A mass produced Pierce Arrow?

[Rusty_OToole]

Have been thinking about whether it would have been possible to save Pierce Arrow if they had brought out a lower priced car in 1935 or 36. Other makers of high priced cars like Packard, Lincoln and Cadillac did so.

I don't mean a "tin lizzie". I was thinking more along the lines of a mass produced, all steel body, finished and trimmed to Pierce Arrow standards, on their 139 inch wheelbase frame.

At the time Pierce was selling a few thousand cars a year, less than 5000, more like 2000. What if they could have offered a mass produced model around $2500? This was $600 lower than their lowest priced 1936 sedan and would have brought them into Cadillac, Packard and Chrysler territory.

If they could have sold another 1000 or 2000 cars per year it would have made all the difference.

I doubt a major body producer could have tooled up that few bodies for the right price so they would have to share a body with another car.

Would Fisher have sold bodies to a Cadillac competitor? Cadillac might not have been pleased but if Fisher was independent enough and wanted the business, they might have. What other possibilities? Hayes, Budd, Briggs?

Could they have bought the same bodies they were supplying to REO, Chrysler, Packard or some other maker? When mounted on a Pierce chassis, with Pierce fenders hood and grille, with unique instrument panel hardware and trim, not one customer in 1000 would have noticed the similarity.

They would have needed a 5 passenger sedan, 7 passenger sedan, and if possible a coupe, roadster and touring body.

Does this seem feasible? Can anyone suggest a suitable line of bodies that might have been available?

Edited March 18, 2014 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)

[West Peterson]

Wouldn't the Studebaker have fallen into that category?

[Gary_Ash]

Sure, they might have made it work until the end of 1941, but not through the war and after it. Even Cadillac, Packard, Hudson, and Lincoln had a tough enough time in the late 1930's. The days of the big, fancy car were pretty much over after 1933-34. The smaller companies couldn't survive with tiny market shares, so they folded. Maybe a company could survive on 100,000 cars per year, but not on a few thousand unless they were in the very high priced category. They would have to buy engines and mechanical parts, as well. Think about the cars like Clenet and Excalibur as attempts to use other vehicles as the base for a low-volume car. Avantis were never produced in large numbers, even when they had their own fiberglass bodies (2-dr coupe and a few convertibles and 4-door sedans). The last Avantis used Firebird and Mustang body shells/chassis, engines, and running gear with fiberglass noses and tails - still not successful, and always at the whim of what GM and Ford did with their product lines.

We all dream about the concept of survival of our favorite brands, so keep up the dream. Make some sketches of how you think the cars might have looked. John Cislak in Indian Orchard, MA will even fix you up with a straight 8 or V-12 engine to use, so you can build your dream. Here are some photos of Cislak's shop, and of John, from last September.

[Guest bkazmer]

I think the target is wrong for the times. A 139" wb would still leave the car in the shrinking luxury market. The Roadster and Touring body styles were already dying. So something like a 120 or 127" wb , eight cylinder car in sedan, club coupe , convertible coupe body styles.

Basically a Pierce version of the Packard 120, but they would likely need to sell at $1500

[Rusty_OToole]

I was thinking of using the existing chassis and power train (no new investment in tooling) with a mass produced all steel body to cut costs.

The idea is to keep the company solvent for 2 or 3 more years. When WW2 came along there was plenty of work for every factory and machine shop in the country. Too bad Pierce was dead by then.

The lineup: a lower priced Pierce Arrow with bodies bought from an outside supplier selling around $2500 - $3500. The regular Pierce straight eight with Pierce built composite bodies $3150 and up. And the big 12 cylinder Pierce at the top of the range.

Supplemented by Pierce Travelodge travel trailers built in the Pierce body shops.

They were selling 1000 - 2000 cars a year which was not enough. If they could have sold an additional 5000 lower priced cars and 5000 trailers a year they would have had a viable company at least into WW2.

As for whether there was ever a chance for a postwar Pierce Arrow, I doubt it. They might have gone on with their flathead straight eight for 5 or 8 years , as Packard did. But they would have needed a completely new chassis with IFS, auto trans, new mass produced bodies etc etc. There was no way they could have done this on sales of less than 100,000 a year and that was just not on the cards.

No, they probably would have come out of WW2 as a division of some larger industrial concern and continued in business, but never made another car.

[Guest bkazmer]

An all- steel body would actually have been quite expensive at Pierce's volume - the large tooling investment would be spread over a small volume. The idea of making a "baby Pierce" using a Pierce engine in the Studebaker President chassis , selling around $2000, might be interesting. The narrow hood could be capped with a narrower Pierce grille, and the fenders modified to incorporate the Pierce headlights. Could be a strong performer, but the weight distribution might be an issue.

[Gary_Ash]

I'll throw in the 1934-35 Studebaker President Land Cruiser as the basis for a baby Pierce for the late 1930's. The body had the look of the Silver Arrow. It wouldn't have been much of a task to put the Pierce headlights and grille on the car. In 1935, it came with a 250 cu in straight 8 at 110 hp with 7:1 compression and aluminum cylinder head on a 124 inch wheelbase. It sold for $1445, top of the Studebaker line. But, even so, only 2353 Presidents of all models were sold that year. A pair of carburetors and a little larger cylinder bore might have brought the small block close to the Pierce's 140 hp.

The older Studebaker 337 cu in straight 8, discontinued after 1933, was for all intents the twin of the Pierce 366 cu in engine. It wouldn't have been much of a stretch to put the Pierce block pattern back in the Studebaker foundry, from whence it had originally come, and do the machining and assembly in South Bend. Studebaker could even have been convinced, at a price, to stretch the President chassis a few inches to accommodate the longer engine block. All in all, this would not have been an expensive project. But would enough of them have been sold to make the difference to Pierce Arrow? And, could Pierce and Studebaker have gone back to working together?

[keiser31]

Gary....the one in your second photo looks an awful lot like a buddy's car....

[edinmass]

Yup......It came from Val. It's a long way from his garage to mass. I has a good new home. It lives in the House of Pierce Arrow!

[Gary_Ash]

And here is the Studebaker 1933 St. Regis for comparison to the Pierce coupe in John's shop. Maybe there are plenty of examples of Pierce and Studebaker cooperation.

[Ivan Saxton]

Well, Pierce did do that through much of the 1920s, with the Model 80. Model 80 owners may not like to acknowledge it, but they were almost completely assembled cars. The engine was made by Pierce Arrow, and so were the bodies, with very few, perhaps, from the custom body builders except to very special order. Their body quality and construction was equal to the best in the industry, the frame timber was the best, and the wooden sections were apparently cut to an accuracy of one sixty-fourth of an inch, which is about 15 thousandths of an inch. I doubt the chassis frame from an outside supplier was more accurate than that.

Rear axle, (and possibly also the front), was Timken, from memory; though the Isotta Fraschini patent brakes were likely made by Pierce Arrow. Some carburettors were Stromberg O3. Pierce may or may not have made the alternative Pierce design. The model 80 was much cheaper than the big T-head 6 cylinder that was made beside it. The three speed Brown Lipe gearbox was effectively the same used by the 6 cylinder Mercer, though some at least in Mercer had problems with composition or heat treatment of the gears. Buyers may have been satisfied with the quality character and styling that announced the prestige make for a lower price; but I never had the admiration to elevate the restoration priority of two I had. So I gave both away to friends, and I have never regretted that.

[Guest Magoo]

Have been thinking about whether it would have been possible to save Pierce Arrow if they had brought out a lower priced car in 1935 or 36. Other makers of high priced cars like Packard, Lincoln and Cadillac did so.

I don't mean a "tin lizzie". I was thinking more along the lines of a mass produced, all steel body, finished and trimmed to Pierce Arrow standards, on their 139 inch wheelbase frame.

At the time Pierce was selling a few thousand cars a year, less than 5000, more like 2000. What if they could have offered a mass produced model around $2500? This was $600 lower than their lowest priced 1936 sedan and would have brought them into Cadillac, Packard and Chrysler territory.

If they could have sold another 1000 or 2000 cars per year it would have made all the difference.

I doubt a major body producer could have tooled up that few bodies for the right price so they would have to share a body with another car.

Would Fisher have sold bodies to a Cadillac competitor? Cadillac might not have been pleased but if Fisher was independent enough and wanted the business, they might have. What other possibilities? Hayes, Budd, Briggs?

Could they have bought the same bodies they were supplying to REO, Chrysler, Packard or some other maker? When mounted on a Pierce chassis, with Pierce fenders hood and grille, with unique instrument panel hardware and trim, not one customer in 1000 would have noticed the similarity.

They would have needed a 5 passenger sedan, 7 passenger sedan, and if possible a coupe, roadster and touring body.

Does this seem feasible? Can anyone suggest a suitable line of bodies that might have been available?

This is a very fun and interesting question. Reminds one of Marmon, Reo, and Franklin sharing a Hayes body. There must be other examples.

[Rusty_OToole]

There is a Model 80 sedan in the local area that comes to shows from time to time. If that is the "small" Pierce I would hate to drive the "big" one. The small one is big as a bus. The big one must resemble a hook and ladder rig.

[GLong]

The problem Pierce had in the '20's was that the 'BIG' Pierce was virtually all made by Pierce.. and it was incredibly expensive. The 'base' Series 33 and Series 36, the 'Big Pierces' cost from $6000 up. The 'mid sized' Series 80 and 81 cars started at $2500 or so.

The Series 80, for '25, '26, and '27, then for 1928, the series 81 were good cars, but the major drivetrain components were purchased from outside suppliers..

While I do have several series 80 cars, and used to have a few series 81 cars.. they are all Pierce to me..

Especially when I look at all the later cars from Pierce, as well as from most of the other high priced makers: They all used outside suppliers for major components. Clutches, rear axles, wheels, instruments, etc etc..

I will venture a guess that the Big Pierces from the mid to late '20's might have been some of the last cars produced in the us that were not 'assembled' cars. The economy of buying proven, well made and proven major parts like Timken rear axles, Brown and Lipe transmissions, Borg and Beck, or Long Clutches, Stromberg carbs, Delco electronics, etc. The economy just could not be ignored. The '29 and later Pierces were much less expensive to produce than the cars from the mid '20's.

In the '20's, Pierce also made a 'low frills' version of the Series 80 cars.. these cars were the 'Coach' line of cars.. these had grain-painted steel interior window moldings, squared off body features, mainly the rear windows and roofline, a slightly different beltline, and a few other differences. This line of cars sold for about $5-600 less than the regular Series 80 cars. This was to compete with Packard's lower priced offerings.

Pierce's problem was that they could never say 'no'. There were just too many models, versions, body styles, chassis lengths, etc.. for the 'mid-priced' Series 80, there were 18 different body styles available..

One of the major selling points of the Pierce Arrow cars were the engines.. even though during the 'Studebaker years', '29-'32, the straight eight engine LOOKED like they were the same, the Pierce engine had 9 main bearings, so the crankshaft, engine block, camshaft, intake and exhaust manifolds etc did not interchange. Only one year ['32 I think, not sure] were the Studebaker President engines close enough that some parts interchanged.

I do believe that if Pierce had stopped trying to have a production car to fit any and every whim of a potential buyer, and offered fewer models, then had an inhouse 'custom shop', or a similar way to satisfy the 'needs' of the customers who wanted something special. Then I think Pierce might have survived until they could get war contracts.

After the war? Well, there was a huge pent-up demand for cars and light trucks after the war, so who knows if Pierce could have tooled up fast enough to produce a mid priced car for the market..

The challenges of the early '50's would probably been the end for the company..

The Pierce Arrow was a very well made car, with many industry leading innovations, but fell behind in the 'Roaring Twenties' when a sportier, faster car gained popularity, they were about two years behind in getting an 8 cylinder car on the market.. and it was just too many lost sales, loss of income, to survive with the Depression, and competition from other desperate auto companies. It's amazing that they held on until '38.

Just my thoughts.

GLong

[Mahoning63]

Just stumbled upon this old thread, recognized some of the forum names and found the discussion extremely interesting. Happen to be in the camp that believes Pierce could have survived the Depression and even made a go of it post-war.

 

It is important to recognize that by 1933 the company had reversed its market share slide and was actually making headway on Packard, cutting its sales deficit to 1-to-3 from 1-to-5 a few years earlier and 1-to-10 in the Twenties. Pierce did this by being the first of the luxury marques to share body stampings and even whole bodies with lower priced cars, namely Studebakers. Had Pierce remained married to Studebaker they would have been in good shape once the market began to improve in 1935.

 

But we know that Studebaker did in fact implode. So, what could Pierce have done? It seems they could have taken one of two paths: go it alone or find a body maker to help defray costs.

 

On the latter it seems the best candidate would have been Studebaker itself because the Buffalo businessmen who bought the company in 1933 could have simply insisted that access to Studebaker body stampings at reasonable cost be included in the purchase agreement. As it was, Studebaker did agree to continue to supply Pierce’s 8-cylinder engine block, with Seagrave continuing to make the Twelve block. The businessman could have also insisted that key technologies such as independent front suspension be made available too. And finally, they could have insisted that Pierces could continue to be sold at Studebaker dealerships.

 

With all, the primary task would have still required much effort on Pierce’s part and here is where a some product planning magic was needed. They needed to make cars that used probably 80% Studebaker stampings, and cleverly used the 20% that they tooled anew to transform the humble Studebaker into a luxury car that would stand out in the fine car field, which by the mid-Thirties had settled in on $2500 to $3000.

 

I attempted such a feat awhile ago that some of you may recognize. Only the rear quarters, decklid, rear doors and front grill would be unique to Pierce, the rest coming straight from Studebaker’s parts bin including the roof. This would have been one of the first “3-box” sedans to market. Yes, its 139” wheelbase would have been longish for the owner-driver but what it sacrificed in handling it would make up for in styling. First image shows a partial transformation where I didn’t attempt to redo the grill, hood and headlights. The second takes it all the way. In each, I remove the running boards to make the car more streamlined. The boards could have been made optional at no cost.

 

The second survival scenario would have been for Pierce to continue to make its own body panels and vehicles. Here I think the best approach, or at least a promising one, would have been to have never spent the money on the Travelodge but instead used the space frame technology as basis for a 1936 Pierce unibody with ultra low floor and roof height and much lighter weight than the cars Pierce actually produced that year.

 

Again, a modern 5-passenger 3-box sedan would have been the volume seller in a greatly reduced vehicle line-up as has been suggested by you all in your earlier posts. The challenge for Pierce would have been to develop key technologies such as IFS and later, an automatic transmission.

[Rusty_OToole]

Not so sure about the Travelodge. Travel trailers were one of the fastest growing industries of the thirties. Economist Roger Babson said in 1937, if present trends continued, half the population of the US would be living in trailers in 10 years. This underlines the explosive growth in trailers, which were hardly seen before 1932.

 

Travelodge could have been top of the line, like the very expensive Airstream trailers of today. Surviving Travelodges show obvious quality advantages over lesser makes. I believe there was a market for a few thousand luxury trailers per year. Curtis made a good business of building custom made, very expensive Aerocar  5th wheel trailers from the mid twenties on.

 

The main advantage was to make use of their coach building facilities after the custom made, wood framed car body became obsolete. Like Packard, Lincoln and Cadillac they would have gradually phased out the custom built bodies in favor of mass produced stamped steel bodies but unlike the others, could have turned the plant and workers to making trailers.

Edited October 24, 2015 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)

[Buffalowed Bill]

I doubt that there was anything that would have saved Pierce, or any other independent car matter. The only reason that Pierce stayed in production for as long as it did was because of it's ownership by Studebaker. Pierce's losses during the early part of the thirties, like Cadillac, Lincoln and Imperial were borne by their parent companies. If Studebaker hadn't been willing to cover the losses, Pierce would no doubt gone the way of REO, Stutz, Marmon, Franklin, and virtually all of the independent luxury manufacturers, except for Packard, and ACD.

The association of Pierce and Studebaker had already brought together the production that Rusty wondered about. The Model 54, Club Brougham, that Gary showed, was essentially a fraternal twin to the Studebaker President St. Regis Brougham. So production was not the issue it was lack of market for luxury cars that killed all the independents. By 1932 there were two distinct lines of cars at Pierce, one the more traditional model using a great deal more wood in the manufacturing process and lighter Model 54, 836/1236, that were much more akin to the Studebaker.

[edinmass]

Bill's comments about Pierce and Stude on series 54 / 1236 being lower in quaility or similar to the Stude are miles off. Having worked on all of those series I can tell you the build quaility were all the same, top notch high end construction. The Stude St. Regis was no where near a Pierce arrow in quaility or construction. The Stude limited production body styles has lots of hand built components and were much above the average Stude construction, but MOST of the high end Stude stuff was very low production, mostly for the shows......1932 or 1933 Presidents in the open cars were perfect examples of this. While having a smaller engine, chassis, and wheel base than the Pierce, they were way above average over what Stude usually built. Overall I think Stude built some of the best cars in the price range they were playing in. I find them much better built and more interesting than Buick, Auburn, and other such upper middle range cars. That being said, Buicks (large series 80 or 90) were over all better driving cars than the Cadillac or LaSalle in the early 1930's as they had better power to weight ratio, and were also a great value.

Edited October 24, 2015 by edinmass (see edit history)

[Buffalowed Bill]

Gee John didn't mean to ruffle your feathers, you are the expert! There is no doubt about the quality that Pierce put into there cars, that's why I have owned them for forty years. I usually found the interiors, fit and finish and the general quality of the build to be second to none. If you read my post, nowhere did I mention build quality. I also own Studebakers. I think that you do a disservice to the President, "mostly for shows," I don't know where you got that one! During the height of the Depression Studebaker produced over six thousand Presidents in 1931, over twelve hundred of which were the 80R "Four Season Roadsters" (convertible coupes). The President was a semi-custom car and Studebaker would build a car about any way the customer wanted it built. In contrast Pierce never came close to these numbers, or even the magical 3000 that they thought that they needed to stay out of the red.

My comments were aimed at Rusty's thread starter when he spoke of a more cost friendly Pierce when he said "I don't mean a tin lizzy. I was thinking more along the lines of mass produced, all steel, furnished and trimmed to Pierce Arrow standards on their 139 inch wheel base frame." The Model 54 was of lighter construction and numerous body parts were stamped in South Bend by, I believe it was a company called Standard, and the engine components were cast in SB by Studebaker, and literally hundreds of parts were shared between the Studebaker President and the lighter 54,836,1236 and 836A. This sharing of parts helped by offering some of the economies of scale that were available to and used by the Big Three. In addition these cars were assembled in Buffalo at the Pierce plant, to the pierce standards. So John I guess that I don't know what you are taking issue with.

[Mahoning63]

The company turned a profit in the 2^nd quarter of 1933. Granted it wasn’t much and one wonders if ledger massaging was in play as Studebaker looked for a buyer, but clearly Pierce’s financial affairs had stabilized, which was quite an accomplishment given that this was near the low point of the Depression. The big historical unknown is the ’34 line-up that the company had been planning prior to Studebaker's bailing. Was it the 1934 showroom that actually launched? Or were certain cars missing that would have been heavily Studebaker-based. And if so, what were they and what impact would they have had on sales? Does anyone know the history of '34 Pierces that never were, if such cars ever existed at all?

 

Personally, I think there probably were models that never launched. Why else would Pierce go from the lower-slung 836 of 1933, which was heavily Studebaker-based and which sold comparatively well, back to a line-up strictly of the taller variety? The market certainly wasn’t asking for such a retrograde move! One thing is for sure, the 836A that came out in the spring of 1934 could have greatly helped the company but despite a price not much over $2000, it failed to sell. Why? Not because of the Depression so much as because it was poorly conceived... too tall, too narrow forward of the B-pillar and too dumpy looking. Had the company instead put out a real winner its fortunes would have greatly improved and it might have averted the reorganization that forced it to sell off its company-owned dealerships, which caused irreparable damage.

 

On the Travelodge, Pierce went all-in including a marketing push in 1937 and ended up selling only 450 units. A Pierce engineer later said it cost the company more to make them than what they could charge. The project was a colossal failure that should have never been pursued and Pierce should never have allowed itself to take its eye off the ball. Ford did this 15 years ago and paid the price.

Edited October 24, 2015 by Mahoning63 (see edit history)

[Rusty_OToole]

Pierce folded in 1938, only a year before orders began flooding into the US for all kinds weapons and materiel for the war in Europe. By the end of 1941 America was in the war and the industrial demand was such that all car production was stopped and all factories were working morning, noon and night for the war effort.

 

Too bad the excellent Pierce Arrow facilities were not around to help.

 

I just wondered if it could have been possible for Pierce to make enough profits to stay in business until 1941, or maybe even until 1939?

 

By 1938 it was too late but maybe if they had offered a lower price car in 1935 or 36 it might have helped? Cadillac had the LaSalle, demoted to a straight eight Olds engine in 1934. Lincoln had the Zephyr. Packard had their 110 and 120. What could Pierce have done along these lines?

 

I doubt they had the money for a whole new car. But if they could have bought a suitable mass produced, all steel body it would have streamlined production, cut costs, and brought them into line with the latest trend in cars.

 

But was there a suitable body in production? I don't think the Studebaker was big enough. The REO Royale was in the luxury size class. Would Packard have allowed Briggs to sell modified Packard bodies? Or Chrysler?

 

I didn't know the 80 used so many off the shelf components. That is another possibility. Could they have put the Pierce straight eight into a shorter, cheaper "assembled" chassis? Or for all I know they were doing that already?

 

Purely speculative of course.

[edinmass]

Hi Bill, It's NOT John Cislak.......it's his half assed side kick Ed Minnie here. We are often confused, but I am MUCH better looking, and taller than John. Although we are often seen togeather at shows and tours, we share cars and garage space, just about everything but our lady friends. (so far!) I guess I wasn't clear, so I will try to  make a few more comments...... here we go......

 

Background......

 

1932 Pierce Arrow car production numbers were......

V-12 Three Series....... 51, 52, and 53

Eight one series..............54

 

1933 Series...........

Eight........836

V-12  ........1236, 1242, and 1247

 

1934 Series.........

Eight.........836A, 840A

V-12 .........1240 & 1248

 

1935 Series.......

Eight......845

V-12 .......1245 & 1255

 

I will continue on another post below.........

[edinmass]

Bill, when you listed Series 54 in the above post I thought we were talking about 1932 year cars. I have limited experience with the 28 to 31 President cars. I have had my hands very briefly on a 32 and 33 OPEN President, which I believe both were auto show cars, and not the production "bread and butter" models produced. If my memory serves me less than 5 of each were built, am I wrong? (32 was a Conv sedan, the 33 was a roadster or Conv coupe, I cant remember which.) You mentioned that a company in Indiana? made the body's or body parts for Pierce, this is incorrect. The only company that made tin for Pierce was the Mullins company, and they ONLY made fenders. They made the famous Mullins red bug trailers, as well as boats, and even kitchen cabinets. The body stampings for roofs, doors, cowl, ect were done in small sections in house and gas welded together in Buffalo. As always it is possible that someone else made a difficult to produce deep draw part, but the general body panels were small and not very complicated. On the two Presidents mentioned above, it was plain to see there were many similarities in the construction of both brands of cars. It would not have surprised me if the "limited production / show cars were built in Buffalo......they were that similar. Maybe it was the same crew moving among the factories? Whatever the final story is we will probably never know...... but the construction methods were VERY close to each other in design quality, fit, and finish. 

[edinmass]

Better shots unloading up the car back east.

Edited October 24, 2015 by edinmass (see edit history)

[keiser31]

Those lines on that car are so nice! Wish I could have had a chance at it. I cannot wait to see it's progress (I deleted my last post because I saw that I had posted those photos previously). Thanks for the photos of the car in the daylight.

Edited October 24, 2015 by keiser31 (see edit history)

[edinmass]

As to the other post implying that Pierce shared body panes with another car........never to my understanding. The St Regis and PA 1932 all steel doors on only one model were once said to be interchangeable, but unless I am mistaken, they are very similar in design and fabrication, but do not interchange at all.

[edinmass]

Anyway, can anyone post a photo of the limited production 32 or 33 Presidents? 

[edinmass]

My 1932 Series 54 Sport Coupe. Smallest car Pierce made that year. Click on the photo.

Edited October 24, 2015 by edinmass (see edit history)

[edinmass]

1932 Series 54 Five Passenger Sedan. Short wheelbase, 142 inches.

[alsancle]

Until recently.  Ed = John x 2.   

 

Ed,  do the last 2 numbers in the Pierce model designate wheelbase?

 

I have always liked the St Regis body style.   The trunk looks longer on the Pierce than the Stude.

[edinmass]

Sometimes the numbers will indicate the wheelbase , sometimes not........Pierce has few hard and fast rules.

Edited October 25, 2015 by edinmass (see edit history)

[Mahoning63]

Here’s a quote from Bernie Weiss’s book regarding the 1930 models:

 

“Some sedan bodies came from South Bend, but lest Pierce-Arrow enthusiasts recoil in horror at this revelation, we might add that there were actually more inspectors from Buffalo supervising than there were workmen making the bodies! Economical manufacturing systems were being employed, but quality was still predominant!”

 

One must assume this practice continued until Studebaker sold Pierce. The 1933 5-passenger sedans look the same, even down to the fenders. Pierce’s wheelbase was one inch longer, the length most likely added forward of the firewall.

 

 

***********************

 

 

Regarding Pierce's pre-Studebaker receivership plans for 1934, here is a key piece of info: Studebaker went into receivership on March 21, 1933.  (Source:  http://www.stude100.com/stu/Pg3/pg3.php ). The article talks about how the new leadership sold Pierce to help pay for tooling for the 1934 models.

 

Studebaker's clay models would have most likely been in the works for some time, ready to go to tooling, and Pierce would have had ’34 clays too, some of which likely designed around '34 Studebaker bodies. What we don’t know is the plan Studebaker had for the '34 President prior to its decision to drop the long-wheelbase car. Would it have looked like the shorter wheelbase '34 Studebakers, with length added to doors, roof and rear quarters but otherwise sharing windshields, fenders and general appearance? If so, this would hint at what the '34 Studebaker-based Pierces would have looked like.   

Edited October 25, 2015 by Mahoning63 (see edit history)

[Mahoning63]

Here's something Pierce might have done for the 1937 model year in a last-ditch effort to save itself, the impetus coming from its observation of the 1936 Lincoln Zephyr and Cord 810’s styling theme and unibody construction and the throngs of onlookers at the 1936 New York Auto Show surrounding both cars, the Cord in particular. A plausible Pierce response?  COPY THEM!!!

 

Key would have been figuring out how to develop a suitable design, do so on a shoe-string budget and ready in time for a November 1936 launch. The ’36 models that would have just launched would have had, despite dopey proportions, many elements that could have been recycled into a modern streamliner of low height and weight. Doors, fenders and hood were all fine as-is. The challenge would have been to create a new way to hold it all together, the existing frame being too tall and heavy.

 

Here is where the Travelodge, to the extent Pierce would have been contemplating its design in early 1936, could have helped. Travelodge had unibody construction comprised of slender steel members with an aluminum skin welded on (the dissimilar metals ended up causing early corrosion). Pierce might have used a similar steel structure to hold together its car, not unlike what Touring of Italy did with its Superleggera construction. A perfect method for a low volume manufacturer.

 

Here a few before/after images showing how Pierce could have created a dramatic 1937 streamliner. The first alternative uses the ’36 sedan’s doors, forward roof section, windshield, hood and fenders to create a 6-window, flat-windshield streamliner not unlike the Zephyr. The second alternative mimics the Cord, borrowing its “front doors flipped around as rear doors” strategy (front doors would have been the 5 inch longer versions used on the 144/147” wheelbase cars) and V-windshield. Also has a more rounded rear. The last image is a mix of the other two alternatives.

 

For all, roof, floor and hood would have been lowered 4 inches and weight reduced 1,000 – 1,500 lbs depending on how efficient the unibody structure could have been designed. The floors would have had a transmission/driveshaft hump, the price paid for being lowered, and running boards would not have been needed. Powertrain, suspension, seats and IP would have been carried over, no money available to touch them. Were additional funding found, independent front suspension would have needed to have been first priority. Note that Zephyr never had one, so perhaps Pierce could have winged it for another year or two.

 

Pricing for any 100% Pierce-built car made in its existing manufacturing operations would have necessarily started at or slightly below $3,000.

 

How many would have sold?  I think 1000 would not have been unreasonable, maybe tracking closer to 2000 by year's end as existing dealers regained health, former ones came back and new ones joined. With all, Pierce would have once again chased the wolf away from its door, the next step being to build on the new vehicle architecture and invest in key technologies like an automatic transmission or as interim, the semi-automatic it had patented.

 

This is but one of several opportunities that were available to Pierce in the 1934-37 timeframe. More than any other, it shows the tremendous opportunity cost that Pierce paid in pursuing the Travelodge instead of plowing its money and mind back into cars where it belonged.

Edited October 25, 2015 by Mahoning63 (see edit history)

[edinmass]

I have photos of the Buffalo plant building 1930 sedan bodies, I am sure that is NOT accurate. I also have engineering paperwork on the fenders from Mullins. I would not suprise me if items like the rear end housings and some other items were being produced in South Bend, but with 2 million square feet, a paint and body production line and all the production area in Buffalo, and how simple it was to stamp and build bodies, it makes no sense that they would build bodies in Indiana, I would expect that items like running boards and splash pans would have been outsourced, but I would love for someone to show me ANY interchangable panel from 1930. My best guess is that article is based on conjecture and written in the 50's as I have NEVER heard anyone make such a statement. It would be fine to PROVE me wrong...... but rumor and conjecture are not FACT. I wonder if they were refering to the 1930 Series C car which was very small and an early attempt to make an in road to a lower price segment. I would go a far as to say a 1930 Series C is about the same size and build quaility as the President. It had entire diffrent under hood engine and chassis changes to make it a smaller and less powerfull car. I have never owned a 1930 C. I have owned two Travel lodges a series B & C. Interesting construction, well made, but there was never a chance they could have saved the company. It is interesting to think if they could have made it another year or two the war work would have kept the factory busy till 1945. I dont think they would have managed a car after the war...... I have never seen any article published on what was built in the factory from 38 to 45 but I am sure it was put to good use. All the V-12 engine blocks and crank cases have a South Bend casting mark on them, so it is certain they were cast there.....but the machine work was done in Buffalo, as I have photos of them on the line. I am not sure when the eight blocks were made in South Bend, was it from day one in 1929? I only see the marks on the blocks from 1933 as far as I can remember. 

[Mahoning63]

Ah ha, didn't know the V12 was cast in South Bend too. Thanks for that bit of info. Double checked Maurice Hendry's book and low and behold, he said the same thing. He also said some bodies were made in South Bend. And either his or another book said there were 140 or so Pierces made in Studebaker's Canadian plant between 1930-35 (yes, some after the split with Studebaker). The reasons the bodies would have been made in South Bend or elsewhere were most likely cost or capacity. Studebaker was set up as a higher volume producer than Pierce, so if certain bodies were largely or completely shared, it was likely Studebaker could make them at a lower cost. On the capacity question, if Pierce's equipment and/or labor force was geared for say, 5000 units from 1925 to 1928 and all of the sudden they got orders for 10,000 in 1929, they might have had no choice but to let South Bend help. Both companies apparently worked out a very thoughtful and detailed plan as to how to maximize efficiencies while maintaining Pierce's autonomy. It was a great combination while it lasted.

 

Could Pierce have survived post-war? It wouldn't have been easy but sure, there's always a way, would have just needed to have been discovered. There are no hard and fast rules in the auto industry despite what some historians may have said or continue to say. Hudson wasn't supposed to make a low slung car of advanced construction that sold well for a time and tore up the racetrack. But it did. Ferrari wasn't supposed to have arisen from the ashes of WWII to find a voice in the Fifties and eventually become the dominant player it is today. But it did. Tesla's not supposed to be here. But it is.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Mahoning63 (see edit history)

[edinmass]

The Canadian carswere shipped over the border disassembled and reassembled in Canada. There was no production there . I've been told they could only handle two or three cars at a time . As the building was basically a small garage . It was done to avoid tax import fees . The factory numbers indicate up to 150 cars I doubt that it was half of that . I think he's only three survivors from Canadian a assembley.

[Rusty_OToole]

Pierce was a pioneer of the modern streamlined body with their 1933 Silver Arrow show car.

 

 

In the end they build 5 of them. Could they have developed the idea into a modern streamlined mass produced Pierce? Something to steal the thunder away from the Airstream, Zephyr, and other streamlined cars of the day?

 

Such a car might have given them something to sell to the younger buyers and changed their image. They needed this badly, their traditional clientele of tycoons and dowagers had been hit by the depression, and their type of car was passe.

 

A low streamlined car at an attractive price with a fresh progressive image might have been what they needed.

[K8096]

Hey Ed, explain to me what the Pierce model 80 was if you don't mind.  Was it built between 1925-1928 as a price line PIerce?  How did it compare to the big Pierce of the same era?   Nice meeting you at Hershey by the way.   

[Chrycoman]

The Canadian carswere shipped over the border disassembled and reassembled in Canada. There was no production there . I've been told they could only handle two or three cars at a time . As the building was basically a small garage . It was done to avoid tax import fees . The factory numbers indicate up to 150 cars I doubt that it was half of that . I think he's only three survivors from Canadian a assembley.

 

According to research done by members of the Studeaker Drivers' Club, a total of 71 Pierce-Arrow cars were assembled at the Studebaker assembly plant in Windsor, Ontario, from 1932 through to 1934.   They were shipped UNassembled from South Bend to Windsor where they were assembled.  

 

The reason behind starting assembly in Canada in 1932 was the change in import duties in 1931.  Prior to 1931 imported duties and taxes were a flat rate on all items imported.  The government of R.B. Bennett changed the system.   Items imported were taxes based on the Canadian content of the car.  Thus the imported parts would have an import duty of X% and the company could deduct from the cost of the parts the value of any and all parts made in Canada, including labour.  Thus Canadian operations such as Studebaker could claim Canadian made tires, tubes, wheels, rubber and electrical parts, interior trim and seats, paint, plus the cost of assembling all these parts into a car.

 

R B Bennett and the Conservatives were kicked out of power in 1935 (consider Bennett as the Canadian version of Herbert Hoover) and the new government under Liberal William Lyon Mackenzie King reverted back to the pre-1931 system auto import duties.  Studebaker closed its WIndsor assembly operation in 1936.

 

I have attached a photo of the "garage" Studebaker used as their assembly plant in Windsor.   It was built by EMF in 1908 and was used through to 1936.  The plant sat idle until 1942 when it was sold to Gotfredson Trucks, who needed the plant for their war materiel contracts with the Government of Canada..   Willys of Canada re-entered the Canadian market in 1937 and leased Hupmobile's Windsor plant.  In 1942 Willys closed their Canadian operations and ran everything from the Toledo office.  Once Studebaker sold their Windsor plant they moved into the former Hupp / Willys plant.  In 1946 they purchased a government plant next to the Otis plant in Hamilton and moved all their operations to Hamilton.   

 

The Hamilton plant was used by Studebaker of Canada until the end of automotive operations in March, 1966.   The plant was demolished a couple of years ago.

[Chrycoman]

The idea of Pierce-Arrow offering a lower priced model was discussed by Car Life magazine in an article in the July, 1969, issue, written by Jeff Godshall. 

 

Apparently the board of Pierce-Arrow had a plan to go up against Lincoln-Zephyr, LaSalle and Packard 120.  They came up with a plan for 1938 to sell 1,200 senior P-A models (they sold 167 in model year 1937), 4,800 trailers and 25,000 of the new model, for a modest profit of $1.8 million.  They planned on raising $11 million through the sale of 1.3 million shares of stock.   Then the 1938 recession hit, and that was the end of that.

 

The new Pierce-Arrow was to be on a 125" wheelbase and sell for $1,200.  According to Mr. Godshall, P-A was going to use the 1935-36 Reo body which was made by Hayes Body.  Graham used the same body for their 1936-37 Cavalier and Supercharger models.  P-A would have to come up with the money for the chassis frame, fenders and everything ahead of the cowl.  Graham had used the Reo body in 2 and 4 door sedan and touring sedan models and tooled up coupe and convertible coupe models.

 

Supposedly P-A would used their 385-cid flathead eight cylinder engine (Graham's biggest engine was a 217.6-cid flathead six).  P-A would finally get hydraulic brakes and stamped steel wheels.  No prototypes were built and neither were drawings or proposals.  That was as far as things proceeded.  They ran out of money and the company was liquidated in 1938.

 

Both Hupmobile and Graham went into the 1938 model year with new bodies.  The Graham was very advanced with its Northup-designed "Spirit of Motion".  Sadly it was called "Shark Nose" by the public and Graham sales plummeted.   Hupmobile went nowhere with their new models.