Jump to content

1929 Packard vs. Cadillac


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, alsancle said:

 

 

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.

 

They come both ways..........and you should see the size of them. I have a spare set on the shelf......

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, zepher said:

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.

 

 Because James didn't ask about them? He asked about comparison of TWO cars, I believe. 

 

  Ben

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ben Bruce aka First Born said:

 

 Because James didn't ask about them? He asked about comparison of TWO cars, I believe. 

 

  Ben

 

You could be talking baseball and Ed will figure a way to angle Pierce Arrow in to the conversation.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of my league but I would prefer a 28-31 Lincoln over the same vintage of Cadillac only for their simpler stylistic design. They look stronger and less  frivolous/opulent to me,maybe even behind in the styling compaired to Cadillac's sporty flash.But what to I know?

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is one thing I miss, it is the regular group tests, or 'comparison reports' in the old Special Interest Autos magazine; forerunner to Hemmings, Classic Car.  There, they would compare specs, show extensive photos of each car from a specific year in a certain market, not unlike an individual would, shopping for a car back in the day.  In this case, they could compare one of each, 1929 Cadillac, Lincoln, Packard, Pierce Arrow, et al., along with what modern day restorers of each one have to face. 

 

For the high-end luxury market, 1929 was significant in that it was the last 'good' year for the expensive marques for at least a decade, as well as the impending demise of at least one of them.

 

Craig 

Edited by 8E45E
spelling (see edit history)
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As the owner of a '29 Cadillac and having driven a number of comparable Packards, it's an interesting comparison. My Cadillac has been bulletproof reliable the entire time I've had it, but it took a good amount of time and money to get it there. It's a fine driver and I've always enjoyed driving it. Mine has an overdrive, which really changes its personality, but since that's not really part of the comparison (unless the Packard also has an overdrive) I'll leave those thoughts out.

 

I do think it's tough to make an apples-to-apples comparison, even though they're both high-end luxury cars aimed at the same customers. The Cadillac is more powerful than the 320 Packard and feels peppier--my car is quicker than the '31 833 phaeton I currently have in inventory, even though it's a sedan vs. a phaeton. Gearing is similar (4.75 Cadillac vs. 4.69 Packard) so I can only conclude the Cadillac is making a bit more power. I've also had a '31 840 convertible coupe, and that car was considerably more powerful--TORQUE-- than the Cadillac and it wasn't even a fair fight. So I'd say the Cadillac slots neatly between the two Packard engines.

 

In terms of refinement, I think the Packards are better. My Cadillac is fairly smooth and quiet, but the straight-8 Packards feel slightly more polished. Some of that is surely due to the fact that my leaf springs have been rusted solid for most of the time that I've owned my car and the ride has been downright punishing, but that's a solvable problem. Nevertheless, the Packards do feel a bit more substantial and refined. This may change once I rebuild my leaf springs and the Cadillac finally rides like a Cadillac.

 

Brakes are probably a push. Mediocre at best. The car's weight has more to do with it than design or any other factor. More than adequate for the cars' performance, however.

 

Do not overlook the virtues of synchromesh. My Cadillac shifts like a modern car. Don't rush it and the synchros work as advertised. Anybody could get in and drive it without any coaching. The Packard gearbox, particularly the 4-speed variants, do feel a bit crude and will take more practice to master. For most people here, I think that's a non-issue, but I have always marveled at how nice that Cadillac is to shift compared to almost any other car of the period.

 

Looks are subjective, so pick the one you like. I own a Cadillac but I think the Packards are prettier and there's still no better view from the driver's seat than looking down the long, narrow hood of a Packard and seeing the famous Packard ridge out there. Best view ever.

 

Ed, I think I would put a Marmon Sixteen on equal footing against a Duesenberg J in most categories. Granted, I don't have any experience driving a J, but this Marmon I have, even with the immense bodywork and 154 inch chassis, is seriously fast and sophisticated. As big a leap as my Cadillac is over, say, a Model A Ford, the Marmon is a leap ahead of the Cadillac. The Marmon's brakes, while mechanical, are 30% bigger than the J's and have power assist. The 491 cubic inch OHV V16 makes serious horsepower and torque (real-world, today numbers estimated to be 280 horsepower and 400 pounds of torque), such that shifting, even from a dead stop, is completely optional. And you have to remember that the Marmon was, like the J, a luxury car built by race car guys, so it has a competent chassis. For a giant car, this one is just effortless to drive. Even the steering, which should be impossible, is light. I can turn it with one had while sitting still and with one finger while on the roll. It's extraordinary. I think the Marmon would have a real chance to win a race to 60 MPH, but after that I bet the J will eat it alive. I'd wager the performance differential between them isn't as great as many would believe. I will never be able to own a Duesenberg, but I'm planning on owning a Marmon Sixteen and would never view the Marmon as any kind of consolation prize. I'd take one in a heartbeat even if it's a brown/orange 7-passenger sedan. Extraordinary cars in every way.

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading this thread I wonder if you realize how lucky most of you are.

 

Growing up in south Florida, most of which was swampland before WWII & transportation was rail, boat, or by foot (see The Barefoot Mailman). A few Palm Beachers had interesting pre-war cars but mostly either gigantic or furrin. Add in the rust problem (most population was on the coasts with a lot of nothing in the middle and connected by a series of straight two lane shell (super traction but wore tires out quick) roads. Ability to cruise at 80-90 on a sofa was more important than cornering or stopping.

 

What this meant was the mostly $50 cars did not exist and for me XK Jags were the most common/affordable. The big pre-war Pierces and Caddys just were neither available nor common. You could find more Allards and Facel-Vegas than Packards.

 

So while is is great to hear about people having multiples of V16 Caddies and DOHC Duesies, it must have been going on in some alternate universe because sure wasn't where I grew up.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt did a great job answering the original poster's question. Well done. 

 

Having owned and driven lots of late 1920s and early 1930s Packard and Cadillac eights, I think Matt's answers and analysis are spot on. They are both great cars but certainly have their differences as Matt described.

 

Sure, some people might prefer a Cadillac V-16 or a Duesenberg but those are typically not within most people's disposable income budget. 

Edited by motoringicons (see edit history)
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Flivverking said:

Out of my league but I would prefer a 28-31 Lincoln over the same vintage of Cadillac only for their simpler stylistic design. They look stronger and less  frivolous/opulent to me,maybe even behind in the styling compaired to Cadillac's sporty flash.But what to I know?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I could be wrong,  but I think most of those production bodies were Murray?   If so,  Ray Dietrich was there in the late 20s and good ole Ray never penned a bad design.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Growing up in the hobby in Houston during the 1960s, we had very few of the exotic classics around. We always looked in awe at the cars that would turn up at the big shows "up east." And what few we had were always subject to getting vacuumed up by the tipsters who would alert the Harrah folks in return for a finder's commission. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

motoringicons stated that very well indeed. The V16's and Duesenberg J are always written about, but how often, even when new were they ever seen or experienced?  How often do we see one today unless you pay a fortune to attend a concours of note to view the cars and the "posers" standing next to them?  My own experience and the words of close friends ( now deceased ) who were original owners of cars - two guys come to mind, both residents of Brooklyn NY, Mike Murray was the owner of a 1929 Cadillac phaeton and Henry Rovich owned a 1930 Franklin Airman roadster. Both gentleman bought the cars new. Henry drove his car over 150,000 miles ( told me he bought it because it was air cooled as was his motorcycle that he was used to using as transportation but his girl friend ( he later married) didn't want to ride around on the back of a motorcycle). I have driven both a V8 Cadillac and Packard std 8 like Matt mentions. I find the Packard amazingly easy to steer and it stops on a dime ( thanks to Byron York of Ridgefield, Ct. who adjusted the brakes to perfection) . Enjoy what you can when you can, give fellow enthusiasts the pleasure of a ride , life is short.

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, edinmass said:

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.

I remembering you mentioning this being the case w Caddy/Lasalle in an older thread but can't running off the vacuum tank be a pretty safe bet in a Packard? I was always of the impression that a Packard was a way easier rig to own and operate and that this was one of their virtues.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

My '29 Packard Super 8 roadster is still running on the original vacuum tank. Only time I ever exhausted the fuel supply was on a multi-thousand-foot climb high up in the Rockies outside of Denver. I went for miles up a mountainside basically floorboarded. Soon as I stopped I choked the engine and it fired right up. But I did not attempt to go any higher. The engine is 384.8 cubic inches.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jrbartlett said:

My '29 Packard Super 8 roadster is still running on the original vacuum tank. Only time I ever exhausted the fuel supply was on a multi-thousand-foot climb high up in the Rockies outside of Denver. I went for miles up a mountainside basically floorboarded. Soon as I stopped I choked the engine and it fired right up. But I did not attempt to go any higher. The engine is 384.8 cubic inches.

Was the roadster the car that you had mentioned making an insulating shield for that kept away some of the heat coming off the manifold? I remember you having said that you had done something like that. If you think it makes a difference I think I will certainly attempt to copy you and do the same for my car! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Made all the difference in the world on the '29 Club Sedan we had back in the 1960s. When I bought the roadster about 15 years ago, after driving it for a while I felt the vacuum tank and it was too hot to touch, so I then had a sheet aluminum shield made and installed it with insulation between it and the vacuum tank, both on the sides and bottom. But keep in mind that down here in Texas the summer daytime temperatures can range from 95-105 degrees. And I was also using standard pump gas (with 10% ethanol). Of course, the vacuum tank sits directly over the exhaust manifold.  

Edited by jrbartlett (see edit history)
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to step back a bit in order to sidestep the criticism of Ed's critique, which included Pierce. It's not often that we have someone knowledgeable and willing to make valid comparisons on the large Classics. God knows nobody is handing me the keys to his V16 Cac or Marmon, to let me do my own comparison. As far as the Packard and Cadillac 8's and 12's, my guess is that quite a few of us are familiar with these. It's worthwhile to have people knowledgeable enough and who are willing share how some of the other Classics compare. The same goes for Matt's comments on the V16 Marmon. I don't see the original poster of this thread complaining. 

 

Bill  

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, zepher said:

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.

Back in the late 60's, my friends and I (16-17 yrs old) were in the local antique car club:  Antique Car Club of Orlando (Fla).  One day we all decided to visit the guy who owned the big classic sedans (Pierce-Arrows) and the Auburn boat tail, who kept them in a multi-space carport at his house.  Mr. Reeves owned the local Kenworth truck

dealership.  He graciously came out of his office at the dealership to talk to us kids about his cars.  Pierce-Arrows were his favorites bar none!  He said you take one of his

 P-A's and compare it to a like year Rolls-Royce.  And there would be NO comparison!  For every 1 or 2 bolts on the Roll's (or any other like high end car) there would be 3 or 4 bolts on the Pierce-Arrow, etc., etc.  It was quite an education for us.  I never found out what happened to Mr. Reeves or his car collection.  We were told by a knowledgeable person in the club that Mr. Reeves had up to 600 cars, mostly Pierce-Arrows.  Stashed in warehouses throughout Central Florida. 😵

 

Capt. Harley😉

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt.....your running your 29 Caddy on an electric pump...........of which I am NOT a fan of for a bunch of reasons. Since I have sold all my Cadillacs, and never owned a Packard (for keeping in my collection)........I have no reason to be biased one way or another. What I was trying to do is NOT dump on any one car, series, platform, ect.  I will expand a bit....Packards are ten times more common than Cadillacs of the era that was being asked about. Common cars don't interest my particular taste. Cadillac's simply are much more likely to give trouble........and from many more areas than most cars of the era. I still like them, but rather place my dollars somewhere else than any 29 Packard or Cadillac. Availability of cars is improving, as is affordability. While I have a trailer, I much prefer to drive my cars as much as possible so cars that won't safely cruise at normal modern traffic speeds don't interest me. I'm not looking to drive all my cars on an interstate all the time........but to be able to get up on the highway for ten to fifteen miles is an important consideration today. I have driven a V-12 Pierce in a January snowstorm in downtown Boston during rush hour, and have driven others in major cities with nightmare traffic......London and LA just to name a couple. Obviously most pre war cars can't keep up to those demands. A select few will. Some are even affordable to the working man. I suggest that a 1929 Cadillac with overdrive is not safe.........the cars suspension and brakes are not adequate for the stock use.......never mind a higher speed. MOST cars from 1921 to 1931 are safe and happy at 45 mph. Any more and you're pushing them and the safety envelope. 

 

Having driven the Marmon V-16 you have in inventory, I am familiar with that particular car and several others of the same platform. They are great cars, and will run circles around the Caddy V-16. Problem is their body build quality is middle of the road and their aesthetic is less than a Cadillac. It won't touch a Model J. Since I don't own a J, and although I have made an offer on a factory open car in the past and wasn't a successful bidder......... I have moved on from owning one. I could scrape togeather enough for a new coachwork car.......but I don't desire any car unless its as delivered from the factory. Nothing wrong with them, they are just not for me. A Speed Six or Eight Litre are similar to the Marmon 16. A DV-32 Stutz is close also. Fact is there are lots of good cars out there....many that are not requiring you to be a Wall Street hedge fund manager to own. The Stude President, Buick 90, Reo Royal, Pierce Eight, and a handful of others are all great cars that offer wonderful driving while much less common. Also, there are the high end earlier cars that are truly rare, obscure, and fantastic trucks..........Cunningham, McFarlin, and a handful of others..........as I get older, I'm looking for enjoyment while touring. The more challanging cars are now less appealing to me.......I don't want to do strength exercises so I can steer a car in my 60's. I think the future of the hobby lies in cars that are roadiable in todays traffic.........the earlier and slower cars that need lots of attention are going to be much more for the "hard core" collector....if there are any of us still left in twenty years. 

Edited by edinmass (see edit history)
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Flivverking said:

Out of my league but I would prefer a 28-31 Lincoln over the same vintage of Cadillac only for their simpler stylistic design. They look stronger and less  frivolous/opulent to me,maybe even behind in the styling compaired to Cadillac's sporty flash.But what to I know?

 

 

 

 

 

 

To me the 28-31 Lincoln's are nothing more than Model-A Fords on steroids.  And I do not say this in disrespect.  Some people might look "down-their-noses" at Model-A's, but they are some rugged and attractive cars.  Just look at how many are still on the road.  I am a proud owner of a 1931 Model-A and if I ever win the lottery.  A 28-32 Packard, Cadillac, Pierce-Arrow or Lincoln will be the first top pick to buy.🙂

 

Capt. Harley😉

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've owned about 30 pre-war Cadillacs over the past 50 years. I personally believe they are very reliable & drivable automobiles, compared to their piers . I still own a 1903 and 1941 with 8 in between.  27-29 is about the only era Cadillac I have not owned.  The big 8 and 12 Packards are very good & refined cars but their Jr 4's and 6's are just average mid-price cars of average or below performance & reliability. Cadillac has always concentrated on one good engine at a time until the 12's & 16's.  They also made easy to shift transmissions. My 11 has a clutch brake that when properly adjusted, makes it unnecessary to double clutch. Cadillacs are well respected brass touring cars. Later synchronization of Cadillacs are superior to other makes.  Cadillac has never been about fast or nimble but they are smooth & easy & comfortable  to drive and their speed & performance were fine for road conditions at the time and are more than adequate for touring with its piers . Cadillac doesn't suffer from under power for today's roads, it is more of an issue of being over weight. Park a Cadillac next to one of its piers and it is bigger than most and as big as the largest classics. The V16's are all +/- 200 lbs of 3 tons. Some 8 & 12's are up there near 3 tons. The V8's are in the 2-2&1/2 ton range.  They are just big lumbering cars you can't throw around like a similar 2 ton Classic.

 

I don't have any hands on experience with Marmon or Cadillac V16 but I have ridden in both and I have driven a flathead V16 several times. All three are impressive but the Marmon is more responsive with better acceleration but I would say that early 30's Cadillac is a better ride. Of course a later 38-40 V16 Chassis has more advance front suspension and real brakes and really handle as well as a smaller V8.

 

I do own 2 Cadillac V12's that have been very good cars. I've owned one for about 50 years, since high school. I was fortunate enough to be taught how to service & maintain these cars back in the 70's by a pair of Cadillac mechanics who worked on them when new and still in use.  Just my opinion, but I prefer the later 12 over the 16. 1932 on Cadillac gave the 12 & 16 improved carbs, ignition and best of all; a mechanical fuel pump. They also gained 20 HP. The 12 has larger pistons than the 16 so it has more displacement & HP per cylinder than the 16 and without all that extra rotating mass, the 12 seems more responsive to the throttle. With a lighter body, and more HP than the 8, the 12 can be a better performer than the 8 or 16. I don't care for the front end looks of my 36 V12 coupe but it has the independent front suspension & hydraulic brakes and is a joy to drive.  

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to throw another marque into the mix, but I just hope someday to drive the 1929 Stutz M that I am restoring.   At the pace I am going at I hope that there is still refined gasoline for sale when I am ready to drive it ......

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, 1935Packard said:

Matt and Ed should have a point-counterpoint column in the AACA magazine.  Always interesting to read and learn from you both.


🤔

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

THANK YOU everyone for a fun thread. Your comments confirmed my view that the '29 Packard and Cadillac were near-equivalent, though maybe they've aged a little differently. No disrespect to Pierce, Lincoln, Stutz, Marmon and a few others -- they are all great cars, which is why we call them all "classics." I'd like to see competitive road performance tests, but that really can't happen with 90-year-old hardware, current-era restoration and repair costs and recognition of risks. By the way, in the '50s and '60s, collectors routinely raced each other on open roads. I witnessed a few. As for Model J's, all I can say is that anywhere you look at one, underneath the hood, under the chassis or inside, you know you're dealing with a thoroughbred. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was informed today, there is going to be an early “in between” or early CCCA Caravan in October in Ohio. They are going to be running 1916-1930 CCCA Classics........what I was hoping to do, is tilt the entire tour to the very early, obscure, and almost never seen “in between” cars. I’m planning on taking my 1917 White, we are going to ring up some guys to see if we can get Winton's, Cunningham’s, McFarlin’s, Loco’s, Stephens Dureya, the real odd ball stuff that never seems to get out anymore. I don’t think there has been a great line up and tour of such early exotic machinery in sixty years. Maybe a Crane Simplex, Cole, Dagmar........I’m gonna have a friend ring up Leno.......a Doble on tour would be quite a treat. Details will follow......and we will start a new thread. Once the dates are firmed up........a few of us are going to start ringing people’s phones to get the cool stuff that’s been locked away out on the road again...........if it comes together, we will try and do a video of the cars......and maybe a bit of a test drive in each one. With luck, it will be the first of a regular event.

Edited by edinmass (see edit history)
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Orin......send me your wife’s phone number.......your gonna need another car to do this tour. I have my eye on a nice gigantic Pierce 66 for you. I’ll get her to “ok” the new purchase. Just remember to add a futon in the budget for the new garage. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, edinmass said:

I was informed today, there is going to be an early “in between” or early CCCA Caravan in October in Ohio. They are going to be running 1916-1930 CCCA Classics........whet I was hoping to do, is tilt the entire tour to the very early, obscure, and almost never seen “in between” cars. I’m planning on taking my 1917 White, we are going to ring up some guys to see if we can get Winton's, Cunningham’s, McFarlin’s, Loco’s, Stephens Dureya, the real odd ball stuff that never seems to get out anymore. I don’t think there has been a great line up and tour of such early exotic machinery in sixty years. Maybe a Crane Simplex, Cole, Dagmar........I’m gonna have a friend ring up Leno.......a Doble on tour would be quite a treat. Details will follow......and we will start a new thread. Once the dates are firmed up........a few of us are going to start ringing people’s phones to get the cool stuff that’s been locked away out on the road again...........if it comes together, we will try and do a video of the cars......and maybe a bit of a test drive in each one. With luck, it will be the first of a regular event.

 

Please make sure you share the info when you get it (the CCCA's website gets updated every three years, it seems). I have a few friends with early cars that have been waiting for such a tour and perhaps I'll still have a 1920 Brewster to add to the mix, if not a 1929 Cadillac...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2021 at 8:21 PM, edinmass said:

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.

I would agree with Ed.  

And, to add to his list, I could have done without the vacuum tanks on both (a mechanical fuel pump is a pretty sweet thing).  Oh yeah, driveshaft work is a pure joy too - not. 

 

I am sticking to Auburn products, but for "modern" driveability having partnered on two 1929 8-90 Cabriolets, I would go with a 1931 or newer. 

 

Ed, knows I have a request for a 1931 PA Model 42 Berline Club Sedan.

 

And, there is still room for a very stylish custom bodied X something or another in American or European (or maybe I should just look in the back of the garage and then beat myself senseless). 

 

Lots of Packard pass through (always have and probably always will) - dad is a resistor and his father a resistor before him (aka they designed by bulk and odd engineering to get around other peoples patents with the engineering being in the brass era cars, first generation Twin Six, FWD Twin Six prototype, second generation Twin Six, Twelve, V-8, and Torsion Bar suspension (no offense). 

 

Things with no parts availability are fine as long as they only torture you occasionally for fabrication. 

 

The 25/30 RR's and the RRPI were overly complicated and lacked top end speed 

 

Sidenote:  I grew up with a Stearns Knight in our drive at least twice a week on any nice day - A Fine Car.

 

Add'l Sidenote: I did a lot of 50's and 60's British Sports Car driving this past year - sort of a nice change of pace and enjoyed it (

 

Add'l Add'l Sidenote: This year the driving probably will be the 1936 Auburn 852 Phaeton - a whole spring, summer, and fall of working out bugs). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sidenote:  A  30-31 Cadillac V-16 has amazing parts availability. Post 31 Cadillac V-16's are lovely, but zippo parts availability outside of the OHV engine itself  which have decent enough parts availability; and then 38-40 is not bad unless you need an engine part.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2021 at 3:50 PM, Captain Harley said:

P-A's and compare it to a like year Rolls-Royce.  And there would be NO comparison!  For every 1 or 2 bolts on the Roll's (or any other like high end car) there would be 3 or 4 bolts on the Pierce-Arrow, etc., etc. 

 

Capt. Harley😉

 

 

A 20's or 30's RR makes most other cars look simplistic - even a PA. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Ed - The tour in Ohio of oddballs sounds great - I will have to be a spectator though.   If they do another one in 10 years perhaps I will have the only known Enger 40 rolling by then - thats if the Stutz doesn't kill me or put me in the poor house first .....

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2021 at 4:08 PM, Captain Harley said:

To me the 28-31 Lincoln's are nothing more than Model-A Fords on steroids.  And I do not say this in disrespect.  Some people might look "down-their-noses" at Model-A's, but they are some rugged and attractive cars.  Just look at how many are still on the road.  I am a proud owner of a 1931 Model-A and if I ever win the lottery.  A 28-32 Packard, Cadillac, Pierce-Arrow or Lincoln will be the first top pick to buy.🙂

 

Capt. Harley😉

 

The problem with Lincolns of that period is the fork and blade engine, which is NOT an easy engine to work on. Whereas the Model A is easy-peasy simple.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2021 at 5:25 PM, 1935Packard said:

Matt and Ed should have a point-counterpoint column in the AACA magazine.  Always interesting to read and learn from you both.

 

I would be open to something like that.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, West Peterson said:

 

I would be open to something like that.


 

Ok.....the brutal truth, please absorb this, with all kindness and trying to be a gentleman.............Since I drove my first big block Pierce Arrow, I have NEVER bought a 30’s car as a keeper that was a Cadillac or Packard. 

Edited by edinmass (see edit history)
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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...