Jump to content

That 1924/1925 Era....Duesenberg A and the Locomobile 48......


John Bloom
 Share

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, 58L-Y8 said:

Hmmm, Those Whites must be sports cars: convertible top, bucket seats, stick on the floor...

Yep, just as 'sports' as my one Studebaker!

 

Fuel injected 4 cylinder, 5-speed, 20" wheels with fender flares, full instrumentation with factory tach, giant 3" chrome fart pipe!

 

 

 

 

 

bb004.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, you have my attention as I am a closet truck enthusiast also.  This chat is discussing some comparisons of a few top of the line vehicles.  I say, your Studebaker heavy truck certainly fits into this conversation in a truck sort of way.  We all have our preferred "Make Flavor" inside us somewhere.  Some are GM forever, some are Ford nuts or Chrysler fanatics.  My grand-dad was a died in the wool Studebaker man.....through and through!  Tell us more about your Studebaker. Does it have a 4-53 or 4-71?  What was it used for in its first life?  You certainly do not see many of these heavy Studebaker "Sports Trucks".

😁

Al

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, alsfarms said:

Tell us more about your Studebaker. Does it have a 4-53 or 4-71?  What was it used for in its first life?  You certainly do not see many of these heavy Studebaker "Sports Trucks".

It has a 4-53 Detroit Diesel, Clark 269-V 5-speed direct transmission.

 

From what I was told, it hauled fish from the Pacific Coast when it was new for a few years, and then was used as a gin-pole truck in Nevada until it ended up back on a farm in Montana.  I bought it in 1994.

 

And I just found another one!! 

 

 

Photos of both trucks, and their Productions Orders in the above link.

 

Craig

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig,

You are north of the border.  Are the truck guys real active up north?  We had several 1.5 ton Studebaker trucks, in our area, but I have never seen a heavier Studebaker truck like either of your trucks.  What were they called 2.5 or 3 ton?  My current truck toy is a first series 1947 GMC short wheelbase dump truck, (same design as a 1946).  The Jimmy doesn't compare of compete with the Locomobile 48 or the White, but they can't work like the Jimmy still does!  It currently has the original 248 CID engine that will soon get replaced with a 302 CID Jimmy engine. At best my Jimmy doesn't compare with the early vehicles discussed here but I have fun hauling the "sunshine" with it and actually have another pile to move once it freezes up here.  Are you going to flatbed either of your trucks?

Al

 

Edited by alsfarms
clarity (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From May, 1961 through December, 1963 there were 704 Diesel engined Studebaker trucks produced in 1, 1-1/2, and 2-ton models, including two 1961 6E prototypes. 

Production models, 7E; 8E are 1962, 1963 or 1964 model year.  Of those, 117 were exported included the one that was sold new in Edmonton which I now own.    https://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/forum/your-studebaker-forum/general-studebaker-specific-discussion/88392-studebaker-diesels?86299-Studebaker-diesels=

 

Craig

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not have a Crane, which is a more advanced car for sure, but I do have a PA 48, a Loco 48 and a

Simplex. To be fair, the PA is a 1912, while the Loco is late 15 and the Simplex 14. In my mind there is

no comparison in driving. The PA seems a much less stable car and is more comfortable at slower speeds

and on slower country roads. It is good in town. The Loco is pretty difficult to maneuver in town, does better

on the road, but is somewhat truck like. The Simplex, while running a dated T head design, is an unbelievable

automobile. It is ok in town, albeit a little tough to turn. But, it shifts smoothly and has a great clutch. On country

roads it is far better driving than the Loco. On open roads or hiways, the other two are not even in the same class.

All three are great cars, but overall the Simplex outperforms them by a mile. Just one person's opinion.

 

Johnny

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


jcrow’s assessment of his three cars is not what I would expect. So I would have several questions........

 

 

Are they all properly sorted, and have let’s say 2000 miles on them since he has owned them?

 

Are they “intact cars as built by the factory”, most pre WWI cars are reassembled from multiple chassis and built up cars. Not a criticism, but very few intact Pierce and Simplex cars exist that are not extensively modified. For some strange reason it seems Loco’s don’t suffer as much from being built up cars. I’m thinking something just isn’t right.

 

Have you compared you cars to identical year and chassis from others? My suspicion is you cars may not be properly sorted. 
 

Early cars each have their unique positive and negative traits.......and just a year or two newer can make a huge difference. All three were over the top high end platforms, and I wouldn’t expect any of them to have any major difficulties of any type. Having driven two Crane’s I would compare them to a Pierce......large, heavy, but well done and great road cars. 
 

Over the years I have driven countless cars........many owners think highly of their car....or at least say it drives fine. I jump in and am shocked on how many poor preforming and poorly maintained cars there are on tours and events. One owner had his car for five years and gave it high praise. I took it for a spin at his request. I was fo frightened from its unsafe condition I told him not to drive it at all. He refused, and I spoke to the meet coordinators to let them know the car was so unsafe it should not participate on any tours. It was operated by the head judge......and condemned and not allowed to participate. Guy was pissed off at me......after several years and several shops......(all tractor mechanics).....he sent the car to me to fix. It was a “restored” car that was terrible mechanically but looked great. We got it straightened out over several months........too much to list. Car now is regularly driven.
 

I think I need to visit jcrow’s garage..........sounds like a fun place!

Edited by edinmass (see edit history)
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, this is only one guy's experience. Frankly, I also have a 15 Packard 3-38 that is in the same group.

It is the easiest of the group to drive and probably performs as well as the Loco.

 

I agree that the years from 1912 thru 1915 make a difference, which is why I mentioned the car's year of

manufacture.

 

To answer the main question, all of the cars are well sorted. I believe that I have owned all of the cars for

more than 10 years, most closer to 20. They all have their original body and running gear and engine.

 

Happy to field any other questions.

 

Johnny

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

7 hours ago, alsancle said:


When did Packard start using the last two numbers to indicate the wheel base?

AJ: 

That practice began with the 1921-'22 Single Six 116, continued when they expanded that chassis for 1922-'23 Single Six 126 and 133.   Generally runs true through the 1931 826, 833, 840 and 845 with a bit of variance.  The 1932 Ninth Series instituted a different series designation regime that didn't reference or corelate to the wheelbase lengths.

Steve

 

Addendum:  Upon further study, designating series with reference to wheelbase began initially with the First Series Twin Six for 1916, though wheelbase lengths eventually grew a few inches though the -25 and -35 remained.

Edited by 58L-Y8
Addendum:  (see edit history)
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I just found this topic and it has been a real education.  I too have had thoughts that as a humble working man I cannot afford the "heavy hitter" cars. That said, I am starting to think if I talk to the right people and don't need a garage full of cars, I could own one that could be a real stunner.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/3/2021 at 1:09 PM, 58L-Y8 said:

 

 

Thanks all for your considered responses.  Although we've ranged beyond the original question of the comparability of the Locomobile 48 and the Duesenberg Model A, have established they weren't directly so,  Now, the conversation has widened to consider other contemporaries which would be comparable and their place in the market.  .    Indicative of how quickly the market moved then, the Packard Twin Six sensation of 1915 was considered archaic by its 1923 demise.

 

The Series 80/81 appears to be simply a rear guard action to respond the best they could to the emergent entry-level ($2,500) owner-driven, premium/luxury segment being tapped by the Packard Single Six.  Unhappily, in Pierce-Arrow's case, they didn't have the manufacturing economies in place that would allow them to profitably participate, could only reach down close with the Coach series.   Peerless challenged with their specification-similar 6-70 and 6-72 to no avail.  It took the resources of General Motors to effectively respond: the 1927 LaSalle.

 

Steve

Thank you for pointing out the trend from chauffeur-driven to owner driven premium cars  in the Twenties. Your inclusion of the 6-70 and 6-72 models by Peerless in the discussion is interesting, because of the limited times they are mentioned on the AACA Forums. When Jon Lee was on the CCCA Classification Committee, he did suggest the 6-70 for inclusion. There were about 2,700 6-70s built, but only 3 known in this galaxy to still exist. There are quite a few of the nearly identical 6-72s around, and a whopping 14,000 of the whole "family" of Peerlesses with this engine were sold. How on earth did you know of these two models?

 

The original topic of Duesenberg Model "A" and Locomobile Model "48" is really a nice place to start a talk on Nickel-Era high-end cars. I would pick the Duesie of course. If I were going to be an advocate of Peerless in discussions like this, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the excellent Peerless Model 48.........arguably Peerless' best car viewed through the lens of not-built-to-a-price luxury AND decent sales*. In a parallel universe, someone will take a 48 Locomobile, 48 Peerless, and 48 Pierce-Arrow on a tour together to compare notes. Edinmass would pilot the Pierce, of course. David Baird piloted Matt Lynch and I for a day on the Gathering At Gilmore tour in George M. Cohan's 1917 Series 48-B, and it was breathtaking. 

 

1917 Pierce-Arrow 48-B Series 4-Passenger Touring | The June… | Flickr

 

*I have a book about the 100 best American cars, and two Peerlesses make the grade, a 1913 Model "48"and a 1905 Model "9" 24 h.p., I believe. 100 Greatest American Cars, by Jan Norbye, 1981.

 

On 11/3/2021 at 1:09 PM, 58L-Y8 said:

 

 

 

 

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

On 11/19/2021 at 9:39 AM, alsfarms said:

hmmmm, What is the CID for the early Packard twin 6?  What is the wheelbases available, besides 138"?  Interesting comparisons between the heavy automobiles.

Al

The 1916-'23 Twin Six was 424 cid for the entire production run. 

The wheelbase availability is as follows:

1916: Model 1-25: 125"; Model 1-35: 135"

1917: Model 2-25: 126.5"; Model 2-35: 135"

1918-'19: Model 3-25: 128"; Model 3-35: 136"

1920-'23: short wheelbase models discontinued; Model 3-35: 136"

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, jeff_a said:

Thank you for pointing out the trend from chauffeur-driven to owner driven premium cars  in the Twenties. Your inclusion of the 6-70 and 6-72 models by Peerless in the discussion is interesting, because of the limited times the are mentioned on the AACA Forums. When Jon Lee was on the CCCA Classification Committee, he did suggest the 6-70 for inclusion. There were about 2,700 6-70s built, but only 3 known in this galaxy to still exist. There are quite a few of the nearly identical 6-72s around, and a whopping 14,000 of the whole "family" of Peerlesses with this engine were built. How on earth did you know of these two models?

 

 In a parallel universe, someone will take a 48 Locomobile, 48 Peerless, and 48 Pierce-Arrow on a tour together to compare notes. Edinmass would pilot the Pierce, of course. David Baird piloted Matt Lynch and I for a day on the Gathering At Gilmore tour in George M. Cohan's 1917 Series 48-B, and it was breathtaking. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jeff_A;

 

How the Peerless model 6-70 and 6-72 came to my attention was researching the development and rise of the Packard Single Six to underpin Packard's rise to premium/luxury car sales dominance by the late 1920's.  To understand the context of those relative to competitors, I have a handy copy of The Specification Book for U.S. Cars 1920-1929, Edited by G. Marshall Naul.  The similarity in engine displacement, wheelbases and prices stood out instantly.   It appears as if with the growing popularity of the Packard Single Six, the Peerless management decided to enter that segment in hopes of capturing a piece of that burgeoning market.  In reading your fine analysis of the Collins Six development and history, my impression was the $2K-$3K price segment wasn't necessarily their initial objective but someone savvy recognized the competitor's success and decided to pursue it.   I will be interest in your perspective on this idea.

 

I second the idea of a comparison tour of those contemporaries conducted by those thoroughly familiar with at least one of those "Nickel-Era high-end cars" and their impressions of the others in comparison.  That would be some very engrossing reading.

 

Steve

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jeff_a said:

. In a parallel universe, someone will take a 48 Locomobile, 48 Peerless, and 48 Pierce-Arrow on a tour together to compare notes. Edinmass would pilot the Pierce, of course. David Baird piloted Matt Lynch and I for a day on the Gathering At Gilmore tour in George M. Cohan's 1917 Series 48-B, and it was breathtaking. 

 

 

 

 

Keeping with the conversation as it has evolved........take those three above mentioned as in the "peer group" and add in the Duesenberg and Packard Twin six.......How did they "rack and stack" pricewise with each other (apples to apples, Not a custom body Pierce vs standard body Packard...etc...)??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pre 1920’s cars are hard to compare, as there are way too many variables. Assembled cars, mid priced cars, high end cars......today’s perceptions are not necessarily based hard facts but lore and other books and articles that are less than accurate. I read that “xxx” platform is fantastic.......and then drive one, wondering what drug the author was taking. Cadillac was a mid priced car till 1915. In 15 Peerless fell of the map. The three P’s no longer applies. There was a tremendous amount of consolidation going on..........early twin six Packards had non detachable heads..........then a major redesign with upgrades. Thus from one year to another the “same car” was no where near the same thing. Rapid advances in engine and chassis technology were in play. I rather a 1919 Pierce 48 than a 1917 Pierce 66. One is a dump truck, the other a fine automobile. Having jumped behind the wheel of many automotive legends.......I can confirm most doesn’t live up to half their reputation.  

Edited by edinmass (see edit history)
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


The 1917 George Cohan Pierce was in my sights to buy back in the early 90’s. When I got to the garage, we bought the Packard. Both were 100 point cars........... 

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

On 12/10/2021 at 4:47 PM, 58L-Y8 said:

Jeff_A;

 

How the Peerless model 6-70 and 6-72 came to my attention was researching the development and rise of the Packard Single Six to underpin Packard's rise to premium/luxury car sales dominance by the late 1920's.  To understand the context of those relative to competitors, I have a handy copy of The Specification Book for U.S. Cars 1920-1929, Edited by G. Marshall Naul.  The similarity in engine displacement, wheelbases and prices stood out instantly.   It appears as if with the growing popularity of the Packard Single Six, the Peerless management decided to enter that segment in hopes of capturing a piece of that burgeoning market.  In reading your fine analysis of the Collins Six development and history, my impression was the $2K-$3K price segment wasn't necessarily their initial objective but someone savvy recognized the competitor's success and decided to pursue it.   I will be interest in your perspective on this idea.

 

I second the idea of a comparison tour of those contemporaries conducted by those thoroughly familiar with at least one of those "Nickel-Era high-end cars" and their impressions of the others in comparison.  That would be some very engrossing reading.

 

Steve

A couple of ideas regarding this thread. This post is a work in progress....driving from Salmon, ID to St. Ignatius and Phillipsburg & back right now. Need to pick up my Brass Peerless Hardcover Book from the guy I lent it to who has a Pierce, Tucker and Voisin..................who DOESN'T have a Pierce, Tucker & Voisin? (After a 580-mile drive -- mostly in 4WD -- I have my Brass Era Peerless book back, as well as having completed some tasks at work.)

 

One on the Collins motor; and two, with the 1924/1925 Locomobile- & Duesenberg-Level motorcars that are worthy of consideration...

 

I'll start with the penultimate model using the Collins Six, the Peerless Six-91, in a gorgeous promo illustration, 4th version of the six-year run this line or family. A little outside the realm of an A Duesenberg or a Series 48 Locomobile, but I include it because this sales brouchure is 1 of the very best examples of Commercial Art the company ever turned out. Note: alsancle felt, in a comment on the same illustration a couple of years ago, that the car below is part of the Circus Wagon School of Design, but I disagree. A Unitarian minister from Beacon Hill, MA may not have gotten a car in those colors, but that wasn't the market. Another car in this 16 page item for sale from Troxel's Auto Lit sports lavender tires...that's over the top. There is one known Peerless like this...around Springfield, MO. It's red and black.

 

Screenshot 2021-12-12 at 10.04.14 AM.png

 

First there was the 6-70, introduced at the NY Auto Show in January, 1924.; followed by the 6-72 version March, 1925; 6-90; and 6-91, introduced in 1928. The 6-70 & 6-72 were the same car except for a different rad shell and hood profile. The 6-90 was a way to get a fairly expensive 6-72 in a shorter w.b. and simpler instrument panel for $500 less. The 6-91s were the last with Peerless-built engines, the 289 Superb Six or Collins Six.

 

Regarding the Nickel-Era high-end cars, are we at a comparison-contrast of a '24 Duesenberg, '24 Locomobile 48, '15 Twin-Six Packard, '14 Pierce-Arrow 48, '14 Peerless 48, in theory? That brings back an old memory of a story I read about some old boys who used to tour Scotland with pretty much the cars we're talking about every year....staying at a different castle each night for a week. Alan Clendenen had two Peerlesses and was a participant with his Peerless 48. Alan had a 1904 and 1912 Peerless, which he traded in on a Silver Ghost, last I heard. 

 

These 5 models are not of the same year or even close, but are the same idea of motorcar, in my opinion. You cannot point to any of them and see where corners were cut or materials were second-rate. The Model "A" Duesenberg was a new sensation for the sporting man or woman, chariots like a Locomobile "48" were tradition-bound quality not requiring annual updates to sell... 

Edited by jeff_a (see edit history)
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jeff_a said:

but I include it because this sales brochure is 1 of the very best examples of Commercial Art the company ever turned out.

All art work of the era was done by hand, with ellipse templates, rulers, pencils, erasers, slide rules, french curves ( the wood or plastic kinds , not the live female kind) colored pencils, opaque water color, brushes etc. I had two friends in the late 1960s who were commercial artists in the pre war era who were an encyclopedia of how to do anything as you see in the example here. Totally outstanding , they were kind enough to share what they knew. One was a professor at the college I attended ( I was an art major) and I would spend time at his house just talking to him and seeing the "tools" he used to create. Just incredible.

I liked to listen to people- especially then, when there were people in their late 70s who were "there then "  "in the era" of the cars I love. First person experience that they saw and were sharing.

Edited by Walt G
spelling correction (see edit history)
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I share the thoughts shared by Walt G.  Those who have earned first hand from those originally involved in any part of early automobile manufacture, truly are lucky.  Here in the west, a similar thought, is speaking to some of those early cowboys that were here before automobiles and survived to see the first man on the moon, (my Grandad and hero).  I savor the moments when he spent time with me to tell me how it was at various historical time frames.  Several auto related stories involve his new 1917 Allen, my Greatgranddads 1909 Locomobile, my Grandmother taking the Model T Ford through the gate, unopened, because she struggled with the pedals, the new 1929 Chevrolet sedan put in the garage at the start of the Depression and not driven until 1933 when gasoline was available. I wish he were still available to hear my questions now.

Al

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Al, I talked to my GreatGrandfather, born in 1861, and asked what he thought of TV's "Gunsmoke", since he lived in Dodge City when one of the Earps was Marshall. He thought there were too many guns. Just to make this car related, he started a car company listed in The Standard Catalog of American Cars and was a dealer for both Case and Marmon automobiles.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

My Greatgranddad was a bit older than yours and he died when my dad was only about 4.  This Greatgranddad was a good business man who immigrated from England to get out from under the cass system, as he did not come from a royal family.  He ran the first automobile dealership in our side of the county selling, Kissell, Jeffery, Jeffery Trucks and Allen.  I am sure he would have some good stories coming across the US during the civil was as a young man.  History is nice!

Al

Edited by alsfarms
Spelling (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/15/2022 at 8:08 PM, alsfarms said:

He ran the first automobile dealership in our side of the county selling, Kissell, Jeffery, Jeffery Trucks and Allen. 

One of my favorite stories was an article in the old Cars & Parts magazine of a small-town 1950's Mercury dealer in Texas, and his experiences of obtaining special order cars, and dealing with the Mercury zone office, etc.  He explained that he was told what options he could not push or sell as a small dealer, unless he invested in the diagnostic equipment to service it, and made a trip to Dallas for training in how to use it.  And he did have a repeat customer who insisted on the Guide automatic headlight dimmer, an option he was not supposed to sell, and did, anyway.  The closest dealer that could service it was in Dallas, some 250 miles away. My grandfather never owned a dealership, but was a salesman for Mercury/Lincoln, and Pontiac and Buick in the 1950's, and 1960's.  After reading that article, and some stories of a Studebaker club member's dad who ran a Packard dealer makes me wish I only had the foresight to have asked my grandfather about the cars he sold, and if he remembered any special order vehicles, or prominent individuals who bought a car from the dealerships where he was working at the time.  My grandfather passed away when I was 16, not long after I bought my first car, a 1964 Studebaker.  Of course it was years later when I learned you lose a set of encyclopedias when someone who has been around automobiles passes away.

 

Craig

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...