Jump to content

1917 vs. 1918 E-49 grease cups


Recommended Posts

Interesting question.

My E-35 4 cyl. has both types as well. Went through the entire parts-book out of curiosity - saw just two types listed: No. 000 which has the thumb tab thing; and No. 00 which is just the cup.

I do not know if this car has a high or low serial number. 

F0957EC6-2D82-450C-8DE1-5EECA49DBDAF.jpeg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that the first one is either an aftermarket or/replacement from another car for a lost grease cup on a Buick. 

 

The second style is the only type that I have seen on any of my cars and I have several and looked at many more of that vintage. 

 

I do have some of the first type that I have purchased when I purchased a box of them a few years ago.

Edited by Larry Schramm (see edit history)
Link to post
Share on other sites

The first one with the tab on top is listed and pictured in the parts-book for the 1918 4-cyl models as No. 000 - part number: 1523.

4 of them were used on the steering knuckles, 4 more on the front spring shackles and various other places. They match what is on my car.

 

(I lent out my original parts-book, so the picture below is from a poor xerox copy. BTW, these parts-books are a major PITA. They very carefully illustrate each part only once - but there is NO rhyme or reason as to WHERE they chose to illustrate it. Rarely does the illustration appear with the first listing of a multiple use part.)

7E5F5AB0-92FD-4DFE-B9FB-54948B381474.jpeg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Ben P. said:

The first one with the tab on top is listed and pictured in the parts-book for the 1918 4-cyl models as No. 000 - part number: 1523.

4 of them were used on the steering knuckles, 4 more on the front spring shackles and various other places. They match what is on my car.

 

(I lent out my original parts-book, so the picture below is from a poor xerox copy. BTW, these parts-books are a major PITA. They very carefully illustrate each part only once - but there is NO rhyme or reason as to WHERE they chose to illustrate it. Rarely does the illustration appear with the first listing of a multiple use part.)

7E5F5AB0-92FD-4DFE-B9FB-54948B381474.jpeg

 

News to me.  Learn something new every day.  Still have not seen one on any of my vehicles.

Edited by Larry Schramm (see edit history)
Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked in the 1918 picture parts book for 6 cylinder cars, and did not find grease cups listed, but you can see one on the transmission, and it HAS the twister thingy:

 

 

DSCN3310.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites

My parts E-49 is 1918 and has all twisty grease cups, the 1917 E-49 has the old style cups. And before people tell me there were no 1917 E-49's let's put that to rest with these documents which actually tell the production for both years:

 

 

SCAN0214.JPG

SCAN0224.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

The Red Book says my 1917 E-49 is only worth $127

 

If I lie and say it's a 1918, it's worth $195. I can get a cool extra $58 for it!!

1917Redbook 001.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is interesting Morgan. Can see it goes to 1926 but what year was it published and do you have a picture of the cover?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Terry Dunham's "The Buick A Complete History" had 2 authors, the first edition of the book came out in 1980, before the April 1998 edition of the Bugle which I uploaded above, in which Terry Dunham himself and another author published how they discovered the E-49 was originally a 1917 model, I don't know why he wasn't able to correct that error in the next 6 editions of his book, or when he died, or what the other author or publisher did to prevent the correction in later edietions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally took the time to read the Bugle article by Mac Blair you uploaded above Morgan. I find it fascinating that you actually own a '17 E-49, the subject of his article. Perhaps a few pictures of it could be added here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a fascinating Bugle article. This is confusing stuff if we try to think in terms of ‘model year’ which was not even a concept at the time these cars were built — and would not be for many more years.

I would call the article an invention - or the question behind it at least. I’d also repeat the general warning of the great danger in looking for any piece of information one would like to find (assuming a question was even asked - and that’s the part of the Blair story I do doubt).
The question he refused to address however, was - Why were the E-34 and 5 (four cylinder) models, the bulk of which were produced in 1917 (and in fact discontinued entirely in 1918 itself) all titled 1918? Every single one. Again, General Motors did not run what would later be called ‘Model years’ at that time, and would not for many more. They ran in series. They did tie those series to ‘years’. What does the title say?

 

A great deal of legitimate confusion comes in and misunderstandings are rampant. But I for one, am not about to go to the State of Michigan and open any can of worms attempting to get them to change 1918 to 1917 on my title, which has been listed as 1918 for, let’s see, ONE HUNDRED AND THREE YEARS now....

 

So what does the title say? 🙃

This issue in its entirety was addressed many years before. But we humans just love to ‘discover’ something new. You can see here where it was discussed many years before.

At one point 1916, 1917, and 1918 Buick models were new on the showroom floor at the same exact time.


(Pictures below from From George H. Dammann’s “Seventy Years of Buick” c. 1973)

Lastly, what does the title say?

Let us know how it goes with New York State changing it.

 

7FE91ED1-48F6-4407-810C-D004665B56F2.jpeg

700F0BC9-250E-43E9-939A-433AA758439E.jpeg

DB0A3836-0DBD-45A0-A68B-1617EFC8AABF.jpeg

Edited by Ben P.
Typo (see edit history)
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Because this could all sound like an argument (which it is not), let me boil all that down a little more artfully:

Morgan, your E-49 is that ‘1918’ model that appeared on the showroom floor along side new ‘1916’ and ‘1917’ models.


Can you legitimately call it a 1917? Yes — if the State you live in titles it as a 1917. But under no other circumstance.

I make a living representing my employer arguing with the State I live in. Let me tell you - 90% of the time they are flat wrong or mistaken. When challenged they will change a rule to make them right — and I am not kidding. If you are so foolish as to challenge that change they then will drag it out past your retirement. Again, I am not kidding. Just today an answer came in for a question my predecessor challenged. I can’t believe I have any hair left at all. Surely a miracle.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Ben P. said:

Can you legitimately call it a 1917? Yes — if the State you live in titles it as a 1917. But under no other circumstance.


well that certainly carries the subject  to a whole new level doesn’t it. Good point Ben. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MrEarl said:


well that certainly carries the subject  to a whole new level doesn’t it. Good point Ben. 

Oh it could be done, but with 103 years of precedent against it one would need an attorney to make it happen. I honestly don’t know one that would take the case.

An old house recently slipped through my fingers to a flipper because I couldn’t find an attorney willing to take on the Historic District Commission.

Open and shut case - I wanted to demolish a hideous 1950’s ‘modern’ addition some hyena slapped onto a masterfully built 1860 gabled Italianate. Made it look like an airport tower. For two years that house sat on the market and for two years I couldn’t get an attorney to take those buzzards on. Now, you’d think the ‘historic commission’ would be for returning the structure to its original state.

That will probably bother me for the rest of my life....

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ben P. said:

An old house recently slipped through my fingers to a flipper because I couldn’t find an attorney willing to take on the Historic District Commission.

Open and shut case - I wanted to demolish a hideous 1950’s ‘modern’ addition some hyena slapped onto a masterfully built 1860 gabled Italianate. Made it look like an airport tower. For two years that house sat on the market and for two years I couldn’t get an attorney to take those buzzards on. Now, you’d think the ‘historic commission’ would be for returning the structure to its original state.

Ben, I trust you remember the "remuddling" page in Old House Journal....fortunately it was the last page before the back cover.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ben P. said:

That is a fascinating Bugle article. This is confusing stuff if we try to think in terms of ‘model year’ which was not even a concept at the time these cars were built — and would not be for many more years.

 

 

Untrue. The Kelly Blue Book was started in 1918 and listed all cars by their model year to determine their resale value, the Blue book and red book of the National Used Car Market Report did the same thing and go back to 1904. I saw a Marx Brothers Movie in which Groucho described himself as a '22 Dodge Brothers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what Groucho Marx has to to do with it but it would be interesting to hear what is on the legal title. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Ben P. said:

I’d also repeat the general warning of the great danger in looking for any piece of information one would like to find 


The question he refused to address however, was - Why were the E-34 and 5 (four cylinder) models, the bulk of which were produced in 1917 (and in fact discontinued entirely in 1918 itself) all titled 1918? Every single one.

 

Nobody cherry picked any information. Every single piece of literature I have ever found from the teens or '20's says there were '17 and '18 E-49s. All of them.  Absolutely without exception. I don't know why a clerk at Buick in 1943 lumped them all together as 1918 models but that was the first time they ever did that, according to Buick, they were still separate in 1939 when Buick published the tire guide that Larry Schramm posted a couple years ago. Nobody has ever found a single piece of evidence from before 1943 that they were ever lumped together as 1918. E-49s made between January and August were 1917 models, grey with a khaki top, then in August 1917 Buick retooled the factory and announced the 1918 model year which included the other E cars and truck, and more E-49, the ones made after August 1917 were '18 models and they were blue with a black top, and had the flap to hide the folded jump seats.

 

As for the E-34 and 35, they were all made after August 1917 during the 1918 model year. None were made before August retooling so that's why. You say "he refuses to address" it, he didn't refuse to address anything. 

Edited by Morgan Wright (see edit history)
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ben P. said:

 

So what does the title say? 🙃

Lastly, what does the title say?

Let us know how it goes with New York State changing it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

State titles are a different story. We are talking about model years according to contemporary Buick literature. But the title was 1917 and still is. Here is a pic with you in the background.

.

title.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, MrEarl said:

Finally took the time to read the Bugle article by Mac Blair you uploaded above Morgan. I find it fascinating that you actually own a '17 E-49, the subject of his article. Perhaps a few pictures of it could be added here.

 

Most E-49's are 1917. To be exact, 10,505 of them. There were only 5,643 in the 1918 model year. This adds up to 16,148 figure that Buick gave in 1943 when they lumped them together. These figures come from the Buick literature from the teens that I loaded above. But here's a couple of pics anyway:

.

DSCN2775.JPG

DSCN2800.JPG

DSCN2770.JPG

DSCN2778.JPG

Edited by Morgan Wright (see edit history)
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ben P. said:


This issue in its entirety was addressed many years before. But we humans just love to ‘discover’ something new. You can see here where it was discussed many years before.

 

Yeah you're right. It was addressed in its entirely in the teens and 1920's and 30's, and somebody in 1943 "discovered something new." When you say "many years before" you are talking about 1973, which is many years after, not before. The truth is as it was in 1917 and nobody in 1973 or now can change it. Not you, me, authors of books in the 70s and 80's, and LEAST of all the motor vehicle departments of various states which have nothing to do with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Morgan Wright said:

 

 

State titles are a different story. We are talking about model years according to contemporary Buick literature. But the title was 1917 and still is. Here is a pic with you in the background.

.

title.jpg

Well there it is then.

Registration at least, and state registration would never contradict the title itself so there you have it. An indisputable 1917 E-49.

(Why did you not answer that question the 20 other times I asked it every time this came up in the last year and a half?)

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Morgan Wright changed the title to 1917 vs. 1918 E-49 grease cups

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...