Are you a current Michigan-based car shopper? A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/2 for details.
I don't think those '52 Studes are particularly attractive looking, mainly because of the heavy-handed treatment of the front-end. But, it's amazing how modern it still looks for a body that was now going on five model years old.
The 1952 Studebaker was the final facelift for a body that had already been in production for five years. The original plan was to introduce the Lowey coupes and hardtops in 1952 on the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Studebaker Brothers' blacksmith shop in South Bend, but the new models got delayed because of Korean War production quota restrictions and possible steel shortages. Studebaker did not want to release new models of cars under these conditions. The front end treatment of the 1952 indicates that they already knew how the 1953 models were going to look because that was a transition to the look of the 1953 models.
More unfortunately, since Studebaker was paying Raymond Loewy and Associates large sums of money to design cars, the design team took the extra time to apply the designs of the long wheelbase coupes and hardtops to the short wheelbase sedans. This must have seemed like a good idea at the time, but that was not the way things worked. As a result, the entire line was new for 1953 and there were many production problems. The 1953s did not even enter production until January 1953, four months late. In 1953 the Korean War ended the Henry Ford II sales war price war began. Americans found that they could buy a full size Ford or Chevrolet for a lot less money than a smaller Studebaker that looked like a cheap French car without enough chrome on it.
Many Studebaker owners did not like the transition, including my grandfather who worked for Studebaker and kept his 1952 Champion until late 1962 when he bought a Lark with a Skybolt Six before retiring. He liked the 1952 Champion and said it was the best car he ever owned, even though it rusted so badly that the front passenger’s side headlight fell off in early 1962.
My father had a 1951 Champion that rusted very little. I suspect that the 1951 had better undercoating. Both cars would start in the coldest weather, which was not true of the 1959 Lark my dad owned or the 1960 Lark which was in our family for fourteen years. One would think that two cars with a twelve volt electrical system would start better than two cars with a six-volt electrical system, but that was not the way things worked.
I don't mind the front end of the '52 too much (I like it better than the 'bullet nose'), but the optional guards this car has (which are factory) do no favors at all to the styling IMHO. Talk about heavy!
I've liked Studebakers' 'differentness' from '53 to the end, generally, but I'll say this about the '52--to my eyes, OK, it look like a '52 car...somewhat in keeping with everything else that year. And in its sixth year of the body, that's not a bad thing I guess.
I always heard the "Korean War Chrome" was an issue that year.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
It looks very nice and reminds me of the Oldsmobile hardtop of that era. I think it should get the asking price, but it hasn't yet. It seems like the wrong time of year to be selling it.
Uplanderguy probably knows this, I forgot to mention that the "hardtop convertible" was Studebaker's only new body style model for 1952. It was properly called a hardtop convertible" because it was a convertible body, windows & frame with a hard top on it. This was not a major tooling job because Studebaker built convertible bodies for quite a few years before 1952 (probably in 1947) but never got around to building a hard top for them until then and did not to it again for the full size Studebakers until 1958 (Lowey hardtops and Hawks were the exception.)
When I registered my Commander many years ago, the guy at the DMV wanted to see the top go down because it was registered as a hardtop convertible, so I had to tell what a hardtop convertible body style was and how wrong it would be to call it a sedan. That did no good - it got registered as a coupe or sedan, I forget which.
On the other hand, that was an improvement over the experience I had at the DMV when registering the Messershmitt. I drove it in registered as a car and came out registered as a motorcycle with instructions to wear a helmet. Fortunately, I already had a motorcycle driver's license. The license plate shown was issued by the US Army for a car. I probably should have had it registered as a motorcycle or scooter during the first registration.
to my eyes, OK, it look like a '52 car...somewhat in keeping with everything else that year.
IMO, the 1952 Ford was about the most "modern" looking of the lower-priced cars that year. But, I don't find the Ford particularly attractive. I think the Chevy and Plymouth looked pretty nice that year, though. Not necessarily cutting edge, style-wise, but still easy on the eye.
Since we are on the subject of the hardtop convertible body style, I remember reading somewhere that the wife of a rich auto executive had one made because she liked contvertibles but didn't like getting her hair messed up. This article seems to be consistent with that story. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1946-chrysler-town-and-country-hardtop.htm GM did not invent it, they copied it from another car company.
In a roundabout way, the first "hardtop" was actually a 1916 Dodge. IIRC, there was some model of Dodge that year that had a fixed, solid steel roof with no B-pillar. However, it gets disqualified in the modern sense because it had snap-in curtains, rather than roll-down windows.
Chrysler actually went so far to make up Christmas cards, or some kind of dealer literature (memory's fuzzy now) of a 1952 or 1953 Desoto 4-door hardtop. But, the concept wouldn't make it to reality for Mopar until 1956.
As for GM inventing things, for the most part, that was a rarity back in the day. Usually Ford, Chrysler, or someone else would come up with some idea first. But then GM would usually improve upon it, be really successful at it, and so everyone would remember them for it.
It says that by 1957 one-third of all American cars sold were hardtops. I realize that my favorite cars of the 1950s were of that body style. The article mentions that Ford and Nash had problems adopting their bodies to that style and ends as follows:
. . .Hardtops have faded from the scene primarily because, in the cost-conscious and efficient 1980s, the public simply moved more toward no-nonsense design preferences. The poor hardtop was just a delightful piece of nonsense all along.
Yet all the nonsense resulted in the most successful body style of all time. If you study the cars of the 1950s, you will soon see that those who offered hardtops early and in a variety of models are still in business today.
Those who failed to cut out the pillar slowly faded from the scene. Where are Packard and Kaiser-Frazer now? ====================================================
Although the article does not say so, I believe that another reason for the demise of the hardtop was because air conditioning became less expensive and much more common as standard equipment.
The '52 Ford does look fairly modern for a '52, although the looks never did much for me (good or bad). I always liked the '56 a lot, including its very simple and elegant dash IMO, and I like the '57 and '58 too, although it's lonely to like the '58 Fords! LOL
I could never tell a '52 from a '53 from a '54 Ford. I think the Hudson Jet looks like a 2/3 Ford from that era.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I think the Hudson Jet looks like a 2/3 Ford from that era.
The Hudson Jet was intentionally designed to look like a 53-54 Ford and it resulted in a car that looked like a narrow Ford.
I like the 1958 Ford best of all the Fords of the 1950's and I like the 1959 Ford the least. A 1959 Ford is being discussed over at the classics forum, but I kept quiet because I did not want to say anything rude about it. The only positive thing I can say I can say is that the front end of it looks a lot better than the back end. The trunk is huge, especially on the retractable hardtop so that the roof can fit in it. The trunk on the 1958's did not look as massive and I actually liked the front which appeared to be related to the 1958 Thunderbird, which I also like.
IMHO Kaiser and Hudson would have done a lot better if they invested their money in V-8 engines instead putting it into the Jet and the Henry J. At least the Hudson had a big six cylinder motor, but the Kaiser was never known for its performance. Articles written at the time complained about the lack of power, and that was not good for a rather large and expensive car. Kaiser was the real postwar challenger to Detroit automakers, not the Tucker.
I am defensive about the Studebaker V-8 because that was quite an accomplishment to be introduced in 1951 just two years after GM and the same model year as Chrysler. As I said in an earlier post, Studebaker sold more than 340,000 V-8s between 1951 and 1954, which was during the Korean War and the Ford price war. In 1955, the V-8s outsold the 6 cylinder engines by a substantial margin. I will get the exact figures soon.
Studebaker made many mistakes, but building a V-8 engine was not one of them. I think that they would have gone out of business much sooner without that engine, which also helped Lark sales.
I think air conditioning was the biggest factor in the demise of the hardtop. While personally, I miss the days of windows that roll all the way down and lack of a B-pillar, at the time I think most people were taking the sentiment of "who cares if the back windows don't roll down...it has AIR CONDITIONING!!"
Another factor may have been increased glass area, coupled with downsizing. The windows got bigger, but there was less space for them to roll down into. And shorter wheelbases meant that the rear wheel opening would cut more severely into the back doors. Or in the case of two door cars, there would be less rear quarter panel for a window to roll down into.
For instance, if you look at GM's downsized B- and C-body cars for 1977. With those big windows, and the comparatively short wheelbase, there's no way they could have made a 4-door hardtop out of that body style. Heck, even as a 4-door sedan, they could only get the back windows to roll down about half way...and that was with the help of a spacer window in back!
Personally, I thought the 52-54 Ford's were the best looking of the low priced 3 during those years. I liked the 52 Chevy, but never cared for the 53/54 looks. The Plymouth's were just kind of blah to me.
I think you're right on the money about the Independents should have put their money into engines. I felt the 57 Ford was cleaner looking than the 58, but I understand the 58 strategy of better aligning it to the new Squarebird styling theme. I think I liked the 58 better when I was younger. One thing I'd say about the 59 was that the new Galaxie line was a home run version updating their image and helping take on Chevy that year. Otherwise, I agree that it's styling was kind of different, but lucky for them so was Chevy that year. As a kid, I recall the dig a lot of people had against Studebaker was that they were too small. But I think the 53-55 styling was superb regardless of who actually designed it.
As a kid, I recall the dig a lot of people had against Studebaker was that they were too small. But I think the 53-55 styling was superb regardless of who actually designed it.
I've heard that as well, that people complained about them being smaller inside compared to a Ford, Chevy, or Plymouth. I think even Consumer Reports mentioned it.
The 4-door models, on a 116.5" wheelbase, were certainly on par with Ford, Chevy, and Plymouth. However, the bodies seemed a bit narrower. I wonder if they were comparable in legroom and headroom, but just a bit tighter in shoulder room? Maybe it could be argued that Studebaker actually made the first intermediate, rather than Ford with its '62 Fairlane/Meteor. Or Mopar, accidentally, with their shrunken "full-sized" '62 Plymouths and Dodges.
I hope so, but probably not...he posted something on the other forum but I've decided to steer clear of that one...probably best thing.
Except for the fuelie engines, and later '60's editions, the only difference between a 250 hp 327, say, in a '62 Corvette and the same engine in a Biscayne was the Corvette was 'dressed up' with a special air cleaner and I believe valve covers. I'm told they were stamped with a special, Corvette-only engine number.
Same with Studebaker's "Avanti" engines. They had their own serial numbers, beginning with "R", and had chrome valve covers, air cleaner, dipstick, and valley plate. They were available in Larks and Hawks but those cars had engine nos. starting with "JT" (for 'Jet Thrust'). So it is possible to tell from the stamping number if the engine started out in an Avanti or 'regular' Studebaker...but the engines are the same (they were higher horsepower and compression than "lesser" Stude V8's).
The whole conversation started with a crack that Corvette engines were something special and "Avanti" V8's at Studebaker were not at all.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Andre, have you seen a '53-'54 Studebaker Land Cruiser, or '55 President State Sedan, that was on the 120.5" wheelbase? To my eyes, it carried the four-door styling much better. Those, I'll put next to a four-door Big Three car of the same era.
Studebaker screwed up, I think, by making the '53 coupes and sedans, two entirely different cars. Not a single piece of sheetmetal, not hood, trunk, anything, will interchange between the cars. I can't imagine how expensive that was.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Studes were definitely narrower than the Big Three competition, for sure.
But when the Lark was introducted for '59, as basically a sawed-off full-size Stude, it was noted by car mags that it was roomier than a Rambler and was the only car of its size that could be had with a V8. And in '60, it was the only compact convertible. Of course, all that didn't last long once the Big Three expanded their offerings.
Re.:'59 Ford--I never liked them at all. To me, they were completely blunt in front, had an uninteresting instrument panel, had those huge round taillights and the silly little backup lights above them. The '60 was a big improvement I think and the '61 Starliner, I love.
Remember when people used to put red reflectors in the scooped-out part of the rear bumper, to mirror the taillight look right above, on '60 Fords?
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I think where Studes often excelled, was headroom. Also--and I probably shouldn't quote this without looking--I believe they advertised the '63 Cruiser (top-line four-door Lark) as having as much legroom as Cadillac. I can't recall if it was front or back...I'm thinking back but could be wrong.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I believe they advertised the '63 Cruiser (top-line four-door Lark) as having as much legroom as Cadillac. I can't recall if it was front or back...I'm thinking back but could be wrong.
That could very well be. I remember CR saying that the '61-62 Cadillac wasn't all that roomy in the back, and considering the '63-64 wasn't all that different, it's probably similar. The issue came up when CR was trying to make the point that you didn't always get more car for more money, and noted that a '61 or '62 Ford Galaxie had more legroom in back than a Sedan DeVille.
And, if all Studebaker did was take a Lark and add a few inches in length in the back seat area, that probably would have given it some really impressive legroom. Seems like it's a lot easier to take a small car, add a few inches, and come up with a lot more room. However, it's not so easy to take a big car and chop out a few inches, without a big sacrifice in interior room.
Oh, as for those Studebaker sedans on the 120.5" wheelbase, dunno if I've ever seen one in person or not. And yeah, having the coupe and sedan on almost completely different bodies probably hurt them financially. I've heard another problem was that their original sales forecast was something like 80% of the more upright sedans (and wagons I guess) and 20% of the low-slung coupes. But demand for them ran almost opposite.
Studebaker screwed up, I think, by making the '53 coupes and sedans, two entirely different cars. Not a single piece of sheetmetal, not hood, trunk, anything, will interchange between the cars. I can't imagine how expensive that was.
This is consistent with a post I made earlier. They should not have changed the entire model line at one time. They had problems putting V-8s in the Commanders because the weight was causing body flexing and the front fenders were large and too complex for the stamping process in existence so many of them split at first. They could not get production going until January 1953. They did not plan on the Lowey coupes and hardtops outselling the sedans by such a large margin and got a bad reputation for quality.
The Ford-Chevrolet price war was brutal on all small cars. The Willys, Henry J, Crosley, and Hudson Jet all failed. Even the Nash Rambler was taken out of production. Since gas was cheap there seemed to be no reason to buy a small car when you could get a larger one (a Buick with “road hugging weight” or a “wide tracking Pontiac”) for a lower price. The image below I made to compare the 1958 Champion to my 1960 Lark.
IMHO the best looking Studebakers of 1957-58 had the Packard name on them. That is a shame because the years of lowest production were also the years of the highest quality.
have you seen a '53-'54 Studebaker Land Cruiser, or '55 President State Sedan, that was on the 120.5" wheelbase? To my eyes, it carried the four-door styling much better.
I think that was generally true of most all the Studebakers in the 50's. But Ironically you never seemed to see many of those.
My Uncle Louie bought my Aunt Marsha a new yellow and white 1953 Studebaker Starliner coupe and she didn't even have a license or know how to drive!
I became the owner of my first Lark pictured above as the result of a similar experience. My aunt from the non-Studebaker side of the family in Chicago saw a yellow Studebaker Lark in the movie Breakfast at Tiffany's and she had to have one just like it although she was approximately 40 years old and never had a driver's license. My Uncle Harry bought her a Lark 6 with an automatic transmission and he ended up driving it much of the time instead of his 1956 Pontiac.
I ended up buying the car for $100 in 1968 because it would not start in cold weather that was much below freezing. This was a complete surprise because my dad's 1951 Champion and grandfather's 1952 Champion started in the coldest weather.
One of my favorite memories as a kid was when a neighbor got a 1954 Cadillac convertible which would not start in cold weather so our Champion would push it down the street in the morning to get it started. We could not start it with jumper cables because our Champion only had six volts and his Cadillac had twelve. I know that Cadillacs with automatic transmissions could be push started in the winter because I saw it done on a regular basis.
I don't know why the 6 volt Champions started so much better than the 12 volt Larks. I suspect the higher engine compression of the Lark motors because they cranked very slowly when it was cold. I never found a solution to that problem during the five years I owned it although I tried six volt battery cables, 10 weight oil, heated oil dipsticks and finally taking the battery inside at night to keep it warm.
Our minister had a Lark VI and he traded it in on a VW for the same reason. My Dad had a 1959 Lark which would start until the temperature went below zero degrees. His car was the best of the lot, but when grandpa junked his 1952 Champion, dad kept the motor for his Lark but never got around to making the engine swap.
Cold weather starting never seems to be a reason why Lark sales decreased, but that was a reason I heard at the time. It was a big disappointment on the Chicago side of the family. I never claimed that Studebakers were perfect.
>From the Studebaker forum linked above: "This is gorgeous car whether original in gray over green or restored in black. However, while I can excuse a typo of "overhead cam" instead of "overhead valve", this ad has too many errors to be a typo... It crosses the line to deliberate misrepresentation or at least negligent with intent to mislead.
"I sent a message both to the seller and to e-bay and I would encourage others to do so as well. It should be also noted that half of the 36 bids are by a bidder who has booked 43% of his bids with this seller and does not show a successful bid. Can anyone see fraudulent pumping of a bid?"
As the old saying goes, "Hell hath no fury like a woman a group of Studebaker experts scorned."
Too funny, imidazo! I think some of it is being 'beat up' on over the years by people who know so little about the marque--including "Packard people" who are still fighting the 'Civil War' --that we are a 'tad sensitive' sometimes!
I do think dealers get away with stuff in ads--advertising originality, then having a little disclaimer somewhere that says 'the buyer is responsible for verifying originality, not us'. I'd much rather buy from a private seller; however, a friend recently had been looking for over a year for a gold Studebaker Avanti and found one at a dealer 90 mins. from her house and the car was as-advertised and a real low-mileage gem, plus we verified it was built on the last day Studebaker built Avantis (the dealer didn't advertise, or probably know, that ).
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
That is an amazing review. I noticed the comment about the quality of the chrome during the Korean War era and that is consistent with a post I wrote earlier about Studebaker not releasing the 1953 models in 1952 during its 100 anniversary and is a good reason why the 1953 models had so little chrome. The Korean War began in 1950 and did not end until July 1953. The 1953 cars were designed and introduced during a chrome shortage and production quotas. It was a bad time to celebrate a 100th anniversary.
I was trying to word it to be clear I respected and applauded the gurus on the marque and that they were taking apart a faker trying to profit from some naive buyer's lack of broad, thorough knowledge of what can be done to fake a car.
I'm the one at the cruise-ins going over to see the less than perfect but really original cars. Others go to the really rare, exotic, expensive, but I like seeing a vehicle that is like they were. That includes the current Olds 98 in Classic Cars by Hemmings which has fender skirts. I don't really believe most 1955 Olds 2-door hardtops had skirts.
The issue has the top 10 50's Oldsmobiles.
AND a one-page article "I Was There" by Michael Bradshaw, Studebaker Canada assistant foreman 1948-54. He has some interesting comments. The mag usually has an article by someone who had worked in the auto industry in the past.
Check it on newsstands or electronic subscription was fairly cheap last year. I personally like a nice slick magazine in my hands--just old fashioned like our 50 Studebaker Champion in the pea soup green color we had when I was a kid.
I just got that Hemmings Classic Car you mentioned, today. I enjoy that magazine usually from cover-to-cover, and there's a fair amount of Studebaker stuff in there, generally.
I don't remember ever mentioning this here, but I always liked the Studebaker Champ trucks of '60-64:
They get grief for using as their wide bed, the former Dodge pickup bed which was too wide for the cab, but people were looking for that 4 x 8 plywood-accepting bed and it fit the need. I actually think the shape of the rear wheel opening, and the horizontal crease down the side of the bed, matches the styling of the Champ cab better than it matches the styling of the Dodge cab. Of course, width-wise, it matches the Dodge cab better.
Lowest priced pickup in America, full-width rear window standard, sliding available when no one else had it, 5-speed availability when no one else had it, and the highest GVW in its class. I think the looks have held up well. The fuel filler helps disguise the bed width on the driver's side a little, I think. In '60-62 it was also available with the older style double-walled Studebaker bed, with outside fenders.
My Dad, not a car buff at all, said when he saw the much-later Dodge trucks with prominent center grille, "It looks like a Studebaker truck". I sort-of know what he meant.
He's deceased now, but probably twenty years ago I met the man responsible for the Champ, Otis Romine. A big guy with a Willard Scott-like personality, he said that "Studebaker gave me $25 and said 'come up with a new pickup styling'". Of course he was exaggerating, but he was proud what he did with what he had. Part of the deal with Dodge was that at that point, Studebaker was responsible for fabrication of all Dodge replacement beds made. Studebaker fabricated a new front bed panel and of course, tailgate with "Studebaker" lettering, but the rest was Dodge.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Re.: Champ pickups...I have, though, always preferred the half-ton to the 3/4 ton, like the one in the photos...smaller tires and wheels mean the vehicle isn't so high, and I like Studebaker's factory chrome 'moon'-style hubcaps with the "S" in the center.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
This is actually a reply to the truck discussion above, because the subject has wandered too far from the discussion about the 1952 Studebaker Commander. Here is a good article about a beautiful 1955 Studebaker pick up truck which is NOT from Studebaker fan club site but from a for pick-up trucks http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/07/looking-back-1955-studebaker-e-series-v8.ht- - ml
I like the 1955 model year because of the front end treatment and because Studebaker finally put their ohv V-8 into their trucks at a time when some other automakers were just getting around to putting them in their cars (i.e., Chevrolet, Pontiac, Plymouth, Packard).
I am not much of a truck fan, but the Studebaker trucks of 1949 were much ahead of their time, so I did not see the Champ as a great improvement. However, I also wonder if the 1960 Champ was inspiration for the 1963 Jeep Gladiator pick up truck. At that point in time, Brooks Stevens was working for Studebaker and Kaiser Jeep Corporation but Willys/Jeep employed him first around 1946 for designing the Willys station wagon.
I was at my 3-year-old nephew's birthday party yesterday. A friend of his parents, probably twenty years younger than me, remembered that I had Studebakers and was asking me about them. He said he had had a '70's BMW 2002 for a hobby car but had sold it after 18 mos.--work and parenting got in the way of it. I said 'those always reminded me, looks-wise, of early Corvairs". He replied, "Yeah, but at least they didn't catch on fire".
I know he's of the age where he grew up hearing how bad domestics were, but I can honestly say I never heard that Corvairs 'caught fire'.
I didn't correct him, since it was a kid's birthday party.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I've never heard of a Corvair fire issue either. There were other German cars that borrowed Corvair cues more than any BMW - NSU was a prime player in that market. And it kind of makes sense - a quirky rear engined air cooled car appeals strongly to some German sensibilities. Germans like it two ways - either shockingly simple, or nauseatingly complex. No middle ground. Germans also like the swing axle - my fintail has one.
My paternal grandfather was a Corvair nut, had like 5 of them back in the day, including a pickup and a van. He liked some oddballs - his last new car was a dustbuster Lumina van.
>fire hazard be a reference to the gasoline powered heater?
Jackpot. That is likely it.
I'd forgotten about the gasoline heaters in the Corvair. I only drove one once for the secretary in the department where I worked at college. Long ago memories from that gasoline reference.
I don't recall them using the gas heater into "'63-65" as that link inquires. I'm thinking '60-61. Still, that's the first time I've heard Corvairs and fires linked (one will hear general stories about cars catching fire every so often).
If I wasn't into Studebakers, I'd be into Corvairs next...I'd love a '69 Monza Hardtop with the four carbs and four-speed. But I'm afraid I'd have an even harder time finding anybody in my area to work on a Corvair; they get scared when they hear "Studebaker" and mine were pretty basic and general mechanically.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I agree with you that the link I posted did not have accurate information. I used it only to show that the gasoline heater may have been the reason for public discussion about Corvairs catching fire. The early ones (1960-64) had the gasoline fired heaters. I am certain of that because My Uncle sold his 1956 Ford Crown Victoria and got a used (but almost new) 1960 four-door Corvair and he did not like to run the gas heater because it killed the fuel economy. It seems that someone at GM should have questioned having a gasoline fired heater with its own gas fired pilot light located in the front of the car.
My aunt did not like because it was it cold in the winter (which was because my uncle would not run the heater.) His mother (my grandmother) did not like it because she was cold and it was hard to get in and out. It was a low car with the floor was much lower than other cars and below the subframe.
My uncle liked it because it was reliable, economical and could go through deep snow. He probably didn't mind when his wife and mother stayed home, which may have been the true reason he would not run the gas heater in the winter.
The Corvair’s bad press probably began when famous TV star Ernie Kovacs died in a crash in January 1962. It happened on the streets of LA and he was following his famous wife, Edie Adams, home. She was driving their Rolls Royce. It did not seem that anyone should have a fatal accident under those circumstances, even if it was raining in Los Angeles which is a rare event. Good article about that event here. http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/05/09/how-the-corvairs-rise-and-fall-- - changed-america -forever/
I actually liked the Corvair for many reasons including it was much safer than a vehicle I owned and drove which was still in production at the time of the early Corvairs.
If Ralph Nader lived in Germany, he might have used the Corvair as an example of a safe American car. He actually liked Studebakers. I heard somewhere that the only car he owned was a 1949 Stude. Maybe he was spoiled by that experience and disappointed by every car that came after that. :confuse:
Twenty-eight miles on the car. I know when I looked at the odometer myself. Stude kept this car and donated it to the City of South Bend.
The four cars before it off the line were identical fixed-roof Challenger Wagonaires destined for D.C. and the GSA, and the last Hawk off the line was right before the Wagonaires, a white ones with blue interior and overdrive. It was ordered by a customer in Oregon I believe and survived as of a decade or so ago I know.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Here is to the good old days. The old guy with the red car is former Studebaker employee Bud Medich who drives one just like the last one made. I wonder if he is still around. I also wonder if the old house was sitting there when the buildings were built in the 1920s.
1925 Studebaker introduces four-wheel hydraulic brakes into its automobiles. This was considered controversial at the time, as it was thought by many to be unsafe to stop so quickly.
Henry Ford wanted to keep cable brakes in his cars (I believe that they were for rear wheels only at that time), so his advertisements said, "Safer with steel from pedal to wheel."
I always wonder why GM didn't pass up Ford much earlier. The old man almost ran what he built up into the ground. Sometimes maybe it's hard for a successful guy to move on to the latest ideas and changes.
Great clips of the old plant, jl. I remember driving down that street just before the final assembly building which you show was completely torn down, maybe five or so years ago. You could still see all the overhead conveyor pieces running the length of the line, from the street.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I took the images of the buildings before destruction at the Studebaker International meet in July 2002 and the demolition photos in mid-August 2006. The building shown in my images was one of two buildings that were next to each other for final assembly and shipping. Here is a very nice photo of the area between the two buildings and more images of the factory at this site. http://www.monon.monon.org/railpixs3/Building_78-1948.jpg
First, Chevrolet exceeded Ford production between 1926 and 1927 when Ford production decreased from 1,256,612 to 367,213, while Chevrolet increased production from 547,724 to 1,001.820 plus 255,160 Buicks and 188,168 for Pontiac/Oakland.
Second, the independent auto makers were major participants in the market in 1928 with 315,000 for Willys Overland and 282,203 for Hudson Essex and 138,137 for Nash (Studebaker and Packard are not listed that year.) They all surived WWII but never had the market share they had before the Great Depression as a result of the Ford - GM price war.
Third, notice how Ford and GM increase sales and market share between 1952 and 1957 as the independents disappear and Nash becomes Rambler during the price war.
Fourth, Studebaker could produce 300,000+ cars per year because their production for 1950 was 320,884 and for 1951 it was 246,195 for a total of 567,079 ./. 2 = 283,540. These production figures were before they built the body conveyor that crossed Sample Street in 1954. Prior to 1954, that they were moving bodies by truck from the body assembly plant next to the Union Station to final the assembly building. (American Motors also moving bodies by truck at that time)
Studebaker could have continued to make a profit in 1964 if they could only sell half the cars they sold in 1950 or 100,000 less than they sold in 1951. That is why I put the outdated factory facilities low on the list of reasons of why Studebaker went out of business. Outdated facilities did not stop American Motors from increasing total sales and market share between 1952-1964.
Also, bottom row left, love the stock of new '64 Studes in front of the Stude military trucks. I'd take the red Daytona HT, white Daytona convertible, and either of the two Hawks in the picture!
Top row is an Auto Show photo where Mercedes-Benz display can be seen in the pic as well.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Yes, '58 was a terrible year for Studebaker, with a $13 million loss. The Lark was timed perfectly, and pretty smartly put together, and resulted in over a $28 million profit for '59, highest in the South Bend company's 107-year history at that time. Of course, the profit shrunk a lot in '60 with the introduction of the Big Three compacts, even with the Lark adding a convertible and four-door wagon to the lineup. The rest is history. My Studebaker dealer friend said they had to add a salesman in '59 just to handle the additional floor traffic (town of just under 9K residents).
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Comments
More unfortunately, since Studebaker was paying Raymond Loewy and Associates large sums of money to design cars, the design team took the extra time to apply the designs of the long wheelbase coupes and hardtops to the short wheelbase sedans. This must have seemed like a good idea at the time, but that was not the way things worked. As a result, the entire line was new for 1953 and there were many production problems. The 1953s did not even enter production until January 1953, four months late. In 1953 the Korean War ended the Henry Ford II sales war price war began. Americans found that they could buy a full size Ford or Chevrolet for a lot less money than a smaller Studebaker that looked like a cheap French car without enough chrome on it.
Many Studebaker owners did not like the transition, including my grandfather who worked for Studebaker and kept his 1952 Champion until late 1962 when he bought a Lark with a Skybolt Six before retiring. He liked the 1952 Champion and said it was the best car he ever owned, even
though it rusted so badly that the front passenger’s side headlight fell off in early 1962.
My father had a 1951 Champion that rusted very little. I suspect that the 1951 had better undercoating. Both cars would start in the coldest weather, which was not true of the 1959 Lark my dad owned or the 1960 Lark which was in our family for fourteen years. One would think that
two cars with a twelve volt electrical system would start better than two cars with a six-volt electrical system, but that was not the way things worked.
I've liked Studebakers' 'differentness' from '53 to the end, generally, but I'll say this about the '52--to my eyes, OK, it look like a '52 car...somewhat in keeping with everything else that year. And in its sixth year of the body, that's not a bad thing I guess.
I always heard the "Korean War Chrome" was an issue that year.
Uplanderguy probably knows this, I forgot to mention that the "hardtop convertible" was Studebaker's only new body style model for 1952. It was properly called a hardtop convertible" because it was a convertible body, windows & frame with a hard top on it. This was not a major tooling job because Studebaker built convertible bodies for quite a few years before 1952 (probably in 1947) but never got around to building a hard top for them until then and did not to it again for the full size Studebakers until 1958 (Lowey hardtops and Hawks were the exception.)
When I registered my Commander many years ago, the guy at the DMV wanted to see the top go down because it was registered as a hardtop convertible, so I had to tell what a hardtop convertible body style was and how wrong it would be to call it a sedan. That did no good - it got registered as a coupe or sedan, I forget which.
On the other hand, that was an improvement over the experience I had at the DMV when registering the Messershmitt. I drove it in registered as a car and came out registered as a motorcycle with instructions to wear a helmet. Fortunately, I already had a motorcycle driver's license.
The license plate shown was issued by the US Army for a car. I probably should have had it registered as a motorcycle or scooter during the first registration.
IMO, the 1952 Ford was about the most "modern" looking of the lower-priced cars that year. But, I don't find the Ford particularly attractive. I think the Chevy and Plymouth looked pretty nice that year, though. Not necessarily cutting edge, style-wise, but still easy on the eye.
Chrysler actually went so far to make up Christmas cards, or some kind of dealer literature (memory's fuzzy now) of a 1952 or 1953 Desoto 4-door hardtop. But, the concept wouldn't make it to reality for Mopar until 1956.
As for GM inventing things, for the most part, that was a rarity back in the day. Usually Ford, Chrysler, or someone else would come up with some idea first. But then GM would usually improve upon it, be really successful at it, and so everyone would remember them for it.
It says that by 1957 one-third of all American cars sold were hardtops. I realize that my favorite cars of the 1950s were of that body style. The article mentions that Ford and Nash had problems adopting their bodies to that style and ends as follows:
. . .Hardtops have faded from the scene primarily because, in the cost-conscious and efficient 1980s, the public simply moved more toward no-nonsense design preferences. The poor hardtop was just a delightful piece of nonsense all along.
Yet all the nonsense resulted in the most successful body style of all time. If you study the cars of the 1950s, you will soon see that those who offered hardtops early and in a variety of models are still in business today.
Those who failed to cut out the pillar slowly faded from the scene. Where are Packard and Kaiser-Frazer now?
====================================================
Although the article does not say so, I believe that another reason for the demise of the hardtop was because air conditioning became less expensive and much more common as standard equipment.
I could never tell a '52 from a '53 from a '54 Ford. I think the Hudson Jet looks like a 2/3 Ford from that era.
The Hudson Jet was intentionally designed to look like a 53-54 Ford and it resulted in a car that looked like a narrow Ford.
I like the 1958 Ford best of all the Fords of the 1950's and I like the 1959 Ford the least. A 1959 Ford is being discussed over at the classics forum, but I kept quiet because I did not want to say anything rude about it. The only positive thing I can say I can say is that the front end of it looks a lot better than the back end. The trunk is huge, especially on the retractable hardtop so that the roof can fit in it. The trunk on the 1958's did not look as massive and I actually liked the front which appeared to be related to the 1958 Thunderbird, which I also like.
IMHO Kaiser and Hudson would have done a lot better if they invested their money in V-8 engines instead putting it into the Jet and the Henry J. At least the Hudson had a big six cylinder motor, but the Kaiser was never known for its performance. Articles written at the time complained about the lack of power, and that was not good for a rather large and expensive car. Kaiser was the real postwar challenger to Detroit automakers, not the Tucker.
I am defensive about the Studebaker V-8 because that was quite an accomplishment to be introduced in 1951 just two years after GM and the same model year as Chrysler. As I said in an earlier post, Studebaker sold more than 340,000 V-8s between 1951 and 1954, which was during the Korean War and the Ford price war. In 1955, the V-8s outsold the 6 cylinder engines by a substantial margin. I will get the exact figures soon.
Studebaker made many mistakes, but building a V-8 engine was not one of them. I think that they would have gone out of business much sooner without that engine, which also helped Lark sales.
Another factor may have been increased glass area, coupled with downsizing. The windows got bigger, but there was less space for them to roll down into. And shorter wheelbases meant that the rear wheel opening would cut more severely into the back doors. Or in the case of two door cars, there would be less rear quarter panel for a window to roll down into.
For instance, if you look at GM's downsized B- and C-body cars for 1977. With those big windows, and the comparatively short wheelbase, there's no way they could have made a 4-door hardtop out of that body style. Heck, even as a 4-door sedan, they could only get the back windows to roll down about half way...and that was with the help of a spacer window in back!
I've heard that as well, that people complained about them being smaller inside compared to a Ford, Chevy, or Plymouth. I think even Consumer Reports mentioned it.
The 4-door models, on a 116.5" wheelbase, were certainly on par with Ford, Chevy, and Plymouth. However, the bodies seemed a bit narrower. I wonder if they were comparable in legroom and headroom, but just a bit tighter in shoulder room? Maybe it could be argued that Studebaker actually made the first intermediate, rather than Ford with its '62 Fairlane/Meteor. Or Mopar, accidentally, with their shrunken "full-sized" '62 Plymouths and Dodges.
Except for the fuelie engines, and later '60's editions, the only difference between a 250 hp 327, say, in a '62 Corvette and the same engine in a Biscayne was the Corvette was 'dressed up' with a special air cleaner and I believe valve covers. I'm told they were stamped with a special, Corvette-only engine number.
Same with Studebaker's "Avanti" engines. They had their own serial numbers, beginning with "R", and had chrome valve covers, air cleaner, dipstick, and valley plate. They were available in Larks and Hawks but those cars had engine nos. starting with "JT" (for 'Jet Thrust'). So it is possible to tell from the stamping number if the engine started out in an Avanti or 'regular' Studebaker...but the engines are the same (they were higher horsepower and compression than "lesser" Stude V8's).
The whole conversation started with a crack that Corvette engines were something special and "Avanti" V8's at Studebaker were not at all.
Studebaker screwed up, I think, by making the '53 coupes and sedans, two entirely different cars. Not a single piece of sheetmetal, not hood, trunk, anything, will interchange between the cars. I can't imagine how expensive that was.
But when the Lark was introducted for '59, as basically a sawed-off full-size Stude, it was noted by car mags that it was roomier than a Rambler and was the only car of its size that could be had with a V8. And in '60, it was the only compact convertible. Of course, all that didn't last long once the Big Three expanded their offerings.
Re.:'59 Ford--I never liked them at all. To me, they were completely blunt in front, had an uninteresting instrument panel, had those huge round taillights and the silly little backup lights above them. The '60 was a big improvement I think and the '61 Starliner, I love.
Remember when people used to put red reflectors in the scooped-out part of the rear bumper, to mirror the taillight look right above, on '60 Fords?
That could very well be. I remember CR saying that the '61-62 Cadillac wasn't all that roomy in the back, and considering the '63-64 wasn't all that different, it's probably similar. The issue came up when CR was trying to make the point that you didn't always get more car for more money, and noted that a '61 or '62 Ford Galaxie had more legroom in back than a Sedan DeVille.
And, if all Studebaker did was take a Lark and add a few inches in length in the back seat area, that probably would have given it some really impressive legroom. Seems like it's a lot easier to take a small car, add a few inches, and come up with a lot more room. However, it's not so easy to take a big car and chop out a few inches, without a big sacrifice in interior room.
Oh, as for those Studebaker sedans on the 120.5" wheelbase, dunno if I've ever seen one in person or not. And yeah, having the coupe and sedan on almost completely different bodies probably hurt them financially. I've heard another problem was that their original sales forecast was something like 80% of the more upright sedans (and wagons I guess) and 20% of the low-slung coupes. But demand for them ran almost opposite.
This is consistent with a post I made earlier. They should not have changed the entire model line at one time. They had problems putting V-8s in the Commanders because the weight was causing body flexing and the front fenders were large and too complex for the stamping process in existence so many of them split at first. They could not get production going until January 1953. They did not plan on the Lowey coupes and hardtops outselling the sedans by such a large margin and got a bad reputation for quality.
The Ford-Chevrolet price war was brutal on all small cars. The Willys, Henry J, Crosley, and Hudson Jet all failed. Even the Nash Rambler was taken out of production. Since gas was cheap there seemed to be no reason to buy a small car when you could get a larger one (a Buick with “road hugging weight” or a “wide tracking Pontiac”) for a lower price. The image below I made to compare the 1958 Champion to my 1960 Lark.
IMHO the best looking Studebakers of 1957-58 had the Packard name on them. That is a shame because the years of lowest production were also the years of the highest quality.
I think that was generally true of most all the Studebakers in the 50's. But Ironically you never seemed to see many of those.
Funny. Brought back memories that my dad did that very thing on his 60 Fairlane!
That was a factory option.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I became the owner of my first Lark pictured above as the result of a similar experience. My aunt from the non-Studebaker side of the family in Chicago saw a yellow Studebaker Lark in the movie Breakfast at Tiffany's and she had to have one just like it although she was approximately 40 years old and never had a driver's license. My Uncle Harry bought her a Lark 6 with an automatic transmission and he ended up driving it much of the time instead of his 1956 Pontiac.
I ended up buying the car for $100 in 1968 because it would not start in cold weather that was much below freezing. This was a complete surprise because my dad's 1951 Champion and grandfather's 1952 Champion started in the coldest weather.
One of my favorite memories as a kid was when a neighbor got a 1954 Cadillac convertible which would not start in cold weather so our Champion would push it down the street in the morning to get it started. We could not start it with jumper cables because our Champion only had six volts and his Cadillac had twelve. I know that Cadillacs with automatic transmissions could be push started in the winter because I saw it done on a regular basis.
I don't know why the 6 volt Champions started so much better than the 12 volt Larks. I suspect the higher engine compression of the Lark motors because they cranked very slowly when it was cold. I never found a solution to that problem during the five years I owned it although I tried six volt battery cables, 10 weight oil, heated oil dipsticks and finally taking the battery inside at night to keep it warm.
Our minister had a Lark VI and he traded it in on a VW for the same reason. My Dad had a 1959 Lark which would start until the temperature went below zero degrees. His car was the best of the lot, but when grandpa junked his 1952 Champion, dad kept the motor for his Lark but never got around to making the engine swap.
Cold weather starting never seems to be a reason why Lark sales decreased, but that was a reason I heard at the time. It was a big disappointment on the Chicago side of the family. I never claimed that Studebakers were perfect.
The solid-black '52 on eBay that is advertised as original is anything but. Still, a beautiful car, but misrepresented. See post no. 39:
http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/showthread.php?67483-1952-Studebaker-Comm- ander-Starlight-Hardtop
"This is gorgeous car whether original in gray over green or restored in black. However, while I can excuse a typo of "overhead cam" instead of "overhead valve", this ad has too many errors to be a typo... It crosses the line to deliberate misrepresentation or at least negligent with intent to mislead.
"I sent a message both to the seller and to e-bay and I would encourage others to do so as well. It should be also noted that half of the 36 bids are by a bidder who has booked 43% of his bids with this seller and does not show a successful bid. Can anyone see fraudulent pumping of a bid?"
As the old saying goes, "Hell hath no fury like a
womana group of Studebaker experts scorned."More power to them!
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I do think dealers get away with stuff in ads--advertising originality, then having a little disclaimer somewhere that says 'the buyer is responsible for verifying originality, not us'. I'd much rather buy from a private seller; however, a friend recently had been looking for over a year for a gold Studebaker Avanti and found one at a dealer 90 mins. from her house and the car was as-advertised and a real low-mileage gem, plus we verified it was built on the last day Studebaker built Avantis (the dealer didn't advertise, or probably know, that ).
I was trying to word it to be clear I respected and applauded the gurus on the marque and that they were taking apart a faker trying to profit from some naive buyer's lack of broad, thorough knowledge of what can be done to fake a car.
I'm the one at the cruise-ins going over to see the less than perfect but really original cars. Others go to the really rare, exotic, expensive, but I like seeing a vehicle that is like they were. That includes the current Olds 98 in Classic Cars by Hemmings which has fender skirts. I don't really believe most 1955 Olds 2-door hardtops had skirts.
The issue has the top 10 50's Oldsmobiles.
AND a one-page article "I Was There" by Michael Bradshaw, Studebaker Canada assistant foreman 1948-54. He has some interesting comments. The mag usually has an article by someone who had worked in the auto industry in the past.
Check it on newsstands or electronic subscription was fairly cheap last year. I personally like a nice slick magazine in my hands--just old fashioned like our 50 Studebaker Champion in the pea soup green color we had when I was a kid.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I don't remember ever mentioning this here, but I always liked the Studebaker Champ trucks of '60-64:
http://www.fastlanecars.com/classic-cars/car-for-sale.aspx?ct=1963-Studebaker-Ch- - amp-3/4-Ton-Pickup&c=e40a9e80-4b22-447d-880f-a7e7128a3c17
They get grief for using as their wide bed, the former Dodge pickup bed which was too wide for the cab, but people were looking for that 4 x 8 plywood-accepting bed and it fit the need. I actually think the shape of the rear wheel opening, and the horizontal crease down the side of the bed, matches the styling of the Champ cab better than it matches the styling of the Dodge cab. Of course, width-wise, it matches the Dodge cab better.
Lowest priced pickup in America, full-width rear window standard, sliding available when no one else had it, 5-speed availability when no one else had it, and the highest GVW in its class. I think the looks have held up well. The fuel filler helps disguise the bed width on the driver's side a little, I think. In '60-62 it was also available with the older style double-walled Studebaker bed, with outside fenders.
My Dad, not a car buff at all, said when he saw the much-later Dodge trucks with prominent center grille, "It looks like a Studebaker truck". I sort-of know what he meant.
He's deceased now, but probably twenty years ago I met the man responsible for the Champ, Otis Romine. A big guy with a Willard Scott-like personality, he said that "Studebaker gave me $25 and said 'come up with a new pickup styling'". Of course he was exaggerating, but he was proud what he did with what he had. Part of the deal with Dodge was that at that point, Studebaker was responsible for fabrication of all Dodge replacement beds made. Studebaker fabricated a new front bed panel and of course, tailgate with "Studebaker" lettering, but the rest was Dodge.
I like the 1955 model year because of the front end treatment and because Studebaker finally put their ohv V-8 into their trucks at a time when some other automakers were just getting around to putting them in their cars (i.e., Chevrolet, Pontiac, Plymouth, Packard).
I am not much of a truck fan, but the Studebaker trucks of 1949 were much ahead of their time, so I did not see the Champ as a great improvement. However, I also wonder if the 1960 Champ was inspiration for the 1963 Jeep Gladiator pick up truck. At that point in time, Brooks Stevens was working for Studebaker and Kaiser Jeep Corporation but Willys/Jeep employed him first around 1946 for designing the Willys station wagon.
I know he's of the age where he grew up hearing how bad domestics were, but I can honestly say I never heard that Corvairs 'caught fire'.
I didn't correct him, since it was a kid's birthday party.
My paternal grandfather was a Corvair nut, had like 5 of them back in the day, including a pickup and a van. He liked some oddballs - his last new car was a dustbuster Lumina van.
Jackpot. That is likely it.
I'd forgotten about the gasoline heaters in the Corvair. I only drove one once for the secretary in the department where I worked at college. Long ago memories from that gasoline reference.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
If I wasn't into Studebakers, I'd be into Corvairs next...I'd love a '69 Monza Hardtop with the four carbs and four-speed. But I'm afraid I'd have an even harder time finding anybody in my area to work on a Corvair; they get scared when they hear "Studebaker" and mine were pretty basic and general mechanically.
My aunt did not like because it was it cold in the winter (which was because my uncle would not run the heater.) His mother (my grandmother) did not like it because she was cold and it was hard to get in and out. It was a low car with the floor was much lower than other cars and below the subframe.
My uncle liked it because it was reliable, economical and could go through deep snow. He probably didn't mind when his wife and mother stayed home, which may have been the true reason he would not run the gas heater in the winter.
The Corvair’s bad press probably began when famous TV star Ernie Kovacs died in a crash in January 1962. It happened on the streets of LA and he was following his famous wife, Edie Adams, home. She was driving their Rolls Royce. It did not seem that anyone should have a fatal accident under those circumstances, even if it was raining in Los Angeles which is a rare event. Good article about that event here. http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/05/09/how-the-corvairs-rise-and-fall-- - changed-america
-forever/
And the safety history of the Corvair here with many photos.
http://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/automotive-history-1960-1963- - chevrolet-corvair-gms-deadliest-sin/
For a short read, this is titled 25 Things You Did Not Know About the Corvair . http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-07-12/news/0907090687_1_chevrolet-corvai- - r-motor-trend-heater
I actually liked the Corvair for many reasons including it was much safer than a vehicle I owned and drove which was still in production at the time of the early Corvairs.
If Ralph Nader lived in Germany, he might have used the Corvair as an example of a safe American car. He actually liked Studebakers. I heard somewhere that the only car he owned was a 1949 Stude. Maybe he was spoiled by that experience and disappointed by every car that came after that. :confuse:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sjb4photos/7143686819/
Twenty-eight miles on the car. I know when I looked at the odometer myself. Stude kept this car and donated it to the City of South Bend.
The four cars before it off the line were identical fixed-roof Challenger Wagonaires destined for D.C. and the GSA, and the last Hawk off the line was right before the Wagonaires, a white ones with blue interior and overdrive. It was ordered by a customer in Oregon I believe and survived as of a decade or so ago I know.
FROM HORSES TO HORSEPOWER
1925
Studebaker introduces four-wheel hydraulic brakes into its automobiles. This was considered controversial at the time, as it was thought by many to be unsafe to stop so quickly.
Henry Ford wanted to keep cable brakes in his cars (I believe that they were for rear wheels only at that time), so his advertisements said, "Safer with steel from pedal to wheel."
http://www.monon.monon.org/railpixs3/Building_78-1948.jpg
I find this site which states US auto production very interesting for a number of reasons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Automobile_Production_Figures
First, Chevrolet exceeded Ford production between 1926 and 1927 when Ford production decreased from 1,256,612 to 367,213, while Chevrolet increased production from 547,724 to 1,001.820 plus 255,160 Buicks and 188,168 for Pontiac/Oakland.
Second, the independent auto makers were major participants in the market in 1928 with 315,000 for Willys Overland and 282,203 for Hudson Essex and 138,137 for Nash (Studebaker and Packard are not listed that year.) They all surived WWII but never had the market share they had before the Great Depression as a result of the Ford - GM price war.
Third, notice how Ford and GM increase sales and market share between 1952 and 1957 as the independents disappear and Nash becomes Rambler during the price war.
Fourth, Studebaker could produce 300,000+ cars per year because their production for 1950 was 320,884 and for 1951 it was 246,195 for a total of 567,079 ./. 2 = 283,540. These production figures were before they built the body conveyor that crossed Sample Street in 1954. Prior to 1954, that they were moving bodies by truck from the body assembly plant next to the Union Station to final the assembly building. (American Motors also moving bodies by truck at that time)
Studebaker could have continued to make a profit in 1964 if they could only sell half the cars they sold in 1950 or 100,000 less than they sold in 1951. That is why I put the outdated factory facilities low on the list of reasons of why Studebaker went out of business. Outdated facilities did not stop American Motors from increasing total sales and market share between 1952-1964.
http://www.thestudebakerwheel.com/photo_gallery/photo_gallery.htm
Also, bottom row left, love the stock of new '64 Studes in front of the Stude military trucks. I'd take the red Daytona HT, white Daytona convertible, and either of the two Hawks in the picture!
Top row is an Auto Show photo where Mercedes-Benz display can be seen in the pic as well.