Suggestion between Hudson or Pierce Arrow

[alsancle]

I'm not disparging the big Pierce Arrow 12, or the big 8 Model 41/42 in 1931 - those are great cars.  But this thread is about a model 43 which is just not the same thing. Maybe Ed Minnie can chime in and tell us exactly what the differences were between the high end and low end models.

 

The Pierce V12 (the larger one) is a a good 40 cubic inches bigger than the Duesenberg straight 8.   Also, it is a later design, 1928 vs 1931.  When Abe set those records in 34 that was a 7 year old design which was an eternity in automotvie engineering at that point.   

 

I do lust after a Model 41 Lebaron Sport sedan,  I really love the looks of those cars.

 

[edinmass]

Pierce in 1931.............41/42 Series 385 cid, lots of differences in the engines. The big series cars had a longer stroke, much better crankshaft with an internal balancer, timing chain and gears, different distributor and ignition system. The smaller series 43 or "standard series production car" had a timing gears, different cam and firing order, small distributor, single coil, cast crank, shorter stroke, and a 366 cid displacement. That said, while the engine was smaller and less powerful, the series 43 cars were smaller and lighter. A properly built 43 with modern updates will make 150 hp about 30 more than factory, the 41/42 with a modern ring package, hot cam, and other assorted upgrades will make about 175 on the dine. While I am a Pierce guy, and have driven about 90 percent or more of the CCCA platforms, I honestly believe while there are a great bunch of assorted different Marques and platforms, the Pierce V-12 is the over all best package for the era when new........or driving today. You could have more or less displacmant or horse power, but as a total package I think the PA twelve is the best offering from the era. Yes, lots of others will find fault with my comments, but AJ asked. If anyone wants to chime in with another choice I invite them to do so. I also invite them to take my twelve for a spin........ Before we run them side by side. And just for the record, while I only own Pierce cars today, I would like to own a few others before I cash in.......DV32, KB, and a Marmon 16 to start. As for the Pierce Arrow, my 1931 Model 42 DC Phaeton is the fastest and best driving of ANY eight I have ever driven.......... The J will walk it down low........ But over all I would make the argument that the PA was a more practical car for twenty cents on the dollar new over the Mighty J.

[trimacar]

I've owned a Pierce 12, and as Ed states, it's hard to beat the balance between torque and handling on such a Pierce.  I have a Model 43 phaeton, and yes, it has the "small" eight, but with a 1960 installed overdrive it easily cruises 70+ mph, and with the large brake surface (think I measured once over 12 linear  feet of brake shoes) and nice handling, it's a pleasure to drive, and will keep up with most reasonable traffic.  I've kept the car original, even running the original mechanical fuel pump, although there has been slight tinkering with it and the UUR-2 carburetor, and performance is great.

 

As mentioned before, there are all sorts of answers to what's the best.  I'm thankful for what I have, and what I've experienced......

[alsancle]

Thanks Guys!  That was why I asked.   I have driven with Ed in a big 12 and I can attest it absolutely motors.  Never been in either a 41/42 or a 43 so I'm glad you could give us the differences.  I like to describe a Model J as a suped up truck, which is the way it drives so I can't argue with the description of the Pierce as a better driving car - I'm doubt anyone would argue that.

 

For this thread,  once I saw the right hand drive my vote swung over to the Pierce.  Of course not my money .

[Rusty_OToole]

A  1931 car with a 366 cu in 120HP straight eight, and that is the "cheap" model. Could only be a Pierce Arrow.

 

I should think a perfectly stock one in good shape, would make a good tour car within reasonable limits, like sustained speeds no more than 55 or 60 MPH.

 

Ed what do you think? Would  a Pierce model 43 be a good choice for the original questioner? Would it be too tough to get parts, service, repairs or information especially in Italy? Would he be better off with a Terraplane?

[LewisMend]

Let's talk about the Terraplane. First off, parts are much easier to find for I t than the Pearce. Even the missing water manifold can still be found NOS. the Hudson club was founded by drivers in 1959. This was only 2 years after the manufacturing stopped. As dealers changed loyalties or went out of business many of the obsolete parts were bought up by club members. This accounts for the high level of parts availability.

The Terraplane 8, was based on the Essex6 which was first sold in 1926. It is a sound, tested, well engineered drivetrain.

It is a far more drivable car than the low level Pierce. The power to weight ratio is the best in the industry at the time

The car is easy to steer, smooth riding and generally a lot more enjoyable to drive in modern traffic. I have driven each of the top five 30's luxury cars. The are down right regal. But fun to drive they ain't. Smooth, true.. Good handling not! They are luxurious, big and great for what they are... But for me, I would prefer to drive the Terraplane

Thought I might need to add here, I have never owned a Terraplane so this isn't pride of ownership speaking. Just my opinion after driving more 20's and 30's cars than most people. When I started collecting AACA didn't recognize cars newer than 1929. These cars were what were around.

Hope I helped a bit... My intention was not to malign any car just give my prospective on driving them

Edited June 17, 2015 by LewisMend (see edit history)

[trimacar]

"But fun to drive they ain't....good handling not"

 

Your perspective is skewed, because you've never driven either an excellent low mileage (Classic) car, nor a well restored(Classic) car.

 

A lot of people, during restoration, just figure the mechanicals on the front end are "good enough" so don't bother restoring same to correct specifications. 

 

A fully and correctly restored Classic is a pleasure to drive. 

 

I hope that you're able to experience that some day, so that you don't go through life saying "those big cars all drive like trucks".  It's simply not true.

[alsancle]

Dave does make a good point about restorations.  How many people take the time to remove the sping covers and re-graphite between the leafs?  This makes a big difference in the ride as one example.

[Guest bkazmer]

without disparaging either car, a smaller, lighter car has an immense handling advantage.  But lwb luxury cars were designed for smooth handling, not agile handling.  So this is really about which type of car you prefer.  The Terraplane and the Pierce are both well executed designs - with very different targets.

[60FlatTop]

 

A lot of people, during restoration, just figure the mechanicals on the front end are "good enough" so don't bother restoring same to correct specifications. 

 

A fully and correctly restored Classic is a pleasure to drive. 

 

I hope that you're able to experience that some day, so that you don't go through life saying "those big cars all drive like trucks".  It's simply not true.

 

During the 1990's I serviced collector cars as a part time business. I didn't restore cars. I only worked on restored or original cars with the specialty of making them Steer, Start, and Stop. There was a lot of work. I used to tell people that if they added up all their receipts, including the hidden ones, they were about 90% of the expense to have a car that they could toss the keys to their wife and let her run to the corner store for a gallon of milk. The parts I serviced were worn out and shot, but at least they were clean and freshly painted.

 

People buy "pretty" and expect functionality. Leave an old car at a body shop for 5 years, maybe 10, 20, 28 (?) and it may come back pretty. I always look at the window sweeps on a car first. That is a good indicator of the level of detail that went into the car. (How many are laughing now and remembering the last one that made you gasp). At the time and level of cars I was servicing $30,000 to $50,000 was the range. I remember a couple $100,000+ restorations of lesser cars, but they were rare. So, I had $3,000 to $5,0000 worth of work to finish these silk purses.

 

The original cars were amazing! On one knew. Big luxury cars of the 1930's do not drive like trucks unless they are worn out or benevolently abused from lack of use. At the high end, the chauffeur played a key role in selection of the chassis. Really, what is a pragmatic servant going to chose? Even without input, someone took a test drive.

 

With the advent of Youtube, I have also seen a lot of people whom don't know how to drive these cars, as well. A couple of days ago I watched a driver wind through the gears of a Lincoln V12. If I get my Packard out today (and it is surely lot a Classic or Senior car) I may not use first gear and, if I do, I will probably skip second and drop it right into third. A Pierce? Maybe shift it leaving your drive.

 

Bernie

[alsancle]

"I always look at the window sweeps on a car first. That is a good indicator of the level of detail that went into the car."

 

Absolutely!  That and rubber window seals on later cars is the first thing I look at.  As far as the paint goes I just make sure it is straight (which eliminates about 90% of all new paint jobs).

[trimacar]

I agree on the video clips of people "winding out" early cars, totally wrong way to drive them.  I had just that discussion with someone a week ago, discussing driving the Pierce.  1st gear is just to get moving, and if one is stopped heading downhill, not even needed.  The shift into 3rd gear is always in the 15 mph range or so, there's plenty of torque.  Most production early engines weren't meant to be driven to high rpm before shifting into the next gear.

[edinmass]

Rusty, as far as I am concerned, the two cost the same to fix, paint, or restore. The PA has more parts and chrome. In the long run I think it will hold its value better. The real payoff is in the driving. A series 43 with NO modifications will run down a modern interstate at 60 with no issues. Just for talk....... The V-12 is 468 did and 185 hp from the factory. You can punch them up to either 502, or 531 if you go over the top. My car is a 502 with a hot cam, and tricked out ignition, valve job, exhaust, ect. It IS fast. There is one other V-12 that was done even more over the top than mine. We ran them out in Ohio........ He dusted me! I have run my 36 12 over 400 miles on the interstate in one day at 75 mph. No problems.........but it sure did burn a lot of gas. I think my car is making about 210 to 215 horse power. We didn't have a dine when we built it. It doesn't burn any oil, and has had nothing done but oil changes over the last 20,000 miles. Same points and condensers. One set of plugs just because the finish on the Autolite plugs were rusting. Build them right and they run for ever.

[alsancle]

Ed,  what do you estimate that engine build work cost today?  40k? 50k?

[Guest oldhudsons]

Mirko, will you be driving whichever you purchase of just taking it to occasional car shows to display?

If going to drive it around in Europe (I've driven in every w. Eur. co. exc. Port. & Switz.), and esp. going to drive & park it in & on the narrow roads of no. Italy, you'll find the Pierce very large & cumbersome!  The T8, my profile pic of my when restoring it, is far shorter, lighter, and easier to handle & drive than a Pierce which probably weighs at least 500 lbs. more.

I'd think anything you'd need in the way of parts would be more expensive & harder to find for the Pierce.

[edinmass]

Pierce eight cost, for a driver 25 to 35 k, 45 for a Pebble job, V12 40 k for a driver, 65 for Pebble. That would include the entire engine and transmission, with all the goodies. Missing or incorrect parts could add 10k.

[Guest oldhudsons]

I'm really surprised at what you say a good Pierce will bring/is worth.

This is my friends '33 T8 conv. cp., & even tho not accurately restored (paint color, uph.) could bring $40-50 K as the T8s, a one-yr. only model & famed for their performance, highly esteemed & sought after by Hudson collectors as well as others.

[trimacar]

Those are professional restoration costs for engine and transmission only, not car purchase price. An early 30's Pierce roadster or phaeton is 100k plus....

[edinmass]

A decent Pierce V-12 roadster will run 400 to 750 k depending on year. Dave is correct, I was giving prices on engine overhaul. Ed.

[nzcarnerd]

I am not an expert on Hudsons but the car looks to me to be a Hudson Standard 8 (series T) and not a Terraplane.  A measure of the wheelbase would tell.  The Hudson is 119" and the Terraplane 113".  I think the engines are much the same but the Hudson has a slightly larger bore size.  The Hudson engine is 254 cid and the Terraplane 243.   The Hudson sold for about $1200 new and the Terraplane was only $765.  In comparison the Pierce Model 43 was $2695 in coupe form.

 

Only a guess but I would think that the Hudson would be a much rarer car in that form.  I think Hudson only made a few thousand cars in 1933 (maybe as little as 2500?) in three series and I would be surprised if you would be able to find another convertible coupe with right hand drive.  Because it is smaller and lighter it would be much easier to drive and more economical.  Obviously if it was a Terraplane it would be faster than the Hudson as they have similar amounts of power (Terraplane 94 hp, Hudson 110) but the Hudson weighs about 600lb more.

 

A point was made about restoration costs and I guess both would be similar

[olympic]

I think that convertible is a Terraplane 8.  That looks like a red hexagon on the grille and the lettering looks like Essex Terraplane 8.

[Guest mirko1974]

Hudson: the red grille badge report Hudson 8 Terraplane. There is not additional label or refers on the car.

I saw on the net the grey one and I take it a reference point to check the one posted by me.

About the use of the car, I will use it very often but for classic rallyes in Italy and EU. I need a confortable car for long distances and I think that both are ok, Pierce is longer but I will drive on highway and I will search for big parking spaces...

I'm waiting for additional pictures of the Pierce, then I will go to check directly and will let you update.
About restoring costs for the Pierce I thought worst, or it is only for mechanical restoration?

Update: I read more carefully the posts and I understand that this cost is only for the motor....

Edited June 19, 2015 by mirko1974 (see edit history)

[nzcarnerd]

Having had another look at the 'Hudson' I agree it has to be a Terraplane as it has only four hood doors.  The Hudson Eight has five.  It would seem that both versions of the Hudson used the same front half, the bigger 132" wheelbase model was just longer.

 

I think it is confusing calling it a Hudson Terraplane as in 1933 it was an Essex Terraplane.

 

I will reiterate something I wrote earlier.  The Terraplane would be a much more useable car in Europe because it is lighter and will use much less fuel than the big Pierce.  (Terraplane; four litre engine and about 1200 kg weight vs about six litres and 2000 kg weight for the Pierce).  Because of the difference in original selling price ($765 vs $2695) it is to be expected that the build quality of the Pierce should be superior.

[edinmass]

The Pierce is on the short wheel base and would have no problems driving in Europe. The large series cars with the 147 inch wheel base could prove a challenge in spots. I like both cars, but to compare them is like apples and oranges. Don't let the price of a professional restoration cost scare you. Many people can and do their own work, for much less money. A slightly tired Pierce eight can get new rings and a valve job for very little cost and just the time for the labor. The engines are very well made and often can be selectively repaired and upgraded. If both cars are in decent running condition and you drive both, I am sure you would pick the Pierce. Good luck on what ever car you decide to buy. Ed.

[Guest mirko1974]

Ed, thanks for the suggest, as you told I use to work directly on my cars with the supervision of my mechanic who is a retired one and help me as per his hobby. He has also some old fiats and alfas....

The Hudson is not running, the Pierce I have to wait for delers info, but it seems to be drivable with recent EU documents....

[Guest oldhudsons]

nz - don't know what car you're referring to in re "a Hudson Standard 8" but there are major differences between the '33 Hudson 8 & the '33 Terraplane 8.

The Hudson 8 was almost identical to the first Hudson 8 which was introduced in '30:  2 heads, vacuum tank, updraft carb. whereas the new '33 T8 engine more advance with fuel pump, Carter downdraft carb., and a one-piece head.  The Hudson 8s thru '33 also used a dual pt. distributor, the T8 single set of points.

The sale of the "big Hudsons", like most cars in the worst years of the Great Depression, 1932 & 33, were at there lowest, and like you indicated, only a few thousand sold.  Hudson introduced the new "Essex-Terraplane" series in '32, hiring Amelia Earhart as their spokeswoman and the sales of the '32 - '33 E-Ts ran in the 10s of thousands saving Hudson from going under as did many during those crucial years in the industry.

The '33 T8 set many acceleration & standing mile records at Daytona Beach + many hill-climbing records, some standing for many years.  It was highly touted in the British press leading to one Capt. Macklin buying complete T8 chassis where various modifications were made at his factory in Cobham, the result being the Railton, built from '33 thru '39.

[Guest oldhudsons]

to various of you:  the Essex-Terraplane was introduced in '32 by Hudson about 1/2 way thru the production year and was a 6 cyl. car.

Due to it's success, Hudson expanded the line, & for the only time in their history, put their 8 cyl. engine into the cheaper line of cars in 1933; the 6 cyl. engine was continued.  They are easily differentiated as the T6 has a louvered hood whereas the T8 has doors.

It has been said they did this so the E-T could outrun the Ford V8 which it easily did and for not too much more $$$.  John Dillinger favored the T8 in '33, used Hudson 8s as well as Buicks in '34 - 5 when he could get them.  There is a T8 in a museum that he was driving that the Chicago police put some bullet holes into, LOL.

[nzcarnerd]

To Oldhudsons thanks for the added info.  A question?  Should the Terraplane in question here be referred to as a Hudson or an Essex or a Terraplane?  Obviously Hudson built it but what was it marketed as?  Of course it may have been sold as a Hudson in the market it was first sold in I guess even if it may have been a Terraplane or Essex in the US.

 

Re the Hudson Standard 8, I was under the impression hat in 1933 Hudson built, as you said, their senior line in two wheelbase lengths; 119" and 132".  From what I can see they are similar mechanically but the 132" has room for bigger, roomier bodies.

 

When did the bigger Hudson go to a single piece head?  I had assumed that both cars used the same basic engine but just with minor specification differences?

[Guest mirko1974]

Sorry for not posting news for a time, but I was busy at work then I had a 3 days rally with my Simca that take me all the week end...

About the Pierce I do not have any uodate from the seller, I wait...

In the meanwhile it was proposed a 1928 Buick standard six roadster, it's in Italy and needs complete restoration but it is complete, or so says the vendor... I try to post some pictures...

What do you think about this?

[Guest mirko1974]

Pictures...

Edited June 24, 2015 by mirko1974 (see edit history)

[alsancle]

Cool car but there is a big difference between buying a car to tour with and buying a car to restore.  I would argue that restorations should be left to marque experts or someone where the car falls in to their lap (for no money).    For most cars, if they were given to you for free you would be underwater by the time you are done restoring them.

[mercer09]

after all the weigh in................................

 

may I suggest a 1932 chevy roadster on ebay? It is not my car, but is beautiful, restored and wont cost a fortune to repair. I like the Pierce you have chosen, as I own a 31 model 43 close coupled sedan. Parts and repairs can be very expensive for Pierces, as well as fuel costs in Europe.

the hudson looks to have been "patched" up many times over and I would run from that "project'

 

you will have much more fun with the chevy I mentioned, which needs no repair and is ready to go. Parts are very reasonable, it is an open car and resale will be fine, should you ever wish to

onw a different "model" car down the road.

the 32 chevy roadster has beautiful lines in it's own right and is very practical.

good luck in whatever you choose!

[GLong]

Lets 'get real' here:

A Pierce Model 43 is not a 'low-level' Pierce Arrow. It is not 'low', or 'lower' or 'lesser' in any way.  It cost a few hundred dollars less than a model 41/42. Mostly because of the smaller bodies on the shorter wheelbase.  All the Pierce Arrow cars, and I mean ALL were built to a standard of quality, not to a price.  And this is why Pierce eventually went bankrupt: they could not compete against cars built to a price standard, for Pierce, quality and advanced engineering were the law.

 

If a person who has never been in each of the models of a car wants to KNOW, not guess, about the cars, then go to a Pierce Arrow regional or national meet, and look them over, ask the owners about them, most of us will gladly give a ride in our cars.  And if the person indicates they know how to drive a car from the late '20's through mid 30's I will usually let someone drive one of my cars.  

 

The so-called 'small' 8 from Pierce is 366 cubic inches, that's NOT small, the 'small' Packard Standard-8 was 320 cuin. The Pierce and Packard big 8's were both 385 cubic inches,  The Packard was rated for fewer horsepower.  

 

The model 43, with 134 and 137" wheelbase was fit with the smaller bodies, like the convertible coupe, or fixed top coupe, or Club Brougham [2-door/5 passenger]coach or the standard 5 passenger 4-door sedan.  The bigger 385 cu. inch engine was used in the longer wheelbase cars because they NEEDED the bigger engine, those were 142 and 147 inch wheelbase cars.  That is the only difference between the models, the wheelbase length and the size of the body that wheelbase would accommodate. 

 

The fit and finish were identical, the wheels, tires, brakes, front and rear axles, gas tank, headlights and tail lights, radiator shell all identical. Tire size sometimes was upgraded for weight-carrying capacity. There were some differences in doors on the hood, and some bits of chrome trim.   The ONLY time there was a possible difference in fit and finish was if the car had a body by a custom coachmaker.  And it is difficult when put side by side to find fault with the 'factory' Pierce coachwork, it was after all, all hand made and assembled. 

 

The 366 'small' 8 is built to the same identical standards as the 385.  It does not have a cast crank, they were all forged crankshafts, the difference is that the 366 crank has bolt on counterweights while the 385 crank has integral counterweights.  None of the Pierce engines have any issues in design.  The lubrication systems are the same, the intake and exhaust manifolds are the same, the distributor may use a different cap and rotor.. it's still a Delco distributor.  In fact, without looking at the engine serial number the engines are identical.  If a rebuilder wants to, he can put the 1/4" longer stroke 385 crankshaft in a 366 block, since they are the same casting, use shorter pistons, and turn a 366 into a 385.  The factory ratings were 125hp for the 366, and 132hp for the 385 in 1931.  So a 7 hp increase for the 19 cubic inch increase in engine displacement.  

 

If all three 1931 models were lined up side by side and looked over, the differences are the wheelbase, and available body styles.  You will be hard-pressed to tell the differences without an intimate knowledge regarding the model year.  

 

Only in 1930 did Pierce attempt to make a slightly 'lesser' car for their lineup. The Model C had an inch shorter wheelbase than the Model B's. The 'C' engine was 340 cubic inches, and a single throat updraft carb was used, it was 'merely' 115 hp vs the 366 engine in the Model B which made 125 hp.  That 'experiment' was for one year only.  But again, put the cars on the show field next to each other, and compare, the quality is the same, and without knowing the small differences, it is hard to tell them apart.  

 

Mid priced cars are just that, a Pierce Arrow is a very high quality hand built car. Greatly overbuilt and under stressed.  The is a reason that Seagraves bought the rights and tooling for the 8 and V12 engines and that the engines were still available 30+ years later in the late '60s as a gasoline powerplants in the Seagraves firetrucks. Minor changes like two spark plugs per cylinder and insert rod bearings. How many engine designs lasted 40 years and the last 30 were for industrial and emergency vehicle applications?  

 

Are the Pierce Arrow cars heavy ? yes,  Would I want to drive in city traffic in a big enclosed Pierce ?  Not usually.  I like my Pierces out on the open road, not playing parking-lot roulette. 

 

Just setting the record straight, 

 

GLong

[edinmass]

As far as the series 41/42 vs the 43, the chassis are mostly the same. None of the body parts are. The 41/42 used a different / larger radiator, grill she'll, winter front, ect. The body differences a MUCH greater, not only in size but hardware quality, much extra stainless and chrome trim both inside and out as well as much more in the engine compartment. Example my doors on my Model 42 Dual Cowl are five inches wider than the 43' touring and almost 2 1/2 inches taller, making a HUGE difference in entering and exiting the car. Greg is correct, most people can't tell them apart by eye. The larger cars bring MUCH higher prices as they are much rarer the the 43. In the time period Cadillac compared the series 41/42 to their V-12 in Cadillac published factory literature. Pierce compared their series 43 to a Packard Super 8, implying the series 41/42 cars we a step up from anything Packard was offering. Over all performance between the two was similar, and the fact is BOTH are great running and driving cars. The 31 Pierces were much more refined than the previous two years in steering and suspension. That's why the 31 cars will bring a substantial premium in price over the two earlier years. This is often overlooked and misunderstood by collectors. The year & the series are not as easy to understand as some other cars. Left over 1930 models were sold as 1931's until they were gone, thus making two type 1931 cars. Easiest way to tell is for a novice to look at the steering box, Gemmer vs Ross, or count the number of lugs on the spare tires, 5 lug vs 6 lug. While many Pierce cars look similar, they are not all the same to the trained eye. Just look at the sale prices they bring. Most important as Greg said, Pierce NEVER mad a lessor or inexpensive car, the 43 was a great series automobile, world class. The 41 / 42 Series car were a super premium factory body or custom offering. I have owned every series PA from 1929, 1930, 1931, and 1932. (Except 1930 series C) They are all great cars. I prefer the styling of the 31/32 models as they are a bit more refined, the 32 being a much diffrent and sleeker style. There are LOTS of great cars from the early 30's, I have owned more than my fair share of them. In MY opinion, Pierce was the best over all car offered. Many can and will disagree with me and that's fine. Having grown up in the hobby since I was 6 years old I have worked on and driven ALMOST all the great Marques, and I choose Pierce for my garage. Along with the cars, the Pierce club is one of the best. Only the ACD club is on par with the PAS in my opinion. Ed.

P.S. Greg was right on correcting my earlier crankshaft comment, both were forged, diffrent stroke and balance weights......I'm getting a little early onset selective memory issues...wheels from the 41/42 were diffrent........18 inch........the 43 used a 19 inch wheel..........Ed.

Edited June 28, 2015 by edinmass (see edit history)

[Guest mirko1974]

This is a nice 1933 Hudson 8 Terraplane convertible coupe.... 

 

 

http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/dealer/essex/terraplane/1755696.html

 

I don't know if it respects all the original specifications, but I can notice a lot of differences compared to the one posted before by me...

 

Also instruments in the dashboard is different....

 

I enjoy the choice to don't buy it....

 

I still waiting for update from the seller for the Pierce... and continue to look for interesting cars...

[alsancle]

I like that car a lot.   But if Hyman is selling it for 62,500 there is a good chance you can find something comparable for 50k or less.

[Rusty_OToole]

Very interesting comparison of Pierce vs Hudson, a comparison I have never seen made before.

 

Undoubtedly the Pierce is a larger, more powerful, more expensive, better built car. The Hudson was built down to a price and has some features that seem skimpy even for a low priced car, like splash lubrication, siamesed cylinders, and general light weight construction.

 

But I am not sure the Hudson isn't a better buy for the intended purpose. By European standards it is a large car, while the Pierce must be enormous. If one wanted to use the car, the Hudson might be handier.

 

Also cheaper to run when it came to gas, oil, tires, and general upkeep. The Hudson is cheaply made but also cheaper and easier to get parts for, and cheaper to repair or overhaul.

 

On the other hand Pierce made some magnificent cars and if one is in good shape, can go for years with minimal upkeep.

 

When we are talking about such old cars a lot depends on mileage, condition, and of course, the taste and desires of the buyer. Not to mention the budget, not only for buying but for running costs and maintenance.

 

By the way I don't see any pictures although apparently others do.

[Guest mirko1974]

Finally some more pictures of the Pierce

What do you think, how much do you pay for it....

interiors needs complete upholstery, and it is stopped for some time...

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Mirko, Ed and some there may be able to help you more with value but I will say that car looks a lot better in the new pictures. Nice colors, and it looks like cosmetics are fine for touring. Also not selling quickly, to your advantage in terms of possible negotiations on it.

[60FlatTop]

Here's a clip from a previous message: 

The car to find is the one that gives you heart palpitations until it is in your garage. Objective questions and answers will be cast aside in the rush to take possession. Five of the six cars I have were total impulse buys, consummated within hours. I am still excited to own them and usually walk backwards when I leave them parked just to enjoy looking. I'm pretty sure my next one will be the same type of illogical impulse buy. There are other places in life to be pragmatic, not cars.

 

Especially in Italy, owning the car should be like being in Rome with Audrey Hepburn!

 

Just buy it!

 

This should be the anthem for car collectors:

Bernie

Edited July 22, 2015 by 60FlatTop (see edit history)