Late 1910's/early 1920's 0-50mph times

[kfle]

I ran across this ad in my collection of Cole stuff for a 1919 Cole Aero 8 Sportster powered by a 346.6 cubic inch V8.  The ad is highly interesting as it gives high performance data as a selling point.  It also says that this high performance makes it the 'World's Safest Car'. A few points that the car mentions are being able to take hair pin turns at 40+mph and acceleration of 0-50mph in 22 seconds.  It also talks about braking performance.  

 

Two Questions:

 

1. Does anyone know a source for car 0-50mph times for that era?  I am trying to compare the performance mentioned here to other makes.

2. Does anyone know any other similar ads at the time for other makes that are high performance oriented.  I am trying to determine if this is one of the earliest auto ads focused on performance of the car.  

 

[TerryB]

I framed this 1911 REO ad that claims 50mph.

 

[hidden_hunter]

2 hours ago, kfle said:

1. Does anyone know a source for car 0-50mph times for that era?  I am trying to compare the performance mentioned here to other makes.

 

Not that I've ever seen - I suspect as much will ahve come down to shift times than engine performance. It always seems like the slowest part for me in the cad

[Mark Shaw]

Attached are similar ads as requested. 

In my opinion, other car companies were basing their calculations on side valve engines that were not as efficient as the Buick OHV engine.

 

[Tph479]

1917 information. Tested by Jessie Vincent from Packard.

[kfle]

2 hours ago, Tph479 said:

1917 information. Tested by Jessie Vincent from Packard.

Thanks for this and was exactly what I was looking for!  The thing I don't know about with the Cole numbers were the conditions.  The weight is similar for the Cole at about 4000lbs, though I am speculating they didnt have the car loaded with 5 people.  I will do some more digging.  

[PFindlay]

Interesting to read but also a bit biased as are all such advertiser's claims.   Note that the Packard chart records E.T. for 5 - 50 mph, not 0 - 50 as Cole claims.  Likely the Packard chart is referring to high gear acceleration so shift time is not a factor.  If the Cole number is anywhere near accurate it seems pretty impressive, but ...

[Buffalowed Bill]

 

40 minutes ago, PFindlay said:

Interesting to read but also a bit biased as are all such advertiser's claims.   Note that the Packard chart records E.T. for 5 - 50 mph, not 0 - 50 as Cole claims.  Likely the Packard chart is referring to high gear acceleration so shift time is not a factor.  If the Cole number is anywhere near accurate it seems pretty impressive, but ...

It's fairly well understood that a standing start for a measured distance was something that was never an excepted measure of a period, car's, performance. A standing start "drag race" did not come into vogue until the late 40's. The 5mph> or rolling start, was considered a better test of the power, torque and staying power of a given car. By including a standing start, a driver's reflexes and driving ability became a huge part of the test. Anyway for whatever the reason it just wasn't done.

[Grimy]

7 minutes ago, Buffalowed Bill said:

 

It's fairly well understood that a standing start for a measured distance was something that was never an excepted measure of a period, car's, performance. A standing start "drag race" did not come into vogue until the late 40's. The 5mph> or rolling start, was considered a better test of the power, torque and staying power of a given car. By including a standing start, a driver's reflexes and driving ability became a huge part of the test. Anyway for whatever the reason it just wasn't done.

And many of such tests (don't know about *this* one) were conducted in top gear only, which penalized the tall-geared cars such as Pierce through 1920 (3.33 gears in roadsters and 5-p tourings).

[kfle]

2 hours ago, PFindlay said:

Interesting to read but also a bit biased as are all such advertiser's claims.   Note that the Packard chart records E.T. for 5 - 50 mph, not 0 - 50 as Cole claims.  Likely the Packard chart is referring to high gear acceleration so shift time is not a factor.  If the Cole number is anywhere near accurate it seems pretty impressive, but ...

I own four V8 Coles and they are torque monsters!  My 1920 Aero 8 touring wants to move off the start though I haven’t timed it. The sportster model was geared a bit different similar to my 1923 custom sport coupe.  

[John Kelso]

I'll put my 1908 Stanley up against anything mentioned

[John Kelso]

[hidden_hunter]

It’s a bit weird though about Cadillac saying it’s “unpleasant” above 25mph, at least in my 22 it’s very comfortable cruising at 40mph 

 

 

[edinmass]

10 hours ago, kfle said:

Thanks for this and was exactly what I was looking for!  The thing I don't know about with the Cole numbers were the conditions.  The weight is similar for the Cole at about 4000lbs, though I am speculating they didnt have the car loaded with 5 people.  I will do some more digging.  

 

Having driven most of the cars in the chart……..and driven my 1917 White at 72 mph……….I can tell you it’s mostly bullxhit. The numbers are not based on any type of reality. The only reason the White is included is it has the highest horsepower rating published in 1917 that I am aware of. Of course the Pierce 48 is about 40 percent more horsepower. I would take the entire chart and toss it in the trash.

[edinmass]

6 hours ago, JAK said:

I'll put my 1908 Stanley up against anything mentioned

Let’s run my White side by side for five miles…………..nothing comes out of the hole like steam……….and nothing falls flat on its face faster at wide open throttle. Any of the cars on the chart would walk any steam car over the course of a mile or more………….

[Larry Schramm]

15 minutes ago, edinmass said:

Let’s run my White side by side for five miles…………..nothing comes out of the hole like steam……….and nothing falls flat on its face faster at wide open throttle. Any of the cars on the chart would walk any steam car over the course of a mile or more………….

 

Does that translate to how many gallons of water per mile?

[hidden_hunter]

6 hours ago, edinmass said:

Having driven most of the cars in the chart……..and driven my 1917 White at 72 mph……….I can tell you it’s mostly bullxhit. The numbers are not based on any type of reality. The only reason the White is included is it has the highest horsepower rating published in 1917 that I am aware of. Of course the Pierce 48 is about 40 percent more horsepower. I would take the entire chart and toss it in the trash.

I'm guessing it was a marketing thing for the packard, which is obviously a fine automobile but trying to trash your competition that much does border on the unbelieavable 

[hidden_hunter]

I did some poking around while I've been stuck at home with COVID (thanks work for the "mandatory" training just before Chirstmas where we all got it) 

 

I'd say there is definitely going to be something in news paper articles from the period, it's just going to be a case of finding them - Australia has excellent archives for instance where you can search them for free (the scan quality on some isn't great so the recognition isn't perfect) 

 

For example, just haivng a quick look for some articles on performance or the twin six

 

Mr Robertson talking about driving his packard twin six (he was a famous chocolateer and a true patriot) 

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/51145066?searchTerm=packard twin-six

 

Souping up your model T in 1917... during world war 1

 

 

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/page/8543209

 

Speed records in 1917

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/page/24381718

 

Twin six hitting 150mph

 

 

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/87007519?searchTerm=packard twin-six

 

From what I can tell it doesn't look like acceleration was really that common a metric, it was more about top speed and endurance 

 

A couple of references I did find looking for acceleration - certainly does not look like there was a standardised measure at the time which again makes searching difficult

 

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/page/25433713

 

Only provides the ranking - a napier won but no details

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/50765720?searchTerm=acceleration motor

 

Buick swept the pool in a new zeland test (of which no details are provided)

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/20228554?searchTerm=acceleration motor

 

Trove https://trove.nla.gov.au/ is a fantastic free resource that lets you search most major cities news papers (as well as regional hubs), Australia generally reported on major developments from both the UK and the USA so you get pretty broad coverage (in addition to local coverage). Even some of the vintage ads are great

 

The other thing to remember is that Australia was at war for the entire duration (1914-1918) so local tests weren't that common during this period and tended to report on "foreign" news on automobiles out of the US. Once you get into the twenties, you get a lot more local content such as road tests 

[John_S_in_Penna]

9 hours ago, edinmass said:

Let’s run my White side by side for five miles…………..nothing comes out of the hole like steam……….and nothing falls flat on its face faster at wide open throttle. Any of the cars on the chart would walk any steam car over the course of a mile or more………….

JAK is a professional restorer;  and expert on steam;

and a consultant to at least one well-known collection

that I know of.  He's too humble to promote himself--

humility is a great strength--so what he says carries

a lot of weight!

 

Edited December 23, 2022 by John_S_in_Penna (see edit history)

[edinmass]

'John, the first car I ever drove was a Stanley. And for the first five years we only did steam. All good. 👍

[Tph479]

On 12/22/2022 at 8:01 AM, Tph479 said:

1917 information. Tested by Jessie Vincent from Packard.

I wondered about his test also. I’ve had a twin six up to 70 mph and it was verified with a modern car speedo behind me.  If you are going to test a car you have to put it through it paces right? And have the tail car ready with a tow strap in case you break down and have to be towed back.

 

There was still plenty of pedal left and the motor was still pulling hard before I let off the gas. This was with the top up and windshield up. I assume it would be faster with both in the down position.  Doing 70 in these cars is pretty thrilling. The sensation of driving a wood wheel, rear brake only, open car of that weight is nothing like driving a modern car that speed. 

In the comparison above it doesn’t state the size of the 5 people in the car and if they were the same 5 people in all of the cars. It also doesn’t tell if the tops were up or down. I also wonder if the minimum speed start was in top gear and if the max speed was thru a set distance.

 

Bashing your competition is something the big 3 pickup truck makers do all of the time on their tv commercials which I find comical.  You know the minute the second car ever was built in this world that both car owners were looking to race each other and gloat about whose machine was better…

 

It is pretty neat that there were doing all of these tests back in the day and that the period literature still exist today to be shared and still debated over.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[kfle]

12 hours ago, edinmass said:

 

Having driven most of the cars in the chart……..and driven my 1917 White at 72 mph……….I can tell you it’s mostly bullxhit. The numbers are not based on any type of reality. The only reason the White is included is it has the highest horsepower rating published in 1917 that I am aware of. Of course the Pierce 48 is about 40 percent more horsepower. I would take the entire chart and toss it in the trash.

Agreed, I was skeptical myself of the chart as I know how that White engine performs from my friend's car!  It has more power than his Packard twin six.   His White is probably heavier than yours and for sure more top heavy with that Limo body (Whatever you call it), but it screams.  We were thinking about taking his White limo and my 1917 Cole Springfield body limo to the Old Car festival next year and putting them next to each other to show two high powered limo's next to each other.  If we had a third trailer we would bring his 1916 Packard twin six limo as well.

[Tph479]

19 hours ago, edinmass said:

 

Having driven most of the cars in the chart……..and driven my 1917 White at 72 mph……….I can tell you it’s mostly bullxhit. The numbers are not based on any type of reality. The only reason the White is included is it has the highest horsepower rating published in 1917 that I am aware of. Of course the Pierce 48 is about 40 percent more horsepower. I would take the entire chart and toss it in the trash.

Even when Packard’s Colonel Jessie Vincent lied he told the truth! 
 

It would be pretty funny if a car manufacturer conducted their own comparison and had their product not finish first  in every test performed and gloat about it. Unfortunately, I don’t think that will ever happen.

[Tph479]

A pretty neat chart. Do any other makes have anything similar to this?

[PFindlay]

 

2 hours ago, Tph479 said:

A pretty neat chart. Do any other makes have anything similar to this?

It looks like Packard was borrowing a line from Charles Y. Knight - "... gets more powerful with use."  (Referring to the Knight engined cars.)  I wonder if this was part of the ongoing and very public spat between Knight and Henry Joy?

[edinmass]

The proof is in the driving. After fifty years of driving a bunch of pre war stuff……..one can predict the performance envelope of almost any car especially the 1920-1942 years. Pre WWl it can be a bit more difficult. I can assure s you if my White’s didn’t drive in the top one percent of their era…….they would be LONG gone. I don’t like ordinary cars. White #2 makes the first one seem slow……….that thing is ridiculous. Much lighter and more horsepower according to what I have researched. We plan on doing a Caravan with the 1917 in April………it will keep up with the 41 Cadillacs……..just don’t stop short in front of me……….that would be ugly!

[Tph479]

14 hours ago, edinmass said:

The proof is in the driving. After fifty years of driving a bunch of pre war stuff……..one can predict the performance envelope of almost any car especially the 1920-1942 years. Pre WWl it can be a bit more difficult. I can assure s you if my White’s didn’t drive in the top one percent of their era…….they would be LONG gone. I don’t like ordinary cars. White #2 makes the first one seem slow……….that thing is ridiculous. Much lighter and more horsepower according to what I have researched. We plan on doing a Caravan with the 1917 in April………it will keep up with the 41 Cadillacs……..just don’t stop short in front of me……….that would be ugly!

It is nice that we get to talk about the performance of the big cars from the teens and early twenties and bring them to people’s attention that are not familiar with that era.  A well sorted car of this vintage can easily keep up with the speed limits on most roads today. It is quite funny when you pass up a modern car that you tower over and you get the weird look from them. 

 

The braking systems are usually well designed and can easily lock up the rear wheels. The problem is that you have 4 to 6 thousand pounds of moving  weight and the rear tires maybe have 12 square inches of contact area to the pavement….. that is when the fun begins.  In reading period literature the engineers talk about the down falls of front brakes and how you can have uncontrolled skids and the cars would do summersaults and such in stopping. 
 

I am game for driving a White next time I’m in Florida.

[TerryB]

Funny and enjoyable to read about the always debatable “my car is faster than your car” especially when the cars are 100 years old.  I can relate a little better to the days of Boss 302 vs Z/28 and GTO vs SS396 Chevelle. Our favorite is always faster than the other guy’s ride!

[wayne sheldon]

I shouldn't talk about it. I'll probably start to cry.

The best tour car I ever had was the 1915 built series 16 Studebaker six cylinder seven passenger touring car. The six's bore and stroke was the same as the four cylinder car the same year. A couple hundred pounds heavier, and fifty percent more displacement! I don't know what the gear ratio was, but it could really roll along. I drove the car on a lot of club tours and personal pleasure drives. Other club members often asked me if I was running full throttle as they could barely keep up. But I never did find out what the top speed was. I was clocked at 65 mph once.

Near my house on the local freeway is a rather steep bit of a hill. I was running late due to a family issue and trying to get to a midway point to catch up for a VMCCA Nickel Age Tour. About two-tenths of a mile and about seven percent grade. I was doing 60 at the bottom, and topped the hill at still 50 mph! (A lot of modern cars can't do over 40 at the top of that hill!)

A lot of the larger automobiles in the mid to late 1910s had higher gearing than the cars that followed in the 1920s. Most roads still weren't fit for such high speeds, and customers became more interested in comfort and smoothness than speed. 

Two wheel braking is an issue on the earlier cars! Once people became more comfortable with the idea of four wheel brakes, they discovered how much more effective they were. When heavy pressure is applied to the brakes, the car pitches forward a bit. That pitching forward applies considerable pressure onto the front tires. As a result of this, nearly sixty percent of four wheel braking is done by the front wheels! A car with only two wheel braking on the rear has only about forty percent of the braking ability of a four wheel brake car. As a person that has driven tens of thousands of miles in cars with only two wheel brakes? I can tell you that makes a big difference!

I still love my two wheel brake cars, and I love to drive them a lot! It requires a mindset adjustment to allow for reaction times and braking differences. One needs to NEVER forget that other drivers DO NOT understand your braking ability or lack thereof. They WILL cut into your needed extra space, and you have to compensate for that.

 

I miss my Studebaker. I wish I could somehow get it back. But I can also like my 1915 model T Ford!