Jump to content

For sale: 1932 Packard 900 Light 8 - "Solid running survivor" - South Deerfield, MA - Not Mine - 6/20, 5/29 Reduced - 6/30 SOLD!


Recommended Posts

For sale on Facebook: 1932 Packard 900 Light 8 in South Deerfield, MA  -  $42,000  -  Must be a member of Facebook to access Seller's contact information.

 

On 5/29, Seller reduced price to $37,500

On 6/20, Seller reduced price to $36,999

 

Link: https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/item/953583225446877/1932-Packard-900-Light-8

 

Seller's Description:

1932 Packard 900 Light 8

  • Driven 64,350 miles
  • Automatic transmission
  • Exterior color: Black · Interior color: Brown

1932 packard 900 light eight solid running survivor with tons of literature, offers or possible trades

 

image.png.7b2314cfaf51bc4ffdfb584567d7aaa2.png

 

image.png.987b4522cc96851cc2bdeea46bb48975.png

 

image.png.4c140f4ea3163646679dcb8ac68d038c.png

 

image.png.3118f87de9c2e090cb6236b648c437ca.png

Edited by 6T-FinSeeker
update status (see edit history)
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ozstatman said:

Curious? 🤔 The post above by Sailo77 show the Poster has ZERO posts when obviously he has at least ONE, the one above! Why or how does this happen? Screen print below in case it shows differently to what I see.

Peter?

SAILLO77.JPG

 

Definitely strange.    Good protocol is to say a bit more or introduce yourself when first posting to a new message board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ad is still on Facebook, in case anyone is interested. I saw it last night and confirmed this morning, using the link above. 
 

As to the post count discrepancy, it’s possible the post count data is updated on a schedule and not in real time. 
 

- John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 1932 light eight is probably the finest and best driving, and maybe the quickest model that Packard up that point in time. This car is a little high on price for what it is. It would look better without all of the clutter on the front bumper and without the driving lights and extra set of mirrors. It would probably look better with black wall tires. Hope it finds a good home.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/9/2021 at 9:19 AM, alsancle said:

I never understand lack of lots of good pictures.   This is an attractive car in any event,  even with obvious needs.   I'm thinking there must be a buyer in the 30s somewhere.

Absolutely. I would love to own the car and pay in the mid 30's. The buyer block me because I asked for more information.  I'Im at a loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since Deerfield is about 12 miles from my home up North, and I know just about every old car guy there, and have not seen this car.................strange events are not unusual. The town is home to some rather strange people........unlike us normal guys here............

 

As far as 1932 Packards go, the 900 shovel nose is the “lowest offering” Packard had and it came out late in the year along with the Twin Six. Having driven a bunch of them, while they are nice cars, they are no where near the big cars. I’m a Pierce guy, but our 904 Custom is a very nice car...........and will run circles around a 900.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regards to the 900 performance, I have period info somewhere in the house showing that the only Packard the 900 did not out perform in 1932 was the twin six roadster. The attached picture shows the 900 performance compared to other Packard standard eight cars. 

I would be willing to bet a lunch that the 900 could hold its own in a race against a 904. On a road track I would even bet dinner and drinks also. Would be a fun challenge if we could make it happen! I don’t have any experience with a Pierce so I can not comment on there performance.

 

As you can tell I’m a 900 enthusiast. If anyone wants info on these cars let me know and I’ll share the literature that I have. 

 

00077B9C-A142-4C81-96F4-4956D1E4A9DF.jpeg

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having driven several 900’s.........and where is the 1932 904? The BIG eight? We have one, and I have driven it hundreds of miles. I can tell you there is NO comparison. The 904 with the Stromberg downdraft and synchro transmission will eat the 900 for breakfast. And for fastest speed number on the chart.........I’m certain the 904 will easily hit 100 mph. I’m guessing the 904 horsepower is in the 145 area.............in my humble opinion, having driven every packard platform from 1927 to 1941 the 904 is the BEST overall chassis. I prefer it over our 1108’s. I actually own the 900 and Twin Six advertising portfolio sent to the New York Times for both cars introductions......including clip art, articles from engineering in design of the platforms, multiple ad layout instructions, ect. There are over 100 pieces in the portfolio. Not in one instance does the 900 info compare it to Packards other offerings. Your chart doesn’t show a 1932 900 horsepower output..........for a reason. It was certainly a fraction of a 1932 904. If you want, get a 1932 900 and we can run them side by side.......you will be buying lunch.

 

As far as a 900 vs a Twin Six, the twelve is probably 30 percent heavier, and as a first year offering certainly not as powerful as the later larger displacement V-12. In fit, finish, and style the 900 cant touch it. And I doubt in mid range and top end the 900 would probably not be close behind. I have driven two 1932 Twin Six cars..........and I certainly don’t remember them to be lacking in power or acceleration. I expect others here will have horsepower values for all of Packards offerings in 1932. It will be interesting to see apples to apples. 
 

One last note........as a Pierce guy, and particularly a Pierce V-12 guy.......the Packard 904 is one of the top pre war platforms on the planet in 1932 for power and speed. The 904 Packard is faster and more powerful than the 1932 Pierce.......mostly because in 1932 Pierce went smaller on the eight displacement to intentionally make it have less horsepower that the two different V-12 they were offering. Besides a Model J, the 904 Packard is probably the fastest and most powerful eight offered in America that year. 
 

PS- I think the 900 Packard from 1932 is a very nice car.........a mid range car, it wasn’t built to compete with Packards bigger offerings.......but in the long run, the small series Packards is what put the first nail in the coffin of Packard Motor Cars. By the time the 120 came out they were selling a much lower end and lessor product than the senior cars.......eventually it ruined the prestige and reputation of Packard from a superior super premium luxury car to just another car. I’m certain others will chime in and disagree..........but I stand by my comments.

 

Half and hour later:

 

A quick look shows the 1932 Series 900 at 319 cid displacement, and the 904 at 384.5 cid.  That’s a twenty five percent difference...........and horsepower of the 900 is posted in several places as 110, and the 904 is listed in a range from 135 to 145 depending on sources..........so 140 is a fair average and a decent guess.  The Twin Six was rated at 160 horsepower in 1932, and I’m guessing it was higher in 1933. From what I read, the 900 series was killed off in 33 because of complaints from the dealers.......but I’m not familiar with the nuances of Packards form year to year as far as sales per unit. Take it all in, and the 904 is the best platform in 1932 for driving and performance. The prestige of the Twin Six can’t be discounted...........overall 1932 a Packards lineup was impressive..........but the 900 was a red headed stepchild. 

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

This is becoming an interesting thread! Early 1930s are a bit modern for my interests, but I do enjoy reading about the model comparisons, especially by people with first hand experience and interest in the specific models. An interesting and attractive car. If I could afford such things, I think I could like one.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, edinmass said:

Having driven several 900’s.........and where is the 1932 904? The BIG eight? We have one, and I have driven it hundreds of miles. I can tell you there is NO comparison. The 904 with the Stromberg downdraft and synchro transmission will eat the 900 for breakfast. And for fastest speed number on the chart.........I’m certain the 904 will easily hit 100 mph. I’m guessing the 904 horsepower is in the 145 area.............in my humble opinion, having driven every packard platform from 1927 to 1941 the 904 is the BEST overall chassis. I prefer it over our 1108’s. I actually own the 900 and Twin Six advertising portfolio sent to the New York Times for both cars introductions......including clip art, articles from engineering in design of the platforms, multiple ad layout instructions, ect. There are over 100 pieces in the portfolio. Not in one instance does the 900 info compare it to Packards other offerings. Your chart doesn’t show a 1932 900 horsepower output..........for a reason. It was certainly a fraction of a 1932 904. If you want, get a 1932 900 and we can run them side by side.......you will be buying lunch.

 

As far as a 900 vs a Twin Six, the twelve is probably 30 percent heavier, and as a first year offering certainly not as powerful as the later larger displacement V-12. In fit, finish, and style the 900 cant touch it. And I doubt in mid range and top end the 900 would probably not be close behind. I have driven two 1932 Twin Six cars..........and I certainly don’t remember them to be lacking in power or acceleration. I expect others here will have horsepower values for all of Packards offerings in 1932. It will be interesting to see apples to apples. 
 

One last note........as a Pierce guy, and particularly a Pierce V-12 guy.......the Packard 904 is one of the top pre war platforms on the planet in 1932 for power and speed. The 904 Packard is faster and more powerful than the 1932 Pierce.......mostly because in 1932 Pierce went smaller on the eight displacement to intentionally make it have less horsepower that the two different V-12 they were offering. Besides a Model J, the 904 Packard is probably the fastest and most powerful eight offered in America that year. 
 

PS- I think the 900 Packard from 1932 is a very nice car.........a mid range car, it wasn’t built to compete with Packards bigger offerings.......but in the long run, the small series Packards is what put the first nail in the coffin of Packard Motor Cars. By the time the 120 came out they were selling a much lower end and lessor product than the senior cars.......eventually it ruined the prestige and reputation of Packard from a superior super premium luxury car to just another car. I’m certain others will chime in and disagree..........but I stand by my comments.

 

Half and hour later:

 

A quick look shows the 1932 Series 900 at 319 cid displacement, and the 904 at 384.5 cid.  That’s a twenty five percent difference...........and horsepower of the 900 is posted in several places as 110, and the 904 is listed in a range from 135 to 145 depending on sources..........so 140 is a fair average and a decent guess.  The Twin Six was rated at 160 horsepower in 1932, and I’m guessing it was higher in 1933. From what I read, the 900 series was killed off in 33 because of complaints from the dealers.......but I’m not familiar with the nuances of Packards form year to year as far as sales per unit. Take it all in, and the 904 is the best platform in 1932 for driving and performance. The prestige of the Twin Six can’t be discounted...........overall 1932 a Packards lineup was impressive..........but the 900 was a red headed stepchild. 

I’ll work up the power to weight ratio of both the 900 and 904 later today. The 900 has 110hp, the 904 has 135hp. Let’s not cheat with the downdraft carb... My friend has a 904 so I’ll ask him if we can do a side by side performance comparison with the 900 in the near future.  I think the 900 also accounted for 60% of the sales in 1932 so it couldn’t have been that much of a disaster in the period, besides the factory losing money on every one they built. 
 

It can be argued that Packard went downstream in 1922 with the single six....

 

I would enjoy seeing the literature you have. It should also be stated that the 900 was Jessie Vincents pet project, and that he had Werner Gubitz , Packards head designer draw it up. Gubitz previously worked for Dietrich-

 

What’s for lunch and whose paying? Should we both have are credit cards ready?

 

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

Ah yes,the issue of Packard's image and the Junior cars.  Cadillac, Lincoln, and Imperial were kept alive by corporate welfare and by offering more downmarket versions (Olds-based LsSalle, Zephyr,the NewYorker based Imperials). I think you can have a good discussion around the impact of the 6 cyl Packard in 1937, but as far as the 120, it kept Packard alive.  All the other independent American luxury makers perished in the Depression - there was not enough of a market left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tph479 said:

I’ll work up the power to weight ratio of both the 900 and 904 later today. The 900 has 110hp, the 904 has 135hp. Let’s not cheat with the downdraft carb... My friend has a 904 so I’ll ask him if we can do a side by side performance comparison with the 900 in the near future.  I think the 900 also accounted for 60% of the sales in 1932 so it couldn’t have been that much of a disaster in the period, besides the factory losing money on every one they built. 
 

It can be argued that Packard went downstream in 1922 with the single six....

 

I would enjoy seeing the literature you have. It should also be stated that the 900 was Jessie Vincents pet project, and that he had Werner Gubitz , Packards head designer draw it up. Gubitz previously worked for Dietrich-

 

What’s for lunch and whose paying? Should we both have are credit cards ready?

 

 

 

The downdraft carb was a mid year upgrade.........as was the transmission. I think the 900 has synchro's in all of them. I have ours with the updraft and crash box, as it was one of the first 904's built but I do have the downdraft and synchro trans ready to go when we are done showing it...........legend is quite a few went back for the upgrade. I didn't realize the 900 was a platform they lost money on.........guess I need to read my Packard books again.

 

Like I said.......if it's Pierce, I can quote things as well as the factory back in the day, Packard...not so much. BUT I have driven them all, and I still say the 904 is the best platform Packard ever made.........for my money. 👍

 

 

I'll be at Amelia for lunch all next week. Lets say Wednesday at 12:30 in the private dining room on the 12th floor at the Ritz? 🤑 Works good for me because it comes with my room..........that way none of us lose the bet........

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

On 5/11/2021 at 12:16 PM, edinmass said:

 

 

The downdraft carb was a mid year upgrade.........as was the transmission. I think the 900 has synchro's in all of them. I have ours with the updraft and crash box, as it was one of the first 904's built but I do have the downdraft and synchro trans ready to go when we are done showing it...........legend is quite a few went back for the upgrade. I didn't realize the 900 was a platform they lost money on.........guess I need to read my Packard books again.

 

Like I said.......if it's Pierce, I can quote things as well as the factory back in the day, Packard...not so much. BUT I have driven them all, and I still say the 904 is the best platform Packard ever made.........for my money. 👍

 

 

I'll be at Amelia for lunch all next week. Lets say Wednesday at 12:30 in the private dining room on the 12th floor at the Ritz? 🤑 Works good for me because it comes with my room..........that way none of us lose the bet........

Just did the math, using a 1932 900 and a 1932 904 sedan as a comparison. The 900 weighs 4,115 pounds and has 110 hp making 37.4 pounds per horsepower. The 904 weighs 5,195 pounds and has 135 hp making 38.48 pounds per horsepower. So the 900 is a little lighter on its feet... with a downdraft carburetor upgrade each engine gains 10 hp so it’s a wash.

 

Base price of the 900 sedan was $1,750, the 904 sedan was $4,150 making the 904 2.37 times more expensive than the 900.

 

The 1,080 pound variance between the two really makes the difference in the handling and driving experience, the price variance both then and now makes a difference in your pocketbook!

 

Shall we talk about windshield height next?

 

What would be the comparison numbers for the Pierce Arrow in 1932?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1932 Pierce was a transition year for them just like Packard. You had three new different platforms, that evolved into better products in 1933. I consider a 904 and a Series 54 eight as the best drivers for the two companies in 1932. In 33, I would pick the twelves in both companies. I think the nod goes to Pierce for speed, comfort, and drivability.....but it’s a close call. Styling would go to Packard 99 percent of the time in 1932. Packard and Pierce had shortcomings in 29 & 30. 31 Pierce was ahead of Packard in my humble opinion......and it probably was the last time until Pierce went out. A Series 41 or 42 Pierce is the closest thing to a J you could get, and for a fraction of the cost. There were several other great platforms as well........Speed Six, Marmon and Cadillac 16, and a few others. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever the relative merits of each model, the Light Eight 900 was a cruel lesson and wake-up call for Packard management.   It was a bold move to field a model at $1,750 and it was too successful, it accounted for 40.7% whereas the 1931 826 priced at $2,385 had return 39% of total sales.  They quickly discovered their design, engineering, manufacturing and product content was not organized to build cars profitably at that $1,750 price level.  The 900 prices were raised to $1,895-$1,940 during the model year.  For 1933, the 900 was quietly folding into the four model 1001 at $2,150-$2,250 still accounting for 39% of total sales.  Although it wasn't directly influential on the middle-priced 120, it forced management to take a clean-slate approach to building a car which could compete successfully in a lower priced segment where they had never before competed. 

 

And, then, because Pierce-Arrow management did not take notice or analyze Packard's 900 experience, fielded their 1934 836A which did the same number on their bottom line.  But, they were farther on the road to demise without drastic action.

Edited by 58L-Y8
P-A 836A (see edit history)
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good analogy between the 900 and the 836A.  Just tweaking the production methods for an expensive car did not take out enough cost to be competitive and profitable in the upper-middle range, it took a wholesale change in production as was done for the 120.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the time Pierce came out with the 836a the factory was working at less than six percent capacity. There was no hope for Pierce by 1934. If they held on for three more years, the war work would have brought them through to become some type of foundry and home appliances manufacturing. The name Pierce Arrow associated with manufacturing new cars would forever be dead. The club spent ten years in the court system fighting of a jerk from Europe who wanted to use the name..........he lost, and the name now belongs to the club.

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

4 minutes ago, edinmass said:

The club spent ten years in the court system fighting of a jerk from Europe who wanted to use the name..........he lost, and the name now belongs to the club.

Only about 5 years on that one.  More recently (about a year ago) the PAS finally won a 4- or 5-year battle against a SoCal owner of a filtration company who wanted the name for use on a (grotesque) stretched Bentley, and THAT was the battle that solidified clubs' hold on names of orphan cars in cases where the intellectual property including the name of the defunct company had not itself been sold at dissolution of the company.

 

The 836A robbed market share ONLY from the full-sized, full-featured Pierce 840A, and at $2195 was too expensive as an upper-medium-price car and could not be mass-produced as the Packard 120s were the following year.  I dare say Pierce lost money on each 836A.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, 58L-Y8 said:

it was too successful, it accounted for 40.7%

That's all I remember about the 900 from reading the Kimes Packard book many yrs ago. People loved it but it proved a little too cannibalistic for the brand.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Packard's 900 experience came soon enough for them to learn what would not work in order to survive.  Whether the Buffalo business men who bought Pierce-Arrow from Studebaker had any real vision for the type of future models that could help them remain an automaker has never been clear. From their products the plan seems to have been to stand pat and hope for that segment to revive...or ride it to demise.

 

Bell Aircraft started in the mid-1930's in Buffalo.  With Pierce-Arrow experience in engineering, close tolerance machining, quality manufacturing and aluminum technology, a tie-in between the two companies would seem a natural.  It could have enabled the company to transition into that field and survive as a defense contractor by WWII.   Just another "what if" now...  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6T-FinSeeker changed the title to For sale: 1932 Packard 900 Light 8 - "Solid running survivor" - South Deerfield, MA - Not Mine - 5/29 Reduced
  • 6T-FinSeeker changed the title to For sale: 1932 Packard 900 Light 8 - "Solid running survivor" - South Deerfield, MA - Not Mine - 5/29 Reduced - 6/20 Reduced
  • 6T-FinSeeker changed the title to For sale: 1932 Packard 900 Light 8 - "Solid running survivor" - South Deerfield, MA - Not Mine - 6/20, 5/29 Reduced - 6/30 SOLD!

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...