Too bad about the engine on the '64. Still looks to be a fairly nice car for the money.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
A couple of fairly nice 64 & 65 Daytonas on C/L
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by 62champ View PostThe '64 Daytona "looks" nice... too bad it does not have its original power plant.
--------------------------------------
Sold my 1962; Studeless at the moment
Borrowed Bams50's sigline here:
"Do they all not, by mere virtue of having survived as relics of a bygone era, amass a level of respect perhaps not accorded to them when they were new?"
Comment
-
Originally posted by deves2 View Post259 from a earlier lark. I was told on this forum that originally it had a 289 that had a bad rod. The owner had the 259 available and put that in the car. All this was before in came east.....originally it was from the northwest us.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 63t-cab View Postotherwise I think it appears as it should
StudeDave '57
Comment
-
Originally posted by Studebakercenteroforegon View PostYes, this car was in the Portland, OR area. It had a 259" that had issues, and my parts customer had a very good used 259" engine - thought it was a '59 rather than a '60 as stated in the ad - but no difference. I thought it was odd that a couple of people stated it was "too bad" that it had an earlier engine. Hey - a good Studebaker V-8 is a great engine! The car had lots of parts renewed - front end, axle bearings, rear springs, brakes, etc. It didn't even need that level of new parts, but the then owner wanted it right. So, it should be a great car for a new owner.
Craig
Comment
-
Key words "I think",now I see Studebaker instead of Daytona .maybe the hood isn't latched completely?,either way no biggie.it can either be adjusted,or chalk it up to Studebaker QC - I really think it has less value than the non origional engine it sports .
Originally posted by StudeDave57 View PostYou must'a missed that ill-fitting hood and the 'Studebaker' emblems on the fender, eh?
StudeDave '57Joseph R. Zeiger
Comment
-
Originally posted by Studebakercenteroforegon View PostYes, this car was in the Portland, OR area. It had a 259" that had issues, and my parts customer had a very good used 259" engine - thought it was a '59 rather than a '60 as stated in the ad - but no difference. I thought it was odd that a couple of people stated it was "too bad" that it had an earlier engine. Hey - a good Studebaker V-8 is a great engine! The car had lots of parts renewed - front end, axle bearings, rear springs, brakes, etc. It didn't even need that level of new parts, but the then owner wanted it right. So, it should be a great car for a new owner.
I just meant that it was too bad the original power plant needed to be replaced at some point because the car did look to me to be fairly stock. Admittedly, I am no expert. Most folks here know much more about Studebakers I will ever know, especially about those cars built in the 1960s. I agree that it is a good thing it at least still has a Studebaker V8 under the hood rather than a SBC, etc. (no offense intended toward those who have done this!)
Comment
Comment