Studebaker: Ever any "Recalls"

[marcbr4]

It seems that there are always recalls on automobiles these days. As I read the news, Ford, GMC, Toyota all seem to be recalling something. It got me to wondering if Studebaker ever had recalls? Perhaps they did or did not. Or maybe recalling something was not part of the culture back in those days. I just thought I would ask the question. Did Studebaker ever need to recall anything?

[Jim B PEI]

Off topic, but Studebaker did "recall" some things, but not in the modern sense. Turbodrive? and mechanical power steering? This was before all the safety and other standards infrastructure was up and operating. (Can you imagine what seat belt interlocks and tensioners would have been like? Hydraulic?)

[JRoberts]

When Studebaker took over EMF they were so dissastified with quality issues of the EMF that they spent a million bucks to send out mechanics to visit owners with complaints. I am not sure if this is what we would call a recall, but some sources use that term.

[ddub]

How about early V-8 camshafts.

[klifton1]

I don't know if anything was recalled, I have all the service letters from 1952 till end of production and more than a few are a real joke.
Klif

[Studebaker Wheel]

Government mandated vehicle “recalls” did not exist until 1972. They are a product of congressional legislation passed in 1970 known as the Highway Safety Act (they are administrated thru the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration or NHTSA). Therefore Studebaker was never subjected to any government mandated recalls. However they did in fact issue recalls (though not using that language) in numerous instances. I listed 20 such examples in my Turning Wheels Almanac column in June 1999 covering the period 1908 thru 1964. There is also a brief history of vehicle recalls to be found with that column.

[StudeRich]

The one fairly major "Factory Fix" that I recall was the Door Striker Plates issued/redesigned starting in year model 1956 for the newly designed door latches, but problems started happening around 1959 and the design was changed several times in a minor way, meaning all '56-'66 Strikers still do interchange.

If that happened today, after the very first accident where a door came open in the crash and someone was killed because they forgot to wear a seatbelt, NHTSA would probably make them change the mounting, so you could not install the earlier strikers on a car built with the new design!

[(S)]

I think 'update' was the term they used.

Those early cams were a definate problem and they did get updated.

The RBS carb should have been 'updated' and the 1958 /59engines that ate rods like candy were items that were not 'updated' but should have been! The T86 behind a 289 in a Wagonaire? Those would give up at 60K miles!!

I would think the list may go on, but not as long as the competitions lists of complaints.

My favorite GM 'fix's I have heard if I recall correctly was the use of coarse soap to seat rings on 57 ? engines, and the wire cable strap to cure broken engine mounts on '65 sedans.

[marcbr4]

"Recalls" probably go way back. I heard a story once that Ford used Spanish moss as padding in their seats. However, the story goes that they did not wash it properly and all the seats became bug infested and would start biting the folks sitting on the seats! I wonder if they tried to "fix' the problem?

[raprice]

Back in the '50s & '60s, there wasn't anything like recalls. If you had a problem with your car, you took the car back to the dealer to get the problem "fixed". Sometimes, it wasn't so easy and you had to battle the service manager to get it done. There were occasions when the factory rep needed to come by the dealer to authorize the necessary repairs. So the Highway Safety Act was a good thing for consumers. It forced the companies to comply with the law and make the necessary repairs.
Rog

[Johnnywiffer]

Dunno what problem it caused but one day when Dad had the car in for service, they changed the entire intake manifold so the tube from the choke went directly into the intake.









At least that was the story he gave our step-mother.

John

[31Streetrod]

I think 'update' was the term they used.

Those early cams were a definate problem and they did get updated.

The RBS carb should have been 'updated' and the 1958 /59engines that ate rods like candy were items that were not 'updated' but should have been! The T86 behind a 289 in a Wagonaire? Those would give up at 60K miles!!

I would think the list may go on, but not as long as the competitions lists of complaints.

My favorite GM 'fix's I have heard if I recall correctly was the use of coarse soap to seat rings on 57 ? engines, and the wire cable strap to cure broken engine mounts on '65 sedans.

It was for the 1955 Chevy 265 V8 engines. The technical fix to seat the rings was to slowly pour a can of powered BonAmi down thru the carb with the engine running. The fix worked in most cases. Never heard what it did to the bearings if any of the BonAmi made it past the rings.

[Nelsen Motorsports]

The c/k fenders should have been recalled.

[556063]

I had the honor of spending the day with the late Carl Thompson when he served as a member of the Employee's Roundtable during the 2002 South Bend Meet. For those who may not know who Carl was, he was the man who implemented the "exploded view" illustrations in Studebaker parts books. He was also one of the last employees in South Bend when the Original SASCO that was part of Studebaker ceased operations in 1972. I'll never forget driving him around town in my 55 that day. He served as Service Publications Director for Studebaker most of his career, and ended as Director of the Parts operation. I could go on and on about Carl.

I asked him directly if Studebaker did any recalls. His answer was no. Studebaker closed the parts operation once enough time had elapsed from the final production in 1972 to comply with legal requirements in effect in 1966 (evidently six years). He did, however, mention a problem with motor mounts, best I can remember, in the 65-66 cars that had the attention of quite a few people. Studebaker was able to take care of the issue by issuing a Service Letter to dealers after production ceased, but he said to me, "That one could have been a recall".

I find it interesting Studebaker's service operations ceased to exist the same year the current structure for recalls and most of the NHTSA rules kicked in. I've heard current numbers of both seven and ten year requirements for parts to be available for production cars. It can't be proved or linked as a verified cause for ceasing operations, but Studebaker's wind down was obviously in tune with when these regulatory timelines.

[marcbr4]

I asked him directly if Studebaker did any recalls. His answer was no. Studebaker closed the parts operation once enough time had elapsed from the final production in 1972 to comply with legal requirements in effect in 1966 (evidently six years). He did, however, mention a problem with motor mounts, best I can remember, in the 65-66 cars that had the attention of quite a few people. Studebaker was able to take care of the issue by issuing a Service Letter to dealers after production ceased, but he said to me, "That one could have been a recall".

I find it interesting Studebaker's service operations ceased to exist the same year the current structure for recalls and most of the NHTSA rules kicked in. I've heard current numbers of both seven and ten year requirements for parts to be available for production cars. It can't be proved or linked as a verified cause for ceasing operations, but Studebaker's wind down was obviously in tune with when these regulatory timelines.

This is very interesting! Thank you 556063.