Best V12 or V16 Classic

Without any doubt in my mind: the V-16 coupe for 2-passengers, built from 1934-1937. BIG, BOLD, BEAUTIFUL, CURVACEOUS, CLASSIC!

there was an interesting comparison report in SIA on a V16 Cadilac vs. V16 Marmon. The Marmon's performance was clearly superior. I will grant you that there were few attractive bodies mounted on the Marmon chassis.

If you think there were few attractive Marmon 16 bodies, you should have seen the one at the AACA National Meet in Denver last year. Don't know much about it, but it was a beauty.

While I personally am a Packard Twelve nut, I would have to admit it would be hard to pick a "best" of the multi-cylindered "super luxury" cars made from roughly 1925 to 1942, which the Classic Car Club of America was originally formed to protect.<P>Each of these "super luxury" cars were "enginering exaggerations, magnificently over-done", which is why we call them classics ! <P>I think it is most unfortunate that so few of these monsters are maintained in road-worthy condition, and used for what they were designed for. I dont know whether to laugh of cry when I see them over-restored cosmetically as "costume jewelry", more often than not by people who have NO interest in how they SHOULD run.<P>There is an interesting series of "road test" articles in recent issues of THE CLASSIC CAR (our Club magazine). Of course I am pleased that the CCCA members conducting the test found enough to like about the Packard Twelve, that they rated it over-all highest. But again, I would be the first to admit that the other cars tested (Perice Arrow V-12 at 480 cu. in) ( Cad. V-16 at 441 cu. in). etc. etc. each were splendid and magnificent machines, so vastly superior to the ordinary cars of their era, that the name "true classic" is all that needs to be said.<P>If anyone DARES to argue that THEIR favorite is the BEST, let's RUMBLE...and debate it !<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs AZ

Mr. Hartmann/ I tend to find that with the exception of Dusenberg, that the so called super luxury from the USA made in the 30's are under enginered.

Unregis Henry....you obviously need to do some more "tending to think"...suggest you learn a bit more why we started the Classic Car Club Of America...in particular..do some reading in technical journals...attend some functions of the CCCA..and look over some of the REAL classics.....or take some of us up on our standing invitation to come visit us personally....after you have gotten a basic education in automotive engineering of that era...and understand the tremendous differences between the ordinary "common folk" cars of that era...and the great classics...THEN we can have a nice discussion.

Octo-Hank, I think you generalize too broadly. I nominate the RR Phantom III to compete with the Lincoln flat head (Continental and brethren) as worst V12.

Well stated PH & 55555. Our Royal cousin does seem a bit off the wall.

For Unregist. 5555<P>Where did you get the idea that the Zephyr - Continental V-12's had "brethern". For your information, many of us opposed the admission of these cars to "classic" status, for two unrelated reasons. First, their styling was "art deco" or "moderne/stream-lined", and thus too "late" in design theory to be called "classic" (the desigh theory in which form follows function...i.e. a headlight is separate from a fender, as each's shape reflects its function). (yes..yes..I know..I know...as our educational standards have fallen ever lower, most younger people today havnt got the foggiest idea that the word "classic" really DOES mean a particular theory of design). The second reason is the "guts" of these cars was hardly superior to the ordinary old car of that era - the Continental-Zephyr V-12 being nothing more than a "stretched" ordinary Ford V-8...my recollection is that they were only about 300 cu. in., and thus gave ordinary performance...no match for the "super powered" super-luxury cars of that era that we now call "classics".<P>But where did you get the idea that the "big" Lincolns...the aristocratic super luxury cars that really DO earn the title of "classic", are "brethern" to the Ford-based V-12. They are MUCH larger, MUCH more powerful, MUCH more durable, built in a separate factory, and placed on superior highest quality luxury bodies. <P>Sure ..a equally well-maintained Packard V-12 will "blow the doors" off a "big" Lincoln V-12 in a drag race, but again, I would be the first to admit that brute power and superior performance is only ONE of the many aspects of what makes a REAL classic car so superior to the ordinary old car of that era. ALL of the "big-engined" classics were superior performers, each offering a bit more of something special than the others...but again....ALL superior.<P>The original post was addressed to me personally - I remain unable to pick any REAL classic and say it was the BEST...all I can tell you..is that I love em all !<P>And on what basis to you extend your scorn to the Phantom III ? C'mon...be honest...you ever owned one...worked on one..or even driven one ? The superiority of these cars to the ordinary "common man" car of that era is so great, that your comments tell us only about your ignorance, and nothing about the cars themselves.<P>Remember, this is a PRIVATE Club. I am NOT a spokesman for the Classic Car Club Of America. But I suspect many of our membership share my view that if you are in the least bit interested in WHAT we are all about as classic car lovers, come to our events, and we will welcome you, and offer you rides, and talk your ears off as to the hows and whys of what makes a true classic so special.<P>But, I must also caution you...if you have some kind of "chip on your shoulder", in that you resent the superiority of the true classic, there are many other fine car clubs within this forum for the person who is most interested in the ordinary old car of the classic era.<P>In either event, good luck in finding a car club and/or forum that meets your needs.<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

Mr. Hartmann/ Would you say that the Cord 810 & 812 had the most sophisticated drive train design of any of the the FULL CLASSICS. Even as advanced as the Cord 810 was supposed to be, it was never a car ahead of its time as alot of peole claim. Think I am Crazy for making the above statement?

Henry - in response to your question about the Cord 810.<P>First of all, let me again assure you that...<BR> 1) I am not an "expert" on ANYTHING !<P> and<BR> 2) My opinions are just that - my<BR> own; while I certainly HOPE that my<BR> "posts" are in accord with the Classic<BR> Car Club Of America, I am only an<BR> ordinary member with NO authority to<BR> speak for the Club.<P>It has probably been a good 40 years since<BR>I last worked on or even driven a Cord 810. I do recall that from a QUALITY stand-point, I found them disappointing. Fittings, finish, quality of materials, all were below the "standard" we expect to find in the "best of the best". The one I drove was not a spectacular performer, but I cannot recall now why that was the case. My recollection is that either my '34 Packard Super Eight OR my '38 Packard V-12 (both had MUCH larger motors) was much more responsive.<P>I am told by people far more knowledgable than I am about the Cord, that they had a VERY "high" axle ratio, and were thus capable, IF properly maintained, of "blowing off" just about EVERYTHING of their era. Certainly, superior performance is ONE of the elements that sets the true classic car apart from the ordinary car of the classic era ( 1925-1942). As you know, most of the big-engined luxury cars were crippled by incredibly "low" final drive ratios, so that their engines were literally "screaming to death" from over-revving, at anything beyond the highway speeds of that era ( which explains why so many of us have changed the "final drive" ratio of our classics, so that they can give good performance at today's highway speeds ).<P>From a DESIGN standpoint, from the little that I know about Cords, I would have to say your comments are WAY off the mark. <P>First, from an APPEARANCE standpoint, they were certainly far advanced for their time, with their stream-lining, concealed head-lights, etc. <P>True, the basic motor block design itself was an ordinary primitive "L" head. However, the drive chain lay-out was most certainly way advanced in concept from other cars.<P>Let me again emphasize that while I am flattered by the attention, I would hardly consider myself an "expert" on all things classic. I strongly recommend to all of you "back-issues" of the THE CLASSIC CAR (again - our Club magazine) for far better and more competent coverage of the issues that interest you, than I could possibly provide myself.<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

Mr. Hartmann? Just think of it a cr introduced in 1934. Front wheel drive, independent front suspension, and four-wheel torsion bar springing, unit body constuction, pushrod overhead valve engine, removeable wet liner cylinders. The car was only 60 inches high, with the wheels set t the extrem corners to provide high stability and excellent handling. This car was more advanced enginering wise than any Full Classic of the time produced in America. This car was the Citroen Traction Avant, mass-produced in France. In 1934 Auburn purchased one of the Avant and shipped to the USA. Auburn engineers used the Citroen as the basis for the Cords drive unit. So much for Cord being a car ahead of its time. Tuesday night the best V12 or V16 ever built and I might add not from America.

Did the later Cord use any of the Miller front drive design, or was that only used on the L29 Cord?

Your royal arrogance Mr Hartmann, I am quite well aware of the later Lincoln V12 being a "stretch V8", and as it was used in several models besides the Continental, it was used in the Continental's "brethren". <P>As to the PIII, I have never owned one, but have benefitted from LISTENING (see how annoying electronic shouting is?) to those who have worked on them and the story is a lot less happy than with, you must admit, the Packard or first generation Caddy 12's.<P>And I've been a CCCA and marque club judge, although that makes my opinion no better than anybody else's on this board. I make no claims to any right to be condescending to any person on this board, even those who(gasp) ask about a non-Classic.<P>Mr. Moderator, I ask your indulgence here, as I believe this hobby is about inclusion and assistance. I find it offensive to claim an exclusive franchise on "the light."

For Mr. "Unregistered 5555"<P>I am sorry you are so dissatisfied with other chatters in this particular site. I am unclear as to where you believe I have mis-informed or mis-lead you regarding either the Classic Car Club of America, or attacked you personally. I believe this is wonderful form of communication. Hopefuly, you will review my comments below, and confine your "posts" to the framework suggested. <P>Please again note that this is the"site" of a PRIVATE Club. Some "posters" have apparently come in here by accident, and once here, have failed to note the Rules and customs of this Club, as reflected in the "caption"<P> " PLEASE LIMIT POSTS ON THIS FORUM<BR> TO DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CLASSIC<BR> CAR CLUB OF AMERICA, AND THE CARS<BR> RECOGNIZED BY THE CLUB AS FULL<BR> CLASSICS...."<P>If you are dissatisfied with our Club's rules and customs, you are certainly welcome to join us and attempt to change them, or, find another organization that is more in tune to your liking. <P>I suspect if you use your "search engine" and key in the name of the non-classics you find most acceptable to your needs and preferences, you would find Clubs and sites that meet your needs. My recollection is that the car you keep referring to is a "common man" car, not designed or marketed to the "super luxury" class buyer. If that assumption is correct, I am unclear why you keep bringing it up in here.<P>You claim to be a member of the CCCA. May I draw your attention to TWO items of interest.<P>First, let's try it again as to what this particular "site" was set up for<P> " Please limit posts on this forum to<BR> discussion about the Classic Car Club<BR> of America and the cars recognized by<BR> the Club as Full Classis. "<P>Secondly, I would like to draw your attention to those portions of the CCCA HANDBOOK AND DIRECTORY which refer to the mechanism for terminating the membership of a member whose conduct and actions are below the standard desired. <P>I believe you are in error in your assumption that our Club desires to be "inclusive". My understanding of this particular Club's Rules and customs is that we desire to be EXCLUSIVE. May I have your cooperation in respecting the above ?<P>Peter Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

Mr. Hartmann/ The best had to be the Lagonda V12 produced in 1938 and 1939, Far more advanced than any American V12 or V16. One last thing before departing. The true super classics are from east of the USA. Rolls Royce, Bugatti,Bentley,Hispano-Suiza, and Lagonda. These cars are the true super classics. In many cases cars produced for the mass public over here on the continent, where better engineered cars than many of the American classis. Have a good day.

Peter, you are incorrect on the "exclusive" issue and seem to show poor hospitality toward people who visit this forum.<P>It's true, our Club IS very exclusive when it comes to cars, but it is NOT exclusive when it comes to people.<P>Anyone with a sincere interest in our cars, and a small amount of money to pay their dues is welcome to be a member of CCCA. If you have a valid credit card in your pocket, you can join CCCA from the Web site. The process takes about two minutes. That doesn't sound very "exclusive" to me. I know you are aware that it is not necessary to own a Full Classic to be a member. The membership requirements are clearly outlined in our Members Handbook and Roster. It is also pretty clearly stated on our homepage, <A HREF="http://www.classiccarclub.org" TARGET=_blank>www.classiccarclub.org</A> <P>Moreover, this Discussion Forum is a PUBLIC FORUM. While we do ask that people limit their posts to cars or issues relevant to CCCA, the Forums are here for all the world to see and anyone is welcome to participate, not just CCCA members.<P>The forum is intended to help people understand what the Club is all about and increase goodwill and friendship towards all old car enthusiasts. Please help in that goal. Publicly threatening someone with expulsion from the Club because you don't agree with his post is out of line on this, or any CCCA forum.

Mr.Conrad, There is a lot of comic relief listening to a broken record. I've almost got the entire song commited to memory.

Well, it's true, flame wars seem to be good for Internet traffic, although it would make me much happier if everyone tried to keep things positive. <P>Despite Peter's best efforts, he has become quite an attraction on this Forum. If it wasn't so repititious, it would be fun. I'm pretty sure P. T. Barnum would have really enjoyed the Internet.

For Henry III<P>I agree with you SOME of the "super luxury" cars the Europeans offered in the 1930's, are superior in some respects to our offerings here in the United States. However, to keep this in context, I believe your comparisons are unfair. <P>First, bear in mind that in terms of real purchasing value, you would have to multiply anymid1930's dollar amount by a factor of at least 15 to get its approximate dollar value today.<P>Thus, for example, the typical delivered price of a Cad. V-16, Packard V-12, or KB Lincoln, Pierce V-12, etc was in the five thousand dollar range, or typical of what the most expensive production cars today cost, when you figure the present dollar value. The European cars you mentioned (correct me if I am wrong) sold for MUCH more than the cars you are comparing them with.<P>Personally, my favorite "super car" is the J-2 Hisso V-12's - never even SAT in one..but they sure look neat, and if what I am TOLD is correct (the tech. data I have seen would certianly support this) they would "blow the doors" of my Packard Twelve in performance, as well as have superior quality fittings.<P>Also bear in mind that most of the European super-cars were still equipped, even in the LATE 1930's, with "poured babbit" connecting rods. Take a look at the restrictions wisely imposed by both Damiler Benz and Rolls Royce, on the operation of these engines at sustained high speed. Most of the later big American "super cars" had modern "precision" type INSERT connecting rod bearings, which meant they were much more durable. <P>There is no question that many of the European "super cars" we now call "classic" had advanced suspension systems, and thus could PROBABLY run away and hide from a big engined American car of the same era. I say PROBABLY, because I never had a chance to tangle with one ( as a kid I used to love to "rough up" my '38 Packard Twelve, and systematicaly beat just about everything of that era no matter what the nature of the contest was ( yeah...yeah..you dont have to remind me about the superior performance of the late 1930's Buick Century...but..that is a separate story ! ).<P>Of course our Club welcomes fanciers of ALL of the "classics", and I couldnt agree more with that policy. I do remain convinced, however, that dollar for dollar, by comparison with cars in the same general price class, the American big engined classics were a tremendous buy for the money.<P>Pete Hartmann