Pierce Arrow molded in Fender headlights

[Grimy]

Willys 77 headlights:  where Mercedes got that bad idea....

[Matt Harwood]

I personally wouldn't buy a Pierce-Arrow without the fender-mounted headlights. They're the core of the brand, more distinctive than their quality or body styling, which were familiar in other high-end marques.

[Matt Harwood]

2 hours ago, Hudsy Wudsy said:

Despite the fact that it's a long word, I think that most people are familiar with the meaning of anthropomorphism -- the endowing of human qualities on inanimate objects. I don't, myself, find it valuable when I regard cars, but I have to say that certain Willys autos absolutely looked befuddled and bewildered to me. I don't know how these ever got to market with those headlights:

 

 

Morgan Aero 8 would like to disagree but is too drunk.

[Frank DuVal]

On 12/1/2022 at 6:54 PM, wayne sheldon said:

Studebaker might have done better and survived longer if the other big three had copied them. For a lot of buyers, it was their uniqueness that turned the buyers off.

But, they sold the MOST vehicles by a long shot in the 1950 model year. Yes, the first bullet nose as we all call it! 2nd most sales year, 1951, still a bullet nose, and a V-8 in the larger cars (Commander and Land Cruiser).

[wayne sheldon]

I have always believed that Studebaker in the 1950s was mostly ahead of their time. And they did have a solid foundation of longtime loyal customers. 

They always were leading innovators, in the 1910s one of the first mono-block sixes. One of the best mid-price performance cars during the 1920s. And I haven't personally confirmed it, but have read that more cars in the Indy 500 for several years early 1930s used Studebaker engines than any other engine builder (somebody please correct me if that is wrong?). Two of the best prewar tour cars I have had were earlier Studebakers. I love them!

I wish that the company could have survived a lot longer. Historians can debate forever the causes for their demise. Those of us that appreciate history should enjoy the cars as we can. Although my primary interests in automobiles and history lean toward pre1930, I would love to have almost any year or model Studebaker ever built as long as it was decent looking and a good running car. I like petty much everything they built postwar up to 1957.

[8E45E]

On 12/2/2022 at 6:44 PM, wayne sheldon said:

I have always believed that Studebaker in the 1950s was mostly ahead of their time. And they did have a solid foundation of longtime loyal customers. 

They always were leading innovators, in the 1910s one of the first mono-block sixes. One of the best mid-price performance cars during the 1920s. And I haven't personally confirmed it, but have read that more cars in the Indy 500 for several years early 1930s used Studebaker engines than any other engine builder (somebody please correct me if that is wrong?). Two of the best prewar tour cars I have had were earlier Studebakers. I love them!

I wish that the company could have survived a lot longer. Historians can debate forever the causes for their demise. Those of us that appreciate history should enjoy the cars as we can. Although my primary interests in automobiles and history lean toward pre1930, I would love to have almost any year or model Studebaker ever built as long as it was decent looking and a good running car. I like pretty much everything they built postwar up to 1957.

Studebaker engines were current and up to date until the middle 1950's.   While the Champion flathead 6 was a good, durable engine, it ended up being underpowered, and overstressed when the cars got heavier, often getting poorer gas mileage than their V8 counterparts.  The Studebaker V8 was, and still is an excellent engine, and gave outstanding performance, especially with their supercharged versions.  The huge downfall was Studebaker got left behind when the industry switched to overhead valves for the 6 cylinders, and the big-block/huge displacement wars for V8's starting in the late 1950's and early 1960s'.   Studebaker did not have the available funds to build a solid, dependable OHV six-cylinder engine from scratch, nor had the funds to build a more modern larger-displacement V8 with hydraulic lifters, etc.  Studebaker did their best by converting the long-running 169.6 cubic inch Champion engine to OHV configuration for 1961, but the new head designed for it ended up being a weak point with cracks developing between the valve seats, and thus gained a bad reputation.  This was while Chrysler's Slant Six introduced the year before was earning a reputation for being 'bulletproof'.  The V8 held its own, but the publics' perception of small-displacement engines as being no match for huge displacement engines never changed, despite Studebaker's efforts trying to change that with their showing at Bonneville, etc.  As stated, there were more reasons than Studebaker's engines which caused their demise.  

 

Craig

[wayne sheldon]

Thank you Craig! I always enjoy your insights.

[prewarnut]

...as I suggested, the Dawley/Pierce patent could be beaten. As proof here's a successful 1922 Patent with modification of the headlight (higher on the fender) and additional items such as a lower safety bumper which was intended to prevent a struck pedestrian from being run over.

 

 

[Gunsmoke]

A problem that develops with many patents like these is to establish just what is being patented. Is it some sort of unique concept (like the very low fender edge), or the shape of a headlight that creates  much better illumination, or the incorporation of some type of special wiring solution etc etc. Usually when a patent is registered, the patent has a very specific description of just what is patented and banned from copying. For the above/PREVIOUSLY posted Studebaker patent for example, the designer patented the whole design concept of the car, a very difficult thing to prove, since, among other things, it had 4 wheels like every other car on the road, a pretty standard wheel base, 2 headlights, 2 tail lights, etc. I'm surprised he was given a patent at all.  While the shape of nose and rear was unique, much of rest of car was similar to many on the road.

Edited December 7, 2022 by Gunsmoke (see edit history)

[1912Staver]

My personal favorite PA's are the ones just before the molded in introduction. Circa 1908 up to the end of gas lamps. Close to the pinicle of Brass Era cars in my books.

 

[wayne sheldon]

Those pre-fender headlamp Pierce Arrow big cars were quite impressive! I know a collector that has a few of those, including an early "Great Arrow" (1907 if I recall correctly?). He also has an early fenderlamp 1913 with the riveted headlamps (beautiful car!). Another longtime good friend bought a 1912 Pierce Arrow roadster some years ago that had a decent 1950s restoration in a not great color. The car was owned by a well known collector and famous on HCCA tours in the 1960s. The car was needing some attention, so they did a full re-restoration in a better color. Now it is really impressive!

[jdome]

Is there any truth to the rumor that the Pierce Arrow in-fender headlights were the inspiration for Austin Healey Bugeye Sprite ?

[zepher]

Not sure about the Bug Eye but you only have to look at the front of a MG TF to see the influence. 

[1912Staver]

And Morgan 1954 and up, except the rare +4+ . Quite similar to MG TF styling except the grill work. 

 

 

 

Edited December 8, 2022 by 1912Staver (see edit history)

[prewarnut]

22 hours ago, Gunsmoke said:

A problem that develops with many patents like these is to establish just what is being patented. Is it some sort of unique concept (like the very low fender edge), or the shape of a headlight that creates  much better illumination, or the incorporation of some type of special wiring solution etc etc. Usually when a patent is registered, the patent has a very specific description of just what is patented and banned from copying. 

 

   I agree. The challenge is to be specific without being too specific. There's a famous patent suit in CT in post-colonial times to prove the point about specifics and how it was cirumvented by changing just a few of the details and the sum would no longer match the description.

   I am not sure I believe the oft told scenerio that since these (fender mounted lights) were patented and either licensed to PA or held by PA that no one else would do it. I think in essence there are three reasons for most others to have not designed fender mounted lights in the Brass era -'20s:

1) fear - of being challenged.

2) poor illumination (as lights are higher off the roadway)

3) looks (I personally think the headlights of the era look great filling the V-shaped space between radiator and inner fender (also probably why PA felt compelled to put the cowl/running lights there). 

Edited December 8, 2022 by prewarnut (see edit history)

[V16]

I have always thought they look great, distinctive,high quality and more practical for night driving as the light is spread more evenly over a wider distance.

[Flivverking]

You know back in the era(early) the wide fender lamps of the Pierce were illegal in some states for a while , like the Model A ford cowl fuel tank was in the beginning( though earlier cars had it).

 I would not take the regular NAF( normal as fxxk) position of head lamps  as a detraction. The wide fender lamps was  only a sales gimmick and had nothing to do with the quality of car( the Rolls Royce) in America. 

  Drive an early Pierce Arrow,you might  give up old cars completely,because you will never have one(economically) and bust your bubble...Fxxk a Dusenberg.

 

 

..

Edited December 8, 2022 by Flivverking (see edit history)

[8E45E]

6 hours ago, Flivverking said:

You know back in the era(early) the wide fender lamps of the Pierce were illegal in some states for a while , like the Model A ford cowl fuel tank was in the beginning( though earlier cars had it).

 I would not take the regular NAF( normal as fxxk) position of head lamps  as a detraction. The wide fender lamps was only a sales gimmick and had nothing to do with the quality of car( the Rolls Royce) in America. ..

The Morris MM series Minor had to have the headlights relocated above the grille before they could be exported to the US starting in 1949.   Hence, earlier MM series Minors are called 'low-light' models.

 

Craig

[bryankazmer]

39 minutes ago, 8E45E said:

The Morris MM series Minor had to have the headlights relocated above the grille before they could be exported to the US starting in 1949.   Hence, earlier MM series Minors are called 'low-light' models.

 

Craig

Many cars with Lucas electrics are called low light models

[8E45E]

1 minute ago, bryankazmer said:

Many cars with Lucas electrics are called low light models

No, they are 'lights-out' models!  Sign on the door of their head office reads. "Hours of Operation: Sunup to Sundown"!

 

Craig

[Buffalowed Bill]

IMO Pierce had made changes in the headlights which even the most ardent detractor could live with. One of my favorite cars-not mine unfortunately

.

Edited December 9, 2022 by Buffalowed Bill (see edit history)

[Ozstatman]

What a fine looking automobile! 👍👍👍

[trimacar]

On 12/8/2022 at 1:12 AM, Flivverking said:

You know back in the era(early) the wide fender lamps of the Pierce were illegal in some states for a while

I have researched this, as have others, and can find no documentation of Pierce fender headlights being illegal anywhere, even the New York requirement for bracket headlights has been seen as a myth.

 

If anyone has documented proof that fender headlights were illegal anywhere, I'd sure like to see it.  Some things about our old cars are repeated so many times that some take them as fact.....

[zepher]

13 hours ago, Buffalowed Bill said:

IMO Pierce had made changes in the headlights which even the most ardent detractor could live with. One of my favorite cars-not mine unfortunately

.

 

That is a stunningly beautiful car and even in green I bet there would be people lined up to own or even drive it.