Much Modified Stutz Two Passenger Torpedo

To Whom It May Concern: [ Hopefully not too many are crazy enought to
be very concerned ]
It is great to see a post last evening to this forum topic of long standing
, once again by Jason Gehring of Ohio. Jason is very observant, indeed, in
noticing the presence/absence of the trans-cowl moulding on the various
photo images of a Stutz Torpedo we have been viewing. Please refer to
the post dated 5-19-10 by Alphonse J. San Clemente of Massachusetts and
click on the link to the Blackhawk auction material and photos he supplied.
Scroll down to the two Black & White photo images of the left side of what
Blackhawk calls a "production road car" Stutz torpedo reportedly taken in
1938 and 1940. One has a trunk in place, the other does not. Both of these
views clearly shows the trans-cowl contrasting colored moulding to which
Jason has called our attention. Both of these B&W photo images appear to
show a car with cowl lights or lamps as well. Argueably the trans-cowl
moulding may have been removed when Mr. Jones modified the factory
stock vehicle for the racing endeavour at the Brick Yard in 1930 , in order
to install the cowl wind screen or deflector on the race car BUT, why would
it have been replaced when the car was converted back to road use as it
appears in the 1938 and 1940 photo images from Blackhawn and as shown
in the 1947 view at the Akron Rubber Bowl ???? and then NOT appear on
the beautifully restored "race car" offered by Blackhawk as the " Jones
Stutz Special ". I really wish I could have an opportunity to conduct a very
detailed inspection of the restored vehicle offered. Such an inspection would allow for the possibility of some clarificatiion based on the car as it
is today. We may never be able to know with absolute certainty if the car
which placed 10th in the running of the 1930 Indianapolis 500 Mile Race
has been preserved.
Oh, yes , and where on the restored vehicle is the rudimentary "hand
hold" appendage behind the driver's ( L.L. Corum ) and riding mechanic's
( car owner Milton Jones ) seats as shown in the B&W view of the two of
them "in situ" with the car at what appears to be the "Brick Yard"?? The
driver could hold onto the large steering wheel as the centrifugal force
G-forces from negotiating the contrantly repeating left hand turns during
the race were experienced , but the poor riding mechanic could only hold
onto the hand hold with his left hand and pray a lot. You know, no safety
helmets and no seat belts and low cut doors. How would you feel? Sitting
on that flat leather seat with no side support I would have felt imperiled.
Brave men or fools, the jury is still out.
Keep studying and enjoying the photos and exchange of opinions and
the speculative trip into automotive history. Jonathan Richards in Iowa
aka <a href="mailto:[email protected]][email protected][/url]
P.S. -- I still believe the numerals 27 on the Indy pit photo on the east
side of the main straight are "touched" onto the image. jr

Interesting observations by all. I think there is a fairly contiguous ownership history for the car in question. If there is then I would subscribe the differences (and there are quite a few) between the various pictures of the car to lots of hammering and updates over the years. I'm generally skeptical but this particular car does have period documentation sprinkled through the years.

This car was recently purchased and the new owner has done quite a bit of research on it. There is an interesting thread going on here: forums.aaca.org/topic/260445-stu ... s-numbers/

It looks like this car was the factory test mule for the supercharger. An interesting development.

dryesandno wrote:

here is the car from the brockman collection pictures that jason gehring so eloquently described in his above post. thanks so much for the detailed description jason. its really cool to put your words to the picture.

Yes, his words add magic to the photograph.

Interesting observations by everybody. I believe the ownership history of the questioned vehicle has been quite continuous. If there is, I would expect a lot of hammering and updates throughout the years to fix the differences (and there are quite a few) between the various photographs of the automobile . Although I tend to be pessimistic, this particular car does have scattered historical evidence.

The vehicle has a 134 1/2-inch wheelbase and is a late 1931 or early 1932 Stutz Bearcat. The Super Bearcat, which had a shorter 116-inch wheelbase, is completely unlike this vehicle. Although the automobile appears to be very new in the picture , it really has the improper front bumper and the wrong external door handle on the passenger side. If we can determine whether or not this one is still around, I'll let you know.