PDA

View Full Version : Clarity for 'Grey Area' 1964 Studebakers



SN-60
08-21-2013, 05:22 PM
A fellow forum member's opinion that the solid 'Cambridge Gray' '56J with the red leather interior is definitely FACTORY STOCK brings up an interesting (and controversial) question: Did Studebaker produce only eleven FACTORY STOCK vehicles powered by R3 or R4 engines?

I would argue that any vehicle sold into private hands by Studebaker, equipped with one of those power plants, should be considered a FACTORY STOCK vehicle....whether it came off the assembly line with one of these special engines or not.

This would be particularly true since, unlike the non-stock interior in the gray '56J, in 1964 R3 and R4 engines were legitimate factory options for that year's Studebaker cars.

The tally of what is considered to be FACTORY STOCK 1964 Studebakers equipped with these special engines should total more than eleven.

The Bonneville cars, and the Hot Rod Magazine test cars should, in all fairness, be included in the total! (In My opinion)

Chris_Dresbach
08-21-2013, 06:09 PM
In my opinion any car that leaves the factory equipped with factory optional equipment as advertised would be factory stock, but there are a few exceptions. If the papers at the dealership say that I can call up the factory and order a Daytona with an R4, then it would be stock. If I get a Daytona with a 289 and then change it myself to an R4 then it would still be "stock" by factory specs, but would no longer match the cars production order. (But that would only matter if that was a show car being judged in what they call "super competition" car shows where a restored car is actually put up against its own build sheet.) Exceptions to factory stock (as in a car unchanged from the point when it left the factory) would be stuff like prototypes and factory show cars that have been modified or equipped with non-production parts.

8E45E
08-21-2013, 06:32 PM
A fellow forum member's opinion that the solid 'Cambridge Gray' '56J with the red leather interior is definitely FACTORY STOCK brings up an interesting (and controversial) question: Did Studebaker produce only eleven FACTORY STOCK vehicles powered by R3 or R4 engines?

Ford used the term 'RPO' for Regular Production Option, and DSO for 'Domestic Special Order. The R3 and R4 engines as used in Studebakers in 1964 would be considered an 'RPO' option. On the other hand, that '56 Golden Hawk and those 20 Marshals would be 'DSO' cars in Ford's ordering system. Studebaker never really had anything to designate options not listed in the option book other than notes on the production order, or sometimes '99 Deviation Permit'

Craig

Swifster
08-21-2013, 06:33 PM
There were 12 factory R3 & R4 cars. 11 R3 cars and one R4. If a dealer (like Yenko Chevrolet) built the car and sold it and the owner has paperwork, bonus. Do the work at home and it's just an engine swap. I'd love to put an R3 in my Commander, but I don't have the coin for it. But even then, it would be just be engine swap.

SN-60
08-21-2013, 06:43 PM
There were 12 factory R3 & R4 cars. 11 R3 cars and one R4. If a dealer (like Yenko Chevrolet) built the car and sold it and the owner has paperwork, bonus. Do the work at home and it's just an engine swap. I'd love to put an R3 in my Commander, but I don't have the coin for it. But even then, it would be just be engine swap.

Eleven R3 cars?...I count nine R3 Avantis and one R3 Commander 2dr.

Swifster
08-21-2013, 06:45 PM
I thought the last 10 Avanti's were R3. If it's 9, then your number is correct.

SN-60
08-21-2013, 06:59 PM
I thought the last 10 Avanti's were R3. If it's 9, then your number is correct.

It was nine.....and it was not the last ten Avantis. The nine R3 'assembly line' cars were intermixed with other Avantis.

SN-60
08-21-2013, 07:09 PM
In my opinion any car that leaves the factory equipped with factory optional equipment as advertised would be factory stock, but there are a few exceptions. If the papers at the dealership say that I can call up the factory and order a Daytona with an R4, then it would be stock. If I get a Daytona with a 289 and then change it myself to an R4 then it would still be "stock" by factory specs, but would no longer match the cars production order. (But that would only matter if that was a show car being judged in what they call "super competition" car shows where a restored car is actually put up against its own build sheet.) Exceptions to factory stock (as in a car unchanged from the point when it left the factory) would be stuff like prototypes and factory show cars that have been modified or equipped with non-production parts.

Do You think that, say, a new R2 Daytona that received an R3 or an R4 engine while under Studebaker ownership is just as FACTORY STOCK as one that received an R3 or an R4 engine on the Studebaker assemby line?

62champ
08-21-2013, 08:40 PM
Reminds me of a story a former Studebaker dealer told me.

In 1952 he wanted to order a new 1.5 ton R-series truck to be the new dealership wrecker. Instead of the big six he wanted it to have a 232 V8 in it. Person in South Bend said it could not be done. So - he ordered a 2R16 the way he wanted it along with a 232 long block (when it arrived the engine crate was attached to the truck's frame). His two mechanics had the big six out and the 232 in over a weekend and it was off to the wrecker company for the rear platform to be mounted...

Chris_Dresbach
08-21-2013, 10:10 PM
Do You think that, say, a new R2 Daytona that received an R3 or an R4 engine while under Studebaker ownership is just as FACTORY STOCK as one that received an R3 or an R4 engine on the Studebaker assemby line?

I don't see why it wouldn't be as long as the engine is built under factory specs. (bore, stroke, compression, etc.) What I wouldn't consider factory stock is something like an R5 Bonneville engine. That was NOT stock and Studebaker never called it stock.

Charlie D
08-21-2013, 10:16 PM
I would appreciate you guys helping me understand how a dealer installed option effects the originality of a vehicle. My 1955 President State Sedan had undercoating and fog lights. It also had the options listed on the production order. Were dealer installed items listed on the production order or just added to the sticker price or original sales invoice? Of course without the sales invoice I will never know if the dealer added them or a subsequent owner. I realize that in the overall scheme of things these items are not as important as R3 and R4 engines. I just always wondered about it. I have heard that the dealer installed partial flow oil filters were a different color than the ones installed at the factory. Would the dealer installed partial flows be listed on the production order? Thank you for your help.

Charlie D.

avantilover
08-21-2013, 10:33 PM
Charlie, only options installed at the factory would be on the production order, those extras installed at the dealer would be on the dealer invoice only. An exception could be seat belts which would be placed in the car for the dealer to install.

8E45E
08-21-2013, 10:40 PM
Charlie, only options installed at the factory would be on the production order, those extras installed at the dealer would be on the dealer invoice only. An exception could be seat belts which would be placed in the car for the dealer to install.

Or sometimes the hubcaps. Usually an 'X' after the 'AC' number on the production order indicated the item was to be 'shipped in trunk'

Craig

Corvanti
08-21-2013, 11:25 PM
I would appreciate you guys helping me understand how a dealer installed option effects the originality of a vehicle. My 1955 President State Sedan had undercoating and fog lights. It also had the options listed on the production order. Were dealer installed items listed on the production order or just added to the sticker price or original sales invoice? Of course without the sales invoice I will never know if the dealer added them or a subsequent owner. I realize that in the overall scheme of things these items are not as important as R3 and R4 engines. I just always wondered about it. I have heard that the dealer installed partial flow oil filters were a different color than the ones installed at the factory. Would the dealer installed partial flows be listed on the production order? Thank you for your help.Charlie D.

thank you for your post!:) that was my first thought when reading this thread earlier today.

i have to ask the question: how available are dealer invoices? i do recall a thread not too long ago about dealer paperwork from (i think) a New Jersey dealership a forum member has on hand.

StudeRich
08-22-2013, 12:17 AM
Do You think that, say, a new R2 Daytona that received an R3 or an R4 engine while under Studebaker ownership is just as FACTORY STOCK as one that received an R3 or an R4 engine on the Studebaker assemby line?

I think this is a really good question.
I know of a Avanti that had it's R3 Engine Dealer Installed, so you could say it fits this scenario perfectly.

But does it really matter if you could prove or not whether the Car was actually "Sold" first and delivered before the Dealer ordered the Engine from Paxton Prods. Div. and installed it?

Of course there are Dealer Invoices for the Engine install on this Car.

Factory Stock R3 Avanti or Not ??????? :confused:

As far as these Dealer Invoices being universally available for many or all Cars, that will never happen because it was totally up to the defunct Dealers as to what to do with those documents.

This scenario also reminds me of the well documented Cars that were modified AFTER the S/B Line shut down to meet Dealer orders, like the Last S/B Studebaker, '64 Daytona Hardtop and it's "replacement Car". They most certainly WERE Factory Owned at the time.

These 2 Cars were NOT the ONLY Cars so modified! It would be Great to document one of these Cars that still exists, to see if it matches the Build slip or not.
But I guess the passed years might prevent us from knowing what was original and what is not. :(

avantilover
08-22-2013, 03:23 AM
What was the engine they were working on at the time of the closure? Seem to recall it was a 350??? In any event could one be made and how did it run if it got off the drawing board?

8E45E
08-22-2013, 04:21 AM
What was the engine they were working on at the time of the closure? Seem to recall it was a 350??? In any event could one be made and how did it run if it got off the drawing board?

That was going to be a 340 cubic inch engine. Unlike the flat four where one has surfaced, none have been found as of yet. http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/showthread.php?32595-340-Cubic-Inch-V8&highlight=340+cubic

Craig

stude dude
08-22-2013, 04:59 AM
That was going to be a 340 cubic inch engine. Unlike the flat four where one has surfaced, none have been found as of yet. http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/showthread.php?32595-340-Cubic-Inch-V8&highlight=340+cubic

Craig

A few 340 blocks have surfaced over the years, although most were scrapped in the '60's.

Chris.

avantilover
08-22-2013, 05:40 AM
I don't suppose you have a block Chris?

stude dude
08-22-2013, 06:58 AM
Nooooo..... But I am sure one will pop up for same in the next couple of years!

Chris.

Starlight
08-22-2013, 07:44 AM
A few 340 blocks have surfaced over the years, although most were scrapped in the '60's.

Chris.

I know of 2 that are still in existance, one is almost at the running stage.......That ought to kick up a BIG dust storm......I will not divulge the owner or the builder of this block.......Suffice to say, a lot of time, work, and money has went into this build......Keep on Studebakering

00RACER
08-22-2013, 08:08 AM
I have the prototype 340 engine. The shortblock is complete and I have an nos set of R3 heads in the wooden crates from paxton for it

53k
08-22-2013, 08:29 AM
Reminds me of a story a former Studebaker dealer told me.

In 1952 he wanted to order a new 1.5 ton R-series truck to be the new dealership wrecker. Instead of the big six he wanted it to have a 232 V8 in it. Person in South Bend said it could not be done. So - he ordered a 2R16 the way he wanted it along with a 232 long block (when it arrived the engine crate was attached to the truck's frame). His two mechanics had the big six out and the 232 in over a weekend and it was off to the wrecker company for the rear platform to be mounted...
I think what variations a dealer could order from the factory depended on how much "pull" they had. In 1963 when I was looking to buy my Wagonaire I was talking to one of the two Anderson brothers at Anderson Motors in Garnett, Kansas. He told me that it didn't matter what the equipment and options were offered for a Studebaker, if he needed something different, he could walk in to the Studebaker President's office and tell him to build whatever he wanted. Of course, while a small town dealer, the family had been selling Studebakers since the wagon days and their claim to fame was that there were more Studebaker trucks registered in the county that Chevrolet, Ford and Dodge combined.

BobPalma
08-22-2013, 08:57 AM
Ed's first sentence in the OP references this car, so I thought I'd post a copy of its Production Order:

http://i571.photobucket.com/albums/ss155/BobPalma/56ghprodorder_zps1001935a.jpg (http://s571.photobucket.com/user/BobPalma/media/56ghprodorder_zps1001935a.jpg.html)

and the selling Dealer Invoice:

http://i571.photobucket.com/albums/ss155/BobPalma/56ghinvoice_zps788723eb.jpg (http://s571.photobucket.com/user/BobPalma/media/56ghinvoice_zps788723eb.jpg.html)

(Key numbers redacted since AFAIK, the original lock cylinders are still in the car.)

and the story about the car from Turning Wheels ten years ago:

http://i571.photobucket.com/albums/ss155/BobPalma/56GHNOV02TW.jpg (http://s571.photobucket.com/user/BobPalma/media/56GHNOV02TW.jpg.html)

And, of course, its ultimate appearance on the cover of Hemmings Classic Car:

http://i571.photobucket.com/albums/ss155/BobPalma/56ghHCCcover.jpg (http://s571.photobucket.com/user/BobPalma/media/56ghHCCcover.jpg.html)

That ought to stir the poop a bit. (Me? Stir the Poop?)

The car was specified and built as shown on the Production Order, but left South Bend without leather-upholstered seats.

The dealer, per his agreement with the retail customer, had the original seat material replaced with genuine red leather before the car was delivered to the original retail purchaser. (As I've said, I was ten years old when this car was sold, and remember sitting in the drivers seat, smelling the new leather, when it was brand new at the dealership, before it was delivered to Barrister McClain.)

So was it "stock" when Studebaker shipped it OR when it was delivered by the selling dealer as ordered by the retail customer OR ????

When you guys have agreed on that, let us know! ;) :cool: BP

8E45E
08-22-2013, 09:12 AM
The 1982 K-car-based convertibles, and Buick Riviera are considered to be first "factory" convertibles since the 1976 Eldorado. Everyone considers them 'factory' (including myself, I might add), but the fabrication of the folding top components and final assembly was done at American Sunroof Corp.

So if one really wants to split hairs, the 'first' factory convertible where all the fabrication and assembly was actually later in the decade with the later generation Lebaron convertible.

Craig

BobPalma
08-22-2013, 09:14 AM
Right, Craig. Didn't they bring K-car convertible production in house when they went to roll-down rear quarter windows? :confused:

Wasn't that for the 1984 model year? :o BP

8E45E
08-22-2013, 09:18 AM
Right, Craig. Didn't they bring K-car convertible production in house when they went to roll-down rear quarter windows? :confused:

Wasn't that for the 1984 model year? :o BP

Yep, 1984 got roll-down quarter windows, but the 1982 & '83's did not. For some reason, I think it was 1988 or 1989, Chrysler moved all the Lebaron convertible producion in-house. Collectible Automobile did a story on those early K-car convertibles, (or maybe it was ASC with K-car convertible content) some time ago.

Craig

Corley
08-22-2013, 09:42 AM
Not to change the subject or anything, but in the long run, Riley McClain screwed up big time! That Jag would be worth 4-5 56j Studes at this time... (Of course, driving an XK120 back then in the rain really sucked...)

Bill Pressler
08-22-2013, 11:44 AM
Bob, does Pat still own the car and do you ever hear from him?

BobPalma
08-22-2013, 11:47 AM
Not to change the subject or anything, but in the long run, Riley McClain screwed up big time! That Jag would be worth 4-5 56j Studes at this time... (Of course, driving an XK120 back then in the rain really sucked...)

Believe me, Corley; Riley didn't screw up half as bad as my Dad's "Studebaker" partner, Harry Rhoads, who wrote that deal!

Dad was sure that deal was a mistake and was going to cost them money, and it did. I have all the documents downstream from that initial deal. In the end, when all the trades were washed out, they lost over 1,000 hard 1956 dollars on that car....over $8,300 in 2012 money, per the on-line inflation calculator.

That was a helluva hit for a small-town dealer in 1956; they didn't have hundreds of cars going out the door to cushion the blow.

After shopping (marketing) the Jaguar trade all over the country, they finally had to dump it locally:

http://i571.photobucket.com/albums/ss155/BobPalma/53jaginvoice_zps5534d442.jpg (http://s571.photobucket.com/user/BobPalma/media/53jaginvoice_zps5534d442.jpg.html)

OUCH! :( BP

BobPalma
08-22-2013, 12:55 PM
Bob, does Pat still own the car and do you ever hear from him?

That's a good question I cannot answer, Bill. :woot:

Oddly, he seems to have fallen off the face of the earth. He is listed as an SDC member in the 2008 SDC Roster, but not in the 2010 or 2011 Rosters.

I honestly haven't heard from him in at least 6 years, probably longer. :( Weird. :cool: BP

studegary
08-22-2013, 02:15 PM
This Golden Hawk was modified by an outside company at the request of a franchised dealer to satisfy a customer. This was often done. Since this modification was not a factory option, I consider the car to be modified and not factory correct/authorized (as far as the leather goes).

The Chrysler convertibles are not the same situation. They were modified/built by ASC when new by the Chrysler Corp. They were authorized and sold new to dealers by Chrysler. I consider them to be stock Chrysler units. ASC also put sunroofs in cars for many companies. I owned a Dodge with the phony convertible top that was done for Dodge by ASC. Even Studebaker farmed out some things for outside build, like the stretch 1951.

8E45E
08-22-2013, 02:53 PM
This Golden Hawk was modified by an outside company at the request of a franchised dealer to satisfy a customer. This was often done. Since this modification was not a factory option, I consider the car to be modified and not factory correct/authorized (as far as the leather goes).

The Chrysler convertibles are not the same situation. They were modified/built by ASC when new by the Chrysler Corp. They were authorized and sold new to dealers by Chrysler. I consider them to be stock Chrysler units. ASC also put sunroofs in cars for many companies. I owned a Dodge with the phony convertible top that was done for Dodge by ASC. Even Studebaker farmed out some things for outside build, like the stretch 1951.

I feel it was 'factory authorized', even though it was not actually done in the factory itself. Duesenberg only built the chassis only, and referred a buyer to several coachbuilders, and as late as the mid-1960's Lincoln authorized Lehmann-Peterson to build stretch limosines. They get judged as a 'factory' offerering if they are original or restored to original.

On the '56 GH, the production order states the factory went half-way to complete the customer request, but the dealer was forced (perhaps because it was a RUSH order) to go the rest of the way because of the time factor.

Craig

SN-60
08-22-2013, 04:58 PM
I feel it was 'factory authorized', even though it was not actually done in the factory itself. Duesenberg only built the chassis only, and referred a buyer to several coachbuilders, and as late as the mid-1960's Lincoln authorized Lehmann-Peterson to build stretch limosines. They get judged as a 'factory' offerering if they are original or restored to original.

On the '56 GH, the production order states the factory went half-way to complete the customer request, but the dealer was forced (perhaps because it was a RUSH order) to go the rest of the way because of the time factor.

Craig

That's quite a S-T-R-E-T-C-H Craig, But it shows that You're thinking!! What You're saying here is that Studebaker would have done the leather 'in house' if this vehicle's build wasn't classified as a RUSH. I really doubt that. (although I have no way of knowing for sure) The FACTS that We do know now are that this particular '56J was shipped from the factory with, as You say, HALF the custom interior work in place. And I grant You that the factory people were obviously fully aware of this customers unusual request and were trying to 'work' with Him. But as studegary said..The leather seat upholstery was done by an outside company, post production.

And Craig, I believe now You see that the company that did the leather work had no 'factory' connection...Just a company that the Studebaker Dealer knew of that did quality work.

My assessment of this particular Cambridge Gray '56 Golden is this....Beautiful car and would I like to own it?..YES. Is it an accurate representation of what a factory built, completely stock, '56 Studebaker Golden Hawk should be?...NO, it truly isn't.

SN-60
08-22-2013, 05:25 PM
I don't see why it wouldn't be as long as the engine is built under factory specs. (bore, stroke, compression, etc.) What I wouldn't consider factory stock is something like an R5 Bonneville engine. That was NOT stock and Studebaker never called it stock.

I agree..and I've been pushing this idea for years....there were at least sixteen 'factory' 1964 Studebakers that were equipped with R3 or R4 engines. three R4's, and thirteen R3's.

8E45E
08-22-2013, 06:25 PM
My assessment of this particular Cambridge Gray '56 Golden is this....Beautiful car and would I like to own it?..YES. Is it an accurate representation of what a factory built, completely stock, '56 Studebaker Golden Hawk should be?...NO, it truly isn't.

Since the factory, DID go half way to making the interior 'special', then you and I are each correct 50%. Is it representitive of a production '56 Golden Hawk? No, but neither is an R2 powered Champ, and the factory made two of those.

Craig

BobPalma
08-22-2013, 06:40 PM
As to the '56's interior, guys; note that TRIM on the Production Order simply says SPECIAL.

Quite frankly, all bets are off when that appears right on the Production Order. The car could be equipped with 'most anything from that point forward and still be "stock," because "stock" on THIS particular car is as specified and built, and that is with SPECIAL trim...it says so right there! ;) BP

SN-60
08-22-2013, 07:17 PM
As to the '56's interior, guys; note that TRIM on the Production Order simply says SPECIAL.

Quite frankly, all bets are off when that appears right on the Production Order. The car could be equipped with 'most anything from that point forward and still be "stock," because "stock" on THIS THIS particular car is as specified and built, and that is with SPECIAL trim...it says so right there! ;) BP

NICE TRY BOB!!.....but I beg to differ. The PO for My '55 Speedster also says 'SPECIAL' but.... The changes are specific and 'nailed down' in print on the order....And completed at the factory. If the changes were done to My car after it arrived at the dealer...then My car would be in the same catagory as the gray '56J.....A modified Studebaker.

SN-60
08-22-2013, 07:22 PM
Since the factory, DID go half way to making the interior 'special', then you and I are each correct 50%. Is it representitive of a production '56 Golden Hawk? No, but neither is an R2 powered Champ, and the factory made two of those.

Craig

I'll go along with that....we're both 'half right'...and it's been a pleasure doing business with You!

RadioRoy
08-22-2013, 08:22 PM
Bob, does Pat still own the car and do you ever hear from him?

I recall that, soon after the magazine came out with the 56J on the cover, the car was for sale.

8E45E
08-22-2013, 09:58 PM
As to the '56's interior, guys; note that TRIM on the Production Order simply says SPECIAL.

Quite frankly, all bets are off when that appears right on the Production Order. The car could be equipped with 'most anything from that point forward and still be "stock," because "stock" on THIS THIS particular car is as specified and built, and that is with SPECIAL trim...it says so right there! ;) BP

THANK YOU BOB!

Craig

BobPalma
08-23-2013, 08:16 AM
I recall that, soon after the magazine came out with the 56J on the cover, the car was for sale.

Roy, do you remember where it was offered? I really should follow up on Pat and Karen. 'Nice folks. :) BP

RadioRoy
08-23-2013, 02:47 PM
My memory says it was offered at the Turlock swap meet in Turlock, CA. It may have also been at Friendship day in Redwood City.

SN-60
08-23-2013, 04:37 PM
THANK YOU BOB!

Craig

Craig,....Before You get too excited.......please re-read post #38 in this thread!

8E45E
08-23-2013, 05:52 PM
Craig,....Before You get too excited.......please re-read post #38 in this thread!

That means ZERO deductions in authenticity judging.

Craig

SN-60
08-23-2013, 07:20 PM
That means ZERO deductions in authenticity judging.

Craig

Zero deductions for an interior that the Studebaker-Packard Corp. never even offered...or installed?? H-E-L-L-O CRAIG!!.....ANYONE HOME?????

8E45E
08-23-2013, 08:40 PM
Zero deductions for an interior that the Studebaker-Packard Corp. never even offered...or installed?? H-E-L-L-O CRAIG!!.....ANYONE HOME?????

Did you not read what Bob said in the other thread?

Dad says Studebaker recommended an upholstery shop in lower Michigan (he can't remember where), where the Hawk could be taken for the seats to be trimmed in leather. Studebaker made arrangements for the car to be taken there. It was at that upholstery shop where Dad took delivery of the car and drove it to Paris for delivery to the original retail purchaser, Mr. McClain.

Craig

SN-60
08-23-2013, 10:04 PM
Did you not read what Bob said in the other thread?

Dad says Studebaker recommended an upholstery shop in lower Michigan (he can't remember where), where the Hawk could be taken for the seats to be trimmed in leather. Studebaker made arrangements for the car to be taken there. It was at that upholstery shop where Dad took delivery of the car and drove it to Paris for delivery to the original retail purchaser, Mr. McClain.

Craig

I did read what Bob wrote.....Following that train of thought, the question then becomes: Why didn't Studebaker-Packard Corp. skip the middle man and just complete the car themselves? You have stated in a previous post that because it was a 'SOLD RUSH' order they couldn't handle it, and had to sublet the work. Craig,...That idea, and $1.75, will buy You a small cup of coffee at Dunkin Donuts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BobPalma
08-23-2013, 10:20 PM
You guys are hilarious. Imagine if this car just surfaced and there was no dealer or retail purchaser information beyond The Studebaker National Museum's copy of the Production Order? What a coincidence that the car was sold new by my Dad's place, and he is still living to talk about it. (He turned 96 four months ago and has one of the sharpest 96-year-old minds you would hope to find.)

I have wondered why Studebaker didn't do the seat upholstering in-house. After all, they had people who had been sewing Speedster leather seats of that very size and type throughout the previous year. Would it have been all that difficult to put heavier thread back in one of the machines and corral one of the people who had been sewing Speedster seats barely six months earlier, to upholster this car's seats?

Heaven only knows, they weren't exactly covered up with work, building the 1956 Studebaker line. :QQ:

We'll never know. :rolleyes:

I don't profess to have a "read" on how other clubs would handle such a situation; is anyone sufficiently familiar with another club to report on something of this nature?

(The Hudson Club doesn't "do" judging, so they would simply enjoy the car for what it is, thankful that such an interesting car survived.) :!: BP

SN-60
08-23-2013, 10:26 PM
Thanks much Bob. And.... if I can add a touch of levity to this forum......I feel I have done My job!!

8E45E
08-23-2013, 10:29 PM
I have wondered why Studebaker didn't do the seat upholstering in-house. After all, they had people who had been sewing Speedster leather seats of that very size and type throughout the previous year. Would it have been all that difficult to put heavier thread back in one of the machines and corral one of the people who had been sewing Speedster seats barely six months earlier, to upholster this car's seats?

Heaven only knows, they weren't exactly covered up with work, building the 1956 Studebaker line.

Maybe one of those people got laid off, as you say, one will probably never know.

Let's just say, if I had the opportunity to ever judge that car, (and I almost did in 2003 at a zone meet), I would NEVER deduct any points as it IS genuinely authentic, as you clearly stated Studebaker made the arrangements to have it done elsewhere.

Craig

SN-60
08-23-2013, 10:40 PM
[QUOTE=8E45E;772220]Maybe one of those people got laid off, as you say, one will probably never know.



One thing's for sure Craig, You definitely have an answer/excuse for EVERTHING! (Ever consider politics?)

8E45E
08-23-2013, 10:54 PM
[QUOTE=8E45E;772220]Maybe one of those people got laid off, as you say, one will probably never know.



One thing's for sure Craig, You definitely have an answer/excuse for EVERTHING! (Ever consider politics?)

hehehehehe :p :)

Craig

SN-60
08-23-2013, 10:56 PM
You don't have an engine and a pair of heads. What You have are LUMPS OF GOLD!! Just the wooden crates those heads are in are probably worth more than the average car!

Just a Bump!!

SN-60
08-24-2013, 12:05 AM
As to the '56's interior, guys; note that TRIM on the Production Order simply says SPECIAL.

Quite frankly, all bets are off when that appears right on the Production Order. The car could be equipped with 'most anything from that point forward and still be "stock," because "stock" on THIS particular car is as specified and built, and that is with SPECIAL trim...it says so right there! ;) BP

Bob,Sorry but I do need to correct You on this posting once more. (I re-read the PO) Yes, "TRIM--SPECIAL" is indicated on this PO...BUT YOU FAILED TO MENTION IT ALSO SAYS "SEE BELOW"...and what we see below is the list of interior trim panels that Studebaker supplied for this build. (and possibly the carpeting too) and that really is all the "SPECIAL" connotation was implying. The red leather...even for a secondary vendor to finish sublet...wasn't even mentioned. (Kind of strange when You think about it)

Skip Lackie
08-24-2013, 09:02 AM
Have never been greatly interested in judging per se, but I HAVE always enjoyed looking at one-of-a-kind vehicles that were built for a special order in some unusual way. As long as I can remember, if you owned such a vehicle and wanted to have it judged, you had to have enough documentation to prove it was "built" that way. "Built" in this case doesn't necessarily mean it came out of the factory doors that way, but that the factory knew it was gonna be modified somehow and made accommodations for those later modifications. A simple example would be a vehicle finished only in primer because it was gonna go somewhere else for a special corporate paint combination that the factory could/would not do. And I remember reading about cars with things like "Delete hood ornament" on the PO.

But if the owner could not get such documentation, he was essentially screwed, at least as far as judging was concerned. I agree that the word "Special" on a PO opens the door to a lot of possible BSing about how the vehicle was "built" -- especially if there are no further details on the document about in what way the vehicle was specially equipped. But how many such vehicles are there out there? It's just not that big of a problem.

I'm afraid I do not believe that a 64S-F2 now equipped with an R3 engine is "authentic" -- though I'd love to see one. And what I'd REALLY love to see is a late 66 coupe equipped with an R3 -- and all the associated documentation proving that the car was shipped to Granatelli without a drive train so that the speed brothers could drop in a real Stude drive train.

SN-60
08-24-2013, 09:27 AM
Have never been greatly interested in judging per se, but I HAVE always enjoyed looking at one-of-a-kind vehicles that were built for a special order in some unusual way. As long as I can remember, if you owned such a vehicle and wanted to have it judged, you had to have enough documentation to prove it was "built" that way. "Built" in this case doesn't necessarily mean it came out of the factory doors that way, but that the factory knew it was gonna be modified somehow and made accommodations for those later modifications. A simple example would be a vehicle finished only in primer because it was gonna go somewhere else for a special corporate paint combination that the factory could/would not do. And I remember reading about cars with things like "Delete hood ornament" on the PO.

But if the owner could not get such documentation, he was essentially screwed, at least as far as judging was concerned. I agree that the word "Special" on a PO opens the door to a lot of possible BSing about how the vehicle was "built" -- especially if there are no further details on the document about in what way the vehicle was specially equipped. But how many such vehicles are there out there? It's just not that big of a problem.

I'm afraid I do not believe that a 64S-F2 now equipped with an R3 engine is "authentic" -- though I'd love to see one. And what I'd REALLY love to see is a late 66 coupe equipped with an R3 -- and all the associated documentation proving that the car was shipped to Granatelli without a drive train so that the speed brothers could drop in a real Stude drive train.

Skip,--I like the way You phrased Your first paragraph. Your 'paint' example has some merit. But I think that Your broadening the meaning of what a 'factory stock' vehicle really is. If Studebaker sent a completed vehicle out in primer, it was not because they didn't have the ability to paint that vehicle..it was because of buisness or (on exports) legal reasons. This is not the case when We consider the leather interior in this particular Golden Hawk. Studebaker, I assume, had a large and very experienced upholstery department, but they still did not find it feasible to do that leather work. Studebaker went as far as they felt they could go with this car....and then they sent it out for final completion.....post-production. This '56J DOES NOT represent a COMPLETELY factory built Studebaker...and as much as I really like the 'look' of this Stude....points must be deducted from the car at any serious show (stock category) for it's non-factory, non-authentic parts.

BobPalma
08-24-2013, 09:44 AM
I'm afraid I do not believe that a 64S-F2 now equipped with an R3 engine is "authentic" -- though I'd love to see one.

Here ya' go, Skip: Steve Doerschlag's 64S-F2, now equipped with an R3 engine, staging for a shootout run at The Pure Stock Muscle Car Drag Race:

http://i571.photobucket.com/albums/ss155/BobPalma/DSCF3842_zps60aa1511.jpg (http://s571.photobucket.com/user/BobPalma/media/DSCF3842_zps60aa1511.jpg.html)

Steve's car is unusual in that it was originally built with no, repeat NO, options. If you remember, undercoat was optional at extra cost only if specified on 64S-F2 models, but was furnished and invoiced on all other 1964 models unless specifically deleted.

Well, Steve's car went to a dry SW climate, so it was ordered "plain," no options, and was indeed shipped with no undercoat.

George Krem has always been jealous of that from a weight standpoint, as much time as George has spent scraping (and weighing the removed particles of!) undercoat from The Plain Brown Wrapper. (Since The Plain Brown Wrapper was built as a 64V-F2, it was undercoated when manufactured.) :cool: BP

SN-60
08-24-2013, 09:53 AM
Here ya' go, Skip: Steve Doerschlag's 64S-F2, now equipped with an R3 engine, staging for a shootout run at The Pure Stock Muscle Car Drag Race:

http://i571.photobucket.com/albums/ss155/BobPalma/DSCF3842_zps60aa1511.jpg (http://s571.photobucket.com/user/BobPalma/media/DSCF3842_zps60aa1511.jpg.html)

Steve's car is unusual in that it was originally built with no, repeat NO, options. If you remember, undercoat was optional at extra cost only if specified on 64S-F2 models, but was furnished and invoiced on all other 1964 models unless specifically deleted.

Well, Steve's car went to a dry SW climate, so it was ordered "plain," no options, and was indeed shipped with no undercoat.

George Krem has always been jealous of that from a weight standpoint, as much time as George has spent scraping (and weighing the removed particles of!) undercoat from The Plain Brown Wrapper. (Since The Plain Brown Wrapper was built as a 64V-F2, it was undercoated when manufactured.) :cool: BP

Bob, glad that You mentioned the 'Plain Brown Wrapper' '64 Stude...because that car, as You'd agree, would not lose authenticity points if it were entered into a 'factory stock'
class at a show. And that is because it's R3 engine, installed after the car was built and sold, was a legitimate factory option in 1964. This IS NOT the case of the custom red leather interior in the 'Cambridge Gray' '56 Golden Hawk.

Skip Lackie
08-24-2013, 09:57 AM
Skip,--I like the way You phrased Your first paragraph. Your 'paint' example has some merit. But I think that Your broadening the meaning of what a 'factory stock' vehicle really is. If Studebaker sent a completed vehicle out in primer, it was not because they didn't have the ability to paint that vehicle..it was because of buisness or (on exports) legal reasons. This is not the case when We consider the leather interior in this particular Golden Hawk. Studebaker, I assume, had a large and very experienced upholstery department, but they still did not find it feasible to do that leather work. Studebaker went as far as they felt they could go with this car....and then they sent it out for final completion.....post-production. This '56J DOES NOT represent a COMPLETELY factory built Studebaker...and as much as I really like the 'look' of this Stude....points must be deducted from the car at any serious show (stock category) for it's non-factory, non-authentic parts.
I really didn't mean to imply that the factory did not have the capability to do a special paint job -- rather that during those few years that they were selling cars as fast as they could build them, they might make a business decision to not do some special, one-of-a-kind job in-house. Stude catalogs offered simple flatbed bodies on many of its trucks, but those were actually built and installed by Edwards Iron Works of South Bend. And as noted above, the 82-92 Camaro convertibles are another good example -- they are considered to be "factory", since they were ordered that way by the dealer, even though not modified by GM.

And actually, I WAS also thinking of exports, a small number of which have been re-imported into the US, and always bring the judging process to a halt.

SN-60
08-24-2013, 10:04 AM
I really didn't mean to imply that the factory did not have the capability to do a special paint job -- rather that during those few years that they were selling cars as fast as they could build them, they might make a business decision to not do some special, one-of-a-kind job in-house. Stude catalogs offered simple flatbed bodies on many of its trucks, but those were actually built and installed by Edwards Iron Works of South Bend. And as noted above, the 82-92 Camaro convertibles are another good example -- they are considered to be "factory", since they were ordered that way by the dealer, even though not modified by GM.

And actually, I WAS also thinking of exports, a small number of which have been re-imported into the US, and always bring the judging process to a halt.

That's a good point Skip...... Studebaker OFFERED the flatbed bodies. GM OFFERED the Camaro convertibles. But Studebaker NEVER OFFERED leather seat upholstery in any of the '56 Hawks. So they sent this '56J out (sublet) for the custom work....once again, at a show, points would need to be shaved!

Swifster
08-24-2013, 10:35 AM
Ed, I want what your smoking...

The problem is that there was never a factory built R3 Challenger. And you can't buy a build sheet that says so. And yet the '56 have something that the PBR or the nice little Challenger above don't have. Paperwork! You can't fudge paperwork. R3 cars are a victim of their notoriety. There is only 1 R3 Commander. There is only 1 R4 Daytona. The rules in PSMCD and FAST are different than a concourse show. You have to follow the rules for the defined competition.

I find it funny that you think someone should but a tag on the car saying "not an R4" if a guy has dual quads, and yet I can pass off an R3 as original regardless of it origins. Any concourse I've been to work on the idea that documentation is the responsibility of the owner. It's not a judge's job to give the benefit of the doubt. Things like mirrors are accessories. Engines are documented.

SN-60
08-24-2013, 01:46 PM
[QUOTE=Swifster;772357]Ed, I want what your smoking...

The problem is that there was never a factory built R3 Challenger.

WHO SAID THAT THERE WAS?? (And I don't smoke) Swifster...Please do us all a favor and really READ the other posts before You 'shoot from the hip' with a non-sensical reply.

I mean...it's great that Your interested and care about it enough TO reply. But Your post makes it quite clear that Your just not 'Up To Speed' on this thread!

Daan
08-24-2013, 03:19 PM
Believe me, Corley; Riley didn't screw up half as bad as my Dad's "Studebaker" partner, Harry Rhoads, who wrote that deal!

Dad was sure that deal was a mistake and was going to cost them money, and it did. I have all the documents downstream from that initial deal. In the end, when all the trades were washed out, they lost over 1,000 hard 1956 dollars on that car....over $8,300 in 2012 money, per the on-line inflation calculator.

That was a helluva hit for a small-town dealer in 1956; they didn't have hundreds of cars going out the door to cushion the blow.

After shopping (marketing) the Jaguar trade all over the country, they finally had to dump it locally:

http://i571.photobucket.com/albums/ss155/BobPalma/53jaginvoice_zps5534d442.jpg (http://s571.photobucket.com/user/BobPalma/media/53jaginvoice_zps5534d442.jpg.html)

OUCH! :( BP




Can I derail this some more?
Why was this such a bad trade? Were these Jaguars just undesirable used cars at the time, I know NOW they're valuable, but at the time did nobody want them?
And how hard was it for "Joe Public" to get something like this car built, did you have to "know somebody" to get something not officially offered, or could my Grampa have bopped down to his SP dealer and done the same thing?

SN-60
08-24-2013, 05:20 PM
Daan,--I'll bet it depended on whether or not the dealer wanted to 'go through the motions'. Many dealers probably would have discouraged the purchaser, saying that He'd have to wait forever for the car, and steer Him into a new Golden Hawk that might be in stock sitting on the lot.

studegary
08-24-2013, 05:24 PM
That's a good point Skip...... Studebaker OFFERED the flatbed bodies. GM OFFERED the Camaro convertibles. But Studebaker NEVER OFFERED leather seat upholstery in any of the '56 Hawks. So they sent this '56J out (sublet) for the custom work....once again, at a show, points would need to be shaved!

Perhaps I lost track. I did not think that Studebaker sent this Golden Hawk out for "sublet" work. I thought that it was drop shipped by Studebaker to an upholstery shop (of the dealer's selection) for ultimate delivery to Palma Motors. This was at the direction of Palma Motors in order to get the upholstery changed to leather in order to please a retail customer.
To me, this is a big difference. If it was sublet by Studebaker, then I could consider it a factory authorized build. If the dealer requested and had the leather conversion work done (after factory build), then I would consider it to be a modified car. I think that the Special Features on the build sheet refer to the trim items that the factory did change and not the leather upholstery.
If, with all of the posts, I have the facts in error, please clearly post what is correct.

studegary
08-24-2013, 05:29 PM
Can I derail this some more?
Why was this such a bad trade? Were these Jaguars just undesirable used cars at the time, I know NOW they're valuable, but at the time did nobody want them?


I remember considering the purchase of a 1953 Jaguar XK120M in the 1958-1959 time frame. I remember it as being a great car to drive and also out of my price range. I was driving a modified 1949 Mercury coupe at that time. The guy that took me on the test drive was "Jocko" (Sr.) the race car builder/driver.

SN-60
08-24-2013, 05:32 PM
Perhaps I lost track. I did not think that Studebaker sent this Golden Hawk out for "sublet" work. I thought that it was drop shipped by Studebaker to an upholstery shop (of the dealer's selection) for ultimate delivery to Palma Motors. This was at the direction of Palma Motors in order to get the upholstery changed to leather in order to please a retail customer.
To me, this is a big difference. If it was sublet by Studebaker, then I could consider it a factory authorized build. If the dealer requested and had the leather conversion work done (after factory build), then I would consider it to be a modified car. I think that the Special Fatures on the build sheet refer to the trim items that the factory did change and not the leather upholstery.
If, with all of the posts, I have the facts in error, please clearly post what is correct.


You have your facts correct Gary.....and perhaps 'SUBLET' was a poor choice of words by Me.....Problem is ...I'm running out of words to use in this matter!!!!!

8E45E
08-24-2013, 06:49 PM
Have never been greatly interested in judging per se, but I HAVE always enjoyed looking at one-of-a-kind vehicles that were built for a special order in some unusual way. As long as I can remember, if you owned such a vehicle and wanted to have it judged, you had to have enough documentation to prove it was "built" that way. "Built" in this case doesn't necessarily mean it came out of the factory doors that way, but that the factory knew it was gonna be modified somehow and made accommodations for those later modifications. A simple example would be a vehicle finished only in primer because it was gonna go somewhere else for a special corporate paint combination that the factory could/would not do. And I remember reading about cars with things like "Delete hood ornament" on the PO.

But if the owner could not get such documentation, he was essentially screwed, at least as far as judging was concerned. I agree that the word "Special" on a PO opens the door to a lot of possible BSing about how the vehicle was "built" -- especially if there are no further details on the document about in what way the vehicle was specially equipped. But how many such vehicles are there out there? It's just not that big of a problem.

I'm afraid I do not believe that a 64S-F2 now equipped with an R3 engine is "authentic" -- though I'd love to see one. And what I'd REALLY love to see is a late 66 coupe equipped with an R3 -- and all the associated documentation proving that the car was shipped to Granatelli without a drive train so that the speed brothers could drop in a real Stude drive train.

Here's an interesting '66 Daytona, that's NOT 'representative' of 1966 models, and could confuse the judges....

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8519/8649680301_5b3afa48f0_k.jpg

As you say, the 'proof' is in the build sheet!

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8242/8649674505_9b85c4aefe_k.jpg

Craig

Gunslinger
08-24-2013, 07:29 PM
Perhaps I lost track. I did not think that Studebaker sent this Golden Hawk out for "sublet" work. I thought that it was drop shipped by Studebaker to an upholstery shop (of the dealer's selection) for ultimate delivery to Palma Motors. This was at the direction of Palma Motors in order to get the upholstery changed to leather in order to please a retail customer.
To me, this is a big difference. If it was sublet by Studebaker, then I could consider it a factory authorized build. If the dealer requested and had the leather conversion work done (after factory build), then I would consider it to be a modified car. I think that the Special Features on the build sheet refer to the trim items that the factory did change and not the leather upholstery.
If, with all of the posts, I have the facts in error, please clearly post what is correct.


Kinda like Chevrolet sending cars to Callaway for modifications or what Ford did with Roush with Mustangs...though those are much more sophisticated deals and set by factory contracts. Then again, Callaway and Roush have completely separate classes and judging from other Corvettes and Mustangs and are far more known and accepted.

SN-60
08-24-2013, 08:34 PM
Here's an interesting '66 Daytona, that's NOT 'representative' of 1966 models, and could confuse the judges....

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8519/8649680301_5b3afa48f0_k.jpg

As you say, the 'proof' is in the build sheet!

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8242/8649674505_9b85c4aefe_k.jpg

Craig

What a gorgeous Stude! Is it blue? (PO) It looks green in the photo. I see the note about '64 wheelcovers to be used instead of the 'Hawk Bird' type. Interesting stuff!

R2Andrea
08-24-2013, 11:51 PM
Bob, glad that You mentioned the 'Plain Brown Wrapper' '64 Stude...because that car, as You'd agree, would not lose authenticity points if it were entered into a 'factory stock'
class at a show. And that is because it's R3 engine, installed after the car was built and sold, was a legitimate factory option in 1964. This IS NOT the case of the custom red leather interior in the 'Cambridge Gray' '56 Golden Hawk.
SN60, If I were judging the PBW it certainly would lose points for authenticity. The R3 and R4 engines were part of a package which included items in addition to the engine itself. Where are the HD suspension components for instance? Or the correct air intake system? Or the correct for an "R powered" frame?
Just dropping a "factory available" engine in a car doesn't make it stock unless the whole job was done by the (factory) book.
Now, lest anyone think I'm picking on George K or the PBW, I am not. It happens to be one of my all time favorite cars. I am merely using this particular car as an illustration

SN-60
08-25-2013, 12:54 AM
R2Andy,--I understand what You mean about the R3 engine being part of a 'package'. I figured that over the years George and Bob would probably have installed most, if not all, the factory goodies. But I don't know that for sure. I'm not sure what You mean by "correct for an R powered" frame though. Was there a difference in the V8 frames? (on V8 2dr Lark models, except convertibles) The PBW is one of My favorite Studebakers also!

SN-60
08-25-2013, 10:14 AM
This thread certainly went a bit 'off track' with the debate over whether the solid 'Cambridge Gray' '56 Golden Hawk is 100% factory stock or not.....but anyway, I'd like to reiterate why I started this thread..very briefly.. For years it's been thought by many people who are 'into' Studebakers that the Company produced only eleven automobiles powered by an R3 or an R4 engine. I feel that ANY car that Studebaker sold with one of these bigger engines should be considered a 'factory' Studebaker, whether that engine was installed on the assembly line or not. So....here's My list:

The nine 'in house' built R3 '64 Avantis
The 'in house' R3 '64 Commander 2dr sedan
The 'in house' R4 '64 Daytona 2dr HT 'Car Life Magazine' road test car (Build It Yourself Studebaker)
The Paxton prepared R3 '64 Daytona 2dr HT 'Hot Rod Magazine' road test car (The Hot Rod Magazine Spl.)
The Paxton prepared '64 Avanti 'Bonneville Car' (#9)
The Paxton prepared R3 '64 GT Hawk
The Paxton prepared R4 '64 GT Hawk
The Paxton prepared R4 '64 Daytona Convertible
The 'Due Cento' '63 Avanti (included only if it was indeed sold to it's first private owner with an R3 installed)
Any Stude that had an R3 or an R4 engine installed by a Studebaker dealer...IF the car was unsold when the engine went in, and still owned by Studebaker Corp. (But not if the dealer had previously purchased the car from Studebaker Corp, before the engine install.


So that's it.....Seventeen (+?) 'Factory' R3-R4 Studebakers!

DEEPNHOCK
08-25-2013, 10:28 AM
Agreed.
The comic relief in your post's does make people laugh out loud sometimes.



Thanks much Bob. And.... if I can add a touch of levity to this forum......I feel I have done My job!!

SN-60
08-25-2013, 10:30 AM
Agreed.
The comic relief in your post's does make people laugh out loud sometimes.

Ill take that as a compliment DEEP, as I'm SURE You meant it to be!

SN-60
08-25-2013, 01:57 PM
This thread certainly went a bit 'off track' with the debate over whether the solid 'Cambridge Gray' '56 Golden Hawk is 100% factory stock or not.....but anyway, I'd like to reiterate why I started this thread..very briefly.. For years it's been thought by many people who are 'into' Studebakers that the Company produced only eleven automobiles powered by an R3 or an R4 engine. I feel that ANY car that Studebaker sold with one of these bigger engines should be considered a 'factory' Studebaker, whether that engine was installed on the assembly line or not. So....here's My list:

The nine 'in house' built R3 '64 Avantis
The 'in house' R3 '64 Commander 2dr sedan
The 'in house' R4 '64 Daytona 2dr HT 'Car Life Magazine' road test car (Build It Yourself Studebaker)
The Paxton prepared R3 '64 Daytona 2dr HT 'Hot Rod Magazine' road test car (The Hot Rod Magazine Spl.)
The Paxton prepared '64 Avanti 'Bonneville Car' (#9)
The Paxton prepared R3 '64 GT Hawk
The Paxton prepared R4 '64 GT Hawk
The Paxton prepared R4 '64 Daytona Convertible
The 'Due Cento' '63 Avanti (included only if it was indeed sold to it's first private owner with an R3 installed)
Any Stude that had an R3 or an R4 engine installed by a Studebaker dealer...IF the car was unsold when the engine went in, and still owned by Studebaker Corp. (But not if the dealer had previously purchased the car from Studebaker Corp, before the engine install.


So that's it.....Seventeen (+?) 'Factory' R3-R4 Studebakers!



worthy 'BUMP'