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
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.