IIRC, Ford did not have a 302 in 1962...in fact, they didn't have a 289 in 1962, just the 221 and 260 (that grew into the 289 and 302). Also, I heard Lemay passed away several years ago. Could the rest of the story be bogus?
-Dick-
-
IIRC, Ford did not have a 302 in 1962...in fact, they didn't have a 289 in 1962, just the 221 and 260 (that grew into the 289 and 302). Also, I heard Lemay passed away several years ago. Could the rest of the story be bogus?
-Dick- -
Dick - I agree that Ford did not have a 302 by 1962. Perhaps it is a 312, like my '56 Mercury Monterey had and was available in Fords in 1956. Yes, Mr. Lemay died, but I think that they are referring to the new Lemay Museum. I do agree that the ad sounds like BS, not facts about the car.Gary L.
Wappinger, NY
SDC member since 1968
Studebaker enthusiast much longer -
or...maybe he thinks it's a Ford Y block and is actually a Stude V8 (they do look sort of alike if you squint a lotquote:Originally posted by studegary
Dick - I agree that Ford did not have a 302 by 1962. Perhaps it is a 312, like my '56 Mercury Monterey had and was available in Fords in 1956. Yes, Mr. Lemay died, but I think that they are referring to the new Lemay Museum. I do agree that the ad sounds like BS, not facts about the car.
). I any case, I've asked the seller for some pics. We'll see what it looks like.
-Dick-Dick Steinkamp
Bellingham, WAComment
-
This car was discussed on alt.autos.studebaker a couple weeks ago. Look for "Does anyone remember this Speedster"? by Mark Chance on 1-27.Restorations by Skip TowneComment
-
Here's a few pictures...
More pics here...
From the owner...
61 CHRYSTLER QUAD HEADLIGHTS, 56 CHRYSTLER GRILLE, T-BIRD SEATS
302 FORD AND BORG WARNER 4 SPEED. CAR WAS PEARL ROSE IN SHOW, IS NOW IN POR-15 PRIMER
The engine is definately a small block Ford, but Ford only offered a 221 and 260 in '62.[?]
I like it!
-0ick-Dick Steinkamp
Bellingham, WAComment
-
Me, too. "Not exactly how I would have done it," but now that it's done, I could adopt it.quote:I like it!
Dave's Place
Studebaker Emporium
sigpic
Dave LesterComment
-
My sentiments exactly, Dave.quote:Originally posted by Studedude
Me, too. "Not exactly how I would have done it," but now that it's done, I could adopt it.quote:I like it!
Dave's Place
Studebaker Emporium
If you don't generally see yourself comming and going in a stock Studebaker, you certainly won't see yourself comming and going in a custom one.[8D]
This car looks like the real thing. Built by Art Root. Shown by Brian Ellis (aka Omar the Tentmaker). Won several period prestigious custom car awards. The feature car in several period magazines. Always a Pacific Northwest car. It needs to be light Orchid again.
I'm going to see it this weekend. I'll give a report.
-Dick-Dick Steinkamp
Bellingham, WAComment
-
Sounds like a deal... take more pics! BTW, when I said I wouldn't have done it that way, I wasn't implying that I think it is poorly done... quite the opposite!quote:I'm going to see it this weekend. I'll give a report.
Dave's Place
Studebaker Emporium
sigpic
Dave LesterComment
-
This is how it looked in Dec. '62 Car craft. Notice the old green WA plates, and notice the original rear end treatment. I liked it better, wonder what happened? Rear-ended at some later time maybe? Article also mentions....."Borg-Warner 4-speed box connected to muscular Speedster mill with '60 heads and dual carburetion".
(forgot the url, had to edit it in)
Dwain G.
______________________
P.S. Speaking of customized Studes, this was always one of my favorites:
Restorations by Skip TowneComment
-
Thanks, Dwain! I agree, it does look better without the Continental tail lights and without the bumpers. If the current owner is correct, these changes were made in '65...along with the installation of the Ford small block. The original modified Stude mill would also be much cooler!quote:Originally posted by Dwain G.
This is how it looked in Dec. '62 Car craft. Notice the old green WA plates, and notice the original rear end treatment. I liked it better, wonder what happened? Rear-ended at some later time maybe? Article also mentions....."Borg-Warner 4-speed box connected to muscular Speedster mill with '60 heads and dual carburetion".
(forgot the url, had to edit it in)
Dwain G.
______________________
P.S. Speaking of customized Studes, this was always one of my favorites:
-Dick-Dick Steinkamp
Bellingham, WAComment
-
Dick, I'll bring a couple of photos of that 55 today. I saw it in '63 at the Vancouver Autorama.
Brian
Brian K. CurtisComment
-
I am impressed. Now, I am shopping around for a 55 Speedster to Customize. It will have (2) Edsel Grilles on the front,20 Buick portholes on each side, and 56 Cadillac tailights mounted upside down. It should be something a little different. Thanks. [:0]Comment
-
I think 18 portholes would look nicer--just my opinion, mind you.Comment
-
18 portholes, duly noted. Also, to do the car in the photos one better, I will use freestanding '62 Imperial quad headlights, as well. Plus, 55-56 Pontiac Hood strips, mounted across the roof and over the deck lid, too. I plan to graft the instruments out of a Boeing 747 onto the dash, and install Lazy-Boy recliners recovered in purple and white velour, with my initials embroidered in the headrests with gold thread.[
]
Comment
-
You know, Dick, that car is starting to grow on me. Go back to 1957, and do a "what if". Like, what if the '55 styling had lasted through in to the '57 models, and then Studebaker had hired Brooks Stevens to do a restyle? That keystone-shaped grille is very reminiscent of the Lark grilles to come, is it not? And the canted quads are so very '58, and they aren't really badly done on this car. I mean, that if you are going to have canted quads, these are about as good as that design could be...quote:Originally posted by Dick Steinkamp
Here's a few pictures...
More pics here...
From the owner...
61 CHRYSTLER QUAD HEADLIGHTS, 56 CHRYSTLER GRILLE, T-BIRD SEATS
302 FORD AND BORG WARNER 4 SPEED. CAR WAS PEARL ROSE IN SHOW, IS NOW IN POR-15 PRIMER
The engine is definately a small block Ford, but Ford only offered a 221 and 260 in '62.[?]
I like it!
-0ick-
The only thing that really bugs me about this restyle is the front of the hood; that gap looks waaay ugly. I'd extend the hood down to the top of the grille, so the gap was concealed.
It's clear to me that the builder of this car definitely gave some thought to how the various modifications worked with one another and with the shape of the car as a whole. Overall, I'd say the car looks harmonious, if that makes sense. I wonder if Bob Bourke ever saw this car and had any remarks about it?
Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta BadlandsGord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta BadlandsComment
Comment