I know this is an old thread, I specifically searched for it.
I have a brand new Sylphon thermostat/control device, it has two flat spots, top and bottom, in the flange.
Am I correct in thinking, from Tony’s above post, that this will NOT fit my ’31 Model 43?
Some sill plates had black paint laid down in the design, so that you see some chrome and some black. This might not be the case with your plates, just was asking if someone could confirm that fact on the forum. They look great as they are!
Very nice! Does the plate get a black paint “fill in” like some other cars, or does it stay all chrome? Question for the group I guess….
I knew by posting this I’d have some people scratching their heads. There was a question once on the AACA forum about tire pressure on a tiled garage floor, I made the above statement, and was called a fool by one individual…who later did his research and found it was true.
There is no “equation”. A car is supported not by the tires, but by the air pressure in the tires. There is a contact surface, or patch, between the tire and the ground. The area of this patch will vary with PSI in the tire, increasing as PSI drops, decreasing as PSI rises.
Ignoring any tire sidewall support, the pressure inside the tire must equal the pressure on the ground, in PSI. Imagine the tire supported on a column of air at the point of contact.
As far as tire sizes vs. footprint, that’s the whole reason we have different sizes of tires. A 30×3 tire can support a light brass car with appropriate tire patch, while a larger tire is needed for heavier cars.
I know from experience that some people have a hard time accepting this physical rule, but it’s a fact. That’s why you can run 30 psi in your modern large tired car, that’s why a large airplane may have 200 psi or more.
The pressure per square inch on the road is equal to the PSI in the tire, ignoring any sidewall support.
Thus, for your 4000 pound Napier, at 80 PSI in tires, the contact patch total is 4000/80 = 50 square inches. Thus, 12.5 square inches per tire contact patch on the road….
Congratulations, Bob, well deserved….
I think I put the top insert in that ’32 Club Brougham!
That was a really interesting experience. The fellow had done a top insert himself, and it was flapping in the wind since it hadn’t been stretched enough. I offered to fix it free, if he’d buy another insert, since he was a friend and local.
Took the “old” top off, noticed he’d used long nails, went to install the new one (in the hot sun to stretch!), but there was little to no wood to tack to…and looking further, all the wood around the edges was charred!
Taking the covering off, saw that the ENTIRE TOP wood framework was charred and half charcoal. The retired owner was a woodworker by hobby, he took a week and replaced it all in place, a beautiful job.
We could only figure that the dome light shorted, started a small spark, and the wood gradually surface burned.
One of the strangest things I’ve seen while working on old cars.
Another note, I like rear mounted spares, as it really cleans up the profile of a car, but the large trunk on this body style sure makes it awkward from the back.
Great body style, Edward, that will be a good car for sure! Make a list of what you need, and start looking now. Some things are easily available, some are harder to find. If you’re missing headlight rims and lenses, they should be out there but a little harder to find.
Best of luck with the new acquisition!
So, to be clear, the gray/black roadster (V12) shown in the last picture is a fake?
I’m not a fan of all the extra lights, either, but was trying not to fuss too much at Richard, still very grateful that he found the P-A wagon for me! Thanks again!
If you take a look at the side picture of the ’29 that you have, as you found it, notice how smooth and clean and nice the side view of the car is….it doesn’t need a bunch of accessories to make it look classy…
Sounds like you’re well on your way to get it accessorized to your taste!
Personal opinion only, the thing I’d leave off is the running board mounted spotlight. It serves no purpose and affects the lines/appearance of that side of the car, and would have been a very unusual addition to what would have been on the car in the time period.
Color matching can be a challenge! Good luck with it!
It seems to me that we’re discussing two different things on the trunks here.
A trunk that’s part of the body design, and bolted or mounted directly to the body or frame of the car as Jak mentions, would come from the factory.
A trunk that mounts on a factory supplied trunk rack, and is removable (which was the original point of such a trunk, it was packed and then removed as a whole for a family’s stay at a hotel or away from home), probably was an after market purchase, from a dealer or otherwise.
I don’t believe that Pierce made any removable trunks at their factory, and if a car did leave the factory with a removable trunk, it was sourced from another manufacturer.
Neat photos, thanks for sharing!
I’ve been told the trunk on my car is correct, it’s a Steel-Kraft. I do not know this for a fact, but do know that it fits the factory trunk rack perfectly, it’s the same dimensions.
There’s an interesting question.
Did any Pierce leave the factory with a trunk attached?
I’ve always thought the factory supplied the rack, the dealer or an aftermarket supplier supplied the trunk.
Thus, there’s really no such thing as a Pierce trunk.
Is that the case?
A one year restoration is an incredible feat these days.
Thanks again for the lively discussions on your car!
If you’re putting a trunk on the car, are you going with the optional extended bumper, that allow the trunk to be within the bumper confines?
I didn’t like that look, so fabricated a couple of extra brackets so I could pull the trunk in tight to the back of the body, and within the original rear bumper.
I agree with Ed. In the heyday of restoration frenzy, when a lot of great original cars were lost (80’s and slightly up), it was crazy some of the color schemes that were presented on otherwise Classic and classy cars. One can forgive the multi-tone layered Ruxton, that was incredibly factory original, but some of the multi colored combos that showed up made one shake one’s head. A lot of these were based on advertisements, as mentioned a possible artist’s misconception of color. I once had a 1928 443 Packard coupe, and think it’s one of the first cars to be both advertised in outrageous frame and body color combos, and then subsequently to be PAINTED those colors based on color period ads….
Pierce colors should be tasteful. Those colors will affect both comments and value. I was talked into painting the fenders on my originally gray 1934 sedan maroon, when I was young and foolish. I think I lost a lot of money when the car was sold at auction because of this choice.
I thought about a gray interior, but gray’s are incredibly hard to match and/or harmonize. As others mentioned, I went through a few different combinations, even to the point of having the entire main body in finish paint and not liking it, to get where it is now. There’s a blue undertone to a lot of grays that’s a tough match.
I also thought of a gray top. At the time Haartz had a weave that was mostly gray with some black strands, and I thought it would look fine….my wife, whom I’ll admit (is that good English?) may have better taste than me, said no, let’s go with black top too, it’ll look very neat and clean….and it does.
We’re waiting with bated breath, PLEASE tell us the colors you picked!!
Or, as they say, not….
I remember going to a CCCA event in Texas a long while back, and an event hall full of beautiful Classics.
As we all know, CCCA is pretty strict about originality.
Parked at the event and being shown was an Auburn, think it was a coupe of the mid-30’s, that appeared stock on the outside, but had a LOT of modifications. For example, it had power windows, but they were operated by a switch connected to the original crank handle, so outwardly you couldn’t tell. I don’t recall the precise things done to the car, but it had a lot of other upgrades.
I was somewhat shocked that the car was allowed at a CCCA event. Found out that it was owned by a fairly affluent and well-respected member of the Texas region, so the “good ole boy” network was at work, and he was allowed to show it.
I think internal mechanical modifications are OK, if it improves life of the car, but personally draw the line at visible modifications. I also prefer such things points (because, as stated, I can fix on side of road) and mechanical fuel pumps (because I’ve had two engine fires, one of which an electric pump didn’t cut off correctly and almost lost the car).
I do upholstery work on pre-WWII cars as a hobby, now that I’m retired from the real world, and I’ve been adamant about using original materials, horsehair, cotton, tacks….but I can also say it’s a losing battle, most people don’t care, and the expense to do it the old way is greater…so it’s getting more difficult to be a purist….but there’ll still never be foam in my shop….
I agree that one should choose what makes one happy, within reason.
My ’31 phaeton was originally dark green with khaki fenders, and green interior. I have a picture from 1959 that shows it those original colors. Fred Tycher once commented on my car, on a Texas tour, that the colors were “very much Pierce colors, but not necessarily attractive”…
When I had an engine fire, I decided to repaint the car and redo top and interior, and that’s when I chose the two tone gray with black interior and black top.
I’ve never owned a car that generated so many positive comments on the color choice. Just about anywhere it’s been, someone has stated how much the colors are perfect for the car.
So yes, I think it’s an important decision, and of course everyone has their favorites and opinions, thus the numerous comments about color choice. When you reveal your choice, Richard, you’ll have even more comments, and hopefully they’re positive!!
