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
I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today! (Archived)
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Top Gear featured the Corrado in a segment titled: "How to spot a future classic car"
Top Gear
I'm sure that it doesn't meet Shifty's requirements as a future classic, (unloved when new), but it's an interesting video. The second half of the clip features the 190E Cosworth, which is even more interesting.
http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/showthread.php?43864-Met-the-original-own- ers-of-my-Skytop-yesterday
Neat story. I have a shipping certificate for my car from the Studebaker Museum which shows "Hold for Customer", has his name, and says, "Retail Delivery".
No one in my family ever owned a Stude, but I like the 'offbeat' nature of them. I like this car better than the same year Chevy II, Falcon, or Valiant, and with hp up to 289 and disc brakes available, it offered things those others didn't.
Rare story and I wanted to share.
The factory production orders are so cool. I have the one for my 1955 Studebaker Commander at my web site Stude.net at page 5. There is a neat story and musical slide show that goes with it. My Commander was loaded with options (including V-8, power steering, brakes, seat and electric windows) and shipped to Burbank California in February 1955. It is nice to be able to prove that all that optional equipment was installed at the factory.
Great color, great optional equipment, and I like the lack of foglights and backup lights...looks 'clean'!
Thanks for posting.
Your observations about my Commander being clean without the foglights and back up lights is well taken. The car has the options of a President without the extra trim. Someone was thinking like you do when it was ordered. I believe that someone was James Dean. (See bottom of page 5.)
If your Skytop Lark has a Stude V-8 289 motor, it is more valuable because the 259 V-8 was the Lark motor and the 289 was the Hawk motor at that time. Lucky you. Avanti Always, JLJac
I always thought they were kinda neat. There's something about those 60's Studebakers too, that just seems much more sturdy and substantial than the typical Chevy II, Lancer/Dart/Valiant, and especially the lightweight Falcon.
I imagine they were viewed as out-of-style when they were new, because they were kind of tall and upright. That's because they were really just shortened versions of the 1958 and older standard-sized Studebakers, right? I imagine they were pretty roomy inside, probably more like a midsize, than the compacts they were marketed as.
I think the only Studebaker that was in our family was one that my Grandmother's Aunt Nancy's father owned. A 1929 I think. Aunt Nancy said they called them "Brick S-Houses"!
51 Coupe
53 Coupe
55 President 2DHT
56 Hawk
63 GT Hawk
I liked the '63 the best and next best the '55. The 51 and 53 were too primitive for the time I owned them, and the '56 just didn't drive very well.
Haha! Funny movie!
I'm not sure if we're ready to call this obscure car a "classic" but, I spotted a Tercel AWD wagon in the neighborhood yesterday. Looked okay but rust was cutting jagged edges around all the wheel well openings.
When Studebaker first produced the coupe (“C” body) and hardtop (K body) lines in 1953, they could not build them fast enough and there were quality problems, so they got a bad reputation. No wonder you did not like the '53. All of the models you owned (except the ‘51) were based on the 1953 “C” and “K” bodies, which served Studebaker well though twelve model years. They were ahead of their time. Even today, the visibility from the driver's seat of my 1955 is excellent, I have more room in the back seat & trunk than many of today's cars and it is still faster than half the cars on the road.
It was travelling with one of the more common black/gold early 80s TAs
Oh, yeah! At Indianapolis!
Late '70s, early '80s, we used to go every year..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
I want one of those.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
The '53 studebaker was technologically ahead of about a 1925 Ford, but compared to a GM car, technically speaking, was "very pretty and very primitive" IMO. I mean, a flathead 6 in 1953? C'mon.
The Tercel 4WD wagons were neat cars. I had one of those, shipped it to Hawaii to keep at my then little cottage I had on one of the islands. It was a great little beach car. Still there and still running, last I heard. EXCELLENT gas mileage, too.
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/pen/ctd/1920954650.html
I did see an Olds Aeroback sedan, several late 70s-early 80s GM cars, a Cimarron, a couple early Tempos, a couple Chevy Luvs, curbstoner who lives on my mom's block had a fairly sharp Ford Courier for sale, several 80-83 Toyota pickups, a 71-72ish Caddy sedan, also saw a RR Spur there - can't imagine dealing with that away from the city.
Any road, here's an old post advertising another 1989 4WD Colt DL wagon for sale with more detailed pics. Not a bad looking car, even though I also liked the Colt Vista.
The Colt DL sedan/wagon reminded me a bit of the Jetta from that era, while the Colt Vista was a futuristic-looking Disney-mobile.
I remember my dad wanted a Vista...mom didn't like it though, so we never had one.
1940 Chevrolet fire truck.
A very ratty 1963 Ford Thunderbird in maroon with a black vinyl roof and factory wire wheels.
Customized 1950 Chevrolet panel truck.
Nice maroon 1964 Pontiac GTO convertible.
Ford did not get its ohv 6 engine until 1952 and did not get its ohv V-8 until 1955 (Studebaker had its own ohv V-8 in 1951). Nash-Rambler-AMC did not get an ohv 6 until 1956 and kept selling the flathead 6 in the Rambler American until the 1965 model year. Chrysler sold flathead 6 engines until 1954 and then converted them to overhead valves. Studebaker decided to build a modern ohv V-8 before it built its ohv 6 because its 6 cylinder Champion motor was relatively modern having been introduced in 1939 and the older, big six needed replacement first.
In 1953, the ohv 6 was on the leading edge of technology, but the flathead was not yet obsolete as proven by them being sold by the thousands in the Rambler American until 1965. Studebaker was ahead of Ford in selling automatic transmissions (Ford wanted to buy the Studebaker automatic in 1950) and ohv V-8 engines and same year as Chrysler for the ohv V-8. That is a pretty good record for a much smaller car company.
I was thinking the same thing...weren't just about all 6-cyl domestic engines in those days 6-cyl? I know Ford went through a period where a V-8 was standard, but it was a flathead. It was popular for hotrodding, but in stock form, wasn't all that. I've seen some old road tests that showed a Chevy with the StoveBolt would perform better than a Ford with the flathead V-8.
Chrysler sold flathead 6 engines until 1954 and then converted them to overhead valves.
It was worse than that. IIRC, Chrysler 6-cyl engines remained flathead right up through 1959, before being replaced by the slant six in 1960. DeSotos and Chrysler-branded cars were standard V-8 starting in 1955...Hemi-heads for the DeSotos and New Yorkers, Poly-heads for the Chrysler Windsor, so the 6-cyl was relegated to the Plymouths and Dodges.
Consumers unfairly judge the market in every purchase-whether then, now, or tomorrow. The car line which Studebaker brought to market in 1953 to compete with the rest of the industry is, well... it is what it is.
"In 1953, the ohv 6 was on the leading edge of technology, but the flathead was not yet obsolete as proven by them being sold by the thousands in the Rambler American until 1965."
Thousands of flathead-powered Ramblers stretching into the 1960s proves their obsolescence, my friend.
"That is a pretty good record for a much smaller car company." And a pretty good record which precedes a carmaker going belly up is what? success?
GM figured out how to win big in the domestic market and then lose everything to the imports long after Studebaker was gone.
Meanwhile back at CamCord Central...
Edited to remove a powerful 3D image of a possessed Studebaker rolling ashore in China and looking for trouble.
The Ford flathead V-8 was sometimes known as the "V-90" because it had 90 horsepower in stock form, which was better than the less expensive cars by about 20 horsepower, but not among the strongest motors available. In 1925 Ford was still building the Model T with only a 4 cylinder motor and Studebaker was considered a more expensive mid-range car like Buick.
Henry Ford refused to add hydraulic brakes for a long time too, using cable brakes with the slogan, "Safer with steel from pedal to wheel." If Ford had remained as a leader in technology, GM would not have passed it by as the No. 1 automaker in the 1930's.
Rambler-AMC also outsold Chrysler one year in the early 1960s and came close a couple of other years. So much for the idea that the 6 cylinder flathead was obsolete in 1953. And IF Studebaker was obsolete in 1953, why did Mr. Shiftright own three more of them later based on the same body? I see no need to repeat the same mistake over and over again.
Just because they are gone now does not mean they were not great cars then. Names like Auburn, Dusenberg, Cord, Packard and Hudson come to mind. I liked Pontiac and Oldsmobile too. Were they all bad cars because they are gone now? Or is it, "Only the good die young?"
The world just blew by these smaller companies--they were all cash starved and could not afford to innovate. Developing new engines and transmissions cost the millions that these companies did not have. This is why they used the same old engines and bodies for so very long. They couldn't compete on technology or offer the bewildering options, gadgets, colors, designs, model depth, etc, nor could they compete on price. For the price of a Studebaker Hawk in 1963, which was really just a 1955 Studebaker all prettied up, you could buy yourself a Chevy Impala convertible and have money left over.
On the plus side, a '53 Studebaker was rugged, simple and economical.
Of course, what GM did to everyone else in the 1950s and 60s, was done to them by the Europeans and Japanese in the 1980s and 90s.
"Innovate or die" is the working slogan for the auto industry.
I don't think "obsolete" is necessarily a bad thing. An obsolete car isn't necessarily a piece of junk, it just means that there are newer, more up-to-date offerings from the competition. Or, that the product itself has been replaced by something newer.
As for the reason most car brands die, I don't think that it's because the products, necessarily, are bad. Usually it's more a result of bad marketing, bad timing, poor management, etc.
Usually when people think of an automotive failure, the Edsel is the first thing to pop into mind. Yet, all things considered, it didn't do too bad. Ford forecast 100,000 sales for 1958, and they ended up selling around 63,000. So, they sold about 63% of what they wanted to. However, 1958 was a dreadful year in general, and the mid-priced brands were hit the hardest. The only two domestic brands to post gains that year were Rambler and Metropolitan. And most mid-priced brands would have been grateful if their 1958 totals had been 63% of their 1957 totals!
Mercury and Chrysler were each down by about 50%, Dodge a little more. DeSoto was down by about 60%. Pontiac and Buick also had terrible years, although oddly Oldsmobile, which I think was one of the ugliest cars made in 1958 (yet still cool in my book) was only down by around 20% IIRC.
In 1959, Edsel sales shrunk to around 45,000, but the model lineup was also cut in half, as the Mercury-based models disappeared, leaving behind essentially a glammed-up Ford.
For 1960, the Edsel was phased out after around 3,000 units, but then for 1961, the Mercury downsized, becoming essentially a glammed-up Ford. What the 1959-60 Edsel had been, essentially.
I have a feeling that if the recession hadn't hit in 1958, and everybody started getting economy-minded, Edsel would have been a fairly popular car. Now, it probably would have faded away eventually, as time has proven that even GM can't sustain that 5-brand hierarchy that Chrysler, Ford, and even American Motors once dreamed of emulating.
The flatheads aren't powerful, but they had good torque at a low rpm, which made them great for industrial type uses. I've heard that they're pretty easy to get parts for, too. Supposedly easier than the variety of early Hemi and Poly-head V-8's that were so popular in the 1950's, before the Wedge-heads came out.
I agree with you. Ford made 3 mistakes with the 58 1) As you noted it launched into a recession, 2) They went too far in styling as GM would learn in '59 and Ford and Chrysler to a bit lesser extent in '60, and 3) They put some gimmicks in that weren't fully tested out like the electronic tranny selector in the steering wheel hub. The 59 Edsel was actually a pretty good car. Ironically, Mercury really became an Edsel around '61 when Mercury was all converted to the Ford platform.
I think another thing that hurt Edsel was Ford extending upward in '59 with the Galaxie and Mercury extending downward. The same thing happened to De Soto sandwiched between expanding Dodge and Chrysler lineups. In fact, this effect, plus the increased competition number of models is likely a driver in so many mid line models being phased out over the years from Olds to Merc to Pontiac. I even wonder how long Dodge and Chrysler can co-exist.
Oh yeah, over the weekend I also saw a Tempo with a padded top, ritzy.
And now, for more useless trivia, the house is actually for sale! Somehow I have the feeling that $3950 price tag is wrong, though!
I believe they were the one with the fancy touchscreen for control of just about everything. Pretty "high tech" for 1986. I wonder how many still work.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
Cool house (looks better with the shrubbery), must be near the block where the 1955 scenes of Back to the Future were filmed. Maybe that price is the rent, as it zillows at nearly 7 figures.