1929 Packard vs. Cadillac

[jrbartlett]

I've been a long-time fan of '29 Packard Super 8's, having grown up driving a 640 club sedan and now owning a 640 roadster. I always considered the same-year Cadillac V-8's the equivalent in quality and performance, after having been around several owned by friends. What say you? I'm interested in hearing opinions and look forward to the debate. 

[edinmass]

Having extensive experience with both, and having owned a dozen 31 Caddy V-8’s........... I can say that 29 Packard VS 29 Cadillac are both about equal in benefits and drawbacks. I would also add, they are not a good choice to own for a first or second big early Classic. I prefer the Cadillac look over the Packard..........the Cadillac is much more challenging to dial in and make run correctly. Honestly, I would only consider Packards from 32 to 34 understanding the early 32’s are not nearly as good a driver until they went to the downdraft carb and new transmission. As far as a driving Cadillac.......I would only go with a V-16 as the eight and twelve are under powered. Look at what I own in the bottom of my post. A Pierce is a fantastic car........some are not as stylish as the Packard or Caddy.......but they will drive and run circles around them. A good BIG Pierce 8 will run with and push a V-16. Pierce Arrows steer and stop better, ride better, and have a better build quality.......most Packard collectors agree the 28 Packard is a better driving car than a 29. I have never made a direct comparison.  
 

James.....do you consider your Loco a better car than the 29 Packard? I expect you would.I consider my “new” 1917 White a more enjoyable driving experience than the 29 Cadillac or Packard......only the brakes are below the mark over the two previously mentioned cars.

 

One last comment.........when I drove my first good Pierce back in the 80’s, I never purchased another Cadillac......and sold all of them off over the next ten years. Since that day, more than fifty Pierce Arrows have passed through my home garage. If I could only have one car......it would be a Model J, then a Pierce 12. There are a bunch of other great platforms.....but they are rare, expensive, and finicky to service. Other great platforms.....DV-32, Speed Six, Marmon 16, 180 Series Darrin, KB Lincoln......and others.

 

The best value for your collector dollar is a Pierce eight or twelve. A 34 Packard in any platform is hard to beat if done right.....and most are not.

 

The top three Classic Cars to own if money is no object, in order are:

Duesenberg J

Duesenberg J

Duesenberg J

 

Nothing else even comes close.

Edited February 7, 2021 by edinmass (see edit history)

[Flivverking]

Though all great automobiles ,non of the above cars are well suited for easy fun driving around  the town or complicated city..

Long rides and trips they are great to just hum along like locomotives steaming accross the counrty.

 

The Pierce cars seem to have an understated class that the others don't come close to and long term depenabilty.

The Duesenberg shows flashy money ,speed ,EGO and extravagance .

The Cadillac shows newer welth and more youthfull endevers.

The Packard shows old money snobbery and unyeilding personality.

[SC38dls]

So are you saying if someone owns all three he’s a cool, youthful,  snob? 
dave s 

Edited February 7, 2021 by SC38DLS (see edit history)

[TTR]

13 hours ago, edinmass said:

 

The top three Classic Cars to own if money is no object, in order are:

Duesenberg J

Duesenberg J

Duesenberg J

 

Nothing else even comes close.

I realize it’s a quite subjective and I’m sure you have already outlined it, perhaps even more than once, but having not had opportunities myself to closely/directly compare them, would you care to clarify what makes them as such, i.e. way above(?) everything else, including European grand makes of same era ?

 

At speed handling and performance?

Ease of drivability and maintenance?

Engineering and reliability ?

 

Just curious.

Edited February 7, 2021 by TTR (see edit history)

[C Carl]

In comparing 1929 cars, Cadillac’s synchromesh is a significant factor.    -    C Carl 

[alsancle]

I prefer to the 29 Packard styling to the Cadillac.   I always defer to Ed on mechanics - sometimes is esthetic taste is off.     The Pierce Arrow was typically engineered to last forever,   but finding really attractive coachwork  is hard.

 

Nothing in the 1930ish era touches the Duesenberg if you want to go fast.   Marmom v16 maybe.

[edinmass]

26 minutes ago, C Carl said:

In comparing 1929 cars, Cadillac’s synchromesh is a significant factor.    -    C Carl 

 

For non car people, its a big advantage......even with the fussy and expensive nature of repairs for the transmission.........and they need service more than people realize. I can have a transmission out and in under 2 hours on a Packard or Pierce.......that's NOT happening with the Cadillac. 

[TTR]

24 minutes ago, alsancle said:

Nothing in the 1930ish era touches the Duesenberg if you want to go fast.   Marmom v16 maybe.

Fast how ?

On open, straight highway ?

Twisty canyon or mountain roads ?

Urban setting ?

Road race course ?

Edited February 7, 2021 by TTR (see edit history)

[edinmass]

54 minutes ago, TTR said:

I realize it’s a quite objective and sure you have already outlined it, perhaps even more than once, but having not had opportunities myself to closely compare them, would you care to clarify what/which makes them as such, i.e. way above(?) everything else, including European grand makes of same era ?

 

At speed handling and performance?

Ease of drivability and maintenance?

Engineering and reliability ?

 

Just curious.

 

A Duesenberg is the one, and only pre war car that will do anything you ask of it, at all times, under all conditions. Since it has excess power it can climb any mountain without needing to anticipate driving conditions. Juice brakes that don't fade. It's like driving a street rod........thats well done, but REAL.

[alsancle]

19 minutes ago, TTR said:

Fast how ?

On open, straight highway ?

Twisty canyon or mountain roads ?

Urban setting ?

Road race course ?

 

Your garden variety American straight roads.   A Duesenberg will get to 50 mph faster than anything else in era,  and will still be going past 100... assuming you don't own the Father Devine car.

 

For an urban setting a go-kart is probably better.    I'll admit my biases.   "Little", "Nimble" "Quick" were things I've never been in to.    Although I do like Amusement Park cars.

[alsancle]

23 minutes ago, edinmass said:

 

A Duesenberg is the one, and only pre war car that will do anything you ask of it, at all times, under all conditions. Since it has excess power it can climb any mountain without needing to anticipate driving conditions. Juice brakes that don't fade. It's like driving a street rod........thats well done, but REAL.

 

Agree with all,  but it is not going to go flying around a tight little road course designed for cars with 200 cubic inch engines.

[SC38dls]

Ok but who can get in and out (both being very necessary) of a go cart anymore! 
 

[alsancle]

4 minutes ago, SC38DLS said:

Ok but who can get in and out (both being very necessary) of a go cart anymore! 
 

 

You just need the right kind of go-kart.

[edinmass]

35 minutes ago, alsancle said:

 

Agree with all,  but it is not going to go flying around a tight little road course designed for cars with 200 cubic inch engines.

 

 

You haven't slid a J through a corner, balls to the wall, wind blowing through your hair, hell bent for leather...............its better than you can imagine. So they tell me.🤭

[tcslr]

How do the Buicks and Chryslers compare or feather into this comparison?

[Flivverking]

14 minutes ago, tcslr said:

How do the Buicks and Chryslers compare or feather into this comparison?

They don't.

[Flivverking]

1 hour ago, edinmass said:

 

A Duesenberg is the one, and only pre war car that will do anything you ask of it, at all times, under all conditions. Since it has excess power it can climb any mountain without needing to anticipate driving conditions. Juice brakes that don't fade. It's like driving a street rod........thats well done, but REAL.

Ever try parallel parking one..LOL😱

 

[edinmass]

38 minutes ago, Flivverking said:

Ever try parallel parking one..LOL😱

 

 

All the time.

[edinmass]

7 minutes ago, Joe in Canada said:

I can only speak for Cadillac as I have never owned or driven a Packard. I have been offered chances but if my name is not on the ownership I do not get behind the wheel. I have driven a 30 Cadillac 353 on tours in Pa. and Vermont where we had HILLS to climb. As for power I run 360 gears and yes I build a little speed when approaching a hill but 95% of the time it is not lacking power. Most owners run a less aggressive ratio on an 8 but in my province we do not have warning signs for hill grade or length so the 360 are fine. As for parallel parking I do not try unless I have a foot ball field size area to do it. If you look at early vintage pictures of down town areas you will generally see angle parking as hard steering was a common factor in the early years. As for maintenance yes the Johnston carb is a crap shoot but if done right you should be ok. The 2nd gear popping out is the only other issue from 28 to 31 that many cars seem to have. But there is a 2 hr quick fix to get around that now. All in all I find the 28 to 31 Cadillac a great tour car and yes my gas tank is full before I leave on any tour. 

There are a few other transmission issues besides the one you mentioned. And they are expensive and difficult to fix. Cadillac’s are good cars, just not easy to own.

[edinmass]

1 hour ago, tcslr said:

How do the Buicks and Chryslers compare or feather into this comparison?

Buicks are very good cars, they are a better platform than a Cadillac. I particularly like the 1932 90 series. Body construction isn’t as good as Cadillac or others, but they are a better driving experience than a V-8 Caddy.

 

 

Edited February 7, 2021 by edinmass (see edit history)

[Walt G]

I think that Buick shared a lot of body components in the mid to late 1930s/early 1940s with Cadillac , I know that the body panels, seat adjusters etc on the 1940 Roadmaster conv sedan and the Cadillac model 62 are the same. Can not and will not comment on the cars before that as I do not have first hand experience.

[alsancle]

I really like the style of the 90 series Buick.  Have never driven one or even sat in one so other thinking they look good I can't say much.   Although,  the Buick mafia may be the loyal group there is,  so something good must be going on.

[Flivverking]

Mentioning Duesenbergs always reminds of Dennis,Frank,Bobby,and Jack McGown ,not from me in Branford Connecticut and the green Duesenberg I think they had the longest..

 

Here is a common picture of the boys and car,quite some time ago.

[edinmass]

That’s got to be the 70’s.......they are all gone now except one from what I was told.

[Flivverking]

Yeah ,gone.

maybe.Jack is still going.

He didn't wallow in all the auto carcinogens,smoke and booze it up as much ,or at all ,as the others.

 

 

[edinmass]

The last one was living in New Hampshire about ten years ago, I bought some Pierce Arrow parts from him. I thought it might be Dennis, but I’m not sure.

[Flivverking]

Just now my my friend in Branford said Bobby was still hanging in there as far as he knows.Hasn't heard and updates...Obits.

I know a few years ago he was having a rough time with C.

Last time saw Bobby he not sick yet and  the C.Farquar &Co. shop and land was being cleaned up and cleaned out.. 

Now ,you would never know the place was there at all.

Lots of memories there.

 

I still have a banjo Bobby sold me in the 90s.

 

[58L-Y8]

10 hours ago, tcslr said:

How do the Buicks and Chryslers compare or feather into this comparison?

The 1931-'33 Buick 80 shares the large 345 ci straight eight with the 90 but are shorter wheelbase.

The 1932 Chrysler Imperial CH has the same 385 ci straight eight as the Custom Imperial but on the 135" wb.

Both might be worth investigating.  What say those with experience?

[edinmass]

The Chrysler 385 is a nice power plant. They have juice brakes. Steer well, and overall are a very nice car. I think they suffer from drivability because no one actively has them out in the road waving the flag. I have driven a bunch of them, all were very well done. They are a very good car........all the BIG straight eights are fantastic drivers.......read that as over 350 cid.......the 385 cid cars are a cut above. There are also a handful of mid size straight eight power plants that are decent...........Buick, Stude, ect.

[edinmass]

On the subject of power plants......Duesenbergs are made to spin......hard and fast. 98 percent of their owners have never even driven the car in its power band. You have to pound a Duesenberg to make it perform.....it was engineered that way. It can and will take it. You just need to have the balls to step on the accelerator. They talk back to you when your pushing them hard.......it’s a great conversation. Unfortunately, very few people have ever experienced driving one hard. They like it..... a lot.

[alsancle]

31 minutes ago, edinmass said:

On the subject of power plants......Duesenbergs are made to spin......hard and fast. 98 percent of their owners have never even driven the car in its power band. You have to pound a Duesenberg to make it perform.....it was engineered that way. It can and will take it. You just need to have the balls to step on the accelerator. They talk back to you when your pushing them hard.......it’s a great conversation. Unfortunately, very few people have ever experienced driving one hard. They like it..... a lot.

 

I'll agree assuming said owner has replaced his duraluminum rods with steel.

[edinmass]

16 minutes ago, alsancle said:

 

I'll agree assuming said owner has replaced his duraluminum rods with steel.

 

No, the new rods are aluminum......they look like top fuel rods........

[zepher]

I would say this thread is yet another example of Pierce Arrow cars not getting their due recognition.

Ed spoke up for the marque but the OP and first few respondents didn't even mention them.

Pierce Arrow is the Rodney Dangerfield of pre-war cars, on the whole they get no respect.

[zepher]

6 minutes ago, Joe in Canada said:

I believe Pierce has not been mentioned as the owner of the tread asked a question about 1929 Packard vs. Cadillac 

 

Pierce wasn't mentioned because they are not on most people's radar.

Packard and Cadillac bring more money for similar cars because there is far greater name recognition.

[jrbartlett]

Pierce wasn't mentioned because I have no experience in one. Plus, I knew Ed was going to bring them up. Besides my family Packards, I had a good friend back in the 1960s who was into the '29-'32 Cadillacs. He was a mechanic at a Cadillac dealer in New Orleans during the depression and knew those cars back and forth. They purred for him, and were dead reliable. He spoke highly of the V-16s. We used to go on long driving tours together, me in a Packard and him in a Caddy. Also, a couple local folks here in Houston currently have '29 Caddys that I like. That's why I asked about them.

 

I've put my Model J on the highway a couple times at 70-85 MPH. It is in fact an experience. But I don't want to go sliding it around a corner.

 

People ask me all the time which of my cars is my favorite. I don't have a favorite -- I like them all, depending on what I have going on. The Duesy for show, because it's flashy and well-restored, but I also built it up for driving. The Packard for simple, trouble-free cruising in a high-quality car. The Cord for showing off in a slinky car . The Locomobile because it's just so darned interesting, like a steam train engine. And the Auburn as a pretty fair compromise between light weight, small size, strong engine, high top speed, and a lot of chrome and public appeal.    

[edinmass]

4 hours ago, jrbartlett said:

 

 

People ask me all the time which of my cars is my favorite. I don't have a favorite -- I like them all, depending on what I have going on. The Duesy for show, because it's flashy and well-restored, but I also built it up for driving. The Packard for simple, trouble-free cruising in a high-quality car. The Cord for showing off in a slinky car . The Locomobile because it's just so darned interesting, like a steam train engine. And the Auburn as a pretty fair compromise between light weight, small size, strong engine, high top speed, and a lot of chrome and public appeal.    

I agree with the above.......cars are like people.They are all interesting and different. I have huge amounts of miles in Cadillac’s and Pierce Arrows. Well over 50k in each.........cars from 1929-1936. I have always tried to drive as many different platforms as possible. It’s now to the point I have driven so many pre war cars I can tell how they will be going down the road just from experience. Mostly CID is you best guide, then year, then cost when new. Fact is most cars fall into a price category and performance envelope that makes them very similar. The ones that fall outside the predicted performance range are very interesting. Auburns are one good example. They drive exceptionally well for their displacement and original price. While the body construction is about the same quality as Chevy, they run like a Packard. They were a fantastic value for the money when new. The early big T head’s are also another fun spot in the hobby. Usually exceptionally well made and very mechanical in nature. They run great for their era. I find that unless I have five hundred miles on any particular platform you really don’t know it. Some cars get better and more interesting after you have ten hours of windshield time......others not so much. Today what interests me is any car that will comfortably drive 45-50 mph or better in STOCK condition without being wound up or out. I don’t  like driving all day looking in my mirror to see if some kid is on their cell phone and not paying attention to the old car in front of them. I seldom drive my T anywhere near civilization. I find there is no one best car..........too many are interesting in so many ways. What really floats my boat is a good running and well sorted car that is rare and unusual. I like to be able to park anywhere at an old car event where experienced people ask......”what is that?” Fact is most old cars are better than people think....it’s just that they are not probably taken car of that give them bad reputations. Some are more work than others........the trick is to embrace the service and maintenance. I enjoy spending time in the shop. And I enjoy the challenge of fixing things that most other people can’t. All these years later.........I still find it just as entertaining as I did as a teenager. The last six months digging into the Stearns Knight eight, and my 1917 White Dual Valve have been exceptionally entertaining. New challenges that were fun to figure out. A few of the hurdles were particularly difficult and I would have been happy to stay ignorant of the challenge. Age is definitely creeping in on me know. It’s harder to see now that I must have glasses......so it makes fixing thing much more difficult. I’m getting content to just drive and maintain things now. I’m definitely running out of steam on total restorations..............this weeks adventure is a V-16 Cadillac that was as perfectly sorted as I could possibly get it...........seems to have developed a starter issue........it never ends.

Edited February 8, 2021 by edinmass (see edit history)

[edinmass]

One last note on the Cadillac’s of 1929-1932. They can be reliable and fun.......but due to age, design, and other factors......they are much more of a challenge than other brands. Running a large displacement engine at speed in a vacuum tank wasn’t a good idea. Add in age, less than optimum carburetion , poorly done service and repairs, modern fuel formulas, and you end up with a car that’s particularly challenging to dial in and keep running right. The pot metal Cadillac used everywhere doubles your misery and triples your expense. The Delco distributors are really starting to suffer from metal fatigue.........and they are expensive to fix. Cadillac’s are consistently the the most work.......and the most hacked at and modified cars on the road.

Edited February 8, 2021 by edinmass (see edit history)

[8E45E]

22 hours ago, Flivverking said:

Though all great automobiles ,non of the above cars are well suited for easy fun driving around  the town or complicated city..

Long rides and trips they are great to just hum along like locomotives steaming accross the counrty.

 

The Pierce cars seem to have an understated class that the others don't come close to and long term depenabilty.

The Duesenberg shows flashy money ,speed ,EGO and extravagance .

The Cadillac shows newer welth and more youthfull endevers.

The Packard shows old money snobbery and unyeilding personality.

I'll the non-conformist and drive a Studebaker President with that fabulous 338 cubic inch straight 8 under the hood!

 

Craig

[alsancle]

9 hours ago, edinmass said:

 

No, the new rods are aluminum......they look like top fuel rods........

 

 

The factory supercharger rods were steel and for years that was you swapped in.  If the new ones are aluminum I'm behind the times.