Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
Studebaker had capacity in South Bend to build nearly 300,000 engines a year. In December 1963, Studebaker decided to close operations in South Bend, so it sold its military truck and postal van contracts to AM General. It kept building engines in South Bend until the close of the 1964 model year.
Studebaker had a shrinking work force after 1960 and the average age per employee was something like 54 years old. They were retiring quickly and there was not enough money to fund all their pension plans. It was the legacy costs that Studebaker, as a corporation, wanted to avoid.
Keeping the engine plant open was too much overhead, even though GM Windsor engines cost approximately $135 more than engines that Studebaker could produce. The 1965-66 Studebakers were Canadian cars with Canadian engines, but Studebaker only built approximately 20,000 cars in 1965.
My grandfather was lucky he retired in late 1962 and got a full pension. My Uncle was almost lucky because he was able to work at the South Bend engine plant until approximately June 1964, but he did not get a full pension.
Then too, the cars I like are not on the market long. I liked the Pontaic Fiero, the Oldmobile Aurora, the last Pontiacs, last Mercury Cougar and the last Ford Thunderbird. If I had the money, I would buy a Dodge Challenger before they are gone.
The guys not old enough to retire were probably leaving like rats off a sinking ship as they saw an impossible future ahead of them.
It must have been fun in those darkening days when you could buy nice little old lady 50s and 60s metal.
GM has a knack for killing thins off when they get good - but by then mismanagement has killed any value the model name had.
Let's assume the dyno numbers are all real and with all things being equal and the planets aligned, we'll do the math (results rounded):
1951 Studebaker V8 first:
120 hp from 232 cid = .52 hp per cubic inch
and next the Studebaker R3 supercharged V8
335 hp from 305 cid = 1.1 hp per cubic inch
360 hp from 305 cid = 1.2 hp per
400 hp from 305 cid = 1.31 hp per
Next, the 1964 Ford 427 SOHC cammer.
*Ford Factory part available from the parts counter, normally aspirated:
616 hp from 427 cid (single carb, part # C6AE-6007-363S) = 1.44 hp per cubic inch
657 hp from 427 cid (dual carb, part # C6AE-6007-359J) = 1.54 hp per
I've read that Ford built approximately 75 of the 427 Cammer engines and that the dual 4 bbl version made peak power at 7,500 RPM.
My question is, if some "brochure" or parts catalog rated the 427 SOHC at either 200 hp or 600 hp, what difference would that make to any rational understanding of racing or automotive history? Factory ratings or brochures don't stack up against a real Super Stock Dodge or George Krem's custom built hot rod either.
By the way, that plain brown wrapper is one quick Studie. It's always fun to spot a low mile, raced-since-new hot rod at the track, but that one has got the "funk" advantage. Nobody could expect it to zip down the track like that unless they've seen it run before! Nice car.
Heck, even when I got my driver's license in 1987, it seemed like there were plenty of 60's and early 70's cars still around, as well as an occasional 50's car. And even a lot of the crap served up in the mid/late 70's still seemed more interesting than the crap they were forcing on us in the early/mid 80's.
I remember messing up my '68 Dart when I hit a crater-sized pothole in 1993. It drove the upper ball joint up through the control arm, but initially I didn't realize the damage was that minor. Well, a couple of cars I considered replacing it with at the time included a 1964 Electra 4-door hardtop for $2500, and a 6-cyl '69 Charger for around $1900. And these were both pretty decent cars, although I'm sure that Charger would've been a dog with a slant six!
Nowadays though, it seems like people want #1 showcar quality money for total crap.
50.00=100.00 bought something that ran.
Then tehre were the oddballs that nobody wanted like the Kaiser that a frien bought for 75.00. He literally beat that car to death and it was SO nice when he bought it from the original owner.
A real shame the cars we screwed up!
Yep, and the older you get, the faster the pace.
I didn't believe it but I certainly do now.
I didn't believe it but I certainly do now.
Yeah, tell me about it. I actually started noticing it soon after I graduated college, but it gets worse, and I swear sometimes I blink my eyes and a year has gone by! It seems like I just bought my Buick, but that was 14 months ago now. Heck, it was over ELEVEN years that I bought my Intrepid, and even that doesn't seem so long ago.
Oh, I was watching an episode of "King of the Hill" on Netflix online last night, and they actually had a Studebaker on it! It looked like a 1959 or so Lark 2-door sedan. I thought it was kinda interesting that they'd pick something that obscure to draw!
I have similar conversations with my buddies from Kindergarden quite often.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE YEARS??
Also in Family Guy
Yeah, the years go by faster and faster...I'm now in my mid 30s, wow. It hits home to me when I see junkyards filled with cars that were brand new when I was in college.
“The Ford Single Overhead Cam (SOHC) 427 V8 engine, familiarly known as the "Cammer", was released in 1964 to maintain NASCAR dominance and to counter the new Chrysler 426 Hemi engine.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_FE_engine
If you tripled the power of a "Cammer," you could power a Santa Fe locomotive. But one problem is that the power of a Cammer can never be doubled, let alone tripled. Another problem is that most American car companies were developing "road locomotives" in the 1950s.
One of the reasons the Studebaker story is so interesting is because is a David and Goliath story where the "Pride of South Bend" kept up with or came out ahead of the competition so many times. For example the Studebaker V-8 was released in 1951, just two years after Cadillac and Oldsmobile, the same year as Chrysler.
The 1951 Oldsmobile 2 dr deluxe Hoilday hardtop had 135 hp motor, but it weighed 3,857 pounds for a pound/ horsepower ratio of 28.57 pounds per hp. (3,857 / 135)
The 1951 Stude V-8 only had 120 hp, but the 2 dr. Commander Regal sedan only weighed 3,045 pounds. That is 812 pounds less than the Oldmobile. The Stude motor was only pushing 25.36 pounds per horsepower. Power to weight advantage. . . Studebaker.
By 1955 the Oldsmobile engine developed 202 hp, but the 2 dr Deluxe hardtop weighed 3,924 pounds which results in 19.24 lb/hp. The Studebaker Commander hardtop only had 185 hp, but it only weighed 3,150 pounds for a total of only 17.02 pounds per horsepower. Power to weight advantage. . . Studebaker.
The 1955 Studebaker Commander actually had a small advantage over the 1955 Chevrolet 2 dr hardtop which had 180 h.p. and weighed 3,180 pounds (17.66 lb/hp). (That advantage disappeared with the President Speedster which weighed 3,301 pounds because of all the chrome hanging off it to it could look more like the competition.)
Unfortunately, Studebaker took a good thing too far 1956 when it put the 275 hp 352 c.i.d. Packard motor in the Golden Hawk with the first limited slip “Twin Traction” differential in the world. I think of that every time I see the “TT”s on the back of an Audi sports car. They even look like the Studebaker scripts. (I wonder of Audi bought out Avanti parts from Nate Altman.)
When Studebaker put that Packard motor in the Golden Hawk, it opened Pandora's box because it pissed everybody off and the horsepower race was on.
I admit that the 1956 Golden Hawk was a nose heavy, straight-line rocket with a small body, big motor, and the world's first limited slip differential.
Hmmmmm, that sounds like the 1956 Studebaker Golden Hawk might have been the world's first“Muscle Car.” :P
D'oh!!!
I wonder what kind of 0-60 time a '55 Studebaker with 185 hp would post? I have an old Consumer Reports from 1955 that tested an Olds 98 with the 202 hp engine, a DeSoto Fireflite with a 200 hp 291 Hemi, and a Nash Ambassador, but for some reason I think they tested it with the 140 hp 6-cyl and not the 208 hp 320 V-8, which I think would've been a better comparison.
I remember the Olds 98 did 0-60 in 11.8 seconds. The DeSoto took something like 13 or 13.3. And the Nash brought up the rear, with around 15.4.
Now, I'm sure that Olds engine would be a bit quicker in the lighter 88 body. I'd be curious to see how a Stude with 185 hp would compare. That's not really that much less hp than the Olds or DeSoto had, but with a much lighter body, I'd think it would be a bit of a screamer for the time.
I have been looking for videos but only found sites with bad news like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/14358247@N05/sets/72157618776746604/
Well, note that your wiki link points directly to the "Ford FE engine" which was developed into the Cammer engine. That 120 hp Studebaker V8 was to the Supercharged R3 what the 208 hp Ford Interceptor V8 was to the 427 SOHC engine.
Ford had more money, talent and resources to better develop their engines -- and that's just competition. Hard to see Studebaker history as David versus Goliath. Remember, David slew Goliath instead of closing up shop and heading for Canada.
Here is what is said about the first Ford ohv-8 engine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Y-block_engine
The first Y-block was the 1954 239 in³ (3.9 L) Ford engine; known for its deep skirting, which causes the engine to resemble a Y. Rated at 130 hp (97 kW), it replaced the 239 in³ (3.9 L) flathead which was rated at 106 hp (79 kW).
The Y-block was considered a major advancement over the flathead. It is known for having oiling problems in the rocker shafts due to the fact the oil first went to the crankshaft bearing, then to the camshaft bearings, then to the rocker shafts. This problem plagued the entire Y-block family and could be remedied by running a copper line from the oil pump and then to the rocker shafts.
The oiling problem was caused by the passage from the center cam bearing to the cylinder head being offset by an inch and too small. The motor oils of the era were low in detergents, but high in coke; when combined with short trips and infrequent oil changes, this led to blockage of this
passage. This left the lower end with ample oil while the rocker shaft assemblies literally burned up. The external oiler kit essentially provided oil to the rocker shafts from the oil pressure port on the outside of the engine.
A quick reference to the engine specifications for 1955-57 will show the Ford V-8s ahead of the Chevrolet counterparts in displacement, horsepower and torque. The real enemy of the Y-block was its displacement limit. The original architecture was very small and tight. Even with the benefit of today's technology (aftermarket rods and stroker cranks), the real limit of a Y-block is about 348 in³, while the Chevrolet could be modified well past the factory limit of 400 in³. The ever-increasing size and weight of the standard passenger car, the added parasitic losses for accessories (power steering, power brakes and air conditioning), cheap gasoline and the horsepower race all caused Ford to outgrow its first OHV V-8 engine. It is interesting to note that both Ford and Chevrolet went to optional "big block" engines for 1958, 352 in³ (5.8 L) at Ford compared to 348 in³ (5.7 L) at Chevrolet.
==================================================
Next, let’s compare the Ford V-8 to the Studebaker V-8 in 1955. Studebaker started the 1955 model year by down sizing its V-8 from 232 to 224 cu.in. It cleaned up the original 232 motor’s breathing, increased the bore and decreased the stroke and actually improved performance despite the reduction in displacement. Horsepower increased from 120 to 140. Ten horsepower beyond Ford dispute the smaller displacement (239 v. 224 cu.in)
After the merger with Packard, it became apparent that the competition was increasing performance and displacement, so beginning in January 1955, Studebaker increased displacement to 259. cu.in and offered a four-barrel carburetor which increased hp to 175-185. It also released the President Speedster hardtop, which was heavier than the coupe, loaded with power options an usually tested with the automatic transmission.
That said, Motor Life actually tested the Speedster automatic and found that it went 0-60 between 10.0 and 10.2 seconds (three runs) and “Car turned 110 mph, had not peaked before driver ran out of road.” Article reprinted in Studebaker Gold Portfolio 1947-1966 by Brooklands Books.
Studebaker led the way to Canada. I have been trying to find the article from Business Week or Forbes that said that Ontario, Canada now produces more vehicles than the State of Michigan, but cannot locate it.
I believe that Ford is now building the best American cars. (I need that qualifier because BMW now builds cars in America). However, the Ford sales "blitz" of 1953 did the most to kill the American independent automakers and Ford finished the job with the 1960 Falcon.
In 1960, the "big three" automakers entered the compact car market with a vengeance. That year Ford sold 436,000 Falcons, Chevy sold 250,000 Corvairs and Plymouth sold 194,000 Valiants. GM did not aim at AMC or Studebaker. . .its Corvair was targeted at Volkswagen. However, in 1962, Chevrolet introduced the Chevy II (Nova) and sold nearly 407,000 that year. Studebaker could have made a profit by selling 120,000+ cars at that time.
I found that the Falcons were well designed and easy to work on. I also see more Falcons and Mustangs on the road than any other cars of the 1960s.
There *is* a substitute for cubic inches, and it's a b-l-o-w-e-r!
Without that comopressor, a 259 Studebaker was not a particularly fast car.
You should feel the difference between my blown MINI and an n/a base car !!
Studebaker did creative things to keep up with the cut-throat competition of the 1950s. They put independent front suspension on the frame and shortened it for 1951. They took the land-cruiser frame and made Lowey coupes and hardtops, which evolved into the Hawks. Their 1953 sedans evolved into Larks and the Avanti.
Unit body construction is better from a technical point of view, but Hudson was not able to come up with a car that looked new after 1951 and it soon looked obsolete. The 1950 Nash Rambler was an amazing car that saved American Motors, and had nine lives, but they could not keep it from looking like a French Peugot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peugeot_403 (Note: Do not censor this, I am NOT talking dirty)
That might be OK for Detective Columbo, I like the Studebaker version of "European Design" much better. Too bad America did not like that style as much in the 1950s. We wanted the big, wide-tracking Belchfire V-8s! When we were finally forced to downsize, bad stuff happened like with Vegas, Gremlins and blazing Pintos.
Call me old fashioned, but the car I would most like to buy today has rear wheel drive and a supercharger like the Avanti http://www.cadillac.com/vehicles/2010/cts-v/overview.do
If I walk around the block while you run around it, my time will be 1/3 of yours. Then, when we both run around it the second time, my improvement in time will be vast in comparison to yours.
Am I therefore, to be declared the better athlete?
It would be more legit IMO to pick a Studebaker engine that at least had the engineering to match a Chevy 265 in HP and then work it up from there. If we had a '55 Stude and '55 Chev V-8 we'd have 185 and 180 HP respectively.
This way, we aren't rewarding a negative aspect of an engine.
Now let's get to the *real* reason Studebaker chose to supercharge their engine--indirectly it was to jump into the HP race, but directly---well, they could not afford to design and build a big block, so the only way they could get competitive performance to the Big 3 was supercharging. And that worked very well as far as it went. It was really a clever way to "stay in the game". Obviously, the huge Packard engine wasn't all that great for this task.
The downside of supercharging is that it adds considerable expense to the car, and stresses the engine. So you can match the competitors horsepower, but not the horsepower/price ratio of the entire car.
Think of poor Studebaker as being on a see-saw---if they lift up the performance end, the profit end goes down.
Nowadays, we have sophisticated intercooling to help a SC or turbo engine keep the lid on and it's a lot cheaper to build this type of engine.
I love SC cars and to a lesser extent turbo cars. There is no cheaper way (these days) to gain HP.
A buddy had one that developed a miss due to a burnt valve.
We decided to just go ahead and overhaul the engine and we did!
We pulled the head and took it to a nearby machine shop and we pushed the Falcon onto a hoist where I was working.
As I recall, the oil pan came off without obstruction. We replaced the rings, honed the cylinders and replaced the rod and main bearings with standard size bearings. We measured nothing and figured since it was running well with no knocks that standard would be good enough.
The head came back and we had it running in no time at all.
As I recall, it ran well until he sold it.
The 144's were pretty sluggish but when the 170's came out in 1961, they were much better. They ate ball joints and idler arm bushings but once those were replaced with Moog parts, those were pretty tough cars.
The Valients were so much better in so many ways though.
I think we "honed" the cylinders with a piece of emery cloth. I do remember we borrowed a ridge reamer.
I know...what is a ridge reamer?
Something no longer necessary in modern cars.
Looking back, it probably needed a rebore but it didn't get one!
Once emissions controls were mandated, things got complex, with these weird transitional electro-vacuum-mechanical devices.
Fortunately (depending on how you look at it), Studebakers owners didn't have to suffer through that. Studebakers could retire at the top of their game.
The Falcon was a well built car that was easy to work on. I was surprised to change the rear brakes without needing a brake drum puller. The Falcon started out with 90 hp (same as the Lark VI) but then they added a stronger six-cylinder motor. Studebaker was still competitive for awhile because it offered the 259 V-8, but when Ford made the V-8 available in February 1963, it was all over for Studebaker. Ford later killed the Falcon with the Mustang.
Those early Falcons kinda scare me. They were well-built for the time, with good build quality, and CR gave them good marks for reliability, but they just seem too lightweight and fragile. And those "drop in" gas tanks that hang about 2" from the tiny rear bumper look like they're just waiting to rupture at the slightest tap.
I like the Valiant/Lancer from that era, even though its styling is more oddball, and build quality was a bit rough around the edges. Probably more prone to leaking and rattling than a Falcon, but just seemed like a car that would last longer. A lot more substantial, and roomier.
I'd imagine the Studebaker Lark was a pretty solid, substantial car, since it was really more of a major revision of the previous 50's cars, rather than a ground-up redesign.
The only cars I can think of in that era were some Chrysler products and even with a puller, they could be nasty to get off!
Another amusing thing they did was this---once you got the puller on there, and whacked at it with that 3-lb hammer, the puller built up such force that once that long rusted keyway finally gave up the drum, it could literally shoot across the room, puller and all---it was like a catapult, storing the force you applied with the hammer.
Studebakers were pretty solid cars----Falcons were unbelievably cheesy. I can remember how easy it was to twist the hood when it was open. The trunk lid was so light that you couldn't slam it---the air resistance would keep it up like a sail.
I once watched a guy try to loosten the head on a flathead six cylinder Ford.
All of the nuts were off and he tried to blow the head off by starting the engine! Nope! Then he drove the car!
He ended up busting the head in pieces with a five pound hammer just to save the block!
I think the constant Studebaker BK rumors were a big marketing plus for Ramblers back then.
I guess it's a good thing I never tried to tackle those rear drums on my DeSoto by myself! And probably another good thing that it's getting an E-body rear end which, as luck would have it, has a spring perch and rear track that's close enough for government work!
Also, what is the deal with those Center-Plane brakes anyway? How do they work and how are they different than say, the brakes on a 1957 Chevy?
He didn't know that but he did have a big hammer!
The fronts used two wheel cylinders. One for each brake shoe and they were difficult to adjust. When everything was working right, they stopped those cars just fine. If I had Andre's De Soto, I would leave them stock. I would have no use for front discs and I would drive accordingly.
The brakes on a '57 Chevy were straightforward and easy to work on.
Secondly, I think a lot of baby boomers remember Studebaker. So many independents went down in the mid-'50's, like Nash, Hudson, Packard, Willys cars, Kaiser, and a few years later, mid-priced Big Three brands Edsel and DeSoto. Studebaker outlasted most of them by a decade (although I will admit AMC/Rambler was essentially what was left of Nash, not Hudson--even though AMC kept their headquarters in Detroit). Studebaker maintained a parts and service organization in South Bend, and around North America, until mid-1972.
Also, Studebaker built trucks, pickups and larger, right up until the end of American operations in Dec. '63, which distinguished them from many independents.
I know I like them, even though from a Chevy family, as I can remember the local dealership and recall seeing the cars on the streets as 'daily cars'. I think their styling has stood the test of time better than some more-mainstream cars. Their cars never looked fat, usually had low beltlines and large rear wheel openings, which lightened the looks and wasn't really adopted (IMO) by the Big Three until the '77 big Chevys. The fact that parts are very available for Larks, especially, is gravy to me.
Of course, all makes have their regrettable offerings, and the Scotsman and the '58 "Packard" Hawk are two we might wish to forget.
the "Little 5" automakers of the postwar years simply couldn't afford the product depth of the Big Three, and it was suicide for them to try to field a full line of cars, either on their own or through merger.
Only Rambler committed very early to emphasizing the small car, and this bet proved a good one. In this sense Romney was a visionary. He saw the "compact craze" coming and was totally ready to exploit it.
He was an old guy and one of thse who bought gas by the gallon.
" Give me five and check the oil" He would growl at us.
He didn't mean five dollars he meant five gallons and that is how a lot of older people bought gas.
And oh boy did that Studebaker burn oil! Every time he bought gas it would be down at least a quart and sometimes two quarts! We kept a case of cheap oil on hand for guys like him.
And off he would drive in a cloud of smoke. Oh, man, did that Studebaker ever smoke!
One day he came in and only wanted two gallons which he figured would take him to the junkyard. Turns out the cops stopped him for about the third time for excessive smoke.
He told us the junkyard was going to give him 15.00 for his tired but totally straight, zero rust Studebaker and he offered it to us for those same dollars!
Well, this was in 1969 and it was a STUDEBAKER and nobody wanted it.
****sigh****
My Uncle, (who was not on the Studebaker side of the family) bought a 1960 Lark VI with the automatic transmission for my Aunt, and he complained that it cost more than the 1964 Chevy Biscayne he later bought for himself. He would say that he got a radio and sun visors on both sides of the Chevy, neither with the Lark (i.e., no radio, driver's side sun visor only).
Price was a big deal when buying an economy car and the Rambler American had a much lower price than the Lark. The Lark VI sold at Chevrolet prices (approximately $2,100) while the Rambler was selling at $300-$400 less and was trying to compete with VW Beetle prices, which were around $1,500 at the time.
Our family had a 1951 Champion and my grandpa had a 1952 Champion. They started well in winter cold. My Dad had 1959 Lark VI, and I ended up with the 1960 Lark VI as my first car. They did not start well in cold weather, although they had 12 volt electrical systems. (i.e., South Bend & Chicago, zero drgrees and below.)
I blame the increased compression of the Lark motors. In 1959, Studebaker took the Champion engine, decreased the stroke & displacement, and raised the compression so that it would rev higher. Horsepower dropped from 101 to 90 (same as 1960 Falcon). They would start if they turned over fast enough, but they turned over slowly in cold weather.
The slant sixes were some of the first engines that could easily go 100,000 miles and more without needing a valve job or an overhaul.
I never cared for the Corvair engines. It seemed like they always leaked oil and just didn't run that well compared to the Falcons and Valients of that era.
How did the Ford 240/250/300 inline 6 compare? That's the engine that came out in 1964 or 1964 to replace the old 223. The 250 version was common in the '75-80 Granada, and the 300 was the base engine in trucks for a long time. I heard those things were to Ford lovers what the slant six was to Mopar lovers.