[If we needed more proof of the CC Effect it was in full force this week when, with zero coordination between two editors on two continents, we see two complementary versions of the iconic Studebaker Loewy coupe. We have already considered the pristine 1955 President Speedster that was brought to us by William Stopford on Tuesday. Now let us examine that car’s slightly scruffy alter ego. – JPC]
We all know kit cars. You know, those things that involved buying a fiberglass body to pop onto a worn-out VW chassis so that you could turn it into a dune buggy or a 1934 Frazier-Nash. But there is a different kind of kit car, one that allows you to mix and match parts from many years and models. I would suspect that such a kit car was never more easily made than from one of these Studebakers. And what kind of Studebaker is this? I have no idea. Not that it really matters.
Johnny Cash had a hit song in 1976 called One Piece At A Time. The lyrics told the story about a fellow who got a job in a Cadillac factory and built his very own Caddy out of pilfered parts brought home over many years. The song always brought to mind a Frankenstein-style of mismatched parts that was a Cadillac in nothing but the source of the disparate pieces.
We who know cars laugh at the idea that a guy could bring home a hood from 1949 and a pair of doors from a 1961 and mate them all to an engine from ’54 and the dash from a ’69. Those things just didn’t fit together like that. Had Cash’s song involved a guy at the Studebaker plant the song’s premise might have had more basis in reality.
It is well known that Studebaker’s last really new product was introduced for the 1953 model year. The sedans are little-remembered but the “Loewy coupes” are unforgettable. The hardtop (K body) was the real seductress but the C body coupe with the fixed pillars was its more practical stablemate.
Also well remembered is that this body morphed into the Hawk line in 1956 and finally into the Gran Turismo Hawk of 1962-64. Only in that last iteration was the hardtop roof the sole offering. In every other year the C coupe made up the bulk of the sales and was the lone choice in the grim years of 1959-61 when the Lark became the golden child of the Stude lineup.
I thought of that Johnny Cash song when I found this car. First off, I cannot recall the last time I saw a Studebaker C coupe out in the real world, so when I saw the unmistakable rounded rump in the parking lot of a hardware store I simply had to turn around and get a closer look. At first I tried to figure out whether it was a ’53 or a ’54. And did it start life as the basic 6 cylinder Champion or the V8 Commander. Studepeople know that the dashboard will tell the story . . .
but not here as this was clearly the dash and interior trim from a ’62-63 G T Hawk.
I finally decided that this car was a 57. Not a 1957 (though it could possibly be) but a Heinz 57 in the way that a mongrel mutt of a dog could be described. And I also decided that this was a good thing. After all, what other car offers so many options for customization on a budget? We recall the old AMT model kits that were sold as “3-in-1”, allowing us to build the car stock, custom or competition (or varying mixtures of the three). These StudeCoupes offer many more varieties than AMT ever dared to offer.
Let’s see. If we start with the basic shell and frame, I count four major front end themes, . . .
. . . six fairly distinct rear end varieties . . .
. . . OK, maybe seven, . . .
. . . and six different dashboard treatments. Six and V8 engines of various sizes and configurations from mild to wild mate to manual and automatic transmissions with not much more than a good socket wrench set. This has to be at least “57 varieties” right here, not even touching color and trim. The guys who retrofit old cars with the ubiquitous Chevrolet 350/350 drivetrain have to fire up the old welding torch but not the customizer who stays all-Stude. Just collect your preferred parts and bolt them on.
At least the door handles are all the same.
I have seen plenty of beautiful, authentic cars that are either original or careful restorations. I have also seen lots of these things online with various combinations of parts. I have never seen a C coupe with all G T Hawk lower metal, but I would imagine that such a thing would be possible.
But back to this car. What is it? I have no earthly idea. If I had to guess, I would start with a ’53-54 model based on the majority of the body panels. But it could also be a ’55 with the older hood to replace the unloved “fishmouth” front. It could also be a ’57-61 with the older-style scalloped doors and finless rear quarter panels.
Because bolt-on quarter panels.
I had so hoped that the owner would finish his shopping before I had to leave so that I could get some backstory and a real identification on this car, but no such luck. The “lazy S” insignias on the wheel spinners tell me that the owner has some brand loyalty (despite the Ford seats). I would have loved to have learned what was powering this one-car Studebaker collection. The third pedal, the column shift and the dual exhausts make me hopeful that this one is motivated by 4 barrels and 289 cubic inches of the kind that once grew only south of the Indiana-Michigan state line.
If I were forced to pin this one down, I would call it a ’53-54 with a ’62-63 GT Hawk interior, a Lark steering wheel hub and a powertrain of unknown provenence.
Oh yes, and ’62-64 Hawk taillights astraddle the ’53-55 decklid.
Really, with the probable exception of Volkswagen, I cannot think of another car (certainly a postwar American car) that allows such easy mixing and matching between the pieces from twelve separate model years. And VW never offered anywhere near the variety in that span.
If Silver Hawks were valuable we would see an awful lot of “tribute cars”. But they are not valuable. I think the rule is that any Studebaker C coupe is the second-lowest value of any given year or series. The only way to make a Studebaker less prized to collectors would be to add two more doors or subtract two cylinders. And while the K hardtops get the love, those in the know argue that the added structural support of this C body makes the thing a lot easier to live with on anything other than the smoothest road surfaces.
I suppose it is possible that the owner actually lived the Johnny Cash song and assembled this car out of parts nabbed from the old South Bend works over the span of a dozen years. And if so, the good news would be that the statute of limitations expired a long time ago while this good-natured mongrel is a long way from being roadkill.
Further Reading:
1953-54 Studebaker Commander Starliner – Star Light Star Bright (Paul Niedermeyer)
1955 Studebaker President Speedster – Look What They’ve Done To The Starliner (Paul Niedermeyer)
1955 Studebaker President Speedster – Star(Luxury) Liner (William Stopford)
1956 Studebaker Golden Hawk – It’s A Sign (Tom Klockau)
1960 Studebaker Hawk – Rock Bottom (J P Cavanaugh)
1962 Studebaker Gran Turismo Hawk – A Beautiful Death (Paul Niedermeyer)
1962 Studebaker Gran Turismo Hawk – Irrational Exuberance (J P Cavanaugh)
I never realized how much the rear of the Packard Hawk looks like a mini-Imperial.
Combine one of those with the Valiant-like Lark front clip, add DeSoto badges and confuse everyone.
I see the taillights are different, but did they simply reuse the pre fin quarters for the ’60s cars?
“did they simply reuse the pre fin quarters for the ’60s cars?”
My understanding is yes. The finned Hawks used those same quarters but added fins (fiberglass in 56, welded-on steel in 57-61).
None of the Lark metal would work because the sedans were always a whole different kettle of fish. But I have seen some mix and match among various sedan models too.
The Champ truck grille gives hotrod Larks a badboy face.
One could mix and match Hornet Eagle Concord Spirit Gremlin for similar effect. For some reason, just the other day I was thinking about how cool early Sportabout panels would look on an Eagle wagon. I’d do it up in the currently trendy overlanding theme. Fox bodies are good for mix and match. There are a good number of Fairmonts online with Mustang front clips. One could create some creative k car based mayhem too. Reliant convertable anyone? This Studebaker is fun. Its someone enjoying an interesting old car on a budget, most likey doing some or all of the upkeep themselves. If it were mine I’d track down some grill trim and swap for some different wheels. I’d find some bucket seats. Small stuff.
A good point on the Hornet derivatives. I have also seen several parts swaps on 72-79 FoMoCo midsizers, like a Gran Torino or LTD II wagon with a Thunderbird front clip.
I am with you on finding this Studebaker just plain old fun.
I’m waiting for a Mustang with a Fairmont front clip. Or the front end of a Fox-Continental.
I’m going to be taking possession of a 1985 El Camino soon, and my idea is to hot rod it using only found and used parts. A buddy will sell me the steering wheel from his ‘63 C-10 (because I don’t want power steering). The engine is a 350 from a ‘75 Camaro and the rear end from an S-10. When a friend found out what I’m planning, he said the Johnny Cash song would fit me too!
Be careful on the steering. I could be wrong but taking a car from power steering to nothing is rather different from having a car built without power steering. It has to do with the steering gear box and such – unless you intend to replace that, also.
Otherwise, I think you’ve got an interesting sounding project.
Thank you for the advice! My only experience with steering like that is driving a friend’s Accord with no PS and quite enjoying it. I’ll have to see what my options are.
Just wow, the difference between a Honda Accord, built with manual steering, and a G body without power steering is night and day. You may have ‘enjoyed’, the Honda, but I doubt that will be the experience with a manual steering GM. I’d advise saving the PS parts to put back on when you get tired of muscling that nose heavy, never really meant to be manual steering SOB around. There’s a reason they all came with power steering.
Jason is correct, to convert to power steering to manual steering you need to change the steering box. Just be warned unless you get a custom built manual box, it will have a very slow steering ratio, nothing like the Honda you drove. That said, you can pretty easily get a high effort fast ratio (12.7:1) steering box for that platform. Getting a one from a hi-po car like an Iroc-Z Camaro or a Monte Carlo SS will drastically improve steering speed and feel and it is a bolt in affair. Of course you can also get one custom built to whatever spec you’d like.
Congrats on the new purchase too! Coincidentally enough, I was just working on a friend’s ’82 El Camino last week. It is mildly modified car.. My kids thought it was a pretty cool car and enjoyed going for rides while I was working on it.
Here’ the one I was working on:
Wow! That is so pretty. Thank you for the advice. This will be my first adventure with a G body car
When swapping the Saginaw box used in GMs, you also have to consider overall travel (range of motion)- The box has internal stops that changes from model to model, and you can’t ID the differences based on the external appearance.
If you use a box with increased travel, the tires can rub on the frame rails, while a decreased travel box increases the vehicle turning circle. To be fair, it’s only a problem in parking lots, but the change can be very noticeable and annoying.
The early front is better than later efforts, I dont like the tacked on fins that arrived later either, This one is pretty much perfect in my eyes
What you said.
This is how the do it in Cuba! Mix in a little Lada as well.
Any car with “possum smasher” written on the trunk lid is worthy of attention.
Thinking about it these were rather like motorized tinker toys. That works out well for owners like the one of our featured Stude in which strict attention to authenticity isn’t a major concern.
Incidentally, I’m logged in and am getting told to fill in my name and email. This happened on the heels of my comment to Pioneer-Fox. This happened twice (this is my third attempt at this comment), with the second time logging me out. Just an FYI.
“Any car with “possum smasher” written on the trunk lid is worthy of attention.”
I thought of that. As in it is better to still be able to make roadkill than to be roadkill.
Jason, I’m having the same issue when trying to post. Sometimes, not always.
Re: Dashboards Why were they different for 6 cyl and V8 cars? Whic of the dashboard photos is for the 6? The V8? Thanks
In 1953-54 the dashes were different between the Champion (which was only a six) and the Commander (which was only a V8). The top left is the early Champion coupe and the top right is the Commander. By 1955 the two series (which had been differentiated in multiple ways) were morphing into a single car where the only difference was the engine.
To fill it out the two middle shots are 55 “regular” and 55 President Speedster while the bottom are the Hawks, both early (56-61) and late. There are lots of little Hawk variations but only two main looks.
There was a whole different set of dashes for the sedans, but none of them bolt into the coupes.
What a fun and enjoyable read JP! I never thought about the mixing and matching you could do with these Studebaker coupes, but there really are few other’s that can do it as well as these cars. I have a feeling this particular car is likely a ’54-54 with some later model parts added into the mix. I am sure with the lack of parts availability, the owner made due with the best he could find.
I don’t know if anyone remembers the Auto Trivia book that Consumer Guide put out in the mid-1980s (fantastic book BTW), but it had a series in there called “Cannibalized Customs”. Uncle Jack, supposedly worked at a wrecking yard and built his cars out of a variety of car parts from different makes. The trivia was to name all the cars the parts were cannibalized from to make Uncle Jack’s creation.
This Studebaker you found reminds me of a sharp ’53 I found a few years ago at a Cruise night. It was a mild custom and clearly the owner did what he could to make his car nice. He had a custom interior in it which was quite well done too.
Here is the interior which also appears to have a later model dash as its basis.
Uncle Jack’s ‘customs’ were a feature in Collectible Automobile back in the eighties. Same publisher.
Despite the “credit” Lowey gets for the design, it is obvious that Robert Bourke’s first year design was by FAR the purest and finest example of this car’s style.
None of the “facelifts” done in the following years helped the looks of the initial, CLEAN, integrated design. As a kid getting interested in cars, I can remember stopping to look closely at a almost new 1957 Hawk, circa 1959 in downtown Madison, WI and thinking it looked a bit garish. Of course, at the time I was clueless about what the car really was……..oopz! DFO
Bourke gets the credit, but there had to be at least some inspiration from this Virgil Exner drawing, which captured many of the styling themes of the eventual production model.
I love it! That would have carried on the bullet-nose theme, but that was probably played out by ’53. I think I actually prefer Exner’s rear fender treatment, though I think Bourke’s greenhouse looks better.
Mechanically, I suppose the later Loewy coupes improved over the Flexible-Flyer original. But, style-wise, the 1953 is easily the best looking. Studebaker even managed to foul-up the very next year car by adding ‘teeth’ to the mustache grilles. It was just a small taste of what was to come with the Mercedes-esque grille and bolt-on fins, all of which completely ruined the stunningly beautiful original car.
Regardless, swapping over 1953 sheetmetal to a later, better built car would easily be the best way to truly enjoy the Loewy car as a CC, even for just car shows.
For that reason, the 1953 Loewy coupe would seem to be a very good candidate (if not the best candidate) for the resto-mod treatment.
Regardless of who actually styled it, this post is a good reminder for me of what the best-looking American car of the 1950’s actually was. 6 or 8, coupe or hardtop, Golden Hawk or GT (well, I’d prefer no fins), they are a stunner. I don’t think I’ve seen one that looked a like a daily driver for at least 15 – 20 years. Maybe if Mayor Pete becomes President (hah, now there’s a Studebaker name, I’ll avoid mentioning the D word) he could proclaim a National Studebaker Day. Maybe even ride in a Wagonaire to the inauguration.
Love it! An early coupe was a major lust object in my earlier days, and I can still summon it today. It would have to be a bit ratty, given my proclivities, and this one is just about there.
Are these just about the ultimate anti-CUVs?
“Are these just about the ultimate anti-CUVs?”
Yes, I noticed that it is no taller than the Mini parked right next to it! And probably the only thing in the parking lot with a 120 inch span between the wheels.
You could probably mix ‘n match parts from many different year Checkers, too, but what would be the point when they all looked almost the same?
These are one of my favorite cars from the ’50s, except for the GT Hawk of the ’60s. There are certain elements of the proportions that hit a lot of subconcious Classic car cues. First of all the long wheelbase, which provides the long and low look. The lack of excessive front overhang, which places the front wheels as close to the front bumper as possible. Classic cars, even common ones like the Model A, located the front axle right at the frame front cross member. The front wheel hubs are right in line with the radiator grille in a side view. The passenger compartment roof line drops and ends right at the rear wheel openings which allows the deck to be long and low. The lack of ornamentation and gimmickry also allows the sculptural shape of the car to stand alone and be appreciated. Just like the famed Cistalia.
I usually find any car with a short front overhang and a long cowl to front wheel distance instantly pleasing in appearance. It gives the car an aggressive “thrusting forward” feeling. Even the first gen Mustang had this. Compare that to the long front overhang of a Mark V.
“I usually find any car with a short front overhang and a long cowl to front wheel distance instantly pleasing in appearance.”
Agreed! I hope this attempt at posting an Autobahn Kurier works – the ultimate car displaying this feature.
Terrific find. The basic design of these Studebakers used to remind to some degree of the Volvo P1800. I preferred the long hood, short deck proportions of the Volvo.
There was a slight fit and finish problem on the multi year Caddie….
That’s pretty lame. It looks to be nothing more than a 1967 convertible with a different hood, front fender, and driver’s door half-assedly attached. When the original Johnny Cash museum burned, the builders took the car back and crushed it. The biggest issue might be losing what would otherwise seem to be a relatively good ’67 Cadillac convertible.
A fan built a much better looking tribute car which (I think) is still around.
It’s just better if you listen to the song. It really wasn’t meant to be a visual. I miss Johnny Cash.
Your take, JPC, reminds me of the silly ”Flying High” (US, ”Airplane!”) movie joke when the somewhat camp assistant in the tower control room is given a paper report (on weather or somesuch, presumably) and asked “Here, what do you make of this?” and he replies (with appropriate gestures) “Why, I can make a hat, or brooch or, look, a bow tie…”
Slighlty off-topic, but the sedans of ’53 are well-remembered by me as a very pretty car. The C-body coupe is (to me) quite messy around the C-pillar arrangement, enough so that it’s always looked like a hasty conversion of some sort in my eyes.
Here’s a very sweet RHD ’54 Champion for sale in Aus (if this loads). It would have been assembled here new. With its overdrive, (and with cash, and space), I would.
https://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/dharruk/cars-vans-utes/studebaker-champion/1214774867
“Really, with the probable exception of Volkswagen (Beetle), I cannot think of another car (certainly a postwar American car) that allows such easy mixing and matching between the pieces from twelve separate model years.” Maybe not CARS, but quite a few PICKUPS, VANS & SUVS also have various parts interchangeability between several model years if not an entire production run. Some notable examples that come to my mind include the ’93-2011 Ford Ranger (including Mazda B-Series), ’92 & ongoing (in Chassis Cab/Cutaway form) Ford Econoline, & anything in the Jeep CJ or XJ ranges. Much of the basic design from each of these vehicles was retained throughout their entire production run, & therefore many of the body, frame, & mechanical components could be interchanged with nearly ALL model years. I’ve seen other Rangers like mine that have pre-’06 tailgates (MINE’S a 2011), and I believe late-model STXs (’04-’06 I think) used the Mazda’s bed & tail lights. Many of the available wheel choices will interchange as well (Jeep wheels will too!), most certainly the 15″ options–the spare tire (shown below) I currently use came from an Explorer Sport at the Pull-a-Part (same bolt pattern & rim size)–but 14″ wheels will NOT fit on models with disc brakes (I tried this with a leftover spare from my Aerostar). ANY typical Ranger you see on the road now could indeed become a “kit” truck with so many interchangeable parts.
An example of the Ranger STX I’m referring to…
Ahh, all of the wonderful things we find down under (the state line between Michigan and Indiana!)…
Neat old car and it looks like someone has had a lot of fun with it. I’m envious…
“Ahh, all of the wonderful things we find down under (the state line between Michigan and Indiana!)…”
AKA, Michiana.
You state; “It is well known that Studebaker’s last really new product was introduced for the 1953 model year.” How about the 1963 Avanti? If you say that it is on an older chassis, the 1953 was also on a chassis and engines from 1951.
Also, the door handles are not all the same. They are similar and interchange, but not the same.
I have owned many 1953 – 1964 C/K models, both stock and modified.
I just love this post, Jim. Collecting and combining all those photos took some work.
I built lots of AMT 3-in-1 kits as a kid, always in custom form. A 144-in-1 Studebaker kit, with 4 front ends, 6 rear ends and 6 dashboards, would be a dream come true. Maybe in virtual form as a video game? Too fun.
Indeed! I think I’ve done about seven myself, mostly out of the box.
AMT kits allow plenty of cross-pollination, so to speak.
I never built the outright racing versions myself, whether drag or Bonneville. Guess I’m more of a Curbside Classic man myself!
Those are beauties! I never could get a good paint job with a rattle can on mine. Not to mention the chrome trim. Nicely done.
Love these scale cars.
The advantage to subsequent car enthusiast for extensive mix-‘n-match with the ’53-’64 C & K bodied Studebakers was the company was too broke to completely tool an all-new car. All they could do in an effort to stay somehow competitive was to rearrange trim or tack on fins etc. I only significant tooling money spend on that series was the Hawk hood for ’56 and the roof stampings for the ’62 GT Hawk. Trunk shells got different treatments but nothing major. Mechanically, the same situation existed too, no money for all-new powertrains either. Because of the essential appeal of the basic design, the survival rate is extremely good for a car so terribly beset with rust problems.
Want a real bargain in a mid-’50’s Studebaker collector car? Look for the best example of a ’56-’58 Commander or President sedan you can find for the price. There is no demand for them even among Studebaker people, good cars go begging for reasonable prices.
On the trunk lids, every version used either the 53’s smoothly rounded piece or the 56’s with the boxy kickup in back. Until 1964 when that new lid that kind of averaged the two earlier designs showed up for its abbreviated final model year. I had never seen one of these until I started paying attention in recent years. With only 1500 or so cars built that had to have been one of the most expensive per-unit panels ever.
I am one of the few who has a thing for the 56-58 sedans, and one remains on my ever-shortening bucket list. I would like to make my own kit car from a 58 President hardtop with 57 outer sheetmetal and dash. Every once in awhile I ogle a 57 President Classic sedan when an ad shows up online.
Excellent article! I have been in the process of building a 1958 Silver Hawk with a 54 front end, 4 speed, and supercharged VS57 289 for some years now. And yes, the interchangeability makes things fun indeed. 54 front end, 63 GT interior, 59 door panel design, 62 4 speed, 63 Avanti R3 headers, and it continues. The Lowey Studebaker lines of the 53 to 61 coupe along with the Avanti design have been timeless. Interestingly enough, today’s lack of protrusive grill in the Tesla design reflects well on the Avanti’s.