The 1950 Studebaker is proof that polarization works. From the day it arrived, folks immediately either hated it or loved it . Not surprisingly, traditionalists, conservatives and older folks were strongly in the first camp and those that loved change, new things and were younger were in the second camp. One might assume that polarization would cut one’s sales potential in half, but it doesn’t actually work that way. In Studebaker’s case — a fairly marginal player in the market — all they needed was for 5% of the market to go gaga over this wild new nose that had been grafted on the old body dating back to 1947.
And they did just that: 1950 MY Studebaker sales exploded, up 160% over 1949, to 343k units. That would stand as the all-time high for the former wagon maker from South Bend, Indiana. It was a welcome vindication for Raymond Loewy’s design group which had envisioned and proposed a deeply-sculpted bullet-nose front end for the 1947 model before that was snatched away by a more conservative Virgil Exner.
The 1947 Studebaker was a groundbreaking design, especially the Starlight coupe with its wrap-around rear window. It was one of the first all-new postwar designs along with the 1946 Kaiser and Frazer, and its relatively narrow body, light weight and overall styling theme were driven by Raymond Loewy, who had a design contract with Studebaker since 1936.
The origins of the 1947 Studebaker go back to the 1942-1943 period when Loewy and Associates was contracted to do advance design work towards a new post-war car. Undoubtedly there were many renderings and models, but this quarter-scale model by Gordon Buehrig shows considerable influence on the final design. The fastback was a hot item at the time, as the streamliner era was still going strong, but it was eventually dropped.
The story of how the final design for the 1947 Studebaker came to be has been told many times, although inevitably there seem to be different details depending on whose version one reads. It’s a contentious and complicated story, and I wasn’t there, but here’s the version we’ll go with today: In essence, credit for the ’47 Studebaker’s styling was hijacked from Loewy at the last minute by an alternate design from soon-to-be ex-Loewy stylist Virgil Exner. Engineering V.P. Roy Cole, who wasn’t a Loewy fan, enabled Exner by setting him to up in his basement to come up with an alternative final design. Through some back-door machinations that essentially fixed the competition, Exner’s proposal was the accepted one, but in reality it differed very little from the one that had already been largely developed by Loewy (above) except for the front end.
Exner, who was ambitious and had a very healthy ego, clashed and broke with Loewy because he felt he was not getting enough recognition. The other issue was stylistic: Exner favored more traditional and flamboyant design (he later became the father of the whole neo-classic movement).
Once Exner (on left, with Luigi Segre, Ghia’s chief designer) moved on to Chrysler and discovered the classic center rounded grilles and other design themes that were already popular in Italy at the time — thanks to his highly fruitful relationship with Ghia — he would revert to them repeatedly. Hey, that’s practically a bullet-nose!
Meanwhile, Loewy favored more avant-garde design, willing to push the limits of what was going to be accepted in the market. That explains why Loewy’s designs tended to be polarizing, including the Avanti.
1962 Chrysler proposal
Of course Exner eventually went down that road too in the late fifties, as he became somewhat desperate to conceive a new design language to stay ahead of the competition after his ’57 Chrysler theme was getting stale. That resulted in the polarizing 1960 Valiant and 1962 Plymouth and Dodge ; that didn’t work out so well. A polarizing design can work for a marginal player — for a while — but not so much for a mainstream one. The Chrysler Airflow and 1996 Taurus are some other examples of that.
When Exner styled the front end of the 1947 Studebaker, he gave it a high and blunt nose; they had some flamboyant elements but rather lacked any truly coherent stylistic theme or inspiration, at least to my eyes. The Champion’s front end is the worse of the two: it looks like a melange of disparate elements, and not in an inspired arrangement. The details of the grille were supposedly the work of Vince Gardner.
The Commander’s front end, whose grille Exner did himself (according to Bob Bourke), is a bit cleaner and the grille openings are a bit more modern and understated, but the bumper is heavy and looks it’s mounted a bit too high, probably as dictated by Engineering V.P. Roy Cole. These front ends do not do justice to the rest of the ’47 Studebaker’s bold, clean, sleek and very modern body.
Unfortunately there are no existing pictures of the front end of Loewy’s final design proposal for the ’47, but there is general consensus that it was rounder, sleeker and bolder than Exner’s, and there’s considerable evidence to suggest that it had a bullet nose (or “spinner nose” as Bob Bourke, who was its champion, called it), or something close to that. This rendering by Loewy’s group (most likely by Bourke) from 1945 clearly shows the bullet nose, in a form that is essentially identical to the 1950 version.
Early work on the 1950 restyle — by the Loewy team headed by Bob Bourke — assumed that the body would be totally new. Not surprisingly, that wasn’t in the cards for Studebaker even after three years, the common lifespan of most Big Three bodies. The ’47-’48 cars had been fairly successful by Studebaker standards, and although profits were relatively good, there were dividends to pay and there wasn’t enough left over to justify a completely new body.
In retrospect, if it had been known that the old body was to have soldiered on past 1949, it would have made more sense to do the bullet nose for 1949, as that was the year the big Three unleashed their all-new postwar cars. That probably dented Studebaker sales some in ’49, despite the post war market frenzy.
For a while there at least hope that the existing body would have its high cowl lowered, as the Loewy bullet nose was really designed for a lower hood. But in the end, that hope evaporated too; even a contoured bumper to properly relate to the contours of the bullet nose turned out to be too expensive.
That explains the rather contrived bumper sticking out on two support tubes, not unlike the solution Dick Teague would use on the Pacer and Matador coupe twenty years later.
Exner was still at Studebaker during the development of the ’50 models, and he again submitted an alternative front end. No pictures exist; not surprisingly, according to those that saw it, it too was more conventional and blunt. But now Exner did not have the benefit of an unfair advantage; the famous Studebaker bullet nose would not have existed if Exner had unfairly won out again.
That’s not something I want to contemplate. These bullet nose Studes have been some of my favorite cars since I discovered them as a kid, even if they were ten years old by then. Or did I see one on the streets of Innsbruck in the 1950’s? Quite possibly so, which might explain my intense fascination with them.
Of course it really needs a proper spinner propeller to seal the deal.
The bold sculpture of the bullet nose cannot be fully appreciated with its bumper in place; here’s a couple of shots of a ’51, which was slightly different than the ’50, and not for the better.
This is pretty radical stuff from a somewhat stuffy manufacturer. The deeply sculpted front end and the lack of a conventional grille were way ahead of their time. Loewy would de-emphasize the grille on future Studebakers, including the ’53 and eliminate it on the Avanti.
One thing the new 1950 front end did not fix was the awkward exposed cowl section between the front fenders and the front door. This was an expedient but aesthetically unfortunate compromise on the new 1947 body, as Studebaker body-building engineering apparently did not have the skill required to do without it, as it made the fitting of the front fenders to the rest of the body and doors significantly easier. This was done commonly in the pre-war era, when old-school front fenders typically ended before the front door.
1941 Cadillac 60 Special
Cadillac did away with that in 1941, when the front fenders first extended into the front door. By 1942, this worked its way across the whole GM family including Chevrolet, as Fisher Body had perfected the technique. Studebaker would keep that exposed cowl through 1952, and when it finally disappeared in 1953, it created one of the significant issues that affected production of the ’53 cars, as the front fenders would not align properly with the cowl.
Studebaker also still used an antiquated exposed center B-pillar — all the way through 1962 (1961 shown)— something that had been eliminated on other American cars quite some years earlier; the 1941 Cadillac already didn’t have one, it was gone by 1948 on the Hudson, 1949 on Ford and GM cars, 1951 on the Kaiser-Frazer, 1952 on the Nash and by 1953 on the Chryslers. Studebaker finally said goodbye to it with the 1963 restyle.
The tapered bullet nose now properly complemented the long tapered tail. One explanation for its length was that Studebaker had given serious thought to a rear-mounted air cooled flat six, a la Tucker in early development. Loewy had suggested that Porsche even design a whole new chassis and drive train for the ’47 Studebaker (Porsche did later build a complete rear engine prototype in 1952). Or maybe it was just semi-serious thought; sounds wild and fun, but it was just as well they let that and a few other radical proposals go. It might well have resulted in an even earlier death for Studebaker.
It’s not quite a Starlight coupe, but I find the two door sedan with its sloping B-pillar more attractive than the 4-door. As to what’s under the skin, the 113″ wheelbase Champion had the little 169.6 cubic inch flathead six that was first designed for the 1939 Champion. It was smaller than most American sixes at the time, almost exactly the same as the Rambler’s 195.6 inch six. Power was upped to 85 hp for 1950, and it was a well regarded engine, one that would rev happily to 4000 rpm and was durable as well as economical.
This Champion has the optional Borg Warner overdrive behind the B/W three-speed gearbox, enhancing its economy as well as acceleration, as the O/D came with a higher (numerical) rear axle. With a curb weight of only 2,695 lbs, the Champion performed quite adequately for the times and delivered superior fuel economy.
The Commander came with the 232.6 cubic inch big six under its longer nose, rated at 102 hp. The 1950 also had a new front suspension, now with coil springs and telescoping shocks instead of the transverse leaf spring. It improved handling and steering.
A new automatic transmission “Automatic Drive” built by Borg-Warner’s Detroit Gear Division was introduced mid-year. Its full story is in a CC post here. At $210 dollars, it was pretty expensive; about 30% more than the Chevy Powerglide, but it was rather ambitious with its “locked” high gear, improving efficiency.
Unfortunately, the rather drab interiors did not live up to the flamboyant exteriors. Loewy was frustrated by Studebaker’s very conservative bent in regard to the interior design, colors and fabrics. Studebaker was behind in this regard, especially compared to Kaiser-Frazer.
The instrument panel only has a bullet in the center of the speedometer as a minor concession to a bit of flair. I sat in this car briefly, and its interior proportions suited me quite well, given that I prefer narrow and tall over low and wide.
These Studebakers are narrow cars. Although technically six-seaters, that would require six very trim folks who were very comfortable with body contact. The Champion was essentially a compact, despite its 113″ wheelbase. The 120″ wheelbase Commander used the same body except for a longer front end, so it was no roomier. The top of the line Land Cruiser had a 4″ stretch in the rear compartment for extra leg room, but it was just as narrow as the Champion. That was the narrow reality of these Studebakers.
So how was the bold and polarizing new bullet nose Studebaker accepted by the public? Richard Langworth’s book on Studebaker’s Post War Years (which was the source for the B/W images in this post) has this tidbit: “‘I don’t like this car at all’ a banker friend told him (President Harold S. Vance) at a press review, ‘but my twenty-year-old daughter loves it.’ Vance, aged 59 replied: ‘I don’t care what you old folks think.'”
It’s worth noting that Loewy had been harping about the growing importance of the youth market for some time, so apparently it was having an effect. That would certainly be the case with the 1953 coupe.
Yes, the 1950 was a smash success, for Studebaker at least, which had never even hit 200k in annual sales, even in its best pre-war years. The 1950 model broke through the 300k barrier, with a total of 343 units sold, or a 5.2% share of the market. 1950 was a very good year for the industry, up 28%, but Studebaker’ 160% increase outpaced that by a huge margin.
Studebaker had ambitious plans for the 1950s, expecting to capture five or more percent of the growing market, and substantially expanded its production and assembly facilities to accommodate the expected growth. Having built several new plants shortly after the war (some of which were never put into use), Studebaker had a capacity to build up to 450k cars and trucks per year. Obviously that turned out to be wildly optimistic. But it’s not hard to see why in 1950 that seemed like a very real possibility, although that was still very much in the post war catch-up boom. That would change all too soon.
1951 saw only detail changes in styling, but the big news was the new V8 engine. We’ve covered that engine and its development in detail here, but a few key highlights are worth repeating. It was very heavily influenced by the 1949 Cadillac V8 and had almost the same external dimensions and weight but was significantly smaller in displacement, with 232.6 cubic inches. Its excessive weight in relation to its displacement was the result of limitations in Studebaker’s foundry technology, as in not being able to cast thinner walls. As a consequence, the relatively light Studebakers with V8s tended to be nose-heavy, to the detriment of handling. But it was something of a bold move to build a new V8 in 1951, the same year that Chrysler’s hemi V8 first appeared and years before some other brands got new V8s. The shorter V8 meant that now both the Champion and the commander shared the same 115″ wheelbase and body.
One might wonder if Studebaker wouldn’t have been better off building a new modern six, given that Studebakers were on the light side. The six cylinder Champion was essentially a compact. Compact cars sales exploded starting in 1957, by which time Studebaker had been adding excessive length and weight in an effort to compete against the ever-larger Big Three full-size cars.
Meanwhile Rambler was on a tear with their compact line, the great majority of which had sixes. Studebaker suffered for lack of a modern ohv six and even tried to buy Rambler’s, to no avail.
The new V8 was not without teething problems. According to an interview with Studebaker designer Bob Bourke, it suffered from serious camshaft durability issues:
“that (1951) Studebaker had a V-8 engine, and it was a catastrophe. They had a terrible time. They kept eating up camshafts and millions of dollars. Studebaker never ever gave any of the customers any problem. If they had made a mistake, they’d carry it to the ground and replace it forever. So, I think, it cost them, at the time, about 4 million dollars to get it straightened out, and they repaired the cars all over the country.”
1951 sales dipped from 343 to 269k units, but that was still 4.5% of a smaller market that year, due to Korean War restrictions. And of course it’s quite possible that that exciting new bullet nose was starting to lose its punch, especially as the year wore on. The latest fad and fashion quickly become stale.
1952 marked the centennial of Studebaker’s founding, and all-new cars were to be part of that massive celebration. A number of design directions were explored, with these Model N concepts being the most full developed. They still had the bullet nose.
There was also this coupe by Burke and Koto, quite obviously based on the old taller body shell but substantially modified to look lower and more modern.
It was all for naught, as curtailed production because of the Korean war didn’t justify the massive investment. An all-new Studebaker would have to wait for 1953, for better or for worse.
Instead, the existing body got another new front end. Obviously it anticipates the coming ’53’s front end, but Loewy had already recognized that the bullet nose’s time had come and gone. That idea had originated back in 1945 and now Loewy favored low sloping hoods for better aerodynamics, visibility and a more modern look. It’s a legitimate move for those reasons, and certainly less polarizing.
Hardtops were the hot new thing along with station wagons. Studebaker pulled the trigger on the former for 1952, even if it was just for one year. Station wagons had long been proposed and advocated by Loewy on the ’47-’52 body, but the tooling expense was considered too high. Meanwhile Rambler went he other way, dropping its hardtop coupe in 1956 and was making hay with its compact wagons. 1956 was also the year that AMC passed Studebaker in sales, for good.
We’ve covered the highs and lows of the ambitious new 1953 Studebakers here, so our story mostly ends here.
I found these three cars sitting near a busy corner in Eugene last week. This is my first street sighting of an Avanti, and it’s a preferred round-headlight version ’63 at that. I’ve already written up the Avanti, and between the 1950 Packard and ’50 Studebaker, my attention strongly gravitated to the latter, no disrespect to the Packard. But as noted earlier, I’ve always had a major thing for them. I will write up the Packard eventually.
I rather assumed they were for sale given their location, but there was only this one modest sign on the Packard’s window. They all looked to be mostly original cars in what appeared to be good driveable condition. I called the number and talked to Jerry, the owner. He confirmed that assumption, and I was somewhat tempted to arrange a drive in the Studebaker. But…realistically, it’s not what I really need in my life right now.
He told me that the asking price for the Champion is $10k, $25k for the Avanti, and I want to say $13k for the Packard, but I might have remembered that wrong; maybe $15k? Jerry seemed like a very pleasant guy, and if any of you are interested, do give him a call at 541-514-9486. These cars deserve loving homes.
Related CC reading:
Curbside Classic: 1949 Studebaker Land Cruiser – On Top Of The World
Automotive History: The Studebaker V8 Engine – Punching Below Its Weight
Curbside Classic: 1953 – 1954 Studebaker Commander Starliner Coupe – Star Light, Star Bright
Curbside Classic: 1963 Studebaker Avanti – Flawed Brilliance
I tend to be a fan of the 1947-49 Commanders more than the bullet nose cars. And of the bullets, I prefer the 50 Commander that retained the longer front end that I think works better with the overall proportions of the cars. The short Champion front always looked stubby to me. Another reason is that because of the high 1950-51 production figures, the bullet nose cars have always been the most commonly found. That asking price seems high, especially for a 2 door sedan, which tends to be the least valuable body style.
The whole 1947-52 run was a fascinating design, in all of its variations. That combination of Loewy and Exner really planted their flag right away on what a modern postwar car was supposed to look like. To the extend any of the lines look odd, I think it is probably because what a modern postwar car was supposed to look like got some adjustments as other manufacturers brought out their designs. The Stude was light and graceful, while much of the rest of the industry went with bold and heavy. I think the 1948-49 GM cars are really the only ones that more-or-less followed the Studebaker vision, and then GM went heavy and bold with the 1950 larger cars.
One nit – that 1962 restyle you mention was only a half-restyle. The front and rear were new, but the old center section remained, including that old-style panel between the doors. It wasn’t until 1963 that they found the money to finish the job and revise the center section of the sedans.
I will correct that mistake about the ’62. Thanks.
I’m not seeing the influence of the ’47 Studebaker on the ’48 GM C Body (and ’49 A Body). These GM cars have a surprising amount of design continuity from their ’47 predecessors in their curved roofs and trunk and the “external” rear fender line. The front end of course integrated their fenders but that was an inevitability on all post war cars, and was on the ’46 K-F.
Anyway, by the time the ’47 Stude arrived, it would have been too late to have any significant impact on the ’48 GM cars.
The whole feel of the GM cars is very different; wider, more massive, and lacking the upright almost floating feel of the Stude.
I am not trying to suggest that the Studebaker design influenced the GM design. What I do suggest is that there seemed to be two design threads in the American postwar designs. Studebaker and GM (initially) followed a thread that was light and graceful. Everyone else (and GM in 1950 big cars) followed a thread that was bold and blunt, a look that emphasized mass and weight (whether it was a heavy car or not).
These conflicting ideas seemed to be floating around simultaneously during the war years, then fashion fads seemed to favor the latter thread, even though hindsight has been kinder to the former.
Thank you for writing up on one of the most intriguing cars. Studebaker in the 50s sold reasonably well in the Netherlands / Belgium, they were even assembled for a period in Belgium. I missed out on a locally assembled Silver Hawk for sale two years ago.
“But…realistically, it’s not what I really need in my life right now.”
Most old cars are not “needed”, they are for fun, a luxury, a hobby. Who would ever really need a 1950 Studebaker now? Do you think you will ever really need one? Of course not.
But if you have a thing for Studebaker and there is one for sale nearby of the type you like, and can afford it, why not? It might be the last chance to get one without having to go distances and troubles to find one. They are not exactly for sale everywhere.
You only live once!
It’s about priorities. My ’66 F100 is still sitting out in the weather, and not to its benefit. I’m not going to bring another car home unless I can take proper care of it.
Anyway, I think I would enjoy driving a vintage Porsche (or even VW) or some other cars more than this Studebaker. It’s undoubtedly more fun to look at than to drive.
As a very young child, I would have immediately noticed the exposed B-pillar post, and dismissed Studebakers as old-fashioned. And worked on my dad to not buy one. It would have been worth recessing the posts a few more inches, and extending sheet metal from the front or rear doors to mask the pillar.
If kids can influence parent car purchases, it would have meant a few more sales.
I never really noticed the ‘extra pillar’ effect. That’s surprising. But what did bother me about these Studes was those thick window frames with oddly-shaped cutouts for the glass. But Studebaker had a fix coming with another new roof. So many changes…..
The front end of the ’53 Studebaker reminds me of my Dad’s ’54 Chevy Bel Air. Someone at Studebaker was looking over the shoulder of the GM styling studio.
Everyone was always looking over anyone’s shoulder that they could. But I’m not getting your point; if the ’53 Studebaker came out a year before the ’54 Chevy, it seems like it must have been the other way around?
The ’51, ’52, & ’53 follow a major trend which led to the ’54.
Similar to the ’55, ’56, & ’57 (the three 5’s) follow a theme.
Still think Studebaker got a look over GM’s fence.
An uncle had a 1947 Champion that he kept until 1963, trading it in on a Rambler Classic wagon. Rarely gave him a problem. A unique feature of these were vents in the front fenders that were controlled by levers in the footwells. Studebaker styling aged quite quickly in the fifties, especially after 1955 with the new GM models and forward look Chrysler products. Studebakers and Larks were basically seen as cars for cheapskates and no car guy ever took them seriously.
The bullet nose didn’t last in America but it did in Europe. Ghia adopted it for the KG, which then turned into the Type III.
Not surprisingly, there was a bullet nose among the Studebakers at casa del Steve.
I know I’ve published this photo before, but this was the last time I saw a bullet nose Stude (not at a show). The photo is dated 1983. Location is K-Mart Auto Service in Dover NJ (now demolished). When you see this car in person, the whole front end is more voluptuous and dramatic in 3 dimensions than any photo can express.
Yes, “polarizing” apparently worked in 1950–same year Buick came out with its “buck-toothed” grille. Studebaker and Buick both had record-smashing sales with these designs, which I guess taught the industry that the more out-of-this-world a car looks, the better it sells. This of course became the theme for the entire decade of the ’50s. Unfortunately, it didn’t work for Edsel in ’58!
I’m not the only one that’s convinced that the Edsel’s grille was not the issue with its failure. It was launched at the worst possible time, into a quite nasty recession combined with a sudden contagious disgust at how big and excessive American cars had become.
If the Edsel had launched in 1955 with its grille, the outcome would likely have been quite different.
Once the Edsel was seen as a failure, everyone piled on and its grille became the scapegoat.
Keep in mind that 1950 was an exceptional boom year for the industry, so folks were in an optimistic mood and open to new styles. Not so in the fall-winter of 1957-1958. A gloomy winter.
I think you meant to say that the Edsel grille was NOT the issue with its failure. As a kid there were still some of these Studebakers on the roads, but as I recall it was the “coming or going” styling that was even more distinctive. After all, the very popular ‘49 Ford had a pretty prominent bullet that hung around on and off for 5 or 6 years, though certainly more integrated with the grill, and eventually getting smaller.
Yes, I edited my comment to include that “not”.
If the original Comet were to be marketed as an Edsel, this is my proposal for adding a little more “personality” to the rather plain front end. I’m making the vertical member slimmer and sharper, less like a “mouth”. It maybe could extend further downward, with a subtly split bumper.
Studebaker was smart to wait until 1950 to introduce the bulletnose. It gave the cars a unique look that grabbed attention when their competitors had newer designs, but also not brand new which would have hogged the attention had the bulletnose (just a facelift) appeared in 1949.
> A polarizing design can work for a marginal player — for a while — but not so much for a mainstream one.
Is Tesla mainstream yet? They’re certainly well beyond marginal, so I guess we’ll find if the CyberTruck sells in big numbers upholding this theory. I’m predicting it will for the first year or two but drop off considerably after that, the usual typical sales curve for unusual designs like the AMC Pacer.
I think you’re being optimistic about the Cypertruck. A bunch will be sold to be the first on the block, and I expect sales to drop dramatically after 6 months to a year.
Hmm, I don’ think I ever looked at the spinner/propeller this closely to spot the resemblance before, but I’m now tempted to call this the Loewy beak?
It’s an interesting theory but probably not much credence to it. The last ‘gunsight’ Mercury Cyclones were due more to Bunkie Knudson’s short term as Ford president and his efforts to make the Thunderbird look more like the the cars he approved when he was head of Pontiac divison. Those all seemed to be inspired more by Packard than the bullet-nose Studebaker.
It’s worth noting that an oft-suggested impetus for the despised 5mph bumper standard were the Bunkie-beak Fords, as well as the delicate front bumper of the first generation Mustang. There was also the 1″ rubber strip ‘bumper’ Chrysler affixed to the front of their NASCAR wingcar specials.
I’ve seen a few Cybertrucks being driven in my area. It doesn’t look any better in person than in pictures. The stainless panels look like the cabinets and counters in a restaurant kitchen, or worse yet a dumpster. The Rivian truck and SUV are much more mainstream and conventional, and will probably be considered to be better looking by most. The Ford Lightening is a good looking ET. I think that the Cybertruck waited too long to be introduced and kind of jumped the shark. Combine that with Musk’s declining popularity with Liberal buyers and I feel that the CT will be Tesla’s first failure.
I think the CT is ugly as well as having some questionable functional design attributes. But I’ve been seeing a few on the road over the last month, and for what it’s worth I think it looks a lot better in person than in the early launch and “spy” pictures.
Does that mean it doesn’t come with smashed windows?
I don’t get the CT’s styling, at all. Seems like the Model S/X/3/Y are all distinctive without being offensive.
The CT, OTOH, is way more radical and polarizing, without much benefit. Combined with Musk’s insistance of stainless steel and what will undoubtedly be a very high price with very limited practicality compared with a conventional pickup, well, I’m not sure it’s going to be that much of a success and way closer to a boondoggle.
The Avanti has aged very well. It’s especially relevant now, with EVs looking for styling devices to replace the grille. What looked possibly oddly futuristic at the time now looks quite contemporary.
Seems like one of those talented designers could have come up with a better looking (and still cost effective) way to attach the front bumper to these ’50-’51 cars. Those tubes jutting out with all the blank space in between the body and the bumper looks unfinished to me.
My Dad bought a used two-door 1951 Bullet-nose Studebaker, in blue. It replaced a four-door 1947 Studebaker (green). I remember that he had to buy a back seat for the 1951 to fit the family. Were they ever sold as business coupes, or was his only missing the back seat? I don’t remember.
After that, he went to Chevrolet and remained a GM man for most of the rest of his life…until he had to live with a 1979 Cadillac Eldorado Diesel.
That GM diesel engine was made by Oldsmobile and it was a dog.
I believe they did in fact produce factory business coupes in that model year of Studebaker.
If I had a Studebaker, I think I’d go for a ’50. Maybe not this body style; the rear side glass looks uncomfortably wider at the top than at the bottom. Maybe it’s just how I’m seeing it, an optical illusion. Still, a four-door for me, say a maroon Land Cruiser; the dark colour will hide Studebaker’s extraneous vertical panel gaps.
It’s probably just as well for Studebaker that they saved this face for ’50 after selling a few years with the more conventional (but over-fussy) front. But that sales jump is just astounding.
Another logical, flowing, well researched and pleasingly photographed entry from Paul.
Thanks, Paul, for an enjoyable addition to my third cuppa cawfee on this drizzly Gray Day in New Orleans!
Agree very much with Mark Reimer on the great quality of this article, Paul. Looks like you’ve “unretired” to a considerable extent!
I remember when these bullet nose Studebakers were still on the streets of Pittsburgh when I was growing up. I think the last one I’ve seen in the wild (not at a car show) was this ’51 at a small garage in Brooklyn, NYC some 20 years ago this month.
I am retired from the specific job I had before, which Rich has now. But that has given me more time and freedom to pursue more in-depth posts when I feel inspire.
These have always been a favourite. I remember that my uncle had one when I was quite young. I still have a mental image of it in their drive. As I was born in 1950 I have always thought that I should own one of them. It would have to be a Starlight coupe. I would prefer the V8, but I don’t like the 51 style as well, and there is also 1950 being my year of birth, so it would have to be the 1950. At this time it seems that this is all theoretical,.
I started following the “Pickles” comic on occasion. Must be because I’m retired myself. Much to my surprise Earl and Opal Pickles drive a bullet nose Studebaker in the comics.
As a child I also recall being fascinated by a semi-abandoned maroon 1950 Champion at a local used car dealers. I would have killed for this, the logical accessories for bullet noses. This 7” propeller on a ball bearing mount that requires one hole drilled in the bullet. Grown up me is not quite convinced about the safety, a potential bird chopper? (From the Studebaker Forum, Richard Quinn collection) and as I recall these may also have featured in one of the CC articles on in-period accessories. My following post shows a recent ad, apparently still spinning along well, but unlikely to be still on sale.
As above
A school friends parents had one of these Studes in the mid 60s it was an end of life car at the time with howling diff and smoking engine sentenced to a rough gravel road every time it was driven, no bumpers fitted and zero intact exterior trim, it was gone by 70 replaced by a MK3 Zephyr and likely ended life at the dump, it was years later I saw the first complete Studebaker that model.