Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Postwar Studebakers

1114115116117118120»

Comments

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 58,480

    Wonder if this will bring near the estimate. I'm not crazy about them; I'd take a Gran Turismo correctly restored over it, any day of the week--function of my age. That said, for all the grief they get, I'll take the styling and proportions over, say, the same year Buick or Olds. I think that all other things being equal, these bring the most bucks of any Hawk:

    https://www.mecum.com/lots/FL0118-313025/1958-packard-hawk-sport-hardtop/

    That's a pretty optimistic estimate on a car that has remained somewhat flat in value. It does seem to be in great shape, though. I think the selling price on a car like this depends on whether there are two determined Packard hawk enthusiasts in the room or not. It's a narrow niche of buyers. Under "normal" non-auction duress, you'd think that $65K--$85K would bring it home.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

    Share Your Vehicle Reviews Here

  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 9,852
    edited January 15
    Another Packard Hawk sold there for $42.9K, that was rated a "C-" by somebody beforehand who looked underneath it. It was green.

    Only 588 of those cars assembled and two at Mecum and both sold.
  • berriberri Posts: 7,965
    Those late Packards' with quad headlights looked like a frog B) The single pair headlights was definitely cleaner on these I think.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 9,852
    Dodge and Mercury did the added pods too, although in chrome. I don't mind that so much on the non-Hawk hardtops, but I detest the fin-on-a-fin in the back!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 58,480
    Crazy money.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

    Share Your Vehicle Reviews Here

  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 19,820
    I agree! HORRIBLE crazy money for one of the absolute ugliest cars ( I know...my opinion) ever produced!

    Then we have the Buyer's Fees on top of that!

    I would be afraid to drive the thing! Can you imagine if it got whacked? " Trying to find parts?
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 9,852
    edited 1:17AM
    Studebaker parts are often more available than Big Three body and trim parts--fact. More stuff reproduced than a lot of folks know too.

    To me, the ugliest '58 cars are Oldsmobiles, followed by Buicks. Then, Rambler four-doors.
  • bhill2bhill2 Posts: 1,817

    Studebaker parts are often more available than Big Three body and trim parts--fact. More stuff reproduced than a lot of folks know too.

    To me, the ugliest '58 cars are Oldsmobiles, followed by Buicks. Then, Rambler four-doors.

    Actually, I thought the '58 Ramblers were an improvement over the seriously appearance-challenged '56s and '57s. But I definitely agree on the Oldsmobiles and Buicks. in either order.

    2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 58,480
    edited 2:35PM
    Yep, Detroit (and South Bend) seemed to enjoy torturing metal (or fiberglass) in 1958.

    I have no idea why that guy paid exactly double the market value for a restored '58 Hawk, but then again, I haven't seen the car.

    Just when you think you couldn't make a car any less attractive, THIS comes along: I'm sure Uplander knows this car.


    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

    Share Your Vehicle Reviews Here

  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 19,820
    Thanks Shifty...I just ate breakfast too!
Sign In or Register to comment.