Pistons for Sale

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

Message deleted by original poster

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

Are these the same pistons as a 1930 8 cyl? 3.5 bore.

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

The ’35 8 cyl cars were all 385 cubic inch engines. They are 3.5″x 5″ engines.

The ’30 cars had three different engines.

The ’30, model A had the long wheelbase and the big 385 cubic inch 3.5×5″ engine.

The ’30, model B engine was 366 cubic inch, 3.5″x 4.75″

The ’30, model C engine was 340 cubic inch, 3.375″ x 4.75″

So, if your ’30 engine is a Model A, 385 cubic inch engine, the pistons should be the same.

Measuring the wrist pin to the crown of the piston will confirm if they are interchangable.

Greg L

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

I thought 35’s were 366 cid’s. My rule of thumb was 32 to 35 were 366. 36 to 38 were 385. 29 to 31 depend on series. Is this correct?

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

My 1948 National Service Data book shows the 1935 845 to be a 3.5″ x 5″, 385 cu. in. engine.

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

Interesting, I once owned a 35 and thought it was the small engine.

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

I referenced the Automobile Quarterly book on Pierce Arrow’s. It does have a lot of discrepancies, but in general the info is accurate.

It lists the ’35 cars as being 385 cubic inch.

The ’34 model 836A were 366 cubic inch, the 840A, was 385 cubic inch.

Just to be ‘sure’ I checked some owners manuals I have. The above information is correct.

I find it interesting that in 1930, with the Model A, and in 1931 with the Model 41 and 42 Pierce offered the 385 cubic engine, then in ’32, ’33 only the 366 engine along side the new V12. Then in ’34, the 385 engine was brought back, so for ’34, there was the 836A’s 366 engine, the 840A’s 385 engine, then the 1240A’s and 1248A’s 462 V12 engine..

How could the use of a 43/4″ stroke crank, instead of the 5″ stroke engine have been any form of an economy? I’m thinking that the 385 engine was dropped because it was too close in power output to the new V12 engine, and Pierce wanted to show ‘value’ for the upgrade to the V12..

Anyway, from what I can find, ’35 and later 8cyl engine was the 5″ stroke version,

Greg Long

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

Hi Greg, I agree with what your saying regarding the V-12 and 8. The 1932 V12 were 398CI and 429CI. The smallest V12 being only a few HP greater than the 385 8.

As you know, the small V12 didn’t go over well, only 250 were made, people were more inclined to buy the 8.

John

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

it’s my understanding that the 836A was a raid on obsolete parts,

as well as cutting expenses anywhere they could (rear spares,

single tail lights, lack of radiator ornament, etc.). I don’t know

where they got 750 extra 366’s. I could see why they didn’t want

to grace them with 150 HP. The 836A already has a weight advantage

over their big brothers. Packard dropped their standard motor in

the Light Eight, and it would run away and hide from their

expensive offerings. Whatever Pierce did, they were trying to cut

corners on cost. Their prices were $100 more than a Buick Limited.

An old timer told me that an 836A got him through college in the

old days. He had shaved the head and did other tricks to hop it

up. He could go up the old Grapevine Highway at 60MPH headed for

LA. It’s work to maintain 65MPH on the new 4 lane in a modern car!

I think a good 836A will take a good 840A or 845 in everyday

driving.

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

Good stuff Tony!

[Author]

Posts