Postwar Studebakers

uplanderguy

Studebaker did make a $28.5 million profit in 1959. The combined S-P Corp. lost $43 million in '56--egad.

Mr_Shiftright

Packard should have bought engines from somebody else rather than wait so long. Didn't American Motors have a 327?

uplanderguy

Yes, but some Nashes and Hudsons actually had V8 engines from Packard--I believe they were the 320 engine. I know AMC had 327's into the sixties, but I don't think Nash or Hudson had a V8 before Packard. That said, in Packard's price range, they should've had a V8 a few years earlier.

Mr_Shiftright

Packard was a very conservative, stuffy organization. I doubt they would have used an engine from a "low line" manufacturer, and I doubt Cadillac would have sold them one.

I think Hudson had a V-8 in 1956.

andre1969

I heard that the '53 Studebakers were sort of the beginning of the end for the company. Initially, they planned on building something like 80% of the more upright sedans and 20% of the more low-slung Lowey coupes, but the market demanded just the opposite...and it took Studebaker awhile to alter their production capacity to accommodate that. No doubt that cost them some sales as prospective buyers went with something else entirely.

isellhondas

Mr_Shiftright said:

Oh, yeah, along with "look at those bolt heads. This car isn't original".

There is a guy who shows up once in awhile at our local car shows. with what he swears is a 1949 Plymouth.

It sure looks like a 1946-1948 to me but I'll walk by and hear him explaining over and over to people that it's not a 1948, it's an EARLY 1949 and that thy made a few like that.

Me, I don't care one way or another but he must get tired af arguing with people.

Mr_Shiftright

Either show the factory documentation or shut up. (of course, you'll hear..."oh, the documentation was destroyed in the bombing of Dresden"....

andre1969

There actually was something called a "1949 First Series" with Mopar cars. The proper 1949 models weren't ready at the beginning of the model year, so some '46-48's were sold as 1949 models. The "proper" 1949 Mopars were referred to as the "1949 Second Series" at the time.

Most sources that quote production numbers lump the "First Series" in with 1948 production numbers, and only count the "Second Series" in their 1949 numbers.

Mr_Shiftright

So it's a 1948 registered as a 1949. See? Problem solved and now everyone wins the argument.

uplanderguy

I heard that the '53 Studebakers were sort of the beginning of the end for the company. Initially, they planned on building something like 80% of the more upright sedans and 20% of the more low-slung Lowey coupes, but the market demanded just the opposite...and it took Studebaker awhile to alter their production capacity to accommodate that. No doubt that cost them some sales as prospective buyers went with something else entirely.

True that. My dealer friend said they waited what felt like forever to get a coupe in stock...he made it seem like it was months after they had expected one.

andre1969

Or better yet, if you see a "proper" 1949 Mopar, maybe start referring to it as a "1949.5"...you know, kinda like people do with those "1964.5" Mustangs :

uplanderguy

Similarly to the Mopar discussion above, you will see people with '63 Avantis that they say are '64's. There were some round-headlight 'transition' model '64's, with the woodgrained interior, but not many. Studebaker said they weren't going to identify Avantis with a model year (hence, unlike Larks and Hawks, no '63' or '64' at the beginning of their serial nos.), but anyone with what is clearly a '63 Avanti that is registered as a '64, is because the dealer had it that long and registered it as such.

berri

George Mason was a bit of a visionary while he ran Nash in the early 50's. He saw what was happening with the growing strength of D3 and felt the big independents had to merge to survive into a D4 situation. Studebaker was reluctant at the time. Packard apparently feigned interest to start some reciprocal parts sales between them and Nash including engines. This would cut the independents operating and development costs. However Packard didn't live up to the deal on their side. It seems like Nance was working behind the scenes with Studebaker because he wanted to be the new consolidated company CEO. Mason started having health issues. Then Romney stepped in and cut Studebaker and Packard out of it as they merged. Romney sensed there wasn't enough volume for another big auto group with S-P out of merger and decided to go after the Rambler niche, which proved insightful with the big recessions in 57-58. At least that is how I understand all this Independent merger stuff from the mid 50's and some of the common engine and transmission uses.

berri

I think there was another factor impacting Packard toward the end. The company seemed to loose its luxury image with consumers and with the Clipper series it was falling more into the upper medium price market. This was taking place as several Eisenhower era recessions were impacting consumers. The biggest harm during that time was done to medium priced cars like Edsel, Desoto, etc. In fact, I believe there was actually some discussion over at GM during that timeframe to possibly dump Pontiac. That was probably a good thing in hindsight for Pontiac because they brought Bunkie Knudsen over as it's new GM and he quickly brought Pontiac a new image and resurgence. Those were some very interesting historical times for the US auto industry.

uplanderguy

Color photo of the South Bend assembly line turning out '64's, Oct. '63, only a couple months before the shutdown. Fair amount of single-headlight, lowline Challenger and Commander models here, and no Hawks visible, which reflect which models were selling best then. I'd like to just walk down the line and pick a hardtop and convertible out.

http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/ndinsider.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/c/99/c9973137-271c-5ef8-ac16-ec76340d6c0c/52a20225aa05f.image.jpg

The final assembly building still stood in South Bend 'til probably a decade ago--it's green space now.

Mr_Shiftright

How true. Packard never regained its pre- WW II status. The late 40s Packard "bathtub" styling was also most unfortunate. At least Studebaker took an occasional walk on the wild side.

berri said:

I think there was another factor impacting Packard toward the end. The company seemed to loose its luxury image with consumers and with the Clipper series it was falling more into the upper medium price market. This was taking place as several Eisenhower era recessions were impacting consumers. The biggest harm during that time was done to medium priced cars like Edsel, Desoto, etc. In fact, I believe there was actually some discussion over at GM during that timeframe to possibly dump Pontiac. That was probably a good thing in hindsight for Pontiac because they brought Bunkie Knudsen over as it's new GM and he quickly brought Pontiac a new image and resurgence. Those were some very interesting historical times for the US auto industry.

isellhondas

andre1969 said:

Or better yet, if you see a "proper" 1949 Mopar, maybe start referring to it as a "1949.5"...you know, kinda like people do with those "1964.5" Mustangs :

Once at a car show, I witnessed a HEATED arguement over an early Mustang. The owner puffed up his chest as he told everyone that it was a "rare" 1964 1/2 and not a 1965. Another guy who was involved in some local Mustang club told him there was no such thing. I could tell it was an early one since it had the 260 engine and a generator instead of an alternator. there was no backing down from either of those guys and it actually got nasty until one of the guys wifes told both of them to shut up and move on!

uplanderguy

'58 Packard Hawk sells for $95,700 at Barrett-Jackson Scottsdale; a continuing string of strong performances at auction for '50's Hawks:

http://www.barrett-jackson.com/Events/Event/Details/1958-PACKARD-HAWK-SPORT-COUPE-190278

I personally much-prefer the sixties Gran Turismo Hawks, but they don't pull the money Golden Hawks, and this Packard Hawk, brought at auction.

This car certainly looks authentic, outside and in and in the small details, which is very appealing to me. I always wonder if somebody cheaps out on something you can easily see, what did they cheap out on that you can't see? Not sure what's going on with the paint on that fan shroud, though.

The "sports car" instrument panel of '50's Hawks was frequently a point of praise in contemporary magazine reviews of the day. It is amazingly free of brightwork and googly shapes so common in that period.

berri

1958 was an interesting year for many

I just read an article on Packerbackers, maybe Hemming's Classic?

uplanderguy

berri, that was indeed Hemmings Classic Car. I think that's a guilty pleasure and incredibly-worth the very reasonable subscription price. A friend of mine, Bob Palma, writes a column in there every three or so months I think. He has a column in this latest one that you mention with the Packard Hawk on the cover.

People goof on the Packard Hawk, and I'll agree the "toilet seat" on the trunklid is a bit much, but is it really worse than a '58 Olds or Buick? Not to my eyes.

berri

I believe Virgil Exner was fond of the toilet seat trunklid on some late 50's/early 60's Mopar models.

Mr_Shiftright

It's one of those "love it or hate it" cars, like Delorean, Avanti, Allante---you'll always get a rise out of people, one way or the other.

I think it's remarkably ugly, but you know, everyone is somebody's baby. I'll say one thing for it--you can't stop looking at it. You'll get attention!

1. 1. 
      

uplanderguy said:

berri, that was indeed Hemmings Classic Car. I think that's a guilty pleasure and incredibly-worth the very reasonable subscription price. A friend of mine, Bob Palma, writes a column in there every three or so months I think. He has a column in this latest one that you mention with the Packard Hawk on the cover.

People goof on the Packard Hawk, and I'll agree the "toilet seat" on the trunklid is a bit much, but is it really worse than a '58 Olds or Buick? Not to my eyes.

berri

As a kid I remember people saying "what did Studebaker do to Packard?". But I don't understand the fuss, because people weren't buying many Packard's. As I get older, I'm getting more mellow on car design. I kind of got a kick out of that Packerbaker in Hemming's. Of course I always enjoyed the original Studebaker Hawks since my dad liked them, and even though it wouldn't work with two growing kids, I'd see him eyeing them in the parking lots. We actually had more than a few Studebakers in my subdivision (and one around 52 Packard) growing up because it was lower middle class America and they could often be bought at good prices as second cars in the latter half of the 50's and early 60's. My mom didn't drive, or I could have seen my dad buying a used Hawk.

But I get what you're saying about some cars that draw sharp opinions and disagreements. A good styling design should stand out, but maybe sometimes not too much. I never got the attraction of the DeLorean and wonder if part of it was the media intrigue around DeLorean himself and his high profile days at Pontiac. I did kind of like the Avanti (although I personally preferred the Hawk GT around the same timeframe) and Allante though. I sometimes wonder if the Avanti would have caught on a bit more had it came out earlier. Once the 63 Vette showed up it was going to be one heck of an uphill battle for the Studebaker Avanti. Ironically, the Bulletbird's weren't as popular and might have ceded some share to the Avanti if the Sting Ray hadn't come out until later.

Mr_Shiftright

Avanti had to compete not only against Stingray's styling but also price. It was more expensive than the Corvette split window coupe. The GT Hawk had the same problem on price competition. You could get an Impala convertible for the price of a GT coupe.

It was an uphill battle for a small company.

berri

Yeah, makes Romney's decision to focus on just Ramblers very understandable I think.

uplanderguy

One could make the "Impala Convertible" argument about a whole lot of cars. Studebaker wasn't aiming for the Impala market with the GT Hawk. At $2,958 base for a '64 Hawk, it was a good grand, or more, less than other cars in its segment. No six-cylinder available, like Impala, only available in one body style, standard buckets and console, full instrumentation, etc. Most people don't realize this, due to the Hawk's lowness and width, but it was actually on a 1.5-inch longer wheelbase than an Impala.

uplanderguy

When the Avanti came out, Chevy was still selling the '62 Corvette. Now, the '62 is my favorite Corvette of all, but it's still a C1...kingpin front end, like Studebaker, with the same part no. as the '49 Chevy.

uplanderguy

The Avanti's base price was $4,445 its entire Studebaker run, versus $4,257 for a '63 split-window Corvette. Not a significant difference. I know what America thinks, but I've always thought the split-window concept was dumb from the get-go. Ironically, Avanti had the biggest rear-window glass in the industry when the 'Vette was using two pieces. And while the '63 Corvette finally did get rid of king pins, it still had drum brakes and a two-speed automatic.

The Avanti had an awful launch because of production problems, many involving MFG of Ashtabula, OH, who was contracted to build the bodies. Studebaker eventually set up Avanti body building of its own in South Bend. The Avanti good good early press, but many orders were cancelled when people got tired of waiting months for their car.

Mr_Shiftright

Avanti didn't do well in match-ups with the '63 Corvette because it didn't feel like a sports car. It was really better matched against the T-Bird or the Riviera and should have been marketed as such IMO. The "luxury sports coupe" turned out to be a lot bigger market than American "sports cars". Studebaker should have listened to John Fitch when he tested all these cars together on the race track.

But the real obstacle was that most of the American public knew Studebaker was dying. That's a terrible barrier to overcome in the marketplace.

Yep, production problems hurt Avanti and really hurt the '63 Studebaker Wagonaire.

uplanderguy

Luckily, a fixed-roof wagon was available mid'63 and later. You can't really even tell by looking at it, unless you look at the ceiling inside in the rear. I saw one pricing guide that actually says you add money for a fixed-roof wagon. Total crock--in my thirty years of Studebakering, the first thing anybody asks when a wagon comes up for sale is, "Is it a slider?".

Lark sales were up from 66K to 92K (40% increase) in '62; Hawk sales more than doubled, but it was the last year they built more than 100K cars. A strike kept the numbers from being even better. Their two most advertised products at the beginning of the '63 model year, Avanti and Wagonaire, were barely out there by introduction day and that hurt momentum a lot in '63.

Mr_Shiftright

If it weren't for Lark, Studebaker probably would have died earlier don't you think? Even then, there obviously wasn't enough profit in the cars, no matter how many they sold. No way to compete on price with the Big Three.

andre1969

The Big Three had making full-sized cars down to such a science, that it was hard for anybody to compete with them. Including their own smaller cars, once they hit the market.

Most of the cost of building a car is the R&D that goes into designing it in the first place, and major components such as the engine and transmission. But to physically make a car larger or smaller, adding or subtracting steel, doesn't really affect the cost that much. So, if GM, Ford, or Chrysler could build a big car at a cheap price, a small car isn't going to cost much less to build...yet the public expects it to be substantially cheaper. As a result, they start cutting corners here and there...4 lug nuts instead of 5, eliminating some bracing here, a screw or two there, and oh, don't worry about those exposed bolts jutting out from the rear axle, chances are they won't puncture the gas tank in the event of a crash...you get the idea.

How long had the Studebaker Lark been in development, I wonder? I know it wasn't an all-new design, but I think it's still pretty amazing that they were able to get it into production so quickly. I've heard it usually takes about 3 years to get a car from drawing board to assembly line, so in theory, that would mean the Lark should have been in planning around 1956? Well, in 1956, it was all about bigger, longer, lower, larger displacement, etc, and everybody thought the expansion in the middle-market would go on forever. So, Studebaker must have been pretty forward-thinking, to get the compact cars to the market as quickly as they did.

Mr_Shiftright

One good thing about being the little guy is that you can adapt faster. But it did them little good. The Big Three came out with their compacts in 1960 (obviously also having been hatched a few years prior), and Studebaker was back into red ink soon enough.

If Lark had gotten a 3-year jump rather than less than one year, that might have made a difference. As it was, it just slowed the leak on the USS Studebaker.

When the Big Boys move in on you, life becomes very difficult. I think Tesla is about to find this out.

uplanderguy

I'm not sure when Lark development started, but I have heard that the small success of the Scotsman made S-P prez Harold Churchill confident that his small-car idea was probably a good one.

The biggest profit Studebaker ever made was in 1959, the year of the Lark introduction. There was also a smallish profit in 1960. As noted, sales were up notably in 1962 but the bottom fell out for 1963.

I believe one way Stude still managed a small profit in '60, when the Big Three compacts came out, was offering a V8 engine, a new-for-'60 convertible, and a new-for-'60 four-door station wagon, which set the Lark apart from other compacts.

Supposedly, during Lark planning and design, Churchill put up pics around the building of the '39 Champion, a very big sales success twenty years earlier, reminding employees that "that's the kind of car we need now".

Mr_Shiftright

Sales dropped a bit in 1960 but the drop from '60 to '61 was pretty disastrous--so maybe '61 was the red ink.

berri

Uplander, you know that "sliders" in Ohio means White Castle

The sliding roof I think is a concept that sounds good in principle, but fails in execution. A few years back GM toyed with it on one of their SUV lines and it didn't last real long either.

The independents just got into too much of a cost disadvantage absorbing overheads and the union was brutal for both Studebaker and ultimately American Motors as well. They were in no position over time to take on both Big 3 price wars and a militant UAW workforce. Ironically, D3 is moving a lot of their lower margin vehicles to Mexico for some of the same reasons against the transplants.

uplanderguy

Big downturn in '61, big upturn in '62, but sadly a big downturn in '63. Speaking only personally, I think the '63 and '64 products were their most interesting ever.

berri, believe it or not, GM requested Wagonaire blueprints from the Studebaker National Museum archives before their vehicle with sliding roof was introduced. I have known the current Archivist at the museum for a good while and he has mentioned that a couple times. And yes, they had the blueprints available for reproduction and sale and did in fact do so for GM.

andre1969

The economy, and auto market in general took a downturn around 1961-62, sort of a ripple from the '58 recession, I think. And even if the sales numbers weren't as dismal as 1958, the mix of cars available was different, with a lot more inexpensive compacts and low-end cars on the market, and fewer traditional middle-priced cars. For instance, while Chrysler once had a broad middle-priced market of upper level Dodges, DeSotos, and Chryslers, by 1962 the only one left that was selling in reasonable numbers was the Chrysler Newport...a car priced in what would have been Dodge range a few years earlier.

Studebaker probably got hit in 1961 because of increased competition in smaller cars, plus the economy starting to falter again, but by '62 probably rebounded as smaller cars in general were still popular...people who needed a car were probably more likely to scale back. By 1963 though, people were going for bigger cars again as the economy turned prosperous again.

Mr_Shiftright

By 1964, the Big 3 were coming out with a wide variety of new and exciting cars. All the little guys could do at this point is nibble at each other's slim market share with rather utilitarian offerings.

uplanderguy

The largest part of the Studebaker line for '64--what are generally referred to as 'Larks' although Studebaker didn't call them that--the Challenger, Commander, Daytona, and Cruiser--were sized and priced to compete with Chevy II, Falcon, and Valiant. They were available with far-more options so far as engines, transmissions, and seating, but of course back then people were far-more brand-loyal than now and people, then as now, tend to be 'followers'. Studebaker's slogan that year, "Different By Design", wouldn't appeal to mainstream buyers, of course.

While on this subject, it is pretty well-known that "Aunt Bee" on the Andy Griffith Show, Frances Bavier, drove Studebakers and her last, a '66, was sold for an astounding $20,000 shortly after her death in 1989. In this recent link of the Studebaker Drivers Club forum, someone actually shows a pic of the original California registration for the car. It appears to have been bought a few months after production ended, and I was surprised to see her address as having "1/2" in it, and that she had a bank loan for the car. The Andy Griffith Show was never out of televisions' Top Ten its entire eight-year run, and Bavier won an Emmy in 1967 for her performance.

http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/showthread.php?93307-Aunt-Bee-s-66-Daytona

Amazingly--and I can remember this--she actually drove this car in an episode or two of "Mayberry R.F.D.".

Also, she is actually listed in the 1972 Studebaker Drivers' Club member roster as a club member. Apparently she dropped out after one year. At that time, she lived in Siler City, NC.

uplanderguy

Stumbled upon this car show photo of probably my favorite Avanti ever, a turquoise '63 with the fawn and elk interior, as opposed to the much-more-often-seen fawn and turquoise interior.

http://www.conceptcarz.com/images/Studebaker/63-Studebaker-Avanti-DV-11_SJ_002.jpg

Of course, styling is subjective, but could there be two more extreme styling examples sitting next to each other, than the white Studebaker Gran Turismo Hawk and the '61 Chrysler, farther back in the photo?

berri

You didn't want to drive that Marlin home

Mr_Shiftright

The Marlin is a hideous car. The GT Hawk has wonderfully classic lines for its time period. The Avanti could have been a sensational design were it not for the unfortunate nose on it. Had it turned out more Porsche 944-like ( a car that seems to have copied some Avanti cues), it might still have not survived as a make, but I think it would be more highly regarded stylistically.

Studebaker's main problem was price. The Big Three just undercut them until they bled to death. Also the company's ill health was no secret, and this is a huge liability for marketing.

berri

IIRC the Marlin was originally designed for a smaller car chassis and may have looked more proportional before it was blimped to compete with the fast growing midsized coupes. Kind of just the opposite of what happened to Exner's suddenly downsized 62 Plymouth and Dodge designs.

Mr_Shiftright

That makes sense at any rate. The shape of the car doesn't work on such a large automobile.

uplanderguy

The '67 Marlin was even bigger, being built on the Ambassador platform.

Even Dick Teague, former Packard designer and Marlin stylist, kidded that he was paid in Marlin decklids for the job.

Mr_Shiftright

Teague had some winners and some real turkeys, too.

uplanderguy

Here's a photo of those same cars from the front, but the Chrysler apparently has left for the day.

http://www.conceptcarz.com/view/photo/738505,1665/1963-Studebaker-Avanti_photo.aspx

Mr_Shiftright

Someday I will Photoshop an Avanti and get it the way I like it.

Mr_Shiftright

A bit of Studebaker esoteria: