What car would you buy in 1916?

"JR1" (type35bugatti) 05/11/2016 at 08:37 • Filed to: Wwybw, what would you buy when

0

56

Rules: The car/truck had to be sold brand new in 1916

I like to think in 1916 I would have been sophisticated enough to realize how great the new Cadillac driving layout would be that would eventually become the standard for all cars to follow. Plus it had a V8 and everyone who is anyone loves a good V8.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

djmt1 > JR1 05/11/2016 at 08:42

0

Truck you say?

Sentinel Steam Wagon

JR1 > djmt1 05/11/2016 at 08:43

0

Steam is always a technology I wonder about. If it was still popular today how much would we have refined it?

Berang > JR1 05/11/2016 at 08:44

0

Cadillac is ok, but Franklin has an air cooled engine, and we all know how much cooler that makes it.

AkursedX > JR1 05/11/2016 at 08:45

1

Well I might be bending the rules a bit, but I’d buy a British Mark-1

Nibby > JR1 05/11/2016 at 08:47

7

Berang > JR1 05/11/2016 at 08:49

1

Not much. Steam was popular in England because coal was cheap, and most of these later Sentinels were sold to companies that hauled coal, so they had a ready and cheap(er) supply.

Ford, Saab, and others looked at steam in the 60s and 70s, and there wasn’t much that could be done with it that hadn’t been figured out by the 1930s.

. . > JR1 05/11/2016 at 08:57

1

Tatra 10

PartyPooper2012 > JR1 05/11/2016 at 08:59

1

Because cars will never catch on!

jasmits > JR1 05/11/2016 at 08:59

2

Everything that I thought I wanted from the general era was European and not in production in 1916 due to everything being in shambles from WW1 but this Stutz Bearcat will do just fine.

jasmits > jasmits 05/11/2016 at 09:04

0

I’m especially a fan of the bucket seats to make up for the lack of anything else at all to keep you inside the car.

CalzoneGolem > JR1 05/11/2016 at 09:14

0

1916 Ford Field Ambulance.

JR1 > Berang 05/11/2016 at 09:14

0

I love the hood of the Franklin

JR1 > AkursedX 05/11/2016 at 09:15

1

You're a mad man!

JR1 > Berang 05/11/2016 at 09:17

0

I figured we had more or less exhausted the usability of the technology but I wasn't totally sure.

JR1 > . . 05/11/2016 at 09:18

0

It almost looks like a toy.

JR1 > PartyPooper2012 05/11/2016 at 09:20

0

By 1916 the Model T would disagree

JR1 > jasmits 05/11/2016 at 09:21

0

Can't go wrong with a Bearcat! And as to your second point I'm not sure I would have the balls to stay in one of these and drive it without adding in a seat belt.

JR1 > CalzoneGolem 05/11/2016 at 09:22

1

Probably appropriate for 1916

Jagvar > JR1 05/11/2016 at 09:25

1

A Pierce-Arrow Model 66, assuming I had Rockefeller levels of cash lying around. It even had one of those newfangled ignition switches. No hand cranks for me!

jariten1781 > JR1 05/11/2016 at 09:27

1

If we'd continued to refine, miniaturize, and safe guard nuclear power we'd have steam everything. If some novel, long endurance and safe heat generating concept is discovered it'll come back full bore.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > JR1 05/11/2016 at 09:31

0

I’m assuming that since this is a 100 year garage we con’t have to pick anything older than this. Because my knowledge of 191x and 190x cars is limited to the Ford Model T, the Stutz Bearcat, and the Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost. And I’ve already picked the Stutz and the Ghost, and I won’t pick the Model T.

JR1 > Jagvar 05/11/2016 at 09:32

0

Well your driver is the one who has to deal with that anyway. No need to spend extra cash on him

Hoccy > JR1 05/11/2016 at 09:32

0

Opel 18/50 Torpedo

The Torpedo model shown is a 1914, but it got a 50 hp 4.7 l six cylinder engine in 1916 which I want.

JR1 > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 05/11/2016 at 09:34

0

Research, research, research! The Duesy brothers were building racing engines in 1916. Also 100 year is a vague term I didn’t want to say 123 years or however long the car has been around.

JR1 > Hoccy 05/11/2016 at 09:35

0

That’s a good bit of power for 1916

Matt Nichelson > JR1 05/11/2016 at 09:36

1

1916 just misses the brass era unfortunately, so I will go with the 1916 Crane-Simplex Model 5 Touring.

Fun facts about Crane-Simplex: Jay Leno owns the 1916 Holbrook Skiff that was a one off built for the 1916 New York Auto Show. John D. Rockefeller owned a 1918 with two Brewster bodies; one for summer and one for winter.

JR1 > Matt Nichelson 05/11/2016 at 09:38

0

Crane-Simplex was that big of a name back then that Rockefeller owned 2? That is quite an endorsement.

MultiplaOrgasms > JR1 05/11/2016 at 09:38

0

Lancia, obviously. Only choice in 1916 is the Theta 35hp. I’d be willing to live with a more conventional control scheme I am not a wimp that is afraid of anything unknown and that makes driving a beast like this old more fun. Don’t know the exact specs but the previous Epsilon had 60hp from a 4.0L 4-cyl so I guess this has at least 75hp from its 4.9L and a top speed of around 80mph or so.

jasmits > JR1 05/11/2016 at 09:38

0

I would drive it around that field without a seatbelt but if there was anything hard to fall on I would fall in the same boat.

Wait how to actually drive these things is a mystery, does it stop if you fall out or is the throttle one of those sticks?

JR1 > jasmits 05/11/2016 at 09:40

0

Probably a stick a bet.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > JR1 05/11/2016 at 09:41

1

I don’t care for the old racing cars. I suppose I’ll take a 1916 Packard Twin Six. First V12 production car.

Matt Nichelson > JR1 05/11/2016 at 09:42

1

Well, one frame and two bodies. He would have the body swapped out when the seasons changed. During its’ time, Crane-Simplex was highly sought after by the wealthy. Only 121 cars were ever built. They were very expensive and very powerful for the time. Unfortunately, like all the other coachbuilders of the time, the money ran out and they ceased operation.

JR1 > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 05/11/2016 at 09:45

1

No shit first V12? Too bad I can't change my answer

Hoccy > JR1 05/11/2016 at 09:50

0

It’s not much compared to their 1914 Rennwagen, which had 260 hp from a 12.3 four-cylinder. Think they had a 100 hp production model as well.

PartyPooper2012 > JR1 05/11/2016 at 09:54

1

Pfft. Everyone knows in 1916 Model T was the most argumentative vehicle around.

not for canada - australian in disguise > JR1 05/11/2016 at 09:54

1

McLaughlin-Buick

Because Canada. McLaughlin was the company that pretty much set up GM in Canada, and GM Canada is the result of the original company.

DrJohannVegas > JR1 05/11/2016 at 10:00

0

I think I’d have a Stanley. Maybe, if I had a small fortune, an 825 Mountain Wagon. Kinda like an early Wagoneer...

Or a 725 Roadster for chugging around town...

Land_Yacht_225 > JR1 05/11/2016 at 10:05

1

Well fine, I’ll pick this Buick. Which is stupid. 1916 was a shit year, and I’ll tell you why. I’m thinking, ok 1916, what’s luxurious but not a Rolls-Royce. I’ve got it! A Hispano-Suiza! But no, they weren’t making cars in 1916. They were making aircraft engines...for planes...for World War 1. You can’t pick anything European in 1916 because they were all producing for the dam war effort, right in the middle of the war period!

*screams into pillow*

MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner > JR1 05/11/2016 at 10:06

0

1916 Liberty LaFrance V-12 Touring

Even though I know almost nothing about it, this is my pick. I believe it uses a V12 Liberty Aircraft motor, but frankly - check out those pipes! They could’ve just called this a 1916 Muscle Car. Biggest engine they could find? Check. Biggest most obvious pipes they could run from the hood? Check.

Pickup_man > JR1 05/11/2016 at 10:11

0

I’m breaking the rules. I was going to pick the Packard Twin Six, but someone else already has, and not much else from 1916 really appeals to me. So my choice is a 1916 Harley, board track style,

Future next gen S2000 owner > JR1 05/11/2016 at 10:25

0

DeLorean. Because time travel.

CalzoneGolem > JR1 05/11/2016 at 10:40

0

Yeah but it’s annoying when he breaks his arm.

JR1 > Hoccy 05/11/2016 at 10:50

0

For cars? I thought in those days that kind of power was reserved for planes only

JR1 > not for canada - australian in disguise 05/11/2016 at 10:51

1

I did not know that interesting

JR1 > DrJohannVegas 05/11/2016 at 10:52

0

I really like that Stanly roadster

JR1 > Land_Yacht_225 05/11/2016 at 10:53

0

Those damn Europeans they were so selfish!

JR1 > MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner 05/11/2016 at 10:54

0

I knew they made these but I thought they were retrofitted after the war.

JR1 > Pickup_man 05/11/2016 at 10:55

1

Cool pick. I like it

JR1 > Future next gen S2000 owner 05/11/2016 at 10:55

0

Of course!

JR1 > CalzoneGolem 05/11/2016 at 10:55

1

At least you don't have to pay that pleb for workers compensation

MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner > JR1 05/11/2016 at 11:35

1

Pulled up as a 1916 model that’s all I know. I openly admitted I know nothing about these.

Hoccy > JR1 05/11/2016 at 11:38

2

Here’s the 1912 Opel 40/100:

It had a 10.2 4-cylinder engine with 100 hp.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opel_40/1…

X37.9XXS > JR1 05/11/2016 at 11:42

1

The hell with cars

Drive a legend

Die-Trying > JR1 05/11/2016 at 20:52

1

shiny red convertible

tpw_rules > JR1 05/14/2016 at 11:08

0

Doble Detroit/C? It’s a little shaky though. Looks like it was presented at the 1917 auto show and you could put down a deposit, but it didn’t ship proper until a few years later with several major bugs. Jay Leno’s video on one of the Dobles impressed me deeply. Wikipedia claims the last models could go 0-75MPH in only 10 seconds, and would be turning only 900RPM in complete silence. The Hand of God is right.

Here is the 7 passenger version:

JR1 > tpw_rules 05/14/2016 at 11:13

0

0-75 in ten seconds would be so fast back then