Talk:De Vaux Continental

Untitled

Nope - two different concerns. They share a common denominator, but they are different. Stude62 01:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree, there are many Continental collectors out there who would insist the unique attributes of the car deserve a separate entry. Hopefully one of them will eventually flesh it out. (Unsigned commet made 02:02, March 10, 2006 by 67.105.132.162 )

Note: The above appears to be a discussion about an old proposal to merge Continental w/De Vaux, or perhaps Continental De Vaux with De Vaux.Dovid (talk) 06:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Following Kimes' "Standard Catalogue of American Automobiles", Continental didn't "drop" the De Vaux-Continental Co.; they bought the De Vaux name and it's assets in Michigan (the De Vaux plant was leased from Hayes). In November 1932, De Vaux-Continental Co. was renamed Contintal Automobile Co. The cars were still built in Grand Rapids. --Chief tin cloud (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Plants

The Grand Rapids facilities did not belong to the company; they were leased from adjacent Hayes Body Co., which delivered all bodies. Beside the fact that Continental Motors did not pick up the oakland plant, I can not see what happened to that facility afterwards. Possibly that Norman De Vaux bought it together with the remaining tooling to build there his De Vaux 4/44 and De-Vo. After both ideas had failed, GM bought the plant in about 1936.--Chief tin cloud (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Errors

Continental brought out its own cars for the 1933 and 1934 model years, not based on the Durant/De Vaux cars, but sold poorly so ceased production.
That's simply wrong. Twice:

1. Continental Motors Company never brought out cars of their own. They bought out the De Vaux Motors Company from it's owners, Norman De Vaux and Elbert J. Hall (who happened to be a co-founder of the Hall-Scott Motor Company), renamed it Continental-De Vaux Company and made it a subsidiary of Continental Motors. Car production remained in Grand Rapids, After April 15th, 1931, cars were also built in Oakland CA . For 1933, this same company recieved fresh money, and got a new name again, Continental Automobile Company: Still strictly a subsidiary.
2. These cars were absolutely based on the Durant/De Vaux automobiles. While the De Vaux itself was a clever facelift of the 1930 Durant (done by Hayes-employee Alexis de Sakhnoffsky, who did a masterful job), using Hall-Scott engines (I learned here that this was in fact a reworked Continental six, which explains the high depths owed to this company), the Continental was just another (slight) facelift on a lenghtened or shortened wheelbase (depending on model), and Continental engines were used (again, as already Durants had them.) The result were 1933 technical near-twins to the (unsaleable) 1930 Durant. Added now were a cheaper Six, the Flyer, and a much smaller Four, the Beacon. Both were derived from the Ace, with smaller Continental engines. The following lists are derived, refined and translated from my work for the German WP article:

De Vaux Motors Company (April, 1931 - January, 1932)

Model	Built	Cylinder	Engine	Power	Wheelbase	Coachwork
De Vaux 6/70	1931	inline 6	Hall-Scott	70 bhp (51 kW)	2.870 mm (113 in.)	2-dr coupe, 4-dr sedan, 4-dr phaeton

Continental De Vaux Motors Company (February - October, 1932)

Model	Built	Cylinder	Engine	Power	Wheelbase	Coachwork
De Vaux-Continental 6/80	1932	inline 6	Continental	80 bhp (59 kW)	2.870 mm (113 in.)	2-dr convertible coupe, 2-dr coupe, 4-dr sedan

Continental Automobile Company (October, 1932 through 1934)

Model	Built	Cylinder	Engine	Power	Wheelbase	Coachwork
Continental Beacon	1933– 1934	inline 4	Continental	38 bhp (28 kW)	2.578 mm (101.5 in.)	roadster, 2-dr coupe, 2-dr sedan, 4-dr sedan
Continental Flyer	1933	inline 6	Continental	65 bhp (48 kW)	2.718 mm (107 in.)	roadster, 2-dr coupe, 2-dr sedan, 4-dr sedan
Continental 6/85 Ace	1933	inline 6	Continental	85 bhp (62,5 kW)	2.896 mm (114 in.)	2-dr coupe, 4-dr sedan

Model year sales were a dismal 3,110 for 1933 (all models), and completely inacceptable 953 for 1934, although the Beacon was a very economical car.--Chief tin cloud (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)