PDA

View Full Version : Not my favorite color, but



jnormanh
02-12-2014, 04:24 PM
Love the engine swap. Depending on just which V6 this is, it could be a sub-14 second 1/4 mile car and completely streetable. And if it's as good as advertised, less money than it could be duplicated for.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Studebaker-2-dr-hard-top-1953-Studebaker-/400662818360?forcerrptr=true&hash=item5d495d6e38&item=400662818360&pt=US_Cars_Trucks

StudeRich
02-12-2014, 04:34 PM
Yes Candy Apple RED may be a bit too flashy for many, but the constables love them! ;)

sweetolbob
02-12-2014, 04:36 PM
Love the engine swap. Depending on just which V6 this is, it could be a 14 second 1/4 mile car. And if it's as good as advertised, less money than it could be duplicated for.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Studebaker-2-dr-hard-top-1953-Studebaker-/400662818360?forcerrptr=true&hash=item5d495d6e38&item=400662818360&pt=US_Cars_Trucks

Nice car, interesting bumper quality based on the rest of the car.

Not a deal killer, just out of place.

Bob

Green53
02-12-2014, 04:36 PM
I like red.

Denny l

Bordeaux Daytona
02-12-2014, 04:46 PM
Looks like a carbureted 3.8 turbo like I had in my '83 T-Type Regal. It ran strong whenever it felt like it. The '84-'87 fuel injected 3.8's are the ones if you want to go fast. The 86-87 were intercooled. It does look nice though.:)

StudeRich
02-12-2014, 04:53 PM
Nice car, interesting bumper quality based on the rest of the car.
Not a deal killer, just out of place.Bob

Hmmm, looks like he did NOT go to Jared, er Jerry! :D

jnormanh
02-12-2014, 05:32 PM
If it weren't for the paint, I'd consider it at the BIN price, but I'd like it to be a sleeper, maybe painted pale yellow or light blue. Even if it's an early Buick turbo, if it's a Dana 44 and traction bars, I'll bet it would give an Avanti R2 all it could handle. Geared right, top end might be bye bye Avanti. Hoo-ha!

Studedude
02-12-2014, 09:40 PM
I think it's real purdy.

Looks like a good buy to me.

LarkR2Clone
02-12-2014, 09:51 PM
I think it sets to tall

studegary
02-13-2014, 01:55 PM
It started life as a six cylinder car and it is still a six cylinder car.

studegary
02-13-2014, 02:01 PM
The seller currently has eight vehicles for sale on eBay. I guess that they are the estate that he referred to.

He lists the '53 as a 2 door hardtop. It is a C body coupe, not a K body hardtop. He may not know Studebakers, but it seems like he should know a coupe from a hardtop. He probably looked up pictures and prices on the Internet and decided that the car is a hardtop.

evilhawk
02-13-2014, 03:04 PM
If it weren't for the paint, I'd consider it at the BIN price, but I'd like it to be a sleeper, maybe painted pale yellow or light blue. Even if it's an early Buick turbo, if it's a Dana 44 and traction bars, I'll bet it would give an Avanti R2 all it could handle. Geared right, top end might be bye bye Avanti. Hoo-ha!

I dont think so. The early carburetor T-types (79-83) didnt make much power and werent very fast. They were only 170 to 190 hp. In 84 The Grand National came out and was fuel injected. It made around 200 hp. It wasnt until 86 until they were fast, but still were only 245 hp. I tried one of these cars out few years back and wasnt very impressed after the test drive seeing how the mustang I drove in was actually quite a bit faster than the GN. The GNX on the other hand could pull 13s in a 1/4 mile.

paintim613
02-13-2014, 04:19 PM
It started life as a six cylinder car and it is still a six cylinder car.

Which probably makes it quite rare. I like keeping it a 6-cylinder.

jnormanh
02-13-2014, 07:03 PM
I dont think so. The early carburetor T-types (79-83) didnt make much power and werent very fast. They were only 170 to 190 hp. In 84 The Grand National came out and was fuel injected. It made around 200 hp. It wasnt until 86 until they were fast, but still were only 245 hp. I tried one of these cars out few years back and wasnt very impressed after the test drive seeing how the mustang I drove in was actually quite a bit faster than the GN. The GNX on the other hand could pull 13s in a 1/4 mile.

I think you're mistaken about the performance of this car. Factory HP claims are meaningless. For example:

An R2 Avanti weighs about 3150 lbs, claimed 290 HP, and in contemporary tests would run 16 sec quarters,

An '83 Buick T Type weighs about 3600 lbs and also would run 16 quarters.

That makes it pretty obvious that either the Avanti HP was overstated (as commonly done back then) or the Buick was understated.

And the factory rated 245 HP Buick would run low 14 quarters, far faster than any 290 HP Avanti in spite of weighing 450 lbs more.

My point was this: drop any Buick V6 Turbo into a '53 Stude, the weight will be barely over 3000 lbs, and it will blow the doors off an R2 Avanti. If it's a later Buick, with TT and traction bars, the R2 Avanti will be sucking wind.

And I can't think of any road legal Mustang that you might have owned back in the day that would stay with it.

Even the 271HP Mustang Hi-Po would barely break 16 seconds.

So how fast was your Mustang, anyway? Tire smoke doesn't equal ET.

tony58
02-13-2014, 08:29 PM
[QUOTE=Studedude;822214]I wish someone would hit the buy it now!



Yes,I feel the same way about the 49 Studebaker/Dodge Cummins.I can
afford it but don't need it and there it is saying "Buy Me Buy Me"
The 53 is a nice looking car.Did you notice the drivers door window
and vent looks like duct tape on them?
Tony

GThawkwind
02-14-2014, 02:42 AM
Huh, I love the color.....

JDP
02-14-2014, 08:22 AM
Yep, I noticed. Straight glass... I reckon those, too, could be repaired without breaking the bank.

I would have already bid on this car, except for the lack of description of how it runs/drives, and the fact that the seller describes it as a, "Project car." One has to wonder what that means, given what has already been done.

The body appears to be arrow straight, and is described as rust free.

It's a nice '53 Starlight, for cryin' out loud, with new paint, and many other nice upgrades.

I would love to bring it home, add AC, make other adjustments as mentioned, play with it for a while, do a better presentation on it, and pass it on to the next guy!

There is, in this car, IMHO, either a keeper, to love for ever and ever, or a flipper, to enjoy for a while, and pass on to the next guy.

I would love to buy it, improve it, fix it, and play with it for a while... that's how I manage to finance keeping my keeper.

I'm telling ya... at the BIN... if it runs and drives as good as it looks, there is money to be made with this car... or, better yet... it could be YOUR very own KEEPER!

Well... I just talked myself into it... I'm the high bidder, for now. :eek:

Before allowing myself to run amuck (bidding more,) I shall call the seller, in an effort to gain more knowledge regarding the performance/driveability of this car..

I ask again... is anybody on the forum near Helotes, Texas?


Dave, you should have bought it from me when I owned it a few years back. (Note the copy of my ebay ad when she was blue) It ran great back then, pulled like a freight train, and handled well.

Studedude
02-14-2014, 11:34 AM
Dave, you should have bought it from me when I owned it a few years back. (Note the copy of my ebay ad when she was blue) It ran great back then, pulled like a freight train, and handled well.
I thought I had seen that car/presentation before!

I wasn't interested in it back then... it was the wrong color! :lol:

studegary
02-14-2014, 02:05 PM
I think you're mistaken about the performance of this car. Factory HP claims are meaningless. For example:

An R2 Avanti weighs about 3150 lbs, claimed 290 HP, and in contemporary tests would run 16 sec quarters,

An '83 Buick T Type weighs about 3600 lbs and also would run 16 quarters.

That makes it pretty obvious that either the Avanti HP was overstated (as commonly done back then) or the Buick was understated.

And the factory rated 245 HP Buick would run low 14 quarters, far faster than any 290 HP Avanti in spite of weighing 450 lbs more.

My point was this: drop any Buick V6 Turbo into a '53 Stude, the weight will be barely over 3000 lbs, and it will blow the doors off an R2 Avanti. If it's a later Buick, with TT and traction bars, the R2 Avanti will be sucking wind.

And I can't think of any road legal Mustang that you might have owned back in the day that would stay with it.

Even the 271HP Mustang Hi-Po would barely break 16 seconds.

So how fast was your Mustang, anyway? Tire smoke doesn't equal ET.

You are comparing apples with oranges. It is impossible to compare pre-1973 gross horsepower ratings with post-1972 net horsepower ratings.

jnormanh
02-14-2014, 03:12 PM
You are comparing apples with oranges. It is impossible to compare pre-1973 gross horsepower ratings with post-1972 net horsepower ratings.

Yes, that's exactly the point. A 1953 Stude with *just* a 145 HP Buick would run with a *290* HP Avanti.

evilhawk
02-17-2014, 09:29 PM
I think you're mistaken about the performance of this car. Factory HP claims are meaningless. For example:

An R2 Avanti weighs about 3150 lbs, claimed 290 HP, and in contemporary tests would run 16 sec quarters,

An '83 Buick T Type weighs about 3600 lbs and also would run 16 quarters.

That makes it pretty obvious that either the Avanti HP was overstated (as commonly done back then) or the Buick was understated.

And the factory rated 245 HP Buick would run low 14 quarters, far faster than any 290 HP Avanti in spite of weighing 450 lbs more.

My point was this: drop any Buick V6 Turbo into a '53 Stude, the weight will be barely over 3000 lbs, and it will blow the doors off an R2 Avanti. If it's a later Buick, with TT and traction bars, the R2 Avanti will be sucking wind.

And I can't think of any road legal Mustang that you might have owned back in the day that would stay with it.

Even the 271HP Mustang Hi-Po would barely break 16 seconds.

So how fast was your Mustang, anyway? Tire smoke doesn't equal ET.

Actually back in the day, stock 87 Mustang GTs ran 14s in the 1/4 mile. There was a magazine (I think it may have been either MotorTrend or Hot Rod) that did a shootout in the early 90s between several fox bodied Mustangs and GNs, at the time the Mustangs won, but I think they may have all been modified. Anyway my point is the Stangs were not far off from the GNs and could keep up and with slight mods blow the doors off a GN. The car I drove to the lot that day is my 83 Mustang GT. It is not stock, but still street legal... it runs mid 12s in the 1/4 so yeah, it is probably a bad comparison and the reason the GN seemed so doggy. I guess I was just disappointed in its performance because all the hype that surrounds the GN.

Also, I didnt know R2 Avantis were that slow... I have never driven one. I swear I saw some hit 14s here: http://www.purestockdrags.com/p/race-results.html but they could have been modified within rules.

57pack
02-17-2014, 10:51 PM
Very nicely done paint, engine, and interior. Just needs some tweaking...lowered a bit, replate bumpers, and some glass work.:rolleyes:

clonelark
02-18-2014, 02:57 AM
I had a 65 mustang fastback with the 225 hp engine and 4 speed, and it would run 14s all day long.

jnormanh
02-18-2014, 09:19 AM
at the time the Mustangs won, but I think they may have all been modified. Anyway my point is the Stangs were not far off from the GNs and could keep up and with slight mods blow the doors off a GN. The car I drove to the lot that day is my 83 Mustang GT. It is not stock, but still street legal... it runs mid 12s in the 1/4 so yeah, it is probably a bad comparison and the reason the GN seemed so doggy. I guess I was just disappointed in its performance because all the hype that surrounds the GN.

Also, I didnt know R2 Avantis were that slow... I have never driven one. I swear I saw some hit 14s here: http://www.purestockdrags.com/p/race-results.html but they could have been modified within rules.

So you were comparing a "street legal" Mustang against a bone stock Buick. I know where there's a "street legal" Bugeye Sprite that will run 8s. Does that make your 'stang doggy?

Pure stock drag cars are not equivalent in performance to what you got when you bought a new Avanti R2 off the showroom floor. Contemporary (you can look it up) tests found that those cars would run about 16 sec quarters.

The Buicks, right off the showroom floor, would run about 14. You can look that up too. And you can look on Youtube for "street legal" Buicks that dyno 1200 HP.

Apples/Oranges.

jnormanh
02-18-2014, 09:24 AM
I had a 65 mustang fastback with the 225 hp engine and 4 speed, and it would run 14s all day long.


'65 Mustangs came with 101, 164, 210 or 271 HP. So where did you get a 225?

Pat Dilling
02-18-2014, 10:38 AM
'65 Mustangs came with 101, 164, 210 or 271 HP. So where did you get a 225?

IIRC the 289 Mustangs of that era were 2 Barrel -210 hp, 4 barrel -225 hp and GT 4 barrel, solid lifter, high compression - 271 hp, then the GT350s had 306 hp.

jnormanh
02-18-2014, 11:59 AM
IIRC the 289 Mustangs of that era were 2 Barrel -210 hp, 4 barrel -225 hp and GT 4 barrel, solid lifter, high compression - 271 hp, then the GT350s had 306 hp.

I stand corrected. The 225 GP option was introduced for late 1965 Mustangs.

plwindish
02-18-2014, 02:02 PM
I like better red than the previous blue. It looks like a nice car. My garage is overflowing, so I'm not interested.

evilhawk
02-19-2014, 04:47 PM
So you were comparing a "street legal" Mustang against a bone stock Buick. I know where there's a "street legal" Bugeye Sprite that will run 8s. Does that make your 'stang doggy?

If I just stepped out of the Sprite that runs 8s and into my Mustang, the Mustang would SEEM doggy. Whats your point? I already said it was a bad comparison and I never claimed that because my Mustang is fast it automatically makes the Buick slow. I said it makes the Buick SEEM slow.

Pure stock drag cars are not equivalent in performance to what you got when you bought a new Avanti R2 off the showroom floor. Contemporary (you can look it up) tests found that those cars would run about 16 sec quarters.

Ok, didnt I mentioned that the cars were possibly modified within rules??

The Buicks, right off the showroom floor, would run about 14. You can look that up too. And you can look on Youtube for "street legal" Buicks that dyno 1200 HP.

What are you comparing the Buick to?? Mustangs also ran 14s (14.7) off the show room floor in the late 80s early 90s. I never claimed the mustang to be faster stock to stock. I simply claimed that they are able to keep with the GN stock to stock and with light mods (with the money you saved by buying a GT, there was a HUGE difference in price between the two cars) are all that are needed to take one out. If you are still comparing the GN to Avanti, then yes I got it.

Oh and I see modded "street legal" Mustangs dynoed over 1200hp all the time...

Apples/Oranges.

Listen, I really don't want to argue this issue with you any further. The fox body Mustang GT vs GN thing is a subject that gets brought up all too often in car performance forums and always ends in name calling. I would rather keep this civil and end this now.

jnormanh
02-19-2014, 06:53 PM
Listen, I really don't want to argue this issue with you any further. The fox body Mustang GT vs GN thing is a subject that gets brought up all too often in car performance forums and always ends in name calling. I would rather keep this civil and end this now.


I don't want to discuss this any further either. All I said is that a ' 53 stude with turbo Buick would out accelerate a bone stock Avanti R2. Your comments about Mustangs, modified and otherwise are irrelevant.

You brought up the "street legal" comments.

You can, as you say you want, "end it now" quite simply. STFU.

StudeRich
02-19-2014, 07:09 PM
Really?

It has taken 7 Days and 32 Posts to say it's a Candy Apple Red Modified '53 Champion was a 6, "C" Body Coupe with crappy Chrome?
I can't believe this thread is still on page one, let alone at the Top! :(