Well, that’s one way to rationalize the fact that the company can’t afford to change the styling anymore, except for a new grille inset for the next and final year. And that’s not the only thing they couldn’t (or didn’t want to bother changing):
What’s wrong with this picture? Would you know the difference between a genuine Studebaker engine and a Chevy engine if you lifted the hood on Studebaker? Starting in 1965, when Studebaker production switched to the Hamilton Canada plant, Studebaker was forced to buy Chevy (although Canadian built) engines. And the 1965 and 1966 Studebaker Brochures are quite proud of the new Skybolt Six and Thunderbolt V8. Except that they never changed the illustrations. Who would ever notice such a thing anyway? Especially forty five years later?
I highly recommend a little stroll down Studebaker’s last two years via oldcarbrochures: You’re bound to find some other examples of cost-cutting, as well as some remarkable innovations that only a small outfit like Studbaker could incorporate so readily; like say disc brakes. It’s not like Detroit was offering them on their bread and butter cars in 1965. Oops, there’s that old illustration of Studebaker’s V8 again.
A mate of mine had one of these an ex police car in OZ good car went ok but overdue for a resto had the Chevvy engine
Two tone exterior??
I love the 1960s “bucket seats”, If they were making them like that today the legals would have them labeled as personal bench seats.
I met Gene Requa, who designed this car, a couple years ago. He was driving one that he fitted red tape to in order to simulate the full width taillights that he’d intended them to have. He was also an architect, and an unusually good guy for being an architect. Sadly, he died before I got a chance to take him up on his invitation to visit his house in Del Mar.
I spotted one of these a while back. No idea if this is a ’65 or ’66.
It’s a ’65. The ’66s had single headlights and a four quadrant grille.
Well… Chevy engines would make the restoration marginally easier.
My understanding was that when Studebaker closed its South Bend, IN headquarters, all (or virtually all) of its engineering and styling capabilities closed with it. So, after December of 1963, there was not much that the company could have done to these vehicles even if it had wanted to. So long as the Checker-style “we never change our car” thing worked, they were fine. But the car was not that competitive in 1963-64 and only got less-so the longer it got past its sell-by date. Plus, with new safety regs looming for the 1967 model-year, the choice was either spend a lot of money to retrofit the cars for the new laws or pull the plug. They chose Door no. 2.
Did anyone think the last two years of Canadian Studebaker were anything but an opportunity to build out the 22,500 CKD parts and peddle them as cars to the folks who had been well served by their previous mediocre cars. All US cars were mediocre back then and most were ugly besides. Kaiser and Hudson did the same sort of thing with their obsolescent hardware. It is a fact that until 1968 it was not even necessary to have an official model changeover keyed with the VIN number, as those were not standardized across the industry anyhow. If a car underwent no visual alterations could simply be passed off as the next year’s model on its title. I remember a Healey being that way.
Could not stuff my Facebook blog into the box reserved for “websites” but you are welcome to visit and see similar sorts of automotive commentary and musings. As far as advertising any four wheeled product in print or on TV half a century ago, most of it was cringeworthy. Vapid jingles. Wide eyed characters seemingly enthralled by the “newness” of nothing at all remarkable. Alternatively, pitchmen acting as though there was nothing more than “the deal” to influence a purchase of a nondifferentiated commodity. THEY might have been right, in most cases.