PDA

View Full Version : What makes that a Studebaker?



56H-Y6
12-29-2005, 10:45 AM
Hi
I see those '39 Studebaker pickup" on Ebay and other venues.

What in the process of plastering a used S-10 or Jimmy with fiberglass makes it a Studebaker?

Sickens me to see the name on such #@$#@%?#$^%*^?#$#!!!!!!

Steve

Roscomacaw
12-29-2005, 02:12 PM
I agree. For that matter, it looks more like a cusstomized F*rd pickup to my eye.[}:)] And how they get them REGISTERED as '39 Studes. That's gotta be a trick!:D

Miscreant at large.

1957 Transtar 1/2ton
1960 Larkvertible V8
1958 Provincial wagon
1953 Commander coupe
1957 President 2-dr
1955 President State
1951 Champion Biz cpe
1963 Daytona project FS

studegary
12-29-2005, 02:17 PM
I have only seen one that was titled as a '39 Studebaker. All of the others were titled as 19XX-2001 Chevrolets. Many of the cars seen at current rod, NSRA, GoodGuys, custom shows have no, or nearly no, parts from the car that they are supposed to be. Like '32 Fords with a custom frame, late model drive train, fiberglass body. Many states now allow customs/rods to be registered/titled as the vehicle and year that they most closely resemble. I don't see these S10 & ElCamino conversions as being a lot different than taking a Studebaker body, modifying it and then placing it on a different chassis with a different drive train and interior.

Dick Steinkamp
12-29-2005, 05:19 PM
quote:Originally posted by 56H-Y6

Hi



Sickens me to see the name on such #@$#@%?#$^%*^?#$#!!!!!!

Steve


Sickens you? You're taking this hobby way too seriously. :)

-Dick-

danasgoodstuff
12-30-2005, 02:40 PM
There's an old joke goes like "It was a good old ax, only replaced the blade twice and the handle three times". Seriously though, I wouldn't call the vehicles in question "39 Studebakers" either, since there's nothing South Bend about 'em, "39 Studebaker replica" maybe but only if they reasonably accurately duplcate at least some significant aspects of the original...but I have no problem with 32 Fords that use all good reproduction parts, including marine use flatheads. And I think that so-called phantom cars that attempt to make real what the factory coulda/shoulda/woulda done at some particular point in time are quite inqenious if done right ('53 convertible Stude anyone?). I guess the bottom line here is I see this issue as a little less black & white than some...

JBOYLE
12-30-2005, 07:11 PM
I deal with this issue everytime I take my other car to a show.
I have a 1914 Stutz Bearcat replica built by George Barris for a TV series (Bearcats!, 1971 on CBS). When I get asked about it, I have three answers;

-Five Second:
"It's a Stutz Bearcat" given to those who casually want to know what it is...people at stoplights, gas stations, or people at car shows who are just there to see cars or humor their spouses. They want to know what they're looking at, not a long story.

-Fifteen Second:
"It's a Stutz Bearcat replica built by George Barris for the TV series Bearcats. It's not a kit or fiberglas and t has Ford running gear." This reply is given to "car guys" who usually first notice the Ford rear end.


-Two Minute on up (a two hour phone call is the record)
A long discussion about what parts are guenine Stutz, history of Stutz, background of Barris, etc. The few people who want go do really deep are custom car buffs, fellow Stutz Club members, Barris fans and TV/Movie car buffs.

In other words, I let the person asking the question run the conversation.

One of the resons I bought a 63 Avanti is I want to make it simple when I answer questions..."It's a Studebaker Avanti". Hopefully I won't have to go into the saga of the Avanti II, Altman, Blake, etc, etc.

DEEPNHOCK
12-30-2005, 07:47 PM
Nothing makes that a Studebaker...

It was originally done to get it listed differently at the shows from all the '32 Fords....

It's legacy will be a drain on the OE Studebaker script out there...

Oh, and did I mention that it's butt ugly?

56H-Y6
01-01-2006, 11:16 AM
Hi
Glad to know that others find those unfortunately titled "39 Studebaker pickups" a travesty as well.

"Take my hobby too seriously" only in realizing that everytime someone passes off one of those as a representation of what Studebaker was to an uninformed public, it denigrates the real Studebaker legacy.

But I feel that way too when I see the new(er) Packards, most all some Ford or GM plastered with Packard styling halmarks, an overdone insult to the real Packards.

The only effort with any validity in that vein occurred in '57-'58, in the vain hope of keeping the make on the market until a new real Packard could be brought to market.

And yes, the ersatz '39 Studebaker pickup is not only butt ugly, it bears only a passing resemblance to the car/truck it pretends to represent.

Regards
Steve