PDA

View Full Version : ThunderStude



Studedude
11-05-2014, 12:27 PM
StudeBird?

'Found this today on a car lot about 20 miles from the house:

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r113/DavesPlace_photos/ThunderStude/a_zps33675816.jpg (http://s142.photobucket.com/user/DavesPlace_photos/media/ThunderStude/a_zps33675816.jpg.html)

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r113/DavesPlace_photos/ThunderStude/b_zpsa1b7fdb6.jpg (http://s142.photobucket.com/user/DavesPlace_photos/media/ThunderStude/b_zpsa1b7fdb6.jpg.html)

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r113/DavesPlace_photos/ThunderStude/c_zps33608fbd.jpg (http://s142.photobucket.com/user/DavesPlace_photos/media/ThunderStude/c_zps33608fbd.jpg.html)

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r113/DavesPlace_photos/ThunderStude/d_zpsefd0e5b0.jpg (http://s142.photobucket.com/user/DavesPlace_photos/media/ThunderStude/d_zpsefd0e5b0.jpg.html)

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r113/DavesPlace_photos/ThunderStude/e_zps55b627a9.jpg (http://s142.photobucket.com/user/DavesPlace_photos/media/ThunderStude/e_zps55b627a9.jpg.html)

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r113/DavesPlace_photos/ThunderStude/f_zps33be13e9.jpg (http://s142.photobucket.com/user/DavesPlace_photos/media/ThunderStude/f_zps33be13e9.jpg.html)

Not a kit, the silly thing actually drives well. '92 T-Bird.

Interior needs everything, engine needs detailing. Pics here:

http://s142.photobucket.com/user/DavesPlace_photos/library/ThunderStude?sort=9&page=1

warrlaw1
11-05-2014, 12:30 PM
Good use for a 50's parts if the car was too far gone. I bet it took some work.

studegary
11-05-2014, 01:23 PM
I like it quite a bit.

I had a 1989 Thunderbird (similar) that I bought new and kept for 16 years. I had talked to a shop about "converting" it to a '53 Starlight. My Thunderbird was in such good shape and the conversion price was so high, I just sold the Thunderbird.

Is the ThunderStude registered/titled as a 1950 Studebaker or 1992 Thunderbird (not quite an antique yet)?

What is the asking price on this ThunderStude? Even adding shipping, I wonder if it is something that I should consider.

8E45E
11-05-2014, 01:31 PM
It would look much better in a single color.

Craig

Chris Pile
11-05-2014, 01:41 PM
I saw pix of an orange one - looked like the same body mods.
Sorry - no pix, lost them last time my hard drive went kablooey.

Studedude
11-05-2014, 01:51 PM
I saw pix of an orange one - looked like the same body mods.
Sorry - no pix, lost them last time my hard drive went kablooey.

Like this?:
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2007/05/studerep_lo450.jpg

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r113/DavesPlace_photos/ThunderStude/l_zpsde5736c3.jpg (http://s142.photobucket.com/user/DavesPlace_photos/media/ThunderStude/l_zpsde5736c3.jpg.html)

Studedude
11-05-2014, 01:57 PM
Is the ThunderStude registered/titled as a 1950 Studebaker or 1992 Thunderbird (not quite an antique yet)?

What is the asking price on this ThunderStude? Even adding shipping, I wonder if it is something that I should consider.

It is registered as a '92 T-Bird.

He didn't quote me a price yet, he was ciphering his cost in it, and pondering whether or not to slick it up before selling it. He is trying to find a nice, complete used interior to replace what is there... the interior is shot, and nasty, as-is.

I suspect he will decide not to do anything to it, and will establish a price in short order. I'll let you know.

studegary
11-05-2014, 02:08 PM
That orange car is built on the previous generation of Thunderbird. I like the 1989 and up Thunderbird better with independant rear suspension, bigger windows, more safety items, etc.

I have seen a few of these Thunderbirds "converted" to appear as 1949-1950 Fords. I have no interest in those <G>.

I am trying to figure out where to put the required front license plate on one of these.

ddub
11-05-2014, 02:19 PM
You could take your chances with no front plate. I do with my Avanti, so far so good.

StudeRich
11-05-2014, 02:21 PM
The Orange Thunderbird is the 1984 to 1986 version, I like that roof and windows much better.

But I might be a bit prejudice as I own a '86 Turbo Coupe 5 Speed Manual O.D., definitely NOT your grandmother's T-Bird. :)

And I too would not have chosen that Red & White combo for the '92, the two tone is OK but the colors need to be more similar, like light and dark Green or Blue.

StudeRich
11-05-2014, 02:26 PM
/Cut/I am trying to figure out where to put the required front license plate on one of these.

Doesn't NY have rear only, Collector Car Plates like most States?

Those are both quite nice looking Mods, I think the same people may have been involved in the design, because they both have the same 3 chrome trims on the rear fender.

Nox
11-05-2014, 03:18 PM
Sorry, the red-&-white one's roof is just way to but-ugly, such a shame, maby it's just the rear side window.
A mix of them maby...

Deaf Mute
11-05-2014, 03:57 PM
Can't believe all that work on the body & the inside of the trunk is so bad. I can understand the interior not bine done. With the front clip off, you would have think the engine would have at least been powerwashed.

t walgamuth
11-05-2014, 04:10 PM
Long noses....especially the orange one.

kurtruk
11-06-2014, 12:23 AM
What...are they running out of El Caminos to convert?

BTW: easyrods.com is where the 49-51 Ford-to T-bird kits come from.

Hallabutt
11-06-2014, 03:02 PM
Rich,

I have a 1985 Turbo Coup also and also drive a 1996 Thunderbird with 4.6 L Mod engine. I much prefer the 96 as a driver. I thank that the earlier Fox Bodied because it is smaller, and has a more narrow chassis, allows more Studebaker parts to be used. The resulting Studebaker fašade looks much better proportioned, especially from the rear.-Bill

Roscomacaw
11-06-2014, 03:35 PM
Ugly and ugly.

allstateguy
11-06-2014, 05:07 PM
don't care for the paint or the hood bulge at the rear on the 92, but the rest looks pretty good. If a low price is in the mix, an interior would really finish it off, and a great driver too. The orange one has too many mixed features, like the ground effects and the awful trunk lid, that kinda ruins it. I also had a new 83 Turbo Coupe, loved that car.

Hallabutt
11-07-2014, 12:13 PM
Allstateguy,

Had to laugh because the awful trunk lid I think is the original Studebaker TL.

allstateguy
11-07-2014, 02:35 PM
You are right! Perhaps I should have said the fit was awful, I looked back and it does look original Stude, but boy does it not match anything on that car . . .

Nox
11-07-2014, 03:14 PM
The trunk on the orange & the hood on the red & white... the ROOFS!

EssexExport
11-08-2014, 08:30 AM
I like it. Sure is different.

LeoH
11-10-2014, 09:26 PM
I appreciate the creativity with both. I would have ditched the faux slots on the hood on the red/white one and stuck with an original Studebaker hood ornament. Agree with the two tone issues, a little too 'creative' with the paint scheme. MAYBE stuck with a white roof and the rest of the car red? The rear end on the red/white one looks much cleaner than the rear of the orange one, but other than that trunk bulge, the overall lines on the orange model are nice, imo. I do think the roof and windows on the orange version is more attractive, although they could have easily faired the third brake light into the trunk lid rather than the stupid wing ding thing they did. The dagmars on the red/white one are a clever decoration, I wonder if some sort of a chrome bar between the two might be a trick way to get a front plate mounting position?

oldsalt
12-07-2014, 08:44 PM
Lot of work. But again and again I see altered 50-51s with no front bumper. IMHO they look "unfinished". This thing ain't a Duce. Some old cars do and some don't look unfinished when the front bumper is omitted. A 50 or 51 Studebaker is ground zero of "Don't Look Good" when there's nothing under that nose. This machine retained the rear bumper....as do most altered bullet Studes; so why not the front? I sorta think that the original front bumper was really too hurky. The attached pic shows a 50 rat [S-10 chassis and 350 SBC and Saginaw trans] with a 53 bumper which is much more petite. That is NOT me driving.

39780

studegary
12-08-2014, 12:41 PM
Lot of work. But again and again I see altered 50-51s with no front bumper. IMHO they look "unfinished". This thing ain't a Duce. Some old cars do and some don't look unfinished when the front bumper is omitted. A 50 or 51 Studebaker is ground zero of "Don't Look Good" when there's nothing under that nose. This machine retained the rear bumper....as do most altered bullet Studes; so why not the front? I sorta think that the original front bumper was really too hurky. The attached pic shows a 50 rat [S-10 chassis and 350 SBC and Saginaw trans] with a 53 bumper which is much more petite. That is NOT me driving.

39780

Bob Bourke wanted a contoured front bumper for the 1950. He was shot down on this due to the cost.

Mounting bumpers on some of these cars based on a unibody car is very difficult.

I do not know what a "Duce" is. Perhaps you are referring to a deuce, a 1932.

Studedude
12-08-2014, 05:09 PM
Gary, I failed to get back to you on this car... oops!

When I realized he was going to want $6.5k for it, considering condition and shipping, I knew it would not be a practical deal.

oldsalt
12-08-2014, 10:12 PM
Bob Bourke wanted a contoured front bumper for the 1950. He was shot down on this due to the cost.

Mounting bumpers on some of these cars based on a unibody car is very difficult.

I do not know what a "Duce" is. Perhaps you are referring to a deuce, a 1932.

Kustom and Hot Rod mags have been using that spelling since the 50s. I'm a dinosaur....very sorry to have confused and confounded you. You hit the nail on the head....no front bumper due to cost. Not because bumperless was 'better' or in line with the builder's original vision for the machine [in many cases]. At 'show n' shines' I see lot of cars that show signs of a budget that was somewhat smaller than the dream.

studegary
12-09-2014, 04:37 PM
Gary, I failed to get back to you on this car... oops!

When I realized he was going to want $6.5k for it, considering condition and shipping, I knew it would not be a practical deal.

That is okay, Dave. Your assumption is correct.