A mass produced Pierce Arrow?

[Chrycoman]

By the way, Briggs did not build bodies for Packard prior to the 1941 Clipper models.   The larger models could be ordered with custom bodies by a variety of manufacturers, but the mass production bodies were built by Packard in their plant on East Grand Boulevard. 

 

Fisher Body would not build bodies for Pierce-Arrow - the Fisher brothers no longer owned the firm, by the way.    GM acquired an interest in the Fisher Body in 1919 and the brothers sold the rest of the stock to GM in 1926.  At that point GM advised all Fisher Body customers that they would no longer be selling bodies to firms not owned by General Motors starting in 1927. 

 

In the U.S. Chrysler acquired the American Body plant on East Kercheval Avenue, right across the street from the East Jefferson Avenue assembly plant.  And a block west of the Hudson Avenue plant on East Jefferson.   The building had the "Fluid Drive" sign on it for years.  In 1955 Chrysler built a covered conveyor from the Kercheval plant over East Jefferson to the assembly plant, in preparation of the change to unibody construction.   The Kercheval plant was demolished and the land became part of the new Jeep plant. 

 

In Canada, Chrysler acquired the Fisher Body plant on Edna Street at St.Luke and built bodies there until the new plant on what is now Chrysler Centre was ready.  The Edna Street plant was used again from 1938 to the end of the war as a storage facility.   Ford of Canada would also use the plant for storage in the early 1950's.  The plant burned down in 1970's.

Forgot to mention the Studebaker of Canada plant on Wyandotte also burned down in the 1970's.    Somewhere along the line the owners used the foundation to build a single storey building.   Some storage and shipping / receiving building along the railway line survived and are still standing today.  The present owners acquired rights to the land Montreuil Road was located as well as a small building on the east side of the street.  That building was a garage and warehouse for Graham-Paige for 1936 through 1938 after they closed their assembly plant on Walker Road. 

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

[edinmass]

Thanks for the info on the Canadian building, I was rather sure the PA's assembled were below the 150 that was mentioned. Interesting how things change and evolve over the years, and a production plant turns into a garage. I was given that info by a Canadian gentleman who had one of the few surviving cars. I don't think there was ever a chance to save Pierce........the market was gone, and the automobile was becoming more and more a common household good. The small independent makes all had the wrighting on the wall...... Ford, Chevy(GM also), Chrysler were all exploding in market share. It's amazing what Chrysler did coming into the game so late.

[Mahoning63]

Re: 1933 Show Car... "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?"

 

Cord sold its 1936 810 for only $2,000... and they had to weld 7 sections together to make the roof! This would have been what Pierce would have needed to do as a similarly small manufacturer had they productionized the Silver Arrow. Wish the new owners had gone this route instead of doing the mid-'34 836A and '36 redesign.

 

Pierce-Arrow did a survey after exhibiting its dazzling show car and learned that folks liked the fastback rear but not the straight-through front fenders. Maybe this is what compelled them to go ahead with the '34 Silver Arrow production coupe, a low-investment effort to capitalize on the show car's popularity. The production car ended up being a sales flop. Ironically, the market eventually chose the exact opposite style - straight-through front fenders, notchback rear. The '48 Cadillac and Oldsmobile were the first cars to really bring this together in a beautiful package and the public loved it. But lots of streamliners with pontoon fenders were sold in the Thirties so maybe it was just a case of Pierce's production car being too expensive and not quite right aesthetically.

 

Here are a few variations on the Silver Arrow theme in notchback form. For the second the rear fenders/overhang are shortened. The first has long been one of my all-time favorite what-ifs.

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

[Mahoning63]

"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."

 

Here's a quick before/after of the REO and what Pierce probably would have looked like. The car would have been 70" tall when Packard was 67" so that would not have been competitive. Maybe had Pierce zested it up a bit such as in the second version it might have had a chance. Not sure how it could have been profitable at $1,200 when it would have been running on the expensive Pierce 8. The sales estimates for the senior models and Travelodge are totally unrealistic and the $1.8 million profit hardly seems worth the effort. This plan was DOE.

 

A better approach might have been to buy Cord's tooling and convert it to RWD as Hupp did. The 125" WB car could have served well for the 2-door models while the 132" taller sedan could made for a livable 5-pass Pierce. Probably only the V12 would have fit underhood but at least the car would have had an IFS. If I could find an old work-up of a Pierce face on this car, will post. Is in my computer somewhere.

Edited October 27, 2015 by Mahoning63 (see edit history)

[Rusty_OToole]

Do you know how small the Cord was? I recently saw a picture of a 37 Cord and a 49 Olds, the Olds dwarfed the Cord so I looked up some figures, the Cord was the same OA length as a 49 Chev but with a longer WB, longer hood and shorter body.

 

I was surprised because I thought they were in the Cadillac class. Maybe they were on price but not based on size.

[edinmass]

The Cord was a middle of the road car, build quaility was no where near high end, but great style!

[alsancle]

The Sliver Arrow is one of the few cars that I like with rear skirts.  Your second picture reminds me of post war Jag MKV.

 

 

Ed,  I would say that Cord was an upper middle class car.  The 810 base was 2k but you got to 3k with the Convertibles or Beverly or the blown model.  I would consider 3k at that point upper middle or even lower luxury.    Also, there is nothing like it for engineering and style prewar.   Severely undervalued in the market as far as I can see.

[8E45E]

Here are a few variations on the Silver Arrow theme in notchback form. For the second the rear fenders/overhang are shortened. The first has long been one of my all-time favorite what-ifs.

Those look very good and modern for the times, very British; and could have carried P-A up to the war years.   P-A would have lost is trademark styling feature by 1939 when the majority of the US automakers integrated the headlights flush with the fenders that year.

 

The only bad part is how expensive it would have been to tool up for it, as the Silver Arrows upon which they would have been based were essentially hand-built.  Even the last of the 1938's still had a fabric insert roof, which was "old-hat" by then. 

 

Craig

[Dandy Dave]

Man O Man you guys can sure beat a dead horse to dust with all the what if's.   But I must say, The History is very interesting. Dandy Dave!

[Mahoning63]

Here's the Cord-based Pierce work-up. Roof is extended back to make room for two side-facing jump seats. With a 185 HP V12 underhood it would have been one of the fastest cars in the world. Quality would have been whatever Pierce insisted, which means it would have been high. Had the company been able to get these cars into production by early 1938 they might have bought Pierce a few years. By 1940 or 41 they would have needed a wider, longer car with front fenders more integrated into the body.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Mahoning63 (see edit history)

[Mahoning63]

Here's a F3Q view of the earlier '37 proposal that lowered the standard car 4 inches and removed the running boards. This body would have had a defined trunk and competed directly with the '38 Cadillac Sixty Special the following year, leaving the "3-box" sedan market all to itself in 1937.  Most of the body panels would have come from the '36 models. If the Travelodge unibody could not have been made to work, the company could have simply gone with a low-slung version of a conventional frame. Pierce didn't need to borrow $11 million to save itself, it didn't need Travelodges (unless they could have been made to be profitable) and it didn't need a cheap car carrying an outdated REO body. It probably just needed to invest half million dollars in a cool, smart luxury car, price it in the neighborhood of $2,500 - $3,000 and sell a few thousand a year. That's what survival would have looked like. It doesn't need to be some mysterious thing that forever must remain ungrasped.

 

Postwar, same strategy... avoid big facility investments, accept higher labor content, stay flexible, focus on style and technology and always put out the best car money can buy. There would always be a few thousand people every year looking for such a car.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Mahoning63 (see edit history)

[Guest]

Do you know how small the Cord was? I recently saw a picture of a 37 Cord and a 49 Olds, the Olds dwarfed the Cord so I looked up some figures, the Cord was the same OA length as a 49 Chev but with a longer WB, longer hood and shorter body.

 

I was surprised because I thought they were in the Cadillac class. Maybe they were on price but not based on size.

 

Most Cords were 125" wb, but the "Custom" series were 132". In one of the Cord books the statement was made that the Cord (at approx. $3K) was too expensive for most folks, and not expensive enough for the people who REALLY had the lettuce. Wrong size, wrong price.  Fun thread.

[Guest bkazmer]

beautiful "what-if"  But a 1938 launch would have been a disaster - recession year for the auto industry.

[Mahoning63]

Great point about the recession. The only luxury car (or any car?) that swam upstream that year was the all-new '38 Cadillac Sixty Special, and a Cord-based Pierce would have been ultra low but too narrow to fully compete with it.

 

This is why I think Pierce's best opportunity would have been to look inward and quickly correct the styling mistake it made with its '36 models, going after an aero sedan or, had it really been on the ball, a 3-box torpedo sedan like the Sixty Special. Packard sold 1300 Twelves in 1937 despite a 3 year old, dated body and prices starting at $3450. A hot Pierce 8 and V12 in the $3000 - $3450 range would have racked up 1000 sales very quickly in the sales boom of 1937 and held its own in 1938. It may have been the car the company needed to survive to the war... at least in hindsight.  

 

EDIT: updated color image to reflect full 4 inch drop in height. Previous image was only 2-1/2 inches.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Mahoning63 (see edit history)

[58L-Y8]

A little late to the party, but here's my take how they could have started their market revival.

 

At a critical meeting in late 1932, the sales and marketing general manager, with support of the company president, would have put the assembled on notice that the company could no longer survive solely on the sale of impressively-sized, bespoke-crafted, fine carriages for the uppermost socio-economic strata. If they didn't broaden into lower price ranges and attract new customers, they could kiss their company goodbye by 1940!

 

After the heated discussions of the future direction were settled, he would have then outlined what their 1934 model development would be: a smaller, owner-driven, five passenger fastback sedan with Silver Arrow-inspired styling, snappy performance, priced significantly below their most recent lowest, in the $1,900-$2,000. In order to create this new car, manufactured on a cost-affective basis for a good unit profit, a high degree of assembly and component sharing with Studebaker President would be required, including recycling major President components as basis. These compromises were absolutely necessary, however distasteful they might be to P-A traditionalist.

 

The specification would then be laid out: a 130"-132" wb, running the current President 337 ci. straight eight and running gear fitted into lengthened, double-dropped version of the 1934 President frame . The body would utilize major 1934 President stampings sections then in development such as the cowl, front doors, floors, modified to fit the larger chassis. With the Silver Arrow debuting at the Century of Progress shortly, as much of its styling would be incorporated into further unique stamping as possible. Lowered enough to delete the runningboards, with pontoon fenders, V-windshield, fastback and verbatim copy of Silver-Arrow frontal styling, it would be a industy sensation.

 

As support for his concept, he would note that Packard's base models such as the recent 726 and 826 comprised the majority of sales as was their current foray into this lower price range, the Light Eight 900. Industry chatter held that while they were selling in volume, Packard was losing its shirt on every car sold; indicating they didn't know how to manufacture at lower unit costs. P-A couldn't afford to make that mistake; fortunately they had Studebaker as resource for less-costly components and volume manufacturing expertise. The basic straight eight Presidents were designed to sell in the price range in which P-A would be entering, presumably engineered and manufactured with greater cost efficiency than were Buffalo's own units. Their size, power and even appearance similarity making them an indistinquishably ideal for the new car.

 

Shortly, they would have the example of the '34 LaSalle as further proof of concept: it being an Olds eight chassis mounted with a smaller yet strikingly modern styling at an attractive price. Their new car wouild be similar in concept, larger in size, much more powerful, a short step-up in price with cutting-edge styling. It would be but the first move toward regaining market and corporate health that would lead to the other progressive concepts presented. Even as the events of 1933 unfolded, as the buyout was negotiated, the terms detailing ongoing collaborations in engineering, manufacturing, component sourcing and sales/marketing would have been included.

 

Steve

Edited October 30, 2015 by 58L-Y8 (see edit history)

[Guest bkazmer]

I agree with much of your analysis, but the price point of $2000 is way off.  I believe the Packard 120 started at just under $1000 when it first arrived.

[58L-Y8]

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

[mercer09]

the whole point  of the Pierce, was the exceptional quality.........................

 

once you throw that part of the equation out...........what's the point?

[Mahoning63]

Hi Steve,

 

Very interesting scenario... an eye-catching vehicle filling what was at the time a market price gap. Best case scenario for Pierce would have been lots of new sheetmetal particularly in the roof and rear, and Buffalo assembly. Finding the tooling money and building down to a $2,000 price in Buffalo would have been major challenges. Economics and expediency may have forced assembly in South Bend and use of mid-'34 Studebaker Land Cruiser body panels. I tried a few versions to visualize what the car might have looked like. Have included '35 120 WB Commander LC and what I think the 124 WB President LC looks like, the extra 4 inches in the front door. For Pierce my first attempt started with the President LC and adds 6 inches to hood. This car could have easily been built in South Bend alongside the Studebaker cars.  The second, lowered version removes running boards and adds a V-windshield, creating a more problematic build for Studebaker and perhaps being better suited for Buffalo. In this scenario it might have made sense to use Pierce's 8.

Edited October 31, 2015 by Mahoning63 (see edit history)

[Mahoning63]

"the whole point of the Pierce, was the exceptional quality.........................

 

once you throw that part of the equation out...........what's the point?"

 

 

I tend to agree. Would only change exceptional "quality" to exceptional "car" because the whole package needed to be there. Pierce in the Thirties had exceptional quality but the company still went bankrupt. Many have blamed this entirely on the Depression but the fact is, the company got too many aspects of the car wrong. Maybe Pierce needed to become more virtual than real, a group of engineers, designers and inspectors who left the task of building to others such as South Bend. Personally, I prefer the idea of a largely stand-alone Pierce profitably making and selling its own high standard of car and constantly raising the bar in the industry. This is what got it in the game in the first place. It won four Glidden Trophies because it's cars kept running while others broke down.

 

A few more thoughts on earlier '37 proposal. For more background on those years here's a good article (page 6 of the PDF) at this link:

 

https://pnwclassics.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/2013-3-bg-autumn.pdf

 

And here's a before/after look at the body styles the company carried in '36 versus what was possible for '37. I created the '36 line-up a few years ago based on the schematic of 139 WB 6-window sedan shown. May have left out a few variations that am not aware of.

Edited October 31, 2015 by Mahoning63 (see edit history)

[Mahoning63]

It's interesting to understand how Pierce created its "all new" bodies for 1936.

 

The increase in wheelbase from 139" sedan to 144" sedan was done by increasing the length of the front doors 5 inches. The 147" sedans have an additional 3 inches added to the rear doors This is how Pierce was able to proliferate its line-up on a shoe-string budget.

 

The '36 bodies were moved approximately 6 inches forward versus 1934-35 and the bodies were made wider by 5 inches or so at the A-pillar (unless the entire body was widened, which might have been the case).

 

The 6-window sedan's roof aft of the B-pillar appears to have been carried over from the 1934-35 models (unless it was made wider, which I can't tell from side views). One can also see the 1934-35 Club Sedan's wide C-pillar in the '36 Club Sedan and its sloping rear in two of the '36 147" cars.

 

If anyone has salesman's databooks from these years would appreciate your letting me know, thanks. Measurements such as front and rear shoulder, elbow and hip room in the '34-35 vs '36 cars would tell a lot.

 

EDIT: Hendry's book says that in 1937, Pierce offered 17 models in its Twelve series and one of them was an opera limo with 3 inches added to its height so one could wear a top hat! I show 10 body styles. Am guessing there were limo versions of the 144 and 147 sedans too. Not sure how they get to 17, missing one or two vehicles.

Edited October 31, 2015 by Mahoning63 (see edit history)

[edinmass]

The 1936 to 1938 bodies are much larger than the earlier ones, the variable door width made a large large range of body choices, even the coupe and convertible coupe could be ordered in different chassis lengths, though on the two door cars the length was added behind the rear door. There were three different width front and rear doors on the sedan models, depending not only on the three different wheel base lengths of 139, 144, and 147 but also body style, as the club sedan doors were different from all the others, and the club sedan was offered on 139 or 144 the larger car having the room added only in the front door.......you ask why they went broke.

Edited November 1, 2015 by edinmass (see edit history)

[Mahoning63]

Does Gilmore or some other location have databooks and/or other info on Pierce? Unlike Packard, info is hard to come by for this marque.

 

From what I have been able to deduce, the only difference in the club sedan vs regular sedan's rear doors appears to be the club sedan's more rounded top rear corner of window frame and inclusion of vent window. Both vehicles appear to share identical door lowers. The '34-35s used the same door width strategy as the '36-38 models to get the 139, 144 and 147 inch sedans, and the Silver Arrow coupe used the 5 inch longer front door mated to the lower body of the 2/4 coupe/convertible, the only unique panels being the rear roof section, back panel and decklid. Good efficiency but also that many more dumpy models if the basic proportions weren't right.

 

Are you sure there were three front door widths for '36 rather than two? There appears to have been three for '34 only because the '34 836A's was around 2 inches longer than the standard door.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Mahoning63 (see edit history)

[Mahoning63]

Here's why a Pierce-Arrow... with the right body styling/engineering as proposed... could have sold well at $3,000 in 1937-39 even while a similarly styled Cadillac Sixty Special of 1938-39 was priced $1,000 less. There are certain intangibles that cannot be quantified.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GULV2Q5dd8

 

And who would take issue with those who could afford it spending up to own "The One Great Name Identified With Fine Cars Exclusively" and created by engineers, designers and craftsman dedicated to this single purpose. No rock throwing, not at this line of proposed cars. 

 

Pierce might have done well in these theoretical years to drop the Eight and go strictly V12, bringing back the earlier 398 CID as base motor (by now probably making 160 HP) and reserving the 462 CID (185 HP) for a top-of-line "Salon" series with upgraded interior and other niceties.

 

Found an ad that talked about the impressive gains made in body width for 1936, confirms earlier comments that the bodies grew larger.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Mahoning63 (see edit history)

[edinmass]

Body construction on the Pierce cars from 1933 to 1938 was rather fluid, and almost all components were hand made, even on the plain sedan body which was 80 percent of their production. You could get a eight sedan in 5 or 7 passenger configuration on three different wheel bases. All the difference was in the door length, front and rear. I have seen a few cars where they put all the distance in only one door(invalid coach). Then, even on the much lower production bodies they offered two lengths. Take the club sedan as an example. I have owned a 34 V 12, a 35 eight, and a 36 V 12. The club sedan doors were different from the regular 5/7 passenger doors. PLEASE UNDERSTAND none of the doors were off the shelf interchangeable. These were hand made bodies with lots of differences. As an example, my 36 V 12 club sedan rear doors are 5/8 of an inch different in width. The window tracks and vent windows were hand fitted in every door, and it's amazing how they did this and still pushed out a rather high volume number of bodies. On the 36 club sedan, they took the die stamped pieces of a sedan, added and subtracted metal where necessary, and gas welded it together, then poured on 25 pounds of lead over the seams. You can see where they beat the panels with a hammer to rough them in, and finished the job with LOTS of lead. Even the entire door gap on a Pierce was done in lead around the entire perimeter of the door. They filed the edges down to get a good fit. It was all handwork, but labor was cheap back then. Pierce bodies have lots of iron braces made up in the blacksmith shop on an as needed basis for the lower production bodies, often these were cast if they expected to make more than 10 cars or so. I have body number one on a 1932 Pierce Arrow sport phaeton in the garage right now, but the windshield is marked #2 as the first one didn't work out. You can see where they made changes to #2 so as not to scrap it. Interestingly, the dash in the car is one off also......using lots of never before seen components. Since this was the auto show car, it didn't make a difference. It's interesting to see how the production changed as the quantity of cars dropped. 8 and 12 hardware was used for production cars as an on available basis so they wouldn't have to order more stock. Most of the bodies were signed by the craftsman, we were able to look up the name of one gentleman this summer when the padded roof was pulled back, having his name and production numbers printed on the steel. We found his name in the 40 census, listed as upholsterer at the Pierce Arrow factory. He lived six blocks from Elmwood Avenue factory

[edinmass]

As to the 1936 to 1938 production, the entire car was new....... chassis, frame, brakes, steering box, everything........ the last design was not a warmed over attempt from the 34-35 years, the Warner overdrive was also new. It was a last gasp to keep in the game. I don't think anything could have saved them. The era of hand built cars was over. Income taxes, the depression, war clouds on the horizon......... Pierce Arrow came and went in their own time. The fact they never made a low end car helps to keep the legend alive today. Like Stutz and so many other great names all lost to history........just a few collectors still carry the flame for the next generation. I hope today's young people will still find ALL cars interesting and worth preserving.......but I have my doubts.

Edited November 1, 2015 by edinmass (see edit history)

[Mahoning63]

Fabulous edimass, thanks so much for sharing. Wish this and more could find its way into a book.

 

Were the Studebaker bodies built up differently? Have read that these were mostly steel, little wood. Presumably from stampings and built into bodies by standard mass-production methods of the day. Maybe this is why Pierce opted to just have Studebaker build them and to send inspectors to help take Studebaker to a higher level of build quality, which the Studebaker folks may/may not have felt necessary.

[alsancle]

Well put Ed.   

[Mahoning63]

"Pierce Arrow came and went in their own time.'

 

I think the timing of Pierce-Arrow's exit was dictated by its final, inadequate leadership team. What it stood for is for all time.

 

The company's financials weren't that bad. The article I linked earlier said Pierce lost $250,000 in the 18 mos prior to its late 1937 final request for money. That's not a meltdown, its almost breakeven... and the result of flawed product. All it needed were a few progressive models that sold in the $3,000 range that generated a few thousand sales and had good margins. This was definitely within its and the market's grasp.

 

in my image below compare the Pierce to the luxury superstar of the late Thirties, the Cadillac 60 Special. The Pierce looks like a $3,000 car, the Caddy like the $2,000 car it was priced to be.  The Pierce is the more substantial, the more intricate design, with better executed details. The Cadillac, for all its Bill Mitchell magic, was held back by GM's need to mass-produce it. The interior is plain, the instrument panel mundane, the exterior proportions sub-optimal, the grill looks "manufactured" and not very interesting and the '39 redesign is clash of elements that not even Cadillac felt worthy to continue.

 

Now look at the Pierce. Everything inside and out finely crafted and jeweled. Front appearance is handsome, distinctive, tasteful and lasting, suggestive of a luxurious and seriously competent automobile. The instrument panel is subtle yet functional and substantial. Seating and appointments are best in the business. Underhood murmurs a smooth and strong V12 while Cadillac only has a V8, like Ford.

 

Pierce was really about mass-produced craftsmanship. Had it survived, which a restyled and re-engineered line-up would have done, it would have grown to become, by century's end, a special company much like Porsche. It would have found its way to the main of the luxury market by approaching from the opposite direction that today's mass producers such as Cadillac and Lincoln are trying to come from.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Mahoning63 (see edit history)

[edinmass]

Just some fun photos that tie into this thread.

[Rusty_OToole]

There is another factor I have never heard mentioned. After the depression super wealth and the perks that went with it were passe and in bad taste. The millionaire, the tycoon, the playboy were heros of the Jazz age  but 10 years later they were seen as the cause of the country's problems.

 

Many  switched from Duesenbergs and  Pierce Arrows to Buicks and Chryslers  to be less conspicuous and to stir up less envy and hatred. Others because they no longer had the money.

 

Could it be the low priced, more democratic Packards, Cadillacs and Lincoln Zephyrs took the curse off their haughty brethren and made them more acceptable to the masses?

[Mahoning63]

Rusty - what you say is totally true.  IMHO Pierce had one fatal flaw, at least in retrospect... it spent most of its corporate life creating advertising that suggested some people were better than others. For that it deserved to have rocks thrown at it as did the others that played the same value-less game of pandering to our worst angels.

 

On the other hand, I suspect mainstream America still appreciated a great car even if they couldn't afford it. The Silver Arrow show car was the people's favorite at the Century of Progress exhibit despite the Packard Car of the Dome getting the official award. The S-A represented progress and the future, which is where I think Pierce needed to take its product planning. In-your-face old-school hulking limos and town cars were what angered folks. In 1936 Pierce was still pushing that stuff even though the market had shrunk to a non-sustainable level. This is what gets me most... the new owners had no clue where to take the company so they fell back on the old formula. Again imho, they ruined Pierce, not the Depression. 

Edited November 2, 2015 by Mahoning63 (see edit history)

[edinmass]

I am friendly with a family that bought Pierce Arrows new from the 20's till the end. Interestingly they went to another "P" car when they could no longer buy a Pierce........Plymouth! Most went to Packard or Cadillac. A few to Lincoln. I think post war the cars were living on their past reputation, though they were well built and designed, they were mass production. A few of the coach builders lingered on for the carriage trade, but they soon passed into history. Interestingly, if I were to wish to buy a high quality car today, I would buy a Bentley. I like the fit and finish as well as the details they use on their upholstery. The golden age of the horse, railroad, have passed, as well as the gilded age. We are now stuck with the how cheap can I get it for era, quality, craftsmanship, and excellence in engineering are no longer consumer requirements. I need a new tow vehicle this week, and have been a Ford guy for more than 30 years. I will buy the best truck I can find, and it's sad to say it wont be the marque I have had a burning passion for since I was a child......... My first new Chevy will be here soon...... I vote with my dollars trying to get the best I can find and afford, AND FORD AIN'T IT ANYMORE! Sad but true....... So it's a Duramax and Alison transmission for me. Ed.

[Mahoning63]

Thanks for those images, edinmass. The 1936 Interior Styling brochure cover suggests that the full breadth of colors and trim were only available in the 12 series. Great way to set it apart from the 8.  We also know the company took special requests. 80 years later, Rolls-Royce operates the same way. For a buyer it was probably intoxicating then as it is now, like visiting a fine jeweler, being shown an array of rings under bright jeweler lights... and getting diamond fever!

 

Bentley is a good example of how Pierce might have grown. Porsche Panamera as an equally grand car, albeit on the sporty side. S-Class and some BMWs also have a certain Pierce-ness to them. Aston Martin is another one though it always seems to be on the ropes.

 

Here are some Pierce what-ifs based on sharing with existing cars through the years and usually with lengthened hood and rear overhang. Even managed to include a Plymouth to win your friends back. The last, a '66 Olds 98, is not modified but does represent the type of design Pierce might have made... restrained, balanced, nicely detailed on the outside. I can envision it with a Pierce-made OHV V12, four wheel independent suspension and disc brakes, perhaps unibody and definately the nicest interior in the industry.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Mahoning63 (see edit history)

[Mahoning63]

btw, none of those what-ifs really capture the spirit of P-A, one more reason to have gone it alone post-war if possible.

 

edinmass - just curious.. what's wrong with latest Ford? is it the aluminum body? turbo V6? somethng else??

Edited November 4, 2015 by Mahoning63 (see edit history)

[edinmass]

3500 series for towing, the Duramax and Alison kick the Ford platforms ass........ I just couldn't purchase a Ford after towing a few thousand miles with a friends Chevy.

[58L-Y8]

Even the highest quality car that was out of step with what the market wanted in size, features and price as well as the tenor of the times would fail, which was exactly what befell the late-years Pierce-Arrow, and its peers, the Lincoln K V-12, Packard Twelve, and Cadillac Twelve and Sixteen. At the close of Lincoln K production, Edsel Ford said it wasn't that "We stopped producing fine cars, just that people stopped buying them" If those who still could afford such a car felt ill-at-ease driving one, it didn't matter how well they were crafted.

 

Perceptions of quality are an ever-changing target in the auto business, relative to everything else available. Pierce was still a profitmaking enterprise just like any other car company, and the primary management charge was to run the company with that as their main objective. My prior comments regarding the 1932-33 product developments for 1934 should have been prefaced with the proviso that a very narrow window of opportunity existed to grab public attention and generate sufficient sales to fend off the mid-1934 receivership and eventual bankruptcy in August of that year. Intended to avoid that situation, the $1,900-$2,000 model described would still have had a high degree of quality engineering and construction. What they built ultimately wasn't profitable for the reasons stated above, were exercises in futility.

 

To decide that in the distressed economy and rapidly changing tenor of those depression years that a degree of production component sharing was somehow anathema to their quality standards and a guarantee of an inferior product, when the unchanged path they followed lead to demise is to misunderstand the bigger picture. Simply put, they didn't have the luxury of continuing as they always had in the face of economic and industry trends, engineering and styling progress. And as important, changing social outlook that came to despise the class who were blamed for bringing the Depression on and trapping of their continued insulation from that distress i.e. expensive ultra-luxury cars. Many a once long-time Pierce-Arrow family understood the situation, chose an egalitarian car as cover for their transportation. No amount of quality craftsmanship could change that view. Packard 120's, Lincoln Zephyrs, LaSalles and Cadillac Series 60 while above the mass-market offerings in price and features, weren't preceived to be so far above or as haughty as were their last grandiose luxury cars.

 

Could management have brought themselves to develop and field an owner-driven, $2,000 premium sedan of modern, Silver-Arrow-inspired styling based on production components shared with Studebaker President? If it meant corporate survival?

Edited November 5, 2015 by 58L-Y8 (see edit history)

[Guest bkazmer]

Excellent points 58L - Another auto exec in the 1930's said that there wasn't as much difference anymore between an expensive car and a cheap one.  My $.02:   All the surviving American luxury marques had a combination of moving down market and , if part of a large company like Cadillac and Lincoln were, corporate welfare.  The Pierce price point needed to be lower, and much of the prior hand crafting needed to become production-based, but with quality. In whatever niche they targeted, Pierce had to realistically expect a market share less than Packard and Cadillac. The replacement of the Packard V12 by the 356 straight 8 in 1940 was in tune with the times.  The Pierce styling cues of the fared headlights and streamlined Silver Arrow rear treatment were distinctive and attractive.  The main body section could have been shared, because the greenhouse of the late Pierce's is hardly their styling strong point.  The thing to avoid was loosing their engine build reputation like Lincoln did by going from the K engines to the Zephyr engine.

[Mahoning63]

I don’t think we have enough data to say conclusively that Pierce could not have survived selling only $3,000+ cars.

 

We do know that expensive fine cars with excellent craftsmanship but old-school engineering and frumpy styling were finished. I suspect they would have been finished even had there not been a Depression. This includes all the high end cars mentioned by Steve.

 

We also know that the new crop of entry luxury cars, with their passable craftsmanship, new-school engineering, and styling that ranged from advanced/odd (Zephyr) to not-too-out-there streamlined (Cadillac 60 Series) to scrunched and somewhat frumpy but with a handsome and familiar face (Packard 120) sold well.

 

And finally, we know that mid and entry luxury cars with passable craftsmanship, new-school engineering and advanced styling (original 60 Special, 1940 Series 62 torpedo sedan) sold extremely well.

 

What we don’t know is whether a fourth category - expensive fine cars with excellent craftsmanship combined with new-school engineering and advanced styling, such as the proposed Pierce-Arrow, would have sold well. We can't know because none ever existed. All we have are hints: the original 60 Special, which sold extremely well for its mid-luxury price, the original Continental, which sold fairly well for its moderate to high price despite being offered in 2-door form only and being not quite a “fine car,” and the ’41 Packard LeBaron Sport Brougham, which was old-school in its height but with impressive coachwork and proportions. It sold only 100 copies at a price of around $3,500 and wasn't really a production car. A fourth car, the Cord 810, initially sold well but was defeated by its own production and technical deficiencies.

 

I created one more work-up based on a good side view of a '36 Club Sedan. Again the height drops 4 inches to around 68 inches and the body is assumed Travelodge unibody for rigidity, light weight, low floor height and near elimination of wood. It also might have been less expensive to build.

 

The second image again compares the proposed Pierce to the 60 Special.  Here the benefits of the Pierce's extra 12 inches of wheelbase is obvious, greatly improving proportions and enhancing the car elegant lines. Combined with Pierce's other fine qualities and V12 engine the car would have been in a class by itself.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Mahoning63 (see edit history)

[Mahoning63]

One thing we can say is that Steve's proposal would have had good chance of saving Pierce during the Depression. The data is pretty clear.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Mahoning63 (see edit history)