Tall Tires And Large Displacement Brass Cars.

[BobinVirginia]

I’ve recently found myself very interested in the big Brass cars. While many of you may know them well. They’re a bit of a mystery to me. I’d like to hear about them and learn more. There was a lot going on around 1910 with many makes I’m not familiar with. The recent thread about a Rambler for sale made me wonder, just how many are out there? 
 

Please feel free to share experiences and pictures! I have practically no experience with brass cars and have really only seen one such example. Really cool stuff I’d like to know more about! 

 

 

Edited May 11 by BobinVirginia (see edit history)

[Larry Schramm]

If you want to see a lot of vehicles, go to the Old Car Festival at Greenfield Village/ Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn Museum.  

 

Put Sept 7 & 8th on your calendar.

 

There will be between 500-700 vehicles 1932 and older with lots of vehicles in the Horseless Carriage era, 1915 & older.   This is the one time that private individuals can drive their cars through the village so you will be able to see the old cars being driven.  You will be able to talk to the owners about their vehicles and learn more. Click on the link.

 

https://www.thehenryford.org/current-events/calendar/old-car-festival/

 

Look me up, I will be there with the Buick truck.

[1912Staver]

As for the higher displacement , large tire diameter examples the answer is that they are reasonably rare. And a good number of the ones that exist are rarely seen on the road. Many / most of the bigger cars are very valuable.  So they are often in private collections of very wealthy people who as often as not rather shy away from any sort of publicity about their cars or collection. It makes figuring out just how many big cars are surviving quite a difficult task. Some haven't been publicly seen since the 1940's. 

    I consider the start of the  " big car " class to around 40 H.P. , although many will argue that should be 50 H.P. 40 H.P is a formula H.P. number and roughly equates to a 4 1/2 x 5  { bore and stroke in inches } 4 cyl. engine, and about 318 cubic inches. A similar bore and stroke 6 cyl engine is therefore a 60 H.P. These examples would be what I consider the start of the big cars. The road monsters go up quite a bit from there. For example a Lozier type H, a well respected Brass Era, 4 cyl . " big car " is 5 1/4  x 5 1/4 bore and stroke or 454 cubic inch.

 Wheel diameter on big cars is usually thought to start at about 25 inch diameter x 4 1/2 inch width.  27 inch diameter x 4 1/2 or 5 inch width is a very popular size with big cars. But there are a number of notable cars that fitted wheels quite a bit larger than that. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 11 by 1912Staver (see edit history)

[BobinVirginia]

@1912Staver

I would say that you’re correct about the secrecy of some cars. Seems the knowledge base out there on such vehicles is had by only a few in the know. They really are very interesting examples of automotive engineering and history. Thanks for your input 

[Mark Shaw]

If you are really interested in brass era vehicles, join the HCCA.  The club roster lists hundreds of pre-1916 vehicles.

Join / Renew The HCCA - Horseless Carriage Club of America

It's only $19.15 for new members.

[edinmass]

 

Bob, come on down south, and drive a "big boy"...........😁

[BobinVirginia]

38 minutes ago, edinmass said:

 

Bob, come on down south, and drive a "big boy"...........😁

I’m hoping to do that this fall! 

Edited May 11 by BobinVirginia (see edit history)

[BobinVirginia]

@edinmass

I’ve started planning more events with old cars this year for sure. I’ve got tons of personal engagements the next couple months but towards the end of August into late fall, I’m stacking full of pre-war car activities!! 

[motoringicons]

I like a 1909-1910 automobile with 34" x 4" tires, a 112" chassis, a 318 CID engine that is 4 1/2" by 5" and has an overhead valve, four cylinder!

 

Remember: "When Better Automobiles Are Built, Buick Will Build Them" !!!

 

 

[BobinVirginia]

1 hour ago, motoringicons said:

I like a 1909-1910 automobile with 34" x 4" tires, a 112" chassis, a 318 CID engine that is 4 1/2" by 5" and has an overhead valve, four cylinder!

 

Remember: "When Better Automobiles Are Built, Buick Will Build Them" !!!

 

 

Way cool car! The seat looks original? Is this an unrestored survivor or an older restoration that’s been driven and enjoyed? 

[motoringicons]

35 minutes ago, BobinVirginia said:

Way cool car! The seat looks original? Is this an unrestored survivor or an older restoration that’s been driven and enjoyed? 

The car was brush painted in maybe the 1940s. The seat is original but was given a rear slant to it in the 1920s or there abouts. Here is a picture of the car when Glenn Brown bought the car in the 1930s or 1940s. He added the Buick gas tank. The other photo is the car in the 1940s or 1950s with Glenn driving it. The third photo is the some of the papers, etc from Glenn and was included with the car. 

 

Edited May 11 by motoringicons (see edit history)

[BobinVirginia]

@motoringicons

That’s awesome! You’ve got a real time capsule there. Really amazing to think you’re enjoying the same cars those folks did all those years ago. 
 

Thanks for sharing!

Edited May 11 by BobinVirginia (see edit history)

[ramair]

4 hours ago, motoringicons said:

I like a 1909-1910 automobile with 34" x 4" tires, a 112" chassis, a 318 CID engine that is 4 1/2" by 5" and has an overhead valve, four cylinder!

 

Remember: "When Better Automobiles Are Built, Buick Will Build Them" !!!

 

 

I am a Buick fan also! They don’t have the cubic inches as some of the “Thumper” engines, but they are a much lighter car and even though the bigger Buicks sell for twice as much as the small ones, I would say that are 20 cents on the dollar compared to the big boy toys. I like the 318 ci four cylinder and I have owned 2 big 6 Buick 7 passenger touring model 55. One was a 1916 and it burned to the ground and the other is a 1915 that I still have. They are Buicks first 6 cylinder and it is 331 ci. I am aware that it would not qualify as a brass car, but they do have big wheels 36 x 4 1/2, long wheelbase 130” bore of 3.75 x 5”, it easily does 55 mph and I believe it will do more but why?  This is the second year of the electric start and very easy to drive.

i have also driven a 1913 Oldsmobile model 53 and a Hudson six 54. These are all in the mid to upper middle price range, but for sure half the price of Pierce, early Packard, Stutz and I don’t even want to mention the rare and valuable 

Simplex, ghosts and Nationals as they are beyond compare.  Top engine is on my 1915, bottom picture is my 1916 before it burned down in my shop fire 2 years ago.

Edited May 12 by ramair (see edit history)

[BobinVirginia]

Beautiful Buick, sorry to hear it was lost. I really like Buick’s and thank you for sharing that information about them! 

[wayne sheldon]

Bob i V, I second joining the HCCA! The discounted new member price for one year should hopelessly hook you onto the early automobiles! Having read so many of your comments, replies, and threads on this forum over the past two years, I suspect you will find so much fascinating history to read about and interesting automobiles that you'll stick around for a long time!

While many discussions about the costs involved in the big money high end brass era cars may be frightening (especially for those of us with very limited resources?), There are many decent smaller size brass era cars available for between $10,000 and $20,000 these days. And they don't need big expensive tow vehicles and trailers. I currently use a 2005 Ford Expedition to pull my open trailer. The 2001 Expedition served me very well for a dozen years, and before that I had a 1988 Chevy 3/4 ton Suburban. None of those vehicles was very expensive, or required outrageous repair costs, and all of those vehicles served me very well.

A person can have just as much fun on a HCCA tour with a brass model T as with an Oldsmobile Limited! Small Buicks, Overlands, or even a two cylinder Maxwell can be even more fun! (The two cylinder crowd is even even MORE fun!)

 

Let the "big "C" Classics crowd keep their Duesenbergs! Give me a two cylinder Maxwell or Reo any day!

[BobinVirginia]

@wayne sheldon

I think you’re right about the HCCA and thanks for the recommendation. Last Sunday while talking with the Peeler’s he recommended that I join the regional chapter of the HCCA. Told me about the tours and activities. If a Big Limited like theirs was within my grasp I’d grab it! Very interesting how you can see the shift from a motorized carriage to what more resembles a car as we know one. Most people in my age group don’t know anything about this era. Now that I know about them it really is interesting. The big engines and engineering really seem to show a push towards performance. I’m learning something everyday it seems about these cars. I’m just one of those guys that wants to know about all of them!
 

While my interests and curiosity has no limits, unfortunately my finances and time do. I’ve watched so many younger people here at work go out and over extend themselves on a new crew cab diesel with all the accessories. Going a $100k in debt to look impressive to who exactly? Then the reality of taxes, insurance and fuel hits them. Worst part is, NOBODY cares and I think it’s an insecurity with many people that they seem to think they need the best. 
Stay in your lane is a phrase I think people should adhere to! Lol

I stay in mine and it helps the stress levels when you do. Especially with expenses on hobby items. 
 

For now I’ve got my 21 Haynes and it’s all I need in a prewar car. Not a brass car but the 33x4 tires and 288ci straight 6 are really cool for the period in a “light” 

model. I’m going to keep seeking out the big rare brass cars along with the smaller and lesser known cars. I happen to really like the sporty little Buick’s around the 1915 year too. My magic 8 ball I shake says it’s most likely I’m going to have another old Buick! Ha! (I still have my first car a 78 Buick) 

 

Thanks for your comments and I believe I’ll be around for years hopefully! 

[Larry Schramm]

Cool car.  Time to run the wheels off of it so you can learn about putting new tires on an old car.

 

We are here to help and answer any questions you might have.

Edited May 12 by Larry Schramm (see edit history)

[BobinVirginia]

15 minutes ago, Larry Schramm said:

Cool car.  Time to run the wheels off of it so you can learn about putting new tires on an old car.

 

We are here to help and answer any questions you might have.

Unfortunately to get it from its resting place I had to venture into tire changing! 
 

There’s definitely a leaning curve with 100 year old wheels! Can’t tell you how excited I was to see it up on tires. Thank you very much for offering help! There’s several questions I’ll have along the way. 

[1912Staver]

Your Haynes is a great car ! Only slightly newer than a Brass car and similar in many ways.  Just be patient and keep your eyes open for a affordable Brass Buick or similar. A Brass Haynes would make for a remarkable pair, but they are much rarer than Buicks. 

[motoringicons]

That Haynes is a great car. A good looking car and well engineered. Get it running and drive it! 

Edited May 12 by motoringicons (see edit history)

[nsbrassnut]

Hi BobInVirgina

 

I share your fascination with big wheels and brass cars. My direct experience with them is limited, but I have been following along for several years.

 

Join the HCCA to start learning more about these cars. And then look for an HCCA tour near you and arrange to drop by and meet some of the owners. I joined HCCA back in the early ‘90s when at Hershey I was dragged to their tent by Greg Tocket when I told him that I was working on a basket case single cylinder Cadillac. It was one of the best things that I did. Through the HCCA I met some interesting people and got a lot of help with my Cadillac project.  The club members were also open and welcomed me to ride along with them on a few HCCA tours when I didn’t have running brass car of my own to take. Attending the tours and listening helped me learn a lot. Including some of the things to watch out for.

 

Since then, I have managed to finish my Cadillac and also added a brass ’15 Ford T and a ’14 Hudson 6-40 touring. The Hudson almost meets the big wheel and brass criteria. It does have an interesting 288 cu. In. 6 cylinder twin block engine that the factory rated at 47 brake hp. The car hasn’t yet been properly restored, but I have serviced it and driven about 2,000 mile over 20 years. Even with a worn engine it would easily reach 40 mph, even with 4 passengers on board. But stopping can be a challenge. I learned later right from the factory service bulletins that they recognized its brakes as substandard and they were changed along with several other features in the ’15 models.

 

Some suggestions to consider when investigating brass cars to add to your garage.

 

If you are just looking for something to take to shows and don’t mind pushing it on and off the field, the pick anything shiny that you like. But if you want something to actively and reliability drive, then do some research. Just because they sold well or you see a lot in the magazines, it doesn’t mean that some of those models are really all that reliable and may not include some information on just how much effort it took to get them to work properly.

 

Some examples.

 

My Hudson 6-40. Big six cylinder engine with a lot of power (when rebuilt properly) with 34 X 4” tires. Capable of carrying a good size load at a 40 mph plus. But it was a new model in ’14 and the factory put the money in the engine. The frame is lightly built, the brakes are poor, the body is rather “lightly” built. It was definitely built to the price point that they targeted. I got a ride in a properly restored ’15 6-40 touring once. It could blow the doors of mine. Drove better, stopped better, overall, much better driver. The owner mentioned that he could cruise upwards of 50 mph with his. He had put so many miles on it that he had to rebuild the engine a second time over the decades that he has had his.

 

Cadillac 4 cylinder, ’09 to ’14. Very different cars from the beginning to the end, although they share many basic design features. Good points. Good power, name recognition, mostly well built. Weakness, poorly design connecting rods by todays standards. Design weaknesses in the heads. If you do some research, you will hear a lot of stories of “blown up” engines. Rod failures have happened more often than people will admit. Some year heads are prone to cracking between the valve seats. The copper water jackets, they look great, fixing and/or replacing, challenging and expensive.  A new set of modern style connecting rods and sometimes a new crankshaft are common rebuild items if you want a reliable 4 cylinder Cadillac.

 

Buick 4 cylinder model. Several different models and power ranges from the small model 10 (and derivatives) on up to big 4 cylinder models like the Model 16 and 17. Lots out there, but do your research. Typical problems include the use of removable valve cages that hold the valves and unscrew for valve service. Good idea, can be problematic in service. Some models have “assembled camshafts”. I saw this on a friends 1911 Model 31 (which uses the model 10 drivetrain design). The cams are individually made and pinned to a straight shaft. To install in the motor requires the insertion of the plane shaft through the bearings, then slide on the cam lobs and pin them in place. To remove, you have to find the pins, take them out them remove the lobs while pulling out the shaft. And those fun to watch overhead valves. If they aren’t oiled regularly, they can start to stick and drag placing extra load on the lifters and camshaft lobs. My friends Model 31 camshaft lobs were badly worn down and nearly round from excessive loading on the lifters. Likely from a lack of oil on the rocker arms. He had to have an entire new camshaft kit made and installed when rebuilding the engine. And the big Model 16 and 17, I have heard that many of them had a weak aluminum crankcase design when they left the factory. Several have had to have new crankcases cast and machined to get the cars going again.

 

EMF 30. I have a soft spot for those, but have only been an admirer. They use a trans-axle where the transmission is mounted on the front of the rear axle and have long links between the shifter and the transmission for shifting. I have heard comments about the transaxle rear ends can be an issue.

 

Others that I have seen on tours and have had some good reviews of include REO and Maxwell they made both a “small” and “large” 4 cylinder models. But each of them may also have some issues that are unique to them.  If you get into the really impressive stuff like Lozier, Locomobile, Simplex, Pierce, Oldsmobile etc., then you will have some interesting adventures and I will be envious. Those cars are fascinating, but unfortunately for me, well above my pay grade both to get into and to maintain.

 

Ford Ts. Ok, not a big wheel brass car. But overall, the Ford T is a pretty tough design and it made out of good quality materials. One of the best features about these Fords is that the entire driveline is enclosed and runs in oil or grease. This was a big advantage at the time on when running on unimproved roads and deep mud of the era. Most other cars of this era have various drivetrain bits hanging out in the air where the mud and road dirt get sprayed on leading to faster wear on the moving parts. But do your homework. Factory stock early models, such as the ’09 and ’10 have some weakness. The very early rear ends are not as robust as the later ones. A problem that really didn’t get sorted out until the ’15 models. The early engines are “open valve” and drip more oil than the average T and by some are considered a bit more “delicate” than the later engines. Price ranges can vary widely. Factory correct early models can be pricey, but actually less reliable on the road. And there are many early “tribute” Ts running on tours which have early bodies and fenders but may running later engines and rear axles. The average person would not notice the difference, but the difference if value can be considerable. Both versions are generally welcome on HCCA tours and can be a lot of fun. And Ford Ts have a two major supporting clubs and very good parts support for the vintage.

 

All of these brass era cars have higher ratios of maintenance hours to driving hours compared to later cars. The ratio can be proportional to the age of the car. The older the model, the more time that will be spent on maintenance for every hour spent on the road. Most of it is fun work, but some of it can be a real pain some days. And if something wears out or breaks, if it doesn’t say Ford on it, then it will say $$$$.

 

And I have seen cases where well-tuned brass Ford Ts will outperform some of the “big brass” cars when you get to the hills and corners. Fords are light and nimble and can be peppy for their size. You can have a lot of fun on a brass era tour with a brass T as a starter car before jumping in the deep end with the big wheel brass car.

 

And I think that your Haynes is great by the way also.

[BobinVirginia]

@nsbrassnut

That’s the most insightful and tech/driving review oriented comment I’ve read on the forum! Thank you! 
That’s real insight on cars for touring which I’m all about. I truly appreciate a “special” car that’s deserving of a top of the line restoration. To be real, most aren’t those cars. We car folks need to understand that and drive the heck out of them. You laid out some that do it better than others. Great useful information for people looking to drive one. 
 

I met the owner of an amazing Olds Limited and he recommended a lot of what you did. Get involved and network with people. I definitely should join the HCCA! 
 

Thanks for the comment about my Haynes. I happened into the car rather than seeking it out. What great thing that’s been done for me in many ways! 
 

PM coming your way 
 

Edited May 13 by BobinVirginia (see edit history)

[Mark Shaw]

14 hours ago, nsbrassnut said:

Typical problems include the use of removable valve cages that hold the valves and unscrew for valve service. Good idea, can be problematic in service.

Being a Buick owner, I have to take issue with this statement.  The Buick cage valves are typically not a problem if the owner properly maintains the car.  I have owned 2,4-,6-, & 8-cylinder Buicks with and without cage valves and never had this problem.  Buick overhead valve engines were more efficient and were built like most modern engines today.  I am not aware of the camshaft lobes being pinned like the early Oakland engines.  Buick also used roller lifters in their engines that eliminate the excessive wear on camshafts like flat tappet lifters.

 

"Flat tappet and roller cam are two types of camshafts that differ in their material, shape, and performance¹. Flat tappet cams are made of cast iron and have lobes that are more rounded and gentle¹. Roller cams are made of hard steel and have lobes that are more aggressive and steep¹. Roller cams offer higher tappet velocity, more lift and more area, along with reduced valve train friction and higher engine rpm². Roller cams are generally better for performance than flat tappet cams."  Summit Racing 101

 

[AHa]

I enjoyed reading brass nut's post, however, what he did not point out is the propensity to hot rod early cars. Ever since the early 60s, when muscle cars were being produced and people got serious about tweaking every last HP out of motors, brass era cars have suffered the same fate. Brass era cars are driven faster today than they were designed to drive and some hold up to that abuse better than others. The model T Ford is one example that holds up very well. It would be interesting to know just how much HP a well built model T will produce compared to the 22 HP they put out originally. Most other makes of cars have not held up well.

 

We call it ego. When a model T Ford out performs a big brass era car, invariably that car is going back into the shop to be tweaked. Most brass era people understand now one must be careful when attempting to increase compression on a brass era car but there is a new generation coming up all the time and failures are rarely talked about. In the brass era, torque was more important than HP because cars had to pull themselves out of sand pits and mud bogs. Today, HP is more important because we want to go faster.

 

Now, everybody is not the same and some people will invariably take offense at what I've posted here. They will point put all the race cars being produced and the huge draw of the race tracks but most people were happy if they could get through the mud bog without having to get out to find a farmer with a horse that could pull them out.

[BobinVirginia]

All I ask is that we discuss our experiences. I don’t personally know enough about the subject of Brass Cars to say what’s best. I do know, I enjoy the experiences shared good or bad. Thanks for the discussion everyone 

[AHa]

Ask yourself this: What drove manufacturers toward taller tires?

[ABear]

12 minutes ago, AHa said:

Ask yourself this: What drove manufacturers toward taller tires?

Early automobile roads were not much of roads, more like rutted muddy wagon trails..

 

A bit like the pix below but far, far worse..

 

Large wheels allowed the vehicles to drive through the ruts without "high centering" the vehicle..

 

Large wheels were less of a need as roads started to be improved..

[AHa]

So, the T model above has 30" tires. 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36" tires were for heavier vehicles that tended to sink deeper in the mud. Incidentally, cars made during this period were designed for roads such as this, not the smooth, clean, roads of today. I suspect the height of the tires also had something to do with torque. It takes more than HP to pull through this gunk.

[Steve Moskowitz]

Bob I am sure the Peeler's cars sparked a big interest for you as they certainly command your attention.  I had several years of driving a 1911 Olds Limited and can tell you my experience.  These are great cars, not easy to crank, as such many have electric starters these days but make other brass cars look small in comparison.  Going straight you can get up to insane speeds if you dare but not so much fun when you are in tight spaces and need to turn.  If you are not moving it takes a ton of effort to steer.  I had the "pleasure" of being asked at several concours to participate in a style show and getting the car to the review stand in a crowd was not easy.  I was no weakling since I was a regular at a health club that I was an investor in and competed in powerlifting. I still struggled.  Oh, and when you are in fourth gear and up to speed you need to make sure of your stopping distances since from the factory they were rear two wheel brakes.  There will be another Limited at Saratoga and yet another different one at Cincinnati!  They are coming out of the woodwork!

[AHa]

It is easy to forget the brass era is the very beginning of car development and driving one is very different from any modern car. Yes, some of them will go insanely fast but were not designed with this in mind. They were not designed for modern roads. As Steve just stated, two wheel, rear, brakes on 4" tread is not a good situation at 60 mph. Sure, the car will go that fast and faster on smooth asphalt but the car was designed to go much slower over less than perfect roads and still provide a smooth enjoyable ride. It is wise to remember the original design reasoning and protect the investment for yourself and future generations. I like the Hippocratic Oath: First, do no harm. When applied to the brass era, to me, it means to leave the car in as good a condition as you found it and hopefully these cars can be enjoyed another 100 years by a whole slew of other folks. 

[ABear]

50 minutes ago, AHa said:

I suspect the height of the tires also had something to do with torque. It takes more than HP to pull through this gunk.

Not really.

 

Torque would have been addressed in the transmission and final axle gear ratios more so than with tires.

 

One advantage of large diameter tires is the lower revolutions per MPH the tire and wheel assembly would make compared to a smaller more modern tire which will rotate much faster. Slower assembly rotation would be more inline with materials used for wheels like spokes and even the bearings, drive shaft or drive chain.. This is one of those things were "speed kills" lessor quality materials. as materials and bearings improved, so did the speed of the vehicle, but you still had pretty poor roads to drive on up until the the 1940s.

 

In the US there was a recognition that roads needed to be improved as far back as 1921 with the Federal Highway act, but it was a "patchwork" of somewhat improved portions with no consistency of quality and no real pavement. Most roads were never improved under that act, there was an additional act for federal interstate high ways in 1935 to help develop the Interstate roads, but once again, small local roads were pretty much left in the dust.. Wasn't until after WW1 when it was recognized that something must be done to standardize and improve roads through out the US..

 

So, basically as the roads improved, the need for large wagon wheels to deal with deep rutted muddy was diminished.

[rustyjazz1938]

On 5/12/2024 at 8:34 AM, BobinVirginia said:

Unfortunately to get it from its resting place I had to venture into tire changing! 
 

There’s definitely a leaning curve with 100 year old wheels! Can’t tell you how excited I was to see it up on tires. Thank you very much for offering help! There’s several questions I’ll have along the way. 

@BobinVirginia Glad to see those tires worked out for you!

 

As to Brass era cars, I am a fan, but have tended to the smaller side of things. My 1913 and 1914 Studebakers are very much like the EMFs they are derived from. My 1914 ran quite well around Chattanooga at the HCCA National Tour this year and climbed the roads and mountains around the city like a Billy goat with as many as four full grown men in the car. 

 

Happy Motoring and glad to see progress on the Haynes,

 

Rusty Berg

[CChinn]

56 minutes ago, ABear said:

Wasn't until after WW1 when it was recognized that something must be done to standardize and improve roads through out the US..

Did you mean after WWII during the Eisenhower Administration when Ike applied what he observed in Germany (autobahn) to US Interstate System?

[nsbrassnut]

A couple more points to ponder. For essentially all of these early engines, none could handle high RPM, especially some of the large bore engines with unbalanced crankshafts. So, if you wanted to go fast with a slow turning engine, then you needed big wheels.

 

Similarly, driveshafts and u-joints were a weak point for a while. To get around that many large cars used a gear box with jack shafts and final drive by chains. The chains could handle the power and take the flexing where early u-joints often failed.

 

Follow up to my earlier comments. I focused on what I have worked on and talked/read directly about. In the case of the early Buicks. Yes, even with a roller lifters the cam lobes can and have worn out. When they were in service many were not well serviced and were worked hard and put away wet. The first Buick case of the pinned camshaft and its replacement was told to me by the late Harold Sharon who described the process that he had to go through on his Model 32. The second one came later and was a friends Model 32. Both used the last version of the small Model 10 engine. The engine does use roller lifters, but the rollers are narrow and if the valve train starts to drag or the roller gums up, they can start to wear into the lobs. My friends Buick had deep grooves in the cam lobs from the rollers. The Model 10 was built to compete with the Ford T. And notice which one won out. And in the case of the valve cages. They are a frequent discussion point on the early Buick Groups.IO forum. And I was around when one of the larger brass Buicks lost power and it was finally traced to a valve cage turning in the block partially shutting off the exhaust. And it hasn’t been the only one. Once restored, a properly maintained Buick can provide excellent service. But it also needs regular maintenance similar to any early car.

 

And another early Buick myth is that they were all overhead valve engines. That’s actually not true. Durant had Buick making so many models with various engines before 1915 of different sizes, price ranges, changes in construction and different sources within Durant’s companies, some even ended up with T head engines.  And in the late teens in Canada some of the McLaughlin Buicks used Northway L head engines to be able to have a lower cost line for Canada that was not built in the US.

 

Also, as mentioned by others. Big cars can go fast, but they may not turn or stop well. And if you start to compare metrics, a Ford at 1500 lbs. and 20 hp is 75 lbs./hp. A Big Wheel Big Brass car can tip the scales at up to 4000 lbs. with passengers and with 50 hp equates to 80 lbs./hp. The end result can be similar performance, and the Ford has way less mass to get moving or to stop. This is part of why some well restored stock Ford Ts can end up passing the big brass cars on the long hills and around the turns even if they can’t keep up on the straight and level. And some of those Big Brass cars have also had some extensive internal engine and transmission work to make them run faster than they did when new. Its not only the little Ford Ts that have been “hopped up” for touring.

 

The intent of the discussion was to recommend for anyone new to Brass Era cars to do their homework. Talk to those who drive their cars, and even more important, talk to those who have done the work to make them run reliably.

Side note. I did get to be a passenger for a day in a '14 Studebaker. It ran great on the tour. I just happen to like the EMF version more. 😉

 

One of my more memorial rides was after the Ford that I was passenger on broke down at the first coffee stop. I got to spend the rest of the riding along in a 1910(?) HPOF quality Stevens Duryea. Magnificent car.

[ABear]

4 minutes ago, CChinn said:

Did you mean after WWII during the Eisenhower Administration when Ike applied what he observed in Germany (autobahn) to US Interstate System?

World war 1 started in 1914, ended 1918.

 

Initial Highways act was signed in 1921 which is AFTER WW1 but BEFORE WW2 so it was recognized  before WW2 that there was a need to improve roads.

 

WW2 started 1939 and ended 1945

 

In 1935 the Miller act was signed which enhanced the original 1921 Highways act and started the formalization of the Interstate road system that we know today. Still before WW2..

 

With Japan bombing Pearl Harbor it was recognized that Alaska was high vulnerable to being take by Japan so the Alcan project to build a road to Alaska was born in 1941 and completed 1942.., during WW2..

 

Eisenhower gets credit for the Interstate Highways acts, but in reality the Highways we know were already in process of being built well before Eisenhower ever got involved which was by the way was 1956, well AFTER WW2..

[CChinn]

Abear, I only mentioned after WWII because your post mentioned 1921, then 1935 before the remark about after WWI. My mind works logically. since WWI ended before 1921 and WWII ended in 1945, I only wondered if the after WWI was a typo. That’s all. Not really asking for one of your long replies to prove your intelligence to us

[ABear]

3 minutes ago, CChinn said:

Not really asking for one of your long replies to prove your intelligence to us

You asked for clarification, that is what I gave.

 

I put things into a logical chronological fashion for your benefit of understanding and historical clarification which cannot be explained in one word sentences..

 

Has nothing to do with "intelligence" of the writer.

[wayne sheldon]

Perhaps a bit too much drift from the original intent of this thread? However, some historic background as to why certain things were the way they were is very helpful in the overall understanding sought in this threads beginning. A quick clarification, The push for better roads began well before 1910, with automobile clubs and civic groups lobbying and pushing for not just local, but long distance highway improvements. The Lincoln Highway officially opened in 1915 as a result of several years effort and improvement. It was one of a few "interstate" highways to officially open before the Great War (world war one).

 

Pushing back to the original intent for Bob i V. 

There is a wonderful world of in between cars. Automobiles not quite to the status of the really big wheel and high horsepower cars that cost so much. And quite a lot of these cars can be had at somewhat affordable prices. Being not quite so big, while a tow vehicle and big enough trailer may be required, they do not need to be the big end top of the lines level. 

Personal experiences through friends with their cars as well as my own? Buick (mentioned a lot already) had quite a lot of models, including both four or six cylinder big models. Two different very good friends have had (for a long time now!) the 1915 big six cylinder seven passenger touring cars (was it a B?, C? -55?). One I spent quite a bit of time around, and toured alongside several times! The other one I actually drove for several miles. (I don't often drive other people's cars, just not comfortable doing so, but they had been trying to repair a screwed up clutch and wanted another opinion on how well it was working.) (It drove really nice!)

The OHV valve cages do have a propensity to rotate occasionally. However, once you understand that, it isn't a serious problem, and it should (if the car is reasonably well maintained?) be a quick and easy fix when it happens. A good friend developed a weak cylinder on his big six and fixed it during the coffee and donut stop on a club tour. Took about ten minutes while I watched (and ate my donut!). (I did offer to get greasy and help, but he said no need to!)

 

Several friends and club members have had the smaller six cylinder 1914/'15 Hudson touring cars (the big Hudson six is truly a big wheel high horsepower car!). But everyone I know with the Hudson small six loves the car! I know three of them that are toured often! Two of them I toured alongside numerous times.

 

The one I have the most experience with myself, is Studebaker.  Yes, that transaxle rear end is a weak area. However, if you get a good one, and there are a lot of good ones? Learn to use it and shift it properly, and they are great. The 1913 into midyear 1915 was a carryover from the four cylinder EMF, however Studebaker added (one of the first production mono-block sixes) a six cylinder model to their lineup during 1913. Even the four cylinder Studebakers were great cars! For a couple hundred more pounds, and nearly fifty percent more horsepower (bore and stroke are the same!), the sixes were a real powerhouse of an automobile!

About June of 1915, Studebaker did a midyear model change. They increased the bore slightly, and made several improvements to the engine and other aspects of the car. The July 1915 built ED six I had was a fantastic tour car. With its 34X4 tires, 355 cid, and 50 horsepower, it was about as close to the BIG BOYS as one could get without going way up in cost. I never did find the top speed. It was happy at 50 mph. I had it somewhat over 55mph several times. One time, my wife had done something foolish, and injured her shoulder. I had signed up for a major national club tour that happened to be taking place only a few miles from my home. A quick few phone calls, and I got the itinerary for the day (in case I could get away at some point?). I spent all morning getting her shoulder checked out, nothing serious, a sling, some medications she had had before, and she said "you paid for the tour, I'll be fine for a few hours at home, GO!" So I did. I was running late to catch them at a planned stop at a historic site about fifteen miles from home, so the Studebaker and I hit the freeway and flew! A couple miles from my house is about a half mile fairly steep hill (most of it about six percent). The Studebaker and I crested the hill at fifty miles per hour!

Unfortunately, a few years later, family needs forced me to have to sell the car. A longtime good friend bought it, which in some ways hurt, in other ways helped me a lot. I know he took even better care of the car than I ever could have. Knowing it is in such good hands helps a lot. But I would give 'almost' anything to have it or one like it back again.

 

There are a dozen other midrange marques that could also be almost a BIG BOY HCCA toy. Some, like Reo, did build sixes before or in 1915. Others like a lot of the lower production marques did build large four cylinder cars. The problem with the lesser known and lower production marques is that finding owners of them to get personal experiences from can be difficult. Not all cars then were well engineered. If an opportunity for something like a Moyer comes along? You may have trouble finding anyone that knows anything about them. (Don't ask me much about a Moyer, although I did know someone that had one, and did see it at his home a very long time ago!)

 

Enjoy the journey, Bob, learning is half the fun!

 

 

 

Edited May 14 by wayne sheldon
I hate leaving typos! (see edit history)

[BobinVirginia]

4 hours ago, rustyjazz1938 said:

@BobinVirginia Glad to see those tires worked out for you!

 

As to Brass era cars, I am a fan, but have tended to the smaller side of things. My 1913 and 1914 Studebakers are very much like the EMFs they are derived from. My 1914 ran quite well around Chattanooga at the HCCA National Tour this year and climbed the roads and mountains around the city like a Billy goat with as many as four full grown men in the car. 

 

Happy Motoring and glad to see progress on the Haynes,

 

Rusty Berg

It’s been a few years delayed for personal reasons but you really helped with the Haynes!! 

 

Thanks again for replying to my ad. You’ve got a part in the Haynes 

[mechanician]

9 hours ago, AHa said:

I enjoyed reading brass nut's post, however, what he did not point out is the propensity to hot rod early cars. Ever since the early 60s, when muscle cars were being produced and people got serious about tweaking every last HP out of motors, brass era cars have suffered the same fate. Brass era cars are driven faster today than they were designed to drive and some hold up to that abuse better than others. The model T Ford is one example that holds up very well. It would be interesting to know just how much HP a well built model T will produce compared to the 22 HP they put out originally. Most other makes of cars have not held up well.

 

We call it ego. When a model T Ford out performs a big brass era car, invariably that car is going back into the shop to be tweaked. Most brass era people understand now one must be careful when attempting to increase compression on a brass era car but there is a new generation coming up all the time and failures are rarely talked about. In the brass era, torque was more important than HP because cars had to pull themselves out of sand pits and mud bogs. Today, HP is more important because we want to go faster.

 

Now, everybody is not the same and some people will invariably take offense at what I've posted here. They will point put all the race cars being produced and the huge draw of the race tracks but most people were happy if they could get through the mud bog without having to get out to find a farmer with a horse that could pull them out.

This raises an interesting question...how fast did ordinary folks actually drive in the period.  In MA the speed limit, (or at least the maximum limit as a lower speed could be "unreasonable") was 15 mph in town and 20 mph elsewhere.  I am not disputing that the roads were much worse, but my model T is much more happy at 30 or even 35 than it is at 15.    So much so that I can imagine it would be quite difficult to drive that slow at least in hilly country.  Even on an average modern dirt road, 25 is on the slow side.  We could pick on any number of different cars and I think the results would be similar, but model Ts were everywhere and their popularity indicates they must have well fit their actual use, so I think it is a good choice.  So, were the automobiles that poorly adapted to the "lawful" operation of the time, or were operators actually driving them a bit closer to modern speeds than we might have expected based on the written record...