Estes Park '53 Convertible

[S2DSteve]

I thought I'd try to nudge this discussion out of the Member's Pictures and into General Discussion where it belongs. I'm aware of this car and I'm pretty sure it was the inspiration for the builder who started mine. The information that it had no frame reinforcement is pretty remarkable, as I've had first hand reports of near catastrophic results of removing the roof without beefing the frame. Maybe frames are like other parts and every once in a while an exceptionally good one is spit out? It's a puzzle.

Toomanyprojects-how about some more info and maybe some pictures?


Steve Hudson
The Dalles, Oregon
1949 "GMOBaker" 1-T Dually (workhorse)
1953 Commander Convertible (show & go)
1953 Champion Starliner (custom/rod project)
1954 Champion Coupe (daily driver)
1960 Hawk (future project?)

[Warren Webb]

My 63 Hawk was originally from arizona & came to so. calif. so to say its pretty rust free is safe. I do have some rust but its limited to some bubbling on the lower edge corners of the deck lid & trunk floor (from bad weatherstrips). Even so, with all the body solid, I can feel body flex thru the gas pedal at times when I go thru a dip in the road. Without some sort of tubing welded inside the box section of the frame, I can't imagine any frame, especially one from a C/K being strong enough to handle the load of a convertible without some MAJOR reinforcement.

60 Lark convertible
61 Champ
62 Daytona convertible
63 G.T. R-2,4 speed
63 Avanti (2)
66 Daytona Sport Sedan

[jimmijim8]

I'e seen GM convertibles use an x member. 1958 Chevy and Bonneville being 2 examples. jimmijim

[sweetolbob]

I've removed the 54 hardtop body from the frame during reconstruction. I can't imagine how that frame could not flex in the door and cowl areas after you remove the top.

I suspect that if you bolted the body to the frame with steel shims instead of rubber it would be more rigid but there's just to much force for that frame not to torgue and flex. There's just no fourth side (top)to the rectangle for the strength to resist flexing.

The only option, other than massive frame strengthing, I could visualize would be to plate the cowl, rocker panel and rear door area with a one piece thick plate welded continuously across all the area on both sides. And even at that, it would be chancy.

A tough job at best. Bob

[56H-Y6]

Hi

Good topic. As a long time convertible enthusiast and forever mad that Studebaker didn't build the '53-'64 K body also as a convertible, I have to comment.

I've inspected dozens of convertibles by other carmakers for cues as to how they built a body rigid enough not to flex excessively without the solid top.

Of the body/frame cars: longitudinally plated and/or X-member frames, box unit troughs under the door sections bridging the door openings, gussets in the rear quarter panels and front kick panels and body pillars, additional bracing in the front and rear cowls, solid frame to body sims.

For unit bodies, a LOT of box units designed to resist the flexing and create the strength of the frame within the body structure.

It would be a worthwhile if ambitous project to develop a kit that could be used to convert K-bodied Hawks into good solid convertibles by restorers. Whether there exists a large enough market for such a pre-engineered kit is the question. It would take a real effort by real engineers to do so. Anyone else like this idea? Since there are so many '62-'64 GT Hawks extant, I suspect there would be considerable interest by owners for such conversions for their driver Hawks, not so much the restored show cars.

Once you consider how much engineering went into the two door convertibles, then think how much more went into a four door convertible!

Steve

[JDP]

The gas pedal movement is just the engine flexing on the mounts and moving the pedal rod with it.

JDP/Maryland
"I'm a great believer in luck and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it."
Thomas Jefferson

[studegary]

The Studebaker frame was not designed to be rigid by itself. The frame and body were to be considered as a unit.

I have known of several K bodies made into convertibles. The ones that were shortened seemed to be better. Usually the 108.5 inch frame was used in place of the 120.5 inch frame. A friend made a convertible out of a '53 Starliner. He did not reinforce the frame and the car acted like it (wet noodle).

Gary L.
Wappinger, NY

SDC member since 1968
Studebaker enthusiast much longer

[55s]

I have to admit, I've thought about a K convertible too, but I currently have too many projects. I also thought of converting a 52 or 58 HT into a convertible.

At the CIAS, there was a yellow 2 door that was converted to a "fair weather" convertible, and there seem to be several of these. Alternately, it may be nice to have a "removeable hardtop".

As always, whatever you do and whatever costs you incur may never be recoverable, so it must be done for your own enjoyment.

Paul

PS: A friend with an XKE convertible went over a bump, heard something, and the doors wouldn't open because they were jammed at the top.