Tom McCahill Was Asked this Question

How could old chrome dome have forgotten McFarlan and Daniels?truly an unforgivable omission.

In the mid-1980's I was working in an east coast restoration shop that specialized in classics, and was quite impressed that our shop contained four Duesenbergs undergoing restoration. The founder was a veteran old car restorer who had been involved since the late 1950's, and he also said that while the Duesenbergs were icons, the old car that most impressed him was the Pierce Model 66.

If you look at the methods and materials Pierce-Arrow used to build their cars, you have to conclude that "Those folks deserved to go out of business." There was nothing economical or vaguely cost effective about it.

I wonder if they took lessons from our friends in England? <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Why use one part when several will do? <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Pierce engines of the pre-WW1 period were indeed superbly constructed and subjected to test standards every bit as rigorous as those employed by Rolls Royce.

BUT, they were still low-revving T heads winding out at under 2,000 rpm with heavy,massive flywheels necessary to cancel out the unequal power impulses,terribly inefficient from a HP to cubic inch ratio.

My father had a theory as to why the most knowledgeable auto enthusiasts were so ready to accord th "66" such elevated status.

The sheer size and sound of the 66 motor, which at 825 cubic inches was one of the largest motors ever put into a production car,think about it, this works out to about 5"bore and 7"stroke!! and this in a six cylinder!!

Small wonder they continue to impress those to whom size is one of the criterias of quality.

At the same time Ernest Henry, Ettore Bugatti, Louis Coatalen and Laurence Pomeroy were showing the way of the future with smaller, faster turning motors with vastly more efficient HP per cubic inch ratios.

825 Huh Carlton, The cubic inch capacity of modern Cummins Diesels are 855 and they put out 525hp @ 2100rpm, but then they're turbocharged and aftercooled with variable cam timing. That must have been a hunk of iron in the Pierce frame. Set that motor in the same year Ford and the frame would probably buckle! <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Wayne

Yeah, those Pierce 66 mills put out around 100 hp {est} while Vauxhall was getting the same power from an engine several times smaller,at the same time.

It must be mentioned though that American and Continental road conditions were quite different so ANY comparison of Domestic and European cars is always doomed to failure.