Who made the chassis?

[JBOYLE]

My wife got me a Studebaker book for Christmas...one of the Brooklands portfolios of road test reprints (from the US, Canada, UK and Australia) from the 40-60s.

One of the articles is from Motor Trend and discusses the very early days of the Avanti II.
They mention that Budd produced the chassis.
Is that correct for Studebaker Avantis as well?

What about other Studes?

[Gunslinger]

They did...I believe Budd made all of Studebaker's frames outside of some trucks. Avanti Motors used leftover Studebaker Avanti chassis for years.

[kamzack]

Story I heard, they used the stampings til rejects became too excessive. That is to say dies were worn out. I think they went to GM frame about 86. This was in the Kelly to Cafraro transition era. I remember having seen and read an article in TW about that transition. There was a pic of a rather large fellow with a big cigar in his mouth, Mr.Cafraro. This was the beginning of the end of the Avanti. I'm sure some folk that have a better recollection than I can clarify or have back issues of TWs to correct. Was an interesting and sad story. My personal observation was the Cafraro group use it to launder money. Hope they don't a hit man after me.
Kim

[studegary]

Avantis used Studebaker, not necessarily Avanti, frames through 1985 models. 1987-2004 Avantis used a GM chassis (Monte Carlo, then Caprice). 2004-2007 Avantis used a Ford chassis (Mustang).

[JBOYLE]

I was just surprised they bought frames from a supplier. I've always thought of frames as something built in-house. That's the reason for my query.

Okay, late model Avanti fans...did the Avanti company (choose one):
-run out of already produced frames (did the various Avanti firms buy any frames post-Dec 1963..or did (ever optomistic) Studebaker have a huge supply on hand?)
-or did Budd quit making them in the late 80s (did their dies wear out?) prompting the switch to GM chassis?

And when that happened, did they buy an entire Mote Carlo/Caprice for the chassis?

To make a minor correction to studegary's post ...the 2001-2004(?) Avantis used Firebird platforms.

[grobb284]

I imagine that Avanti motors purchased the frame rails from Budd, and welded up the frame assembly, once the Stude frames ran out.

As there were a number of frame rails transferred to Michigan, perhaps the change to the GM chassis was to obtain a more modern suspension, steering and brakes.

[studegary]

And when that happened, did they buy an entire Mote Carlo/Caprice for the chassis?

To make a minor correction to studegary's post ...the 2001-2004(?) Avantis used Firebird platforms.

They bought the entire GM car for the chassis, drivetrain and assorted other parts. GM would not sell them individual chassis or drivetrain assemblies.

Not really a "correction" because the Firebird is still GM, but you are correct that after the Monte Carlo and Caprice chassis the 53 2001-2004 Avantis were based on Firebird cars (not just chassis).

[Avantict]

The initial chassis at least thru the 10 prototypes and first 10 Avanti cars were manufactured by Midland-Ross Corporation Cleveland Division. Currently working on compiling detailed information on the 10 engineering cars and first 10 production cars for 50th Anniversary of Studebaker Avanti Introduction . I also assumed it was always Budd the evidence proves otherwise not sure when Budd came into the picture. . This info has been verified by the green frame tag attached by Studebaker to the Avantis on at least one prototype and Avantis 1001 & 1002.

[Retired]

A photo was published at one time, of a rail road car loaded with Budd built frames, multiple rows stacked on end. Some where in my travels to SB I was told that "The hidden serial number" is actualy the frame number. Any one having the aforementioned photograph please post it.

[Gunslinger]

My understanding which is certainly open to correction, is Avanti Motors used leftover Studebaker Avanti frames until those ran out sometime in 1977, then began using leftover Lark frames that were thinner gauge steel, with added stiffeners, outriggers for the body mounts and the "X" welded in. The information I've seen says the first new frame was tried at VIN RQB2596 and RQB2599, then continually used beginning at RQB2607. It remained that way until through the 1985 model year. Reasons why could be it was simply time to upgrade to a modern frame and suspension or the supply of Stude based frames was finally exhausted.

I've also heard that Budd continued to supply frame components and Avanti Motors assembled them until Budd stopped making frames, etc.

I've heard that Budd also destroyed the tooling for the original frames...either accidentally or otherwise.

Nostalgic Motors is also selling brand new side frame rails for the Avanti so maybe they bought the tooling along with everything else they purchased from Avanti when they moved from South Bend to Youngstown?

There are simply too many unverified stories as to what went on we may never know the truth of the matter. We've seen tons of official records leftover from Studebaker of internal decisions and how and when things were done. That doesn't appear to be the case with Avanti Motors. Much was done ad hoc and few records exist that anyone seems to have uncovered.

[kmac530]

I am going to add a thought, no facts to support my thinking here, just thinking, feel free to correct oh wise ones.....
It seems as though MANY auto manufacturerers use and used alot of outside suppliers for supplies. The stamped sheetmetal panels like the bodywork often seem to be in house but the heavier stamped steel products like wheels {happy guys? I did not say "rims"} and frame rails often come from sub-contractors like Budd. It seems to be the same with cast and forged aluminum parts as well.

I am sure some bean counter can show where this saves money, but it just seems counter productive to me. If I have to pay someone else to do something, then I am not only paying for the product, I am paying for HIS material mark-up and HIS profit margins as well as HIS overhead and labor cost. Take HIM out of that equation and those 3 "HIS" become mine. Yes I understand that there will be some increase in MY expenses like property to do this manufacturing, equipment, personel to oversee the work....but, there is still profit to be made.

The company I work has one of the smartest CEO businessmen I have ever seen. Years ago we started doing alot of casino and high end Theme type of work. This always involved some sort of water features and fountains so we were sub-contracting out that work. The company we were using was struggling to keep up, so our CEO just bought the company and hired the owner to run that "division" of our company now. It has been crazy profitable for us. We took on a "design build" method and hired the designers, cut out the middleman. Then a couple of years later we started doing alot of colored concrete floors as part of our theme'd contract....bought the company.

Two years ago we were doing alot of Disney work and were using a 3D imaging company to help design the models for the rides and build scale mock-ups of the features. After we used 2 or 3 companies and found the best one....we bought it and moved it all in house. Now we run the overhead...but we also make the profits, and yes it has been very profitable.

I am obviously not a businessman...I pound nails for a living, well now days I drive screws but that is just semantics, but it seems like simple business 101 math to me. The more fingers in the till, the less in the till....

[Johnnywiffer]

Maybe we oughta discuss that concept with Mike Kelly when he gets outta stir. He could buy all those leftover Pontiac Firebird parts, then buy GM.

John

[Gunslinger]

I am going to add a thought, no facts to support my thinking here, just thinking, feel free to correct oh wise ones.....
It seems as though MANY auto manufacturerers use and used alot of outside suppliers for supplies. The stamped sheetmetal panels like the bodywork often seem to be in house but the heavier stamped steel products like wheels {happy guys? I did not say "rims"} and frame rails often come from sub-contractors like Budd. It seems to be the same with cast and forged aluminum parts as well.

I am sure some bean counter can show where this saves money, but it just seems counter productive to me. If I have to pay someone else to do something, then I am not only paying for the product, I am paying for HIS material mark-up and HIS profit margins as well as HIS overhead and labor cost. Take HIM out of that equation and those 3 "HIS" become mine. Yes I understand that there will be some increase in MY expenses like property to do this manufacturing, equipment, personel to oversee the work....but, there is still profit to be made.

The company I work has one of the smartest CEO businessmen I have ever seen. Years ago we started doing alot of casino and high end Theme type of work. This always involved some sort of water features and fountains so we were sub-contracting out that work. The company we were using was struggling to keep up, so our CEO just bought the company and hired the owner to run that "division" of our company now. It has been crazy profitable for us. We took on a "design build" method and hired the designers, cut out the middleman. Then a couple of years later we started doing alot of colored concrete floors as part of our theme'd contract....bought the company.

Two years ago we were doing alot of Disney work and were using a 3D imaging company to help design the models for the rides and build scale mock-ups of the features. After we used 2 or 3 companies and found the best one....we bought it and moved it all in house. Now we run the overhead...but we also make the profits, and yes it has been very profitable.

I am obviously not a businessman...I pound nails for a living, well now days I drive screws but that is just semantics, but it seems like simple business 101 math to me. The more fingers in the till, the less in the till....

I understand your point but businesses look at things from a variety of sometimes competing requirements. Many companies would rather bring all manufacturing under one roof believing they can control all costs that way. To a large enough company that can be done...GM's Guide Lamp Division, Rochester Carburetor Division, Muncie, etc. were all divisions of General Motors and they had control of costs, etc.

Smaller companies simply can't support the costs of that...the long-term unit costs might be there but the costs of establishing new entities makes it a non-starter...even if they have the physical space to do so. Having to acquire property to build new infrastructure can be prohibitive. Some companies can buy an existing entity to fill that gap (like Studebaker purchased Paxton Products...better to buy an established name in superchargers that's already done the R&D and is in production than to start up from scratch). The other way is to contract out for those parts...put out for bid and the company with the best price that meets the specifications gets the deal. That way some other company hires the workers and is responsible for their costs of employment and long term benefits. Those long term costs can put financial pressures for any company, not even considering a smaller company.

It may also be more financially advantageous to contract a vendor for parts that uses non-union workers than hire workers making union wages. That certainly gets figured into the final costs of your product.

By contracting out much, if not all the costs are also tax deductible...not so when the employees are your own. Why have landscaper employees when you can hire a landscaping company to maintain your property grounds? That also encourages entrepreneurship and small business.

Avanti Motors was in many ways an anomaly to the normal ways of doing business. Since their purchases from vendors were by necessity small, they reportedly bought the tooling from vendors to do their own in-house manufacturing. Buying specific design parts in low quality was troublesome for vendors used to and set up for high volume work so Avanti Motors supposedly bought the tooling from them and began making the parts themselves...they could stamp out several years worth of parts then store them until more were needed.

The bean counters have much to do with how companies are run...while necessary the decisions made haven't always been in the best long-term interests of the company. American car makers have paid dearly for that happening over the years.

[kurtruk]

What always suprises me is the lack of details about the manufacturing of Avanti automobiles. Is there no one around that worked for them at different periods? Some of this wasn't that long ago. I realize company records may no longer exist in some cases, but surely there are still former employees out there that could fill in a lot of the gaps about what it was like working there and where certain parts came from. I'm sure there was a lot of employee turn over after Newman and Altman got out of the game. But again, this is still recent history.
I'm not an Avanti owner, but have an interest in all things Stude related.

[Chris_Dresbach]

They bought the entire GM car for the chassis, drivetrain and assorted other parts. GM would not sell them individual chassis or drivetrain assemblies.

Not really a "correction" because the Firebird is still GM, but you are correct that after the Monte Carlo and Caprice chassis the 53 2001-2004 Avantis were based on Firebird cars (not just chassis).

One of my local hangouts is Steve & Genes junkyard not far from the Chippewa plant. Back in the day when Avanti's were still built here, they had a dissassembly line for the GM cars and Steve & Genes was one of the local yards that got what was left. At one time there were hundreds of brand new Monte Carlo and Caprice bodies in the junkyard. The yard dosen't do a whole lot today, and all of those car bodies have since went away. Just my $.2 for the topic...