with 4.23 in 34-35 on closed cars. My 36 has the 4.23 to one also, then figure in the 30% over drive and you get 2.98 to one. My car pulls it up hill with no effort.

Edited October 17, 2016 by edinmass (see edit history)

[Grimy]

Ed, that's why I limited my comments to 1934-35.  My 1930 roadster and other Model B open cars originally had 4.08 (now Phil Hill ~3,53), whereas sedans had 4.42s. You let me drive your former 1933 1247 with about 4.60 gearing. I've also driven a 1937 Packard Super 8 with factory 4.69 gears and a 1937 Packard 12 with 4.60-4.69, both of which pale in comparison for comfortable cruising to my 1936 Pierce 8 with OD (4.58 gears x 0.705 OD = effective 3,22 final drive) which I've driven cross country round trip.

 

I am confident that the Pierce Salt Flats cars had 2.5 gears or faster.

 

In the 1921 Pierce (series 32) salesman's data book, there are statements to the effect that PAMCC deliberately geared their cars slow and went to 3 speeds from 4 to minimize the amount of shifting required for normal use. 

 

BTW, the 1918 5-p touring had 3.33 gears standard; mine has optional 3.53; 50-55 mph cruise is comfortable--where one can trust 2-wheel brakes and skinny tires. Red line is 2500 rpm. Applying the McCullough formula, 55 mph is 1,812 rpm.  I have a spare set of the pistons & rods (4.5" bore, 5.5" stroke), about 7 lbs each, hanging from a bar through the big end in my shop with a sign reading "Pierce 48 wind chimes."

[Grimy]

Ed, I just saw your edit to your post #60.  Questions:

 

1.  Can you substantiate that 1934-35 open cars had, from the factory, diff ratios other than 4.21 (12) and 4.23 (8)?  I think, as I said or implied, that 1934-35 saw ratios standardized irrespective of body style.

2.  From all materials I've seen, all 1936-38s used 4.58 gears--do you have a 1934-35 **8-cyl** 4.23 gearset in your 1936 12? Maybe I'm too nitpicky because it's three hours later for you!  :-)

[edinmass]

George, maybe my memory is off, it may be a 8/12 split, not open or closed. With the shot to my head in August my memory has been slightly affected. Names are still a problem, or maybe I'm getting old! The 1936 ratio I posted was from memory, it could be off. 

[Grimy]

No biggie, Ed.  After the worm drive "fiasco" of 1933 (lack of education of service people), I think P-A standardized ratios to two very similar ones, 4.21 and 4.23, for 1934-35.  Then in 1936-38, the OD allowed limiting it to one ratio, 4.58, which I find ideal in conjunction with OD. Bob J's 1934 840A conv coupe has 4.23s for sure.

 

Didn't hear about your head injury but I can relate: 15 stitches in a squamous removal from my head last month, then opened it up Wednesday running into a trailer ramp cable--couldn't have done better overlap if I tried.  What did you say your name was?

[1935Packard]

Ed, these are some great posts .  Thanks for them.

[trimacar]

As stated, and as clear in my posts, I did not drive the Silver Arrow 100 mph.  The person who bought it from me told me he did, I believe him, but that does not mean everyone has to believe him.

 

I know for a fact that I drove the car 70 mph or more.  I was on a tour in Texas, on the way to the Pate Museum, in the gentle rolling hills of that area.  I'd had a minor problem with the car, and the trouble truck had stopped to help.  Problem solve, we knew we were late for lunch, so I had my foot in the gas.

 

My speed was verified by the trouble truck driver, who came to me at the Museum, asking if I know how fast I was going.  I said yes, he continued by saying that he was driving around 70 mph and couldn't keep up with me.

 

The car at that speed was not struggling, nor was the engine over revving, or I would have slowed down.  I respect my cars and don't do anything that I feel would cause undue harm. 

 

The car did not, and does not, have overdrive.  It's always possible that someone had changed gearing before I bought the car, but I'm not aware of that.

 

I've always been taught that, if you're going to call someone out, you should stand tall and not do it anonymously, Peter H./Shiny.  This will be my last post on this thread, so any reply from you will be unanswered, the original reply was on topic, but we're getting off it....

[alsancle]

We may have gone off topic but this thread is a gold mine.  

I have no idea how I did it but I left the 540k off when I inserted the European. chassis.  I would put it at the very top of the second tier or the bottom of the first tier.   The straight 8 Minerva belongs somewhere.

 

We need to start a Sterns thread.  I've become very interested in them.  I have seen references to the last big 8 chassis being capable of hitting 100 but I don't remember where and I find that hard to believe.   There were some coachbuilt bodies but I assume that most came from one of the manufacturers, Budd or one of the others.

 

I'm happy to see you include the Royale since I have become practically a marketing director for them.   The styling was a solid 3 or 4 years early (A lifetime in the 30s) and they did have a real engine.

[jeff_a]

On 10/16/2016 at 5:57 PM, edinmass said:

AJ......the Marmon 16 fit and finish as well as body design and quaility just are not up to the standards of the others, in my humble opinion. The DV-32 was a makeover of a earlier design........ and it's small displacement hurts it also. I do want one..... and have come close twice on a closed car, which I am ok with. I like it's rarity as much as the DOHC motor. Peerless 8 Custom is a neat and rare bird, on my list years ago, but off of it now. I tried to buy a 8-80 Convertible Coupe as a young man but didn't have the skills to pry it out of the guys garage. Sterns Knight eight is a cool car. I have seen several and am intrigued by them, but I am sure their performance is shal we say......lacking compared to the others on the list. Body construction seems very good, attention to detail and fit and finish are at Cadillac standards. Who built their bodies? As for a Pierce Twelve.......mine is at your disposal any time you wish.....take it on a tour if you like. 

 

Are you saying there was a Peerless 8-80? I haven't heard of it but it's possible. That sounds more like an Elcar of 1926. Peerless did make 8-125, 8-67, and 8-69 cars...and before that Mod. 56 and 66 eights rated at 70 and 80 h.p....I'll admit it's a little hard to sort all the model numbers out.

Edited October 18, 2016 by jeff_a (see edit history)

[edinmass]

Jeff, my fault on the nomenclature numbers, that smack to the head is still causing a few crossed wires. The 8-80 was Marmon series numbers, and Marmon was floating around in my head when we were talking Peerless. My fault! My first barn find as a young man at the age of twelve was a Peerless Conv Coupe, 1930 or 1931. Owned by a local farmer. I chased it down about ten times over the years (40 of them!) and have not been able to locate any information of where it went, which makes me think it's still in my local area. It was a great car, never touched, and just driven one every other year or so to a local show......no plates, just driven about a mile from the farm to the school lot. I'm sure it will turn up some day. Ed

[jeff_a]

Ed, thanks for the background on the car you saw. It may be one of those virtually unknown ones. If you grew up on the New Hampshire-Maine border or in Wisconsin, I could think of 2 or three cars fitting that description. Did you see the recent story about "1931 Roadster For Sale" on the Peerless Forum? A red Cabriolet that just sold to some gentleman in Missouri. There's one '32 Peerless Custom 8 in Maine that's only been to 1 or 2  car shows that's kind of interesting. It took 1st at The Hodgson's Frozen Custard Knucklebuster's Car Club Show in 2000 in New Gloucester, ME. It has a Fisher or Fleetwood Cabriolet body and appeared to be Purple & Ivory to one viewer and Maroon & Tan to another.

 

I've enjoyed the discussion here of Pierce-Arrow and Packard twelves. My only comment on that is that the old boy who owns the sole Marmon twelve ought to throw his two bits in.

Jeff

 

Edited October 19, 2016 by jeff_a (see edit history)

[flackmaster]

Doubtful Packard nothwithstanding certain similarities.  Suspect ZiS110, particularly considering location.

[jrbartlett]

I've thoroughly enjoyed this thread.

 

Want to add that In terms of great-driving '30s cars, it's hard to beat a '35 supercharged Auburn convertible sedan with the dual ratio two-speed rear axle (in my case with 4.55 and 3.4 rear end ratios). I cruise mine at 70 running at 2,400 RPM in high range, and it's loafing (I do have radial tires on it). Even in low ratio, I can cruise at 55.

 

Also, I have a friend with an identical car except its not supercharged. It has a higher rear end ratio and he's running 2,000 RPM at 70 -- I know because he let me drive it. Plus Auburns are light, easy to steer, and easier to keep cool because of the small engine (279 cubic inches).   

 

Of course, my Duesenberg is unequalled in terms of speed and power, and its vacuum-assisted hydraulic brakes with finned drums are wonderful. And nothing matches the view out over the long hood and cowl, or for that matter the look under the hood.

 

That said, the quality of my '29 Packard 740 far exceeds that of my Duesenberg in several respects -- easier steering, shifting and clutch, and simpler engine and drive-train layout..

 

 

 

[alsancle]

No prewar car moves like a J but you can't shift them.

 

 

[edinmass]

Remember that clutch had five miles on it when we did that pull. It's slick as can be today with over two thousand miles on it, and I can find the gear 98 percent of the time without making it protest. Ed

[alsancle]

On 2/9/2017 at 0:36 PM, jrbartlett said:

I've thoroughly enjoyed this thread.

 

Want to add that In terms of great-driving '30s cars, it's hard to beat a '35 supercharged Auburn convertible sedan with the dual ratio two-speed rear axle (in my case with 4.55 and 3.4 rear end ratios). I cruise mine at 70 running at 2,400 RPM in high range, and it's loafing (I do have radial tires on it). Even in low ratio, I can cruise at 55.

 

 

I just saw this and wanted to comment.  The 35/35 supercharged Auburn is a great car to drive.  You can put it in "high" ratio and leave it there.  60/65 mph feels very comfortable.   Plenty of pep and the supercharger whine is always a blast.  Styling is awesome too.  My only negative on the Auburn (and the 36/37 Cord to a lesser degree) is that build quality, fit and finish, etc is not what you see in a senior Packard, Pierce, etc.  The Auburn was substantially cheaper at the time so not surprising.   I guess another plus is that parts are readily available - right Curt!

 

On the Packard 12,  earlier in the Summer I was driving a 35 into a show.  There were maybe 20 cars in the line so things were creeping along at a very slow pace.  I didn't realize until I has made it past the checkin that I had the transmission in 3rd the whole time.  Tremendous torque, no shuddering or hesitation. 

[alsancle]

Here is a good video where you can see the tach and the speedo at the same time.  About 2k at 60 mph.

 

 

[John_Mereness]

On 7/30/2017 at 0:49 PM, alsancle said:

Here is a good video where you can see the tach and the speedo at the same time.  About 2k at 60 mph.

 

 

An Auburn has a great powerplant and gearing all be it certainly is lighter weight which relates to some degree to "lighter quality" than plenty of other CCCA cars, though I will tell you that for touring an 851/852 is probably the second best pre-1953-1955 American made car built (and while a lot of patience is needed to well sort out a Cord 810/812 is probably first).  And, the same problem exists today that existed in 1935 = most people will never be behind the wheel to test drive to figure out its driveability.

[alsancle]

4 hours ago, John_Mereness said:

An Auburn has a great powerplant and gearing all be it certainly is lighter weight which relates to some degree to "lighter quality" than plenty of other CCCA cars, though I will tell you that for touring an 851/852 is probably the second best pre-1953-1955 American made car built (and while a lot of patience is needed to well sort out a Cord 810/812 is probably first).  And, the same problem exists today that existed in 1935 = most people will never be behind the wheel to test drive to figure out its driveability.

 

Good point John on the Cord.  As a kid I sat in the passenger seat of a 812 SC from Mass to Akron twice going to my grandparents.  From there we would get left off as my parents continued to Auburn.  My dad would sit at 65-70 no problems and never had a single issue with the car.   Although one year our 59 Silver Wraith blew a water pump on 80 dead in the middle of nowhere.  The owner of the nearest garage was hero on that one.

[Guest SaddleRider]

On ‎7‎/‎30‎/‎2017 at 9:45 AM, alsancle said:

 

 

On the Packard 12,  earlier in the Summer I was driving a 35 into a show.  There were maybe 20 cars in the line so things were creeping along at a very slow pace.  I didn't realize until I has made it past the checkin that I had the transmission in 3rd the whole time.  Tremendous torque, no shuddering or hesitation. 

 

Alsancle's above comment underscores the problem with most pre-war cars when we try and drive them on today's roads in today's traffic.  Way to "low" ( numerically high )  final drive ratios.  

 

Yes, of course any of the big "super-luxury" cars of that era can go 70 or even 80 mph.   And (assuming they are properly maintained )  they will remain smooth and quiet; difficult to tell from the driver's seat that you are beating them to death !

 

My modern car has a MUCH shorter "stroke" than my pre-war super-luxury car.   So the forces beating on the crank-shaft are far, far less. At 65 mph,  its motor (and everything attached to it...!) is going MUCH MUCH slower.    "Do the math" to get a perspective on this.   A car with a 4.5 to one final drive ratio will have to go FIVE HUNDRED MILES FARTHER in a thousand mile trip, to cover the same distance as a car with, say, a 2.8 final drive ratio. 

 

True, I could get a Greyhound bus or a "eighteen wheeler" going very nicely with my Honda lawn mower engine,  if I geared it low enough !

 

The simple "bottom line" here is the product developers of the big luxury cars of the pre war era knew what they were doing.  The idea of a "car buff" who liked to shift gears,  was pretty much unknown. Certainly no point in engineering a product for them !   

 

Was Packard really that far off the mark in gearing its cars as low as it did,  even tho by the mid 1930's much higher road speeds were practical ? 

 

No question a bone-stock Pierce with overdrive would be far more practical on the open road than a Packard of the same price class.    But for all its superiority as a result of its overdrive,  Pierce went out of business for lack of sales, and Packard didn't. 

 

So yes,  any of the big classics will start moving with little fuss in top gear from a dead stop with "stock" rear axle ratios..   So what?

[alsancle]

On 8/4/2017 at 11:57 AM, SaddleRider said:

 

No question a bone-stock Pierce with overdrive would be far more practical on the open road than a Packard of the same price class.    But for all its superiority as a result of its overdrive,  Pierce went out of business for lack of sales, and Packard didn't. 

 

 

Pierce didn't have the 120 & 110 line to support itself.  I think Ed would agree with your first sentence.  I'm a big fan of Pierce although I have only been a passenger and never a driver.  My issue is that sometimes the styling is not that great.  Generally all Packards are attractive, except the Rollson High Hats.

 

Edited August 6, 2017 by alsancle (see edit history)

[John_Mereness]

The purpose of the high gear ratio is often forgotten - YOU CAN PULL OFF FROM A TRAFFIC LIGHT OR STOP SIGN AND EVERYONE IS INCREDIBLY IMPRESSED.

[Grimy]

25 minutes ago, John_Mereness said:

YOU CAN PULL OFF FROM A TRAFFIC LIGHT OR STOP SIGN AND EVERYONE IS INCREDIBLY IMPRESSED.

Wow!  Now THERE'S a wonderful reason to buy an expensive car that's wound out at 50 mph!  Or, another technique for a silent departure from the curb is to engage the clutch in 1st without throttle and upshift to 2nd at about 4 mph and a second later add throttle.

 

For 1936-38, Pierce used the Borg-Warner R-1 mechanical OD with 4.58 gears, nearly as low as Packard's 4.69, but the effective final ratio in OD was 3.23.  It's an excellent combination.

 

Pierces through 1920 were tall-geared despite the roads of the day and their 25-inch wheels used 1918-20. My 1918 has 3.53s and the standard ratio for 5-p tourings was 3.33.  For 1921 (Series 32), the Company deliberately (per the Saleman's Data Book) went to a 3-speed trans (vs earlier 4-speed) and 4.0 and deeper gears depending on body style to make shifting easier--by not having to shift as frequently.  One would think that the synch-2nd-and 3rd transmissions adopted by both Pierce and Packard for 1932 would have been sufficient reason for them to gear their cars a little taller.  

 

 

[John_Mereness]

2 hours ago, Grimy said:

Wow!  Now THERE'S a wonderful reason to buy an expensive car that's wound out at 50 mph!  Or, another technique for a silent departure from the curb is to engage the clutch in 1st without throttle and upshift to 2nd at about 4 mph and a second later add throttle.

 

For 1936-38, Pierce used the Borg-Warner R-1 mechanical OD with 4.58 gears, nearly as low as Packard's 4.69, but the effective final ratio in OD was 3.23.  It's an excellent combination.

 

Pierces through 1920 were tall-geared despite the roads of the day and their 25-inch wheels used 1918-20. My 1918 has 3.53s and the standard ratio for 5-p tourings was 3.33.  For 1921 (Series 32), the Company deliberately (per the Saleman's Data Book) went to a 3-speed trans (vs earlier 4-speed) and 4.0 and deeper gears depending on body style to make shifting easier--by not having to shift as frequently.  One would think that the synch-2nd-and 3rd transmissions adopted by both Pierce and Packard for 1932 would have been sufficient reason for them to gear their cars a little taller.  

 

 

I am laughing, though not sure Great Grandmother ever wanted anything more than a smooth ride from her parking garage to the department store.  

 

By the way, I was reading RR PI gear ratios and they are outright ahead of their time - the only problem is the car still seems to more about low end torque.

 

Sidenote:  Every Pierce Arrow owner I have ever met says highest quality car they have ever worked on.

Edited August 18, 2017 by John_Mereness (see edit history)