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 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
I remember driving one of those back in the day. It was equipped with the optional Hydrak transmission. 4 speed manual shift on the tree, with no clutch pedal. Very interesting.
Accurate?
I know photos can hide a lot but that car presents well IMHO.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1925612830791096&set=a.872563592762697.1073741826.100000271941711&type=3&theater
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1964-studebaker-commander-special/
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
But hey, buyer happy, seller very happy, everybody happy
As they say in the auction business: "Well Sold!"
The only downside of these outlier results is that every decrepit '64 Studebaker will now come out of the woodwork.
I have pretty big doubts as to the originality of that engine as presented. In fact, I posted to that effect there. But, it presents nice, and (shocker) I like those cars. I love Studebakers of the '63-64 model years best of all but for that kind of money I'd have looked for an excellent, original or authentically-restored Hawk or convertible.
https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1961-studebaker-lark-vii/
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
If that's the production order for this car, it was built in the one-year-only, convertible-and-Hawk only "Flamingo" which is a salmon color which I like on a convert. It was also built with tan vinyl interior.
The fact that the VIN on the production order and the serial tag inside the door don't match is a total turn-off to me as well.
The '60 is cuter IMHO. The '61 had that odd, one-year-only, side molding higher than the feature lines in the sheetmetal. The '62 and later are much-more appealing IMHO too. The only thing I really liked about the '61 versus the '60 is the chromier taillights. The '61's are a lower production year than '60 or '62 or '63 too.
This one will be interesting to see what it brings. I'm not predicting $24K, LOL.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
As one can see, this is an ex-Minnesota car. The owner's dad is apparently a Stude nut, and gave it to him as a project. The rust appears to be from improper storage rather than hard use, as the frame/structure/floors are all apparently good. The car has a 289 which sounded excellent and started and ran without a hiccup, I was impressed. And it made it to the destination without issue, up to just over 4000 ft elevation:
The car is set to be a long term project, and might be a good kid bonding object, as the owner's young daughter already loves it. It already has new/NOS upholstery,
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Most cars of that era did not have inner fenders. Where I live, '58 Chevys rusted in the same area--above the headlights. Now, Studes were famous for rusting directly in front of the front doors. I will say that of the four I've owned, none had rust there, although I believe my '63 had had replacement front fenders sometime before I got the car. The other three had their original rust-free front fenders. Stude fenders and quarters were bolt-on, a positive thing IMHO.
Studebaker V8's are very sturdy engines, especially in the lower end. They are heavy and oil leakers, for what that's worth.
I suggested some wide whitewall radials would really set it off.
I'm trying to remember when Andre took his DeSoto to the shop and there was a fender replacement or repair?
Either way, the next issue then was whether to paint or maybe not paint at that time or place.
I don't recall how that DeSoto project turned out but once body panels get replaced that will definitely "disrupt the patina" so how far to go next?
Funny thing about those people standing around that Studebaker smiling is, I like looking at it too. Patina and all.
However, that brown staining you see? THAT'S patina.
For old MBs, you can get almost anything - I've barely had issues sourcing bits for the fintail. The only thing limiting you is your budget.
It doesn't mean "I can put my arm through it".
https://www.mecum.com/lots/CH0911-115584/1957-studebaker-president-classic/
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
By the late '50s/early '60s that side profile with those door windows must have looked pretty ancient.
If you look back to the early 60's, the squared off Studebaker probably looked more modern in a way because GM and Ford had gone fairly conservative in styling. In a couple of short years the excess of 1958/59 Detroit styling kind of took a big U-Turn. But by then I think most consumers were frightened about buying an orphan if they chose Studebaker.
The greenhouse was restyled for the '63 model run. A '63 is my very favorite four-door Stude, even though I own a '66.
To my eyes, although it wasn't a sales advantage then most-likely, but I like that no Stude I can think of looks fat. I can't say that about the Big Three.
You know the trend among the trust fund hipster set is to simulate patina by sanding down paint and chemically inducing rust.
If it's safe to wash your hooptie without a tetanus shot, it might be just patina...
https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1961-studebaker-lark-vii/
https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1963-studebaker-lark-daytona-convertible-v8/
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6