Now here’s a brilliant spin on the news of Studebaker’s South Bend factory having shut down production in December of 1963—it’s now an import brand, with all the prestige that commands! That’ll have those Mercedes, Jaguar, Volvo, Peugeot and Rover buyers heading to their local Studebaker dealer. And in a nod to VW there was a promise of no more styling changes, as if Studebaker could actually have afforded any.
But it actually doesn’t really take a huge leap of imagination to see the Studebaker as an import, because by 1964 it really did rather look and present more like an import than a domestic. If Canada had had a genuine domestic car maker, wouldn’t the Studebaker be just about the perfect car for them? Or might it have been an alternate universe Mitsubishi Debonair or Toyota Crown? A “new” Rover from Great Briton, with a V8 to boot? A hand built car for the top bosses in East Germany or Czechoslovakia? Or even from Russia, the new compact Chaika? The Russians had absolutely fallen in love with Studebaker 6×6 trucks during the war and they too were good at copying the Cadillac V8.
This Motor Trend review starts off with:
Last April, a new foreign car entered the U.S. market almost unnoticed. It’s now being imported at the rate of about 1000 each month. Currently produced in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, the Studebaker line continues much as it did when assembled in South Bend, but with a few exceptions. The Hawk, Avanti, and the whole Challenger series have been discontinued. Continuity of styling is now Studebaker’s byword for the future. No major model changes are planned, but running changes will be made whenever improvements are ready. This is what helped to make Volkswagen so popular.
M/T tested a top of the line Cruiser equipped with the 210 hp 289 V8. Engine production at South Bend had continued for another six months or so after car production ended, and given the drastic ∼50% drop in sales, there were enough surplus engines to satisfy the very modest 1964 production of some 46k Canadian built ’64s. For 1965, Canadian-built Chevy engines would replace these final Studebaker engines.
The tested Cruiser had the B/W automatic and a few other options for a total price of $3330.85, adjusted to $34k to 2024 dollars via a CPI calculator and $41k via more relevant calculator measuring similar consumer goods and services. The only direct domestic competitor in this semi-compact semi-luxury class was the Rambler Ambassador 990, whose starting price was essentially the same as the Cruiser’s. As to other imports, a BMW 1800 ($3298) was priced almost the same as this tested car. The Cruiser was more expensive than the $2645 Peugeot 404 and the $2630 Volvo 122S 4-door. And if you have to ask, the VW1200 was priced at $1563. But the Cruiser was a bargain compared to a $5200 Mercedes 220SE, a $4000 Rover 2000 or $5000 3-Litre, and a $5220 Jaguar MkII. And none of the imports had a V8.
The tested Cruiser came with the rarely-ordered optional broadcloth interior, in tan and presumably like this blue ’63. Quite nice indeed, and with split seats and recliners too. Very un-American.
It does look like it could be imported, eh? Evidence of British influence on Canada’s only car maker? M/T noted that its interior was evidence of Studebaker’s association with Mercedes-Benz. Looks a bit more Japanese to me, like in a Toyota Crown or Mitsubishi Debonair. No doubt the seats are quite nice, but the trim on the doors clearly isn’t. Lookslike when someone swaps in Cadillac seats into a Chevy Bel Air.
The Cruiser reminds me most of the Japanese luxury sedans of the time, like the Crown (S40), which wasn’t sold in the US at the time.
Or the Debonair, which was new in 1964, and although shorter, was a handsome new design that would be built for decades. They both were conventional cars mechanically, in the American idiom.
The Cruiser on the other hand was of course was the end result of a decade’s worth of restyles of the 1953 sedan body. Considering what Studebaker was forced to work with, it was a decent outcome, although it certainly wasn’t going to fool anyone into thinking it was truly contemporary or the work of Bill Mitchell’s studios. But that was easier to pull off as an import brand, eh? The Volvo 122 looked like a shrunken 1955 Chrysler. The Mercedes’ fins were looking dated. The Jaguar MKII was clearly from another decade and looked more like that 1953 Studebaker sedan than it probably wanted to.
As mentioned previously, the closest thing domestically was the Rambler Ambassador 990, which had been completely restyled in 1963. It’s a very clean design, and one that actually quite “international” and may well have influenced future Audis, Mercedes and BMWs. Its wheelbase (112″) was one inch shorter, and overall it was a similar package, although the Ambassador clearly had advantages by being a new design.
The 990 also had a much nicer interior than average, with available reclining bucket seats and it had the budgetary benefit of looking more organic than the somewhat cobbled-together Cruiser interior. FWIW, the 1964 Ambassador wasn’t exactly a hot seller either, with 18,519 built, despite being available as a hardtop coupe, sedan and wagon. Semi-luxury in a semi-compact format just wasn’t a hot segment at the time for domestics. Or the imported Cruiser.
This caption notes that the Studebaker had good ground clearance and was solidly built, evident when driven on unpaved roads. This is something every Russian import would have excelled at.
M/T said that the name “Cruiser” was appropriate as cruising at top legal speeds “is its forte”. Studebakers had distinctly un-American stiff suspensions; no wallowing over sharp dips and rain gutters and it kept high speed oscillations in check. No Jet-Smooth ride? No wonder they went belly-up. With the Studebaker V8’s worse-than-average weight in front of a relatively light car (3400lbs curb weight), understeer was inherent in these cars. Jacking up the tire pressures from a recommended 24/20 F/R to 32/28 F/R improved that malady considerably.
Handling was deemed “perfectly honest”. If pushed hard enough, the rear end would come around, but not without proper announcement, allowing the driver to compensate with steering, throttle or both.
The driver’s position behind the wheel was less than ideal, as was the steering itself, rather slow with 4.7 turns without power assist and 4.4 turns with it.
As to the Studebaker 210 hp 289 cubic inch V8′s performance, it too was adequate but not exactly brisk “we would have preferred four barrel for more zip”. 0-60 took 12.2 seconds; that’s more in the range of good-running sixes in that size and weight class. A ’64 Rambler Classic six automatic did 0-60 in 12.6 seconds; a ’64 Chevelle six with PG did it in 13.4. And a ’64 Chevelle 283 V8 with PG did it in 9.1 seconds. Can we assume that the Chevy 283-equipped 1965-1966 Studebaker’s were a bit livelier? You’re not likely to get any die-hard Studebaker fans to admit that possibility.
The 1/4 mile came up in 18.9 seconds @73 mph; that’s also right there with the quicker sixes and the slower V8s. Of course more power was available; the 225 hp 4 barrel version cost only $21.52. And for those willing to spend the big bucks, the Granatelli-Paxton developed R2, R3 and R4 versions were available, for some $1400—almost half the price of this Cruiser—in the case of the 304.5 cubic inch R4; even more for the supercharged R3. These engines (R3/R4) were of course part of a PR effort to establish performance creds for Studebaker and were available in very small numbers, as they were essentially hand-built. And of course it all came to naught; the ’65s would be sporting either the Chevy 194 inch six or the venerable 283 V8. Too bad they didn’t offer the 327; that would have made for a zippy Stude at a fraction of the additional price of the R3/4.
Studebaker’s President Roy Bender sent a letter to dealers praising the “new” engines being smoother, more powerful and having a longer life expectancy. Once again, trying to make the best of things. And yes, the Chevy engines were made in Canada, by McKinnon Motors LTD. Canada, Div. of GM.
The tested Cruiser did not have the optional front disc brakes, a commendable thing for Studebaker to make offer at the time. The drums, finned and quite large at 11″ in the front, provided “adequate” stopping power, but when pushed hard, the brakes pulled hard on one side or another.
Fuel economy over a thousand miles was “a respectable 14.9 mpg”. Thrifty Canadians would accept this?
Not so sure about “an army of faithful owners”, as they abandoned Studebaker like the plague in the years 1964-1966, with sales plummeting to a mere 19k in ’65 and 9k in ’66. But the magazines mostly kept up a positive spin on Studebaker until the bitter end.
The Cruiser offered a rather unique package in 1964, a fairly compact package with some exceptional interior appointments and generally good handling in exchange for a firmer ride. Very import-like indeed, except for the prestige part. The unfortunate reality was that by this time Studebakers’ image was rather severely degraded among the American public, as a car driven by often by eccentrics. But doesn’t that also describe some import buyers back in the day?
Related CC reading:
Car Show Classic: 1964 Studebaker Cruiser – Brooks Stevens’s Last Pass For South Bend by T. Klockau
Craigslist Classic: 1963 Studebaker Lark Cruiser – Someone’s For Just $1.52 Per Mile by JPCavanaugh
Auction Classic: 1966 Studebaker Cruiser – End of the Road by Tom Halter
Automotive History: The Studebaker V8 Engine – Punching Below Its Weight by PN
Automotive History: The Studebaker Sedan’s Last Decade of Styling – Magic with Leftovers by JPCavanaugh
I find this review to be kind and thoughtful. I would be hard pressed to believe that the author was not well aware that Studebaker was on its deathbed. The writer said nothing about this, with the exception of the slight mockery of calling it a “foreign car”.
Well it was a desperate attempt to stay positive all right. Away with those pesky styling changes! It won’t go out of style in the future because it already did!
It might have worked better in Russia or Great Britain, too bad they weren’t exporting there. Wasn’t going to fly in the USA, but it sort of worked in Canada, at least here in Hamilton Studebakers were common.
A 65 with 283 engine is on my long list of cars to own, but it’s a very long list and I’ll likely not get there.
Well they were on sale in Australia, and reasonably popular too. You’d never have known they were on their deathbed to see the number of Larks and Cruisers in sixties Melbourne. But I think this was the last model we got.
I remember these well, then and now I thought them good looking cars and those who owned Studebakers swore by them .
-Nate
Then as today, it would have been near impossible for Canada to develop our own independent automaker, to compete directly with the Big Three, in the US, and Canada. Of course, the raw materials, manufacturing capabilities, and engineering, and design talent exist here, to make a world class car. We were already too closely tied to the existing US auto giants and auto industry, for it happen. The largest car market in the world, would not take lightly, an upstart independent next door neighbouring industry. Aiming to compete for the same customers.
There was an attempt decades ago, to nationalize an oil company. It worked for a while with Petro-Canada. And was a source of some national pride, and public revenue, competing with the Big Oil giants But it was eventually privatized.
Many Canadians for decades would have loved to participate in the creation of our own auto industry. But the external forces against it, would be utterly overwhelming. Then and today.
As a former Prime Minister said. We are a mouse, sleeping next to an elephant. Every move impacts us.
Another immediate next door neighbour to the United States, a small country dealing with extreme poverty, faced embargo and sanctions for decades. Until this year, now joining another alliance of countries. As their future appears promising.
Canada had/has all the ingredients, for a powerful auto industry.
But we are a vassal in many ways, unfortunately. Primarily, economically.
Petro Canada worked? Debateable. Here in western Canada a common bumper sticker was “Petro Communist”, and “I’d push this thing a mile before I’d fill up at a Petro Can”
It was part of a transparent attempt to steal provincial resources, and the resentment it created is still very real here today.
As Alberta’s own governments, routinely mismanaged the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund.
Leadership throughout Canada provincially/federally, has undermined average Canadians for decades. That was my larger point. We are collectively a vassal. And why there was little potential of a strong independent automaker, or industry here.
McLaughlin was a Canada-based automaker before being absorbed by Buick; even then they were sold as “McLaughlin-Buicks” in Canada until after WW2. I don’t think they ever made their own engines, instead using Buick drivetrains.
Like Studebaker, McLaughlin was a longtime builder of horse-drawn carriages that moved into automobiles in the early 1900s.
Ford of Canada in 1904, was one of the first US automakers, to establish a foothold in this market. It likely would have taken strong political resolve, and protectionism in the earliest years, to allow a domestic industry to establish, and grow. The external pressure was already in place. William Durant founder of General Motors, had a very early working relationship with Sam McLaughlin. So the seeds were already sown, for Ford and GM to play a big role in the Canadian market. As McLaughlin became president of GM in Canada. And a vice-president of GM in the US. McLaughlin’s GM factory in Oshawa, was one of the largest in the Commonwealth. Ford and GM, were not seen as threats, to a homegrown domestic industry. There were many independent Canadian car companies. But they were small in scale.
Never paid much attention back then to Studes other than ’53 Starliners and Avanitis, but looking closely now this is quite an appealing car in several ways. I wonder if these rusted furiously like earlier Studebakers, something that they had something of a (bad) reputation for, and that may have held back some potential purchasers of these. Shame that they didn’t have the time to further develop and refine these interesting alternatives to the Big 3 and Little 4th (AMC).
“I wonder if these rusted furiously like earlier Studebakers”
Yes, they did, unfortunately.
They sure did – the worst ever. In my high school job in IN I worked with a woman whose husband worked at the Studenbaker plant (and later for Ford). He bought a new loaded maroon 64 Cruiser (he also had a pristine white Hawk) knowing it would be his last Studebaker purchase. Within four years that car looked unsafe to drive. The destruction of the handsome Cruiser was sad to witness. I think he was able to keep the Hawk in good condition because it was always garaged and not used as a DD, probably never driven on salted roads.
Assembly continued till the bitter end in Aussie and these cars were raced at Bathurst, pushed to the limit the wheels actually collapse but wheels with brake drums fitted were kept in the pit bay they knew about that failing and were prepared but medium power and poor brakes saw Studebakers beaten by 4 banga Ford Cortina GT 500s,
State police forces in Aussie had Studebaker Cruisers, they went well enough as police cars.
Yep, as our motoring press were always harping on in those days, it’s no use having power without being able to stop. And go around corners safely. From what I read in the local press, American cars back then were renowned for poor brakes. Collapsing wheels seem incredible today; back then it kind of made you question the rest of the engineering.
I remember seeing ’62-3 Larks patrolling around St. Kilda. Powder blue paint, sticker on the door, flashing light on top and that siren mounted atop the hood. I don’t recall seeing a ’64 in service though.
Meanwhile our local Big Three compacts grew larger and more powerful and luxurious, kind of muscling into Studebaker’s former market slot.
Breaking steel wheels was common in racing back then, ( Check the great pic Tim Bennett posted below of the Studebaker with cast alloy wheels)
Chrysler had a lot of problems with steel wheel and wheel bearing failures when it started racing the Valiant Pacers, Engineers found the stresses involved in racing would never be reached in normal road use, however they beefed up these components to all Valiants, so back then racing really did improve the breed, and the reason why the Charger models had those gorgeous ROH cast alloys on the race cars and optional on all Valiants.
I definitely get the Japanese prestige car vibe with this. There could have been a market here for these as a step up from big Ford’s and Austins, popular with farmers and small business men. Not everybody would have wanted a Jag or Rover and I suspect the import duty from Canada could have been more favourable than the US, I don’t know that though. The potential issues I can see are the sightly haphazard interior and slightly overwrought rear styling.
That new GM-sourced V8 doesn’t compare quite as favorably when you notice that the author compares the new 283 to Stude’s old 259. This is probably because the 289 provided better torque numbers (per the road test) even with the lower compression ratio.
These late 1964s are interesting, with more model choices than would come back for 1965. And the no annual model change thing was probably untrue even when they were trying to sell it.
By “author” I assume you’re referring to the author of that letter by Studebaker President Roy Bender? Because I didn’t make that comparison.
Yes, that was what I meant. I was rushed and did not take the time to scroll up to find Mr. Bender’s name. I think his comparison borders on bad faith. It should go without saying that I consider you to have far too much integrity than to make a borderline dishonest argument like the one Bender makes in that letter.
There were plenty of good reasons for the engine change, and certainly some fair points that could have been made for the new 283 vs the old heavy 289. But that would have required some nuance, and would not provide the “sit down and shut up” he was clearly going for.
The letter is made worse because it appears to have been written to two knowledgeable Stude guys (and cousins), Bob Palma and George Krem. Palma became a technical editor for the Studebaker Driver’s Club magazine and Krem has campaigned the “Plain Brown Wrapper” in drag racing since he bought it new in 1964.
Another historical brand defunct.
If it had been kept alive, Studebaker would have done great things like many other brands that we no longer have but whose models we remember very well.
Back in the early and mid 70’s I owned a few Studebakers, including two Cruisers, both ’64 sedans. I really liked them, and still today. They were endearingly durable and solid cars, and rather attractive imo.
Of my 64s, one was a white 259 column manual in excellent condition, the other a crimson 289 ex-Police which had been retrofitted with a Moss 4-speed gearbox (ex Jaguar). This red one had a particularly sweet engine that always kept its oil pressure gauge pegged (Mercedes style) to 80 psi!
Studebakers were assembled downunder from CKD by Canada Cycle & Motor, which btw also assembled Citroen ID19 and NSU etc. The ‘Studes’ were not unpopular here, quite affectionally regarded. The police especially loved them, and Studebakers have a great racing history at Bathurst etc.
I recall there was some talk in the press at the time of American production closure, speculating towards the feasibility of relocating production here, as in those days no alternative locally-manufactured V8 cars were offered. But Canada obviously got the nod, sadly into a much more competitive market than ours, and the rest is history.
These later Studebakers were a unique product, and as tough as they come.
What an interesting concept. I wonder how it might have went if Studebaker had, indeed, built an assembly plant not only in Canada, but another country (like Mexico). Maybe even somewhere in Europe or, as suggested, Australia. Of course, when forelorn AMC hooked up with Renault in the seventies, that didn’t exactly pan out.
Even today, PSA taking over Chrysler (Stellantis) isn’t going all the swimingly, either.
I was trying to remember who assembled them here. Canada Cycle and Car Company – of course! Not that we knew or cared at the time.
They were indeed quite popular. As a kid growing up, I knew what a Studebaker was, we all did. It was a sensibly-sized American car, most of the room without the bulk, a decent step up from the Holdens and Falcons of the time. I’d guess most people didn’t realize it was still a ’53 under the skin; there were still older buyers to whom the separate chassis would have been a plus.
It was hard to credit that a car so popular would suddenly disappear from the market. A friend speaks highly of the Lark his dad had when he was a kid; I think it was his dad’s favourite car – Tim, you’d understand that.
I must say it does look very elegant in the green paint.
The Japanese connection is appropriate. A recent article in Collectible Auto said that Studie was negotiating with Datsun, hoping to become at least an authorized dealer or maybe a Datsun factory. The deal was killed when one of the board members refused to go along. The board member was part of Nixon’s NYC law firm, which had Toyota as a client.
Shame that didn’t eventuate.
Down under, AMI assembled Ramblers, Triumphs and Toyotas – and wound up becoming Toyota Australia. Chrysler assembled Mitsubishis, and became Mitsubishi Australia.
What a shame that one board member had a conflict of interest, leading to a decision which resulted in a potential lifeline being cut, and many jobs lost.
Perhaps someone somewhere did drop a hi-po 327 into a Studebaker. I once saw a photo on this site of a Camaro with a Ford flathead V8 (albeit with aftermarket multiple carbs), so anything’s possible.
I was a collector of Studebakers starting at age 16. At about 22 I drove a low mileage Lark as a daily driver for several years. All three of my Studebakers were tough, reliable and fairly quick mid-size cars that had an abundance of torque. I have respect for the South Bend manufacturer that did their best to keep it going until they transitioned out of autos and into instrumentation for planes, trucks and other.
The MT article is what you might call “tongue in cheek”.
Most accounts of the fall of Studebaker note that they couldn’t make much money at the prices they sold at, and couldn’t raise prices because similar cars cost less. I didn’t realize how true this was. These were priced similarly to a BMW 1800? Or more likely, the GM mid-size of your choice.
I remain confused about what was on offer in 1964 post-South Bend. The MT article lists four body styles (coupe, convertible, sedan, wagon) – which would mean no more 2-door hardtops from early ’64. I know that the convertibles were gone by MY 1965, but I thought they exited production when South Bend closed. Also, this posting (by CC) states the hi-performance add-ons that made the R-series engines were still available through late CY 1964, when Chevy/McKinnon engines replaced them. Likewise the front disk brakes. Most places I’ve read showed the hi-perf gear becoming unavailable when South Bend closed, even on late-’64 Hamilton cars. It seems easier and cheaper (if less authentic) to use larger SBC engines rather than hand-modified blown small heavyweight Stude V8s to compete with the coming wave of performance cars.
The upscale-looking dash and door panels would arrive in 1966, with burled woodgrain paneling, thicker carpets, and higher-grad trim all around. Also arriving in 1966, some styling modifications – the “no styling changes” edict lasted one year. Everyone could see right through it.
Most accounts of the fall of Studebaker note that they couldn’t make much money at the prices they sold at,
They had been loosing money for years, quite obviously. That’s why they went out of business, right? Because they couldn’t turn a profit. South Bend’s overhead meant they had to sell some 80-90k per year at a minimum to break even.
These were priced similarly to a BMW 1800?
The BMW was a bargain back then, due to the dollar-mark rate then in effect.
Also, this posting (by CC) states the hi-performance add-ons that made the R-series engines were still available through late CY 1964, when Chevy/McKinnon engines replaced them. Likewise the front disk brakes. Most places I’ve read showed the hi-perf gear becoming unavailable when South Bend closed, even on late-’64 Hamilton cars.
Disc brakes were available on Canadian-built 1965s, as per the brochure. As to the hi-po engines, there were more R3/4 engines built than ever installed, so they were available as crate engines for some time after South Bend shut down. That strongly suggests they were available in 1964.
It seems easier and cheaper (if less authentic) to use larger SBC engines rather than hand-modified blown small heavyweight Stude V8s to compete with the coming wave of performance cars.
The SBC was physically a smaller and lighter engine than the Studebaker V8, FWIW. As to competing with the coming performance cars, that was all over for Studebaker. Any performance aspirations ended with the last South Bend engines. I doubt very much GM Canada was willing to sell any hi-po Chevy V8s to Studebaker, even if they had wanted to.
Even VW made minor styling and interior changes, right?
Not sure about R-series engines in Hamilton cars. There were about 200 of these built that were not initially installed in a car. Even in South Bend cards, while the R3 and R4 engines were offered in the Hawk, none are known to have left the factory that way. As for Larks, I believe one each or R3 and R4 were so factory equipped.
Stude made a profit on cars as late as 1962. By that time, the BoD was more concerned about investing profits in newly divested industries rather than reinvest them back into their automotive manufacturing.
P&L statements must be read with caution. Companies can sometimes cost cut their way to profitability. It rarely lasts. In the car industry, new product development can be a huge cost cutting target when things are going the wrong way. As railroads learned with deferred maintenance practices, the profit party will eventually end. When I see cost cutting start to take meat with the fat, I’m unloading any investment I may hold in their stock even if the short term looks better. Yeah Boeing – I’m thinking of you.
Here’s an R4-powered Commander at the historic Catalina Park circuit in Katoomba, NSW. It was entered by the main NSW Studebaker agent Bert Needham, a lifelong brand-tragic who raced many Studebakers in Oz.
Btw this car still exists, showing only 33,000 miles. Amusingly it began life as the Victoria Police Commissioner’s official vehicle. With its original R1 it also raced in the Bathurst 500 mile series-production events at Mount Panorama, NSW, in both 1967 and ’68. Another Needham Studebaker, a Cruiser 4-door, was 3rd outright at Bathurst in 1964, and unlucky to not win.
In period, the Victoria Police Sporting Car Club also raced several of their own Larks and Cruisers at this and other local endurance races .
Lots of great Studebaker AU race pics at this link below:
https://www.supercars.net/blog/mountain-commander-1964-studebaker-commander/4/
Try again..
The car looks great in that wonderful green.
The fender details are very Exner.
Good article (I never found a contemporary article about the 1964 line of Studebaker) My 64 Daytona convertible had the 170 CID I6 and frankly it would have been a better car with the 259. As far as the SBC substitution I had a 66 with the 283 and disc brakes which was a very civilized piece of transportation. The difference in response between that and the Studebaker 289 (stock) was minimal and the front end felt lighter which helped the handling
Studebaker’s Flight-O-Matic transmission was a Borg-Warner design, and was similar to the Borg-Warner automatic that Checker was using at the time. It is interesting and perhaps not a coincidence that both Studebaker and Checker went to Chevy engines in 1965. Evidentally there was enough buisness between the two to justify B-W tooling up a Chevy pattern bell housing for their transmission.
You can pretend that something covered in a catbox is not there because you cannot see it, but its there nonetheless. This car is silly. It is far worse than what AMC did to the Hornet to come out with the Concord and then the Eagle. This is just a cheap looking car in cheap clothing trying to be upscale and failing miserably. There really is no reason to beat around the bush – this is why Studebaker failed. Pretending to be something it could not ever become. The Avanti was a great idea executed by a company that could not pull it off. And this junk is not even good looking with four doors.