Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
Here's a recent Google map overhead view of the Packard Proving Grounds. It is neat that you can actually still see where the track was. Page about halfways down:
http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/showthread.php?51145-Current-status-of-th- e-Packard-proving-ground
I didn't have my car out there that year, but I did ride with a friend in his white '64 Daytona convertible with 4-speed.
As for the Packard engine, well Studebaker had no problem using it in their halo car---the Golden Hawk. But it *was* noisy.
I'm not sure what "credit" Studebaker deserves in terms of introducing anything that we use in cars today. At least for Packard we can point to some technology that is definitely Packard-derived.
Studebakers forte, in my opinion, and for which they deserve praise, is making do with old technology and adding new styling, to make their cars look modern.
This is hardly a criticism, as companies like Jaguar and Rolls Royce got away with this for far longer than Studebaker, and they are both still around.
So it wasn't a bad idea actually.
On a smaller scale, they were the first to offer seatbelts as standard equipment. Also, even the cheapest Larks had inside hood releases. As far as interior volume versus exterior size, I remember that Automotive News had an overlay of a '77 Chevy Caprice over a '64 Studebaker Cruiser and there were shape and dimension similarities, inside and out, for sure.
Though not a hit, as I've mentioned previously, GM cribbed the Wagonaire concept for its GMC mid-size sport ute. They actually requested Wagonaire blueprints from the Studebaker archives early in development...and that from the Head Archivist at the Studebaker National Museum whom I've known for some time.
In the fall of '55, the various maladies that engine became known for, weren't known at Studebaker
It's a small thing, but I always wondered why the Golden Hawk had electric wipers, but Packard still used the old vacuum wipers.
To name a few things, I see expensive German Audis have “TT” scripts on their back, which is a reference to Twin Traction that Studebaker introduced with the Golden Hawk. Subarau is sold with a “hill holder.” The Cadillac GTS is a high performance luxury coupe with a supercharger like the Avanti, which led the way "forward" with no more fins or quad headlights, no chrome grille on front, “coke bottle” shape with taillights that blend into the corners of its full width body (first by far with a postwar car)padded rollover protection and lots of glass for good visibility. Economical V-8 engines of less than 300 cu.in. and power disc brakes.
My 1955 Commander has a three speed automatic transmission (not two speeds) that starts in first gear and with direct drive in third gear. I don't need the electronic "typewriter" transmission that Packard and Chrysler thought were the wave of the future.
That basic body continued into production until the 1964 model year as the GT Hawk. I see names like Land Cruiser, Commander Challenger and Daytona.
In 1956, the horsepower race was underway and Packard should have sold well with its long blunt, wide-body cars powered by its new 374 cu.in. V-8 that could easily be enlarged to 400+ cubic inches to produce more than 300 horsepower. The Studebaker V-8 was in its 5th year of production and was limited to about 300 cu. in displacement. Studebaker-Packard could have used a good big engine with high torque like that for its larger cars and trucks. Which engine survived for many more years?
I can’t seem to find out how much the big Packard motor weighed, but a comparision of the following 1956 Hawk hardtops with Studebaker and Packard V-8s gives some indication of the weight difference. http://www.1956goldenhawk.com/diffhawk.htm
Packard powered Golden Hawk weight: 3,360
Studebaker powered Sky Hawk weight - 3,215
Difference 145 pounds
In 1852 the Studebaker brothers set up a blacksmith and wagon shop in South Bend Indiana. One hundred and eleven years later, their name was on these vehicles and we are still talking about them. How is discussion going over at the Packard blog??
Roll Studebaker. . . . . . Roll !!!!!!!
I did get a chucke when Subie came around with the hill holder anyway, even as a kid I knew Studes had this (thanks to my dad).
I'm willing to bet that there are a whole lot more Packard fans than there are Studebaker buffs.
Me, I like them both!
The twin-traction was made by Dana-Spicer. It was purchased in unit form and *introduced* by Studebaker but not invented or engineered by them. Originally the positraction is attributed to Ferdinand Porsche but application is obscure at best. Certainly Studebaker was the first mainstream car company to offer it in a regular production American automobile.
Audi TT stands for "tourist trophy" (Isle of Mann race). Nothing to do with positraction (but that was very imaginative!) :P
Supercharging goes way back in American auto history and was on regular production cars in the 1930s. So Studebaker is not even close on that one.
The hill holder was patented by Wagner Electric around 1928 or so and was called "NoRol", and is advertised in Studebaker catalogs as "NoRol" in 1937. (dont' you just love that name?) So again, let's give a gold star to STudebaker for *introducing* it, but not for engineering it.
Packard's active suspension and lock-up torque converter came out of Packard engineering.
So it's a little different in the context of actual "engineering" and its effect on modern cars.
Coke-bottle shape? Yep, that was a styling cue used for a while by other automakers. Porsche 944 comes to mind and of course Corvette. You can give Avanti credit for that, although we don't see it much today anymore. Again, it was one of those "love it or hate it" types of styling. Even Corvette or Porsche freaks have mixed feelings about it.
I smiled when I read this. This is one of those old-timey feelings that haven't been substantiated by reality for a long time.
The Studebaker Drivers' Club is the largest single-marque club out there and has been for some time (just under 13K members). Given that the cars have been out of production since 1966, and was an independent, the numbers are pretty impressive. There are two national Packard clubs and combined they don't approach the SDC's membership--and that's knowing that some members belong to both clubs.
Take a couple weeks and compare Studebaker pricing on eBay to Packard's, comparing same year cars. You might be surprised. '57-58 Packardbakers routinely bring more than earlier '50's Packards and Clippers, in same condition, excluding Caribbeans and the very best Four-Hundreds and maybe Patricians. And this is comparing cars that were in two different price classes when new (Packards being higher of course).
I'd also add 'long hood/short deck' styling to the list of Studebaker firsts--the '53, and followed by the '56 Hawks. Ford finally picked this up with the Mustang, and GM with their '65 big cars....I guess the '63 Riviera had this styling. Look at a full-size Pontiac through the '64 model year...they actually had short hoods and long decks! Talk about "which way are they going?"!
Studebaker's 114 consecutive years in the business is a number that was unmatched by anyone for a long, long time. Always headquartered in South Bend, that entire time.
As you correctly pointed out, Studebaker built wagons for the Civil War effort, and continued to build military vehicles through the VietNam era. Their 6 x 6 trucks were built in South Bend even after car manufacturing stopped, and when AM General picked up the contract, they continued to build Studebaker-designed military trucks at that plant.
Staying alive in the auto business is a matter of giving the public what they want, or making them want what you have---and Studebaker just missed the boat in this regard. These are the same mistakes almost made by GM, Ford and Chrysler some 20 years later, or made by Kaiser from the get-go.
(also, see Apple Computer, Toyota, BMW, Whole Foods, etc for "getting it right"---at least for now :P ).
re: Packard vs. Studebaker fans -- I'd have to say that I think the Studebaker fan base is more lively and accessible. Packard lovers are a dying breed but Studebaker enthusiasts seem to enjoy a good aftermarket and very affordable prices.
Packard lived off its pre-WW II laurels for far too long. Studebaker, having humbler beginnings (although they did make a few grand cars in the glamorous "classic age"), did not have such pretensions. I'd much rather go to a Studebaker club event than a Packard one, even though my family roots are with Packard.
Like our HOST, I would much rather attend a Studebaker event. The one Packard show I attended years ago seemed to have a lot of snooty people strutting around their "trailer queens".
I guess " Driver's Club" says it all!
1949 116,955
1950 42,647
1951 100,713
1952 62,921
1953 90,252
1954 31,291
1955 55,247
1956 28,835 (Packard 10,353 + Clipper 18, 242)
Point is that Packard was in serious trouble when it merged with Studebaker and its “great leap forward” in technology of 1955 resulted in the lowest production in 1956 when it turned out that its engineering marvels resulted in unreliable and very expensive cars.
Production would probably have been worse if Packard did not have access to all those Studebaker dealers in 1955 and 1956, which more than doubled Packard sales outlets . One has to wonder how many Packards were sold because a businessman went into a Studebaker dealership intending to buy a Studebaker truck or Studebaker President and ended up buying a new Packard instead.
It is true that Packard was looking for a life raft when it merged with Studebaker and that Studebaker ended up being a brick while Packard’s capital ended up being its temporary life raft. Packard might have lasted a few more years without the Studebaker merger, but Studebaker did
not kill Packard. Packard died because it could not compete with Cadillac. It is inexcusable that Cadillac came out with an ohv V-8 in 1948, Chrysler & Studebaker came out with theirs in 1951 but Packard was the last to join the club in 1955 with disastrous results.
Therefore, I disagree with the notion that Studebaker would have been better off turning its engineering department over to Packard. The things that engineers like Harold Churchill and Gene Harding did for Studebaker engineering were amazing and second to none. If Packards sold well in 1955-1956, Studebaker would have been dumped.
If anything, when they did attempt innovation, S-P got punished for it I think. (the Avanti was a good example). It ate up money and talent for ideas that were not fully developed, or worse yet, not enough to give them any sort of competitive edge.
If you doubt this, well okay, but....... consider how American Motors survived---innovation? Hardly. Sexier? Nah. Faster? No. Better management (marshaling of limited resources) and better reading of the market than S-P? You bet.
You can't fool people forever with baked-twice old products. You can see the same problem today. Look how creaky the Toyota Corolla has become. Look how Lexus punched Benz right in the gut in the fight for the high end in 1990.
I don't think any business is as vicious, competitive, risky and as unforgiving as the auto industry.
And probably some luck thrown in there, too.
I have a box of 1963-era stationery with Studebaker watermark that was E. J. Hardig's ("Vice-President, Engineering"). I bought it at an auction in South Bend fifteen years ago at least. A 40-year employee of Studebaker's Administration Building, who pushed the sandwich and snack cart around the office, died and his family auctioned all the stuff he had taken home from dumpsters...including silver cups for the Mobilgas Economy Run and other things. The auction grossed over $19K.
Resting on one's laurels is a quick way out of the car business especially when you have no money to spend.
I've watched Ford rise from the ashes and altough it's hard for me to admit, I've watched Hyundai become a formidable competitor when I predicted their demise.
I was right, however about Daewoo when they tried to elbow themselves into a "me too" competitive market.
Getting comfortable isn't a good thing to do!
Battles are won on the showroom floor, not in the history archives.
Studebaker was too conservative in the post war era? You must be joking. It was ahead of the industry with its “first by far with a post-war car,” the "bullet nose" 1950 and its second major redesign in 1953. It was ahead of Ford, tied with Chrysler and way ahead of Packard with its ohv. V-8 engine, ahead of Ford and tied with Packard with its automatic transmission. Studebaker more than kept up with the competition so far as options were concerned.
The more common critcism is that Studebaker was too radical with its “European look” and that it should have left the sedans alone for a few more years instead of changing them at the same time as the Lowey coupes and hardtops. Production did not begin on the 1953 models until January 1953, about 4 months behind schedule. That is what put them in such a bad financial position and it was a mistake from which they never recovered and which they repeated with the Avanti. . .they announced it long before they were ready to build it and it was too radical a design.
As for the Packard influence on automotive design, I have to admit that the Soviets really liked it (but they liked Studebaker trucks even more).
I wouldn't want an Avanti II, but I think you'd have to agree that for Altman, who was a Packard dealer for 20 years before adding Studebaker for 1959, it took a lot of gumption to ask for bank loans to build a product when the original parent company had just failed in its U.S. operations--and he pulled it off. By all accounts that company was a success. Altman died in 1976 and his brother Ari ran it 'til 1982, although without the same love of the product as Nate had. Steve Blake bought it after pestering Ari repeatedly, and only at that time--after seventeen years of profitable operation by one family--did the Avanti begin to go through its run of multiple owners.
Studebaker's styling didn't fool anyone really. The public knew it was not an "advanced" car, and they also knew it was an ailing company. They didn't react to the postwar Studebakers they way they did to say the Tucker, which *was* actually radical in engineering for an American car.
Even Kaiser had to face the truth---they announced that the new Kaiser would be "revolutionary" but it ended up with interesting styling and a totally conventional engineering platform.
Packard had some bragging rights for their load-leveler and Ultramatic but here again, the public didn't much care.
Sometimes I'm tempted to compare Studebaker to the fate of the "assembled" cars of the 1920, some of which were very good automobiles (like the Jordan for instance)---but since they didn't develop some things in house, or to an economy of scale, the cars ended up too expensive. Or maybe they were more like the
Oakland---a cut above the cheaper cars but not enough to really notice.
Avanti II -- this was a very small operation, sort of a "factory-direct" marketing. A pretty small footnote in automotive history, but still, with one man in control and knowing how to run a business, it's possible to pull this off. He certainly didn't spend the investment capital that Tesla has!! I always thought it amusing though that Altman compared his cars to Maserati and Rolls---nowhere near the performer as the Maserati, but really probably a more reliable car than a Rolls. The Chevy 327 is pretty bullet-proof. Maybe he meant that you could have it custom-built to your specification (at least in terms of cosmetics, interior, etc).
I have to respectfully disagree here. The '47 Studebakers were revolutionary. When Time magazine does a feature article on your car, people are talking. Find a photo of one on Google images and compare to any other '47 domestic car. Studebaker came out of World War II by far the strongest of the independents. They also came out with a complete redesign of their truck line in mid'48, which featured double-wall bed construction and concealed cab step, which nobody else did for years.
There's nothing revolutionary about it that comes to my mind at any rate. It's just an old flathead with 30s suspension, drum brakes, 3-on-the-tree, no power accessories, after all. Pretty dull affair.
Compare to a Tucker with a rear-engined helicopter motor. But even Tucker had to "make do" after the war--the Tucker transmissions were old rebuilt Cord units, well over 10 years old at the time.
The first "revolutionary" American car that was mass-produced after WW II was probably the '49 Olds.
Probably the reason Ford is remembered as producing the first "new" car after the war is that their slab-sided '49 completed the transition from bulky fenders. With the Ford, the automobile body finally rid itself of all 30s styling motives.
Also it makes sense that Ford would have a larger impact on future styling because it was so much bigger a company than Studebaker. It was about 'follow the leader' I think.
So I think Studebaker was a pioneer in modern styling, but Ford was the first to complete the "shedding" of the old skins.
I do have my suspicions about Studebaker being favored in the postwar steel shortage (which was severe through 1949 and soon again with the Korean War)---it is interesting to note that Paul Hoffman was intimately involved with the Marshall Plan (an appointee of Truman) and with allocations of steel to Europe. Hoffman was of course the former president of Studebaker.
That said, I've always liked the two-door 'coupes' made by Ford from '49-51. Pretty little car. Dad was a Chevy man but a Ford of that era could always turn his head.
Chrysler design was too conservative until Virgil Exner quit Studebaker and joined after a dispute with Raymond Lowey. Chrysler became too conservative after its advanced Airflow failed to sell in the 1930s and nearly ruined the company. Studebaker exported as much design and engineering talent as it imported.
It is wrong to say that Studebaker was too conservative and Packard was more advanced because that is the opposite of reality. The 1953s were a radical departure from the 1952s that Studebaker was on the cover of Time Magazine in 1953 too. Packard was not.
Studebaker was not only the first by far with a postwar car, they were also the first with a modern pick up truck. Studebaker sold more than 50,000 per year trucks from 1947 until 1950 and in 1950 Studebaker sold more trucks than Packard sold cars.
It is also wrong to say that Studebaker was too far behind the competition for features and options. My 1955 Commander has power steering, power brakes, power windows, power seat, three speed automatic transmission, ohv V-8 with a 4 barrel carburator and dual exhausts. Fog lights came with the President Speedster and air conditioning was available with the sedans. Twin traction arrived the following year.
What option was Studebaker lacking? Studebaker kept up with the competition until it could no longer afford to do so.
Studebaker gets criticized for old its old technology for having a flathead six cylinder motor in 1953 while AMC gets credit for good management. But AMC was saved in 1958 by bringing back the 1950 Nash Rambler and selling it as the Rambler American with the flathead six motor until the
middle of the 1960s.
Until 1958 Nash was no better off financially than Studebaker. They led the industry not by introducing new technology but by selling old technology cars and station wagons which made it the low price leader. When I hear the word "Rambler" I think of a station wagon because most of them seemed to be station wagons when I was a kid.
Studebaker can be criticized for many things, but being too conservative is not one of them. If anything, they got in trouble by being too far in advance of the competition, which is why it is often said, "Studebaker was too far ahead of its time." Packard was not accused of that in the postwar era.
Let's get real for a minute here---what is the likely make-up of that '53 Studebaker on the cover of time magazine, when you lift off the body. Well what's probably under there is, like my brother's '53, a car no different than a 1935 Studebaker.
There is really nothing you can point to on a Studebaker in the 50s and 60s that suggests any hope for their future, or any guiding principle for the automobile industry to follow, IMO. Did all cars come to look like Studebakers? No, but they did come to look like '49 Fords.
In short, Studebaker had to play "catch-up" for their entire postwar existence. They died of exhaustion.
One could argue, for instance, the merits of the Hudson or the Pierce Arrow or even the Oldsmobile, but bottom line is that they didn't have what it takes to survive, and part of that ability is appealing to buyers tastes and desires, (like BMW does) and part of that ability is leading the field (like Apple, for instance).
If you look say at Ford vs Studebaker 1949-55, you'll see what Ford did right and Studebaker didn't (couldn't). Slab-side styling (which *every* car later looked like), the '55 T-Bird (a home run, and supercharged I might add), the F-100 series (the most successful pickup in history no doubt).
Sure, Ford had their "turkeys", but they could afford them. Studebaker couldn't.
So what I mean by "conservative" is --- a day late and a dollar short. They put their scant resources into things that didn't matter to the American buying public (like fuel economy, that "european look") and neglected the things that did matter (like a new model every year). I think Henry Kaiser rather summed it up when looking at some low-slung designs: "who wants a car you can *iss over?" -- not that he had any bragging rights with the style of his cars, by the way.
They had a few bright spots, sure, in postwar, but the Studebaker line got very tired by the time they expired. They remind me of the valiant army that fights to the last bullet.
Perhaps we can agree that Studebaker, financially speaking, couldn't possibly keep up with the latest advances in styling and technology, even if they had the talent to do so--which I'm not sure they did, or better yet, that they wanted to pay for.
Yep, as the saying go's.." Yesterday's hits won't win today's ballgames"
People can argue all day about how Studebakers were so advanced at the time and how they had things like "hill holders" that most shoppers didn't care about.
The thing is, they didn't sell. Even as good as they may have been.
It's funny what you remember about cars as a little kid. When I think about cars back in the 50's and Studebaker I always recall those side fender air vents that flipped open. Most cars had only one below the windshield.
I'd take interesting over popular most days of the week. That's in movies, TV, and music as well.
People tend to be followers, not leaders.
Didn't every car end up with long hood/short deck styling? What Ford passenger car had that before Studebaker? I'm trying to think hard of cars that look like a '49 Ford. Studebaker was first with flush front fenders, fully two years before Ford.
Asking the questions that should be asked,
Signed,
Perplexed
Huh? A '35 with OHV V8 (Packard's was two years away yet, unbelievably), automatic trans, power steering, hardtop body? The front suspension changed significantly in '51, by the way.
Long hood short deck is ancient history in car styling. Credit there goes to the pioneer coachbuilders of the 30s. Very common feature of 30s and early 40s cars, even full production autos. See below, 1946 Dodge
OR even earlier, this lovely Packard:
Flush fender "up front" is not a Studebaker invention either. See this 47 Kaiser or many European cars:
Besides, it's four flush fenders that counts. It's like 2 wheel brakes vs. 4 wheel. The extra two are a big difference.
Most classic car books give these cars plusses for styling, current affordability and a good club base, and minuses for severe rusting and very casual build quality.
Your picture is of a Stude although you say it's a Kaiser. '47 Studes came out in '46 also. I do see those first Kaisers wowin' 'em at shows--what, no two doors? Something tells me Ford had more in mind in doing long hood/short deck with the Mustang, knowing how even then the '53 Stude was a critic's darling for looks, then saying, "Let's copy the long-hood/short deck styling of a '33 Packard or '46 Plymouth business coupe"!
Except for Packard, Chevy, Pontiac and some other late-to-the-party-ers.
Ford wasn't "copying" anyone in particular....auto design is like evolution....everyone builds on everyone else, everyone is stealing from everyone else. I know you'd probably like to make Studebaker the Adam and Eve or the first primate to walk on two legs but it's just not that simple, and I know you know that. :P
While this can be a fun discussion, it sometimes reminds me of the GM board where all some people do is talk about how they hate GM. Some people can't see past that.
I come into liking Studebakers not by any family connection at all. I just admire what they did for being such a small company in comparison to the Detroit Big Three, and I think their cars were infinitely more interesting than most AMC's, even though AMC outsold them. I also admire them for holding on longer than most every other independent company out there.
BTW, jljac is correct that the '49 Ford was designed by Stude stylists helping out Dick Caleal. The whole 'kitchen table in Mishawaka, IN' story is dead on, and has been documented and reported several times over the years by the parties involved.
The Lark Daytona Convertible was the Indy Pace Car for '62. It was hoped that the Avanti would be the pace car, but it simply wasn't ready in time. A Stude Commander convertible was the Pace Car for '52 as well.